Extent of the Atonement—The Dilemma of Universal Atonement and Partial
Salvation—Human Systems of Truth—Methodist Theology—Tradition and
Reason—Dr. Dale's View—No Divine Failure—Imperfection of All
Theological Systems—"Sufficient but not Efficient"—Undeveloped
Possibilities—The Angel in the Apocalypse—Omnipotence Both in the
Physical and the Moral Realm—The Short Epoch of Time—Advance of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States—Individual Congregations
—Hardening Effects of the Narrower View—The Softening Influence of
Dreams—Divine Capacity of Suffering—Persistence of What is Good—Good
Men Who Are Not Christians—Insanity—Blind Tom.

In this larger view all difficulty disappears in regard to the extent of the Atonement. Sometime ago men had little conception of the operation of saving grace beyond this life. It was believed that every man fixed his eternal destiny here and now. But then there would arise in thoughtful minds a difficulty about the extent of the Atonement. To a candid mind it was manifestly universal. The statements of Scripture are full and clear on that point, yet it would appear very strange that there would be universal Atonement, but not universal salvation. Would not that look very like a failure of the divine plan? If Christ gave Himself for the sins of the world, would not the sins of the world be put away? If He is called the Saviour of the world, is He so only in name, and not in fact?

But clearly, all the world was not saved. Here was the dilemma. The difficulty was, to square universal Atonement with partial salvation. So the difficulty was solved by one party in adopting the theory of a limited Atonement, and so that doctrine became a cardinal plank in the Calvinistic theology. It could not be conceived of as a possibility that God would make provision for the salvation of the whole world, and thus express His desire for the salvation of the whole world, yet that His provision and His desire should fail of their effect.

Surely this was right. But it was not right to ignore the plain teaching of Scripture for the sake of building up any human system. It would have been better to accept the clear statements of the word, contradictory though they might appear, and trust that some day divine harmony would be revealed.

That revelation has come now. The harmony consists in the fact that all the world will be redeemed yet, in accordance with the provision that God made for, and desires, such a consummation. The difference is, that the operations of divine grace are not restricted to this short span of time, as men supposed. But the time will come! Oh, yes; it will come! If Christ tasted death for every man, He will save every man! Praise His name forever! The very thought is enough to awaken our everlasting songs!

Herein consists, as it seems to me, the weakness of the Methodist theology. In that Communion it is believed that the Atonement is universal, but that salvation is not universal. Thus the divine intention is supposed to fail of its effect. So I think it would appear to any mind untrammelled by tradition.

But putting tradition aside, what does reason say? And what do our highest thoughts of divine love, and power, and purpose say? Are not our best ideas of fitness in accord with the view that Atonement and Salvation are co-extensive? When we once receive the idea that divine love and power have no petty restrictions of place or time, will we not accept the larger theory? And this one conception will transform and transfigure all our thoughts of redemption. I wish some of our Methodist brethren would look into this matter candidly, and say if I am not right.

Thus the Calvinists made one mistake, and the Arminians made another. If both would now adopt the larger view, that one idea would compose nearly all their differences, and unite them in a bond which our fathers never dreamed of. Would it be too much to hope for that? I suppose it would, just at present. But the spirit of unity is here, and I believe that some day it will embody itself in form.

* * * * *

I quote elsewhere the saying of an orthodox divine that "God infallibly accomplishes everything at which He aims." Then what does He "aim" at? Dr. R. W. Dale tells us. He says: "Every man bears the image of God, and was created to abide in the Home of God." Is not that direct and clear? "Every man was created to abide in the Home of God." That was God's aim. But is it "accomplished?" The orthodox view is that it is not. According to that view there are untold millions of men who will never see "the Home of God." Here is a manifest contradiction. Surely if "every man was created to abide in God's home," and if every purpose of God will infallibly be accomplished, there is salvation for the whole race.

* * * * *

This question has a very direct bearing on the idea of Restoration. An important section of the church believes that whoever is atoned for will infallibly be saved; and no others. But as all men are not saved, to be logical the framers of that system inferred that the Atonement is limited in its extent. They had no idea of the Atonement operating beyond this life; so their theory necessarily consigned the majority of the human race to everlasting torment.

What a pity it was that they had not the larger view. Then there would have been no logical need to limit the Scriptural idea of Atonement. In that case, they would have to admit on their own ground that the Atonement issues in the salvation of the whole race. But their system of doctrine was logically welded together by a number of propositions; and not one of these propositions could be omitted without dissolving the whole structure. So the limited Atonement idea was adopted as a necessity; and I suppose men schooled themselves to believe it was Scriptural.

As a matter of fact, however, and to a mind not biased by any previous opinion, the Universality of the Atonement is taught in Scripture with absolute clearness. So much is this the case that the doctrine is regularly preached in most if not all Evangelical Churches to-day, even in those which deny it in their creed. And if the question were put to the people generally, both lay and clerical of all churches, and a candid spontaneous answer required, there is no doubt that an overwhelming majority—perhaps a thousand to one—would say that Christ died for the whole race. We ought to take warning, then, not to make our systems of theology too complete, realizing how little we know as yet of God's works and ways.

* * * * *

But now, if we take the framers of that system on their own ground, what is the result? They believed that the Atonement would issue in salvation for every one for whom it was intended. That is not a far-fetched idea, by any means. It is only saying that God will accomplish that which He intended. A universal Atonement will therefore mean universal salvation. Certainly that is not attained in the present life; therefore it will be attained in the life to come. It is a strong argument for universal salvation.

If only this larger view had broken on men's vision there would have been no difficulty. But the "due time" for such a revelation had not come. It was no fault of our fathers, therefore, that they could not see that which was not as yet revealed. The only fault was, that they tried to make their theological system too perfect. The fact is, that it is not for us to make any theological system perfect. New light may come, and cause us to re-arrange or enlarge our ideas. "O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge, of God!"

Another argument for the ultimate salvation of all, is this: that Christ identifies Himself with the suffering and the unfortunate of the whole race. It will be remembered that in the last judgment He is supposed to say, "I was hungry, and ye fed me; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink;" and so on. Then he explains: "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." You observe that He makes no distinction between those whom He atoned for, and those for whom he did not. He includes all the unfortunate of the whole race, even the criminals who were in prison. He identifies Himself with them every one. And if He does, is it to be supposed that He died for only some of them? How could He identify Himself with those for whom He had not atoned, and for whom there could not be any salvation? It is said that His Atonement is "sufficient" for all; yet on the theory of a limited Atonement it is claimed that it is not "efficient" for all. But whether it be "sufficient" or "efficient," our Lord makes no difference. How could He so utterly and so tenderly ally Himself with any for whom He had not provided the possibility of salvation—a salvation admittedly "sufficient" for all? The inevitable presumption is, that He atoned for them every one, and so could identify Himself with them every one.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that salvation is provided for each one of them; and that if they do not attain to it in this life, they will in the next. That may appear a vast problem to us whose views of time and space are so limited; but it may be easy to Him to whom the whole span of time is but a passing epoch in the everlasting years.

Apart from this somewhat legal aspect of the case, there is another aspect of it which must appeal with great force to every reflective mind. I mean the undeveloped possibilities stored up in every human soul. We may sink so low as to appear but as dull clods; but the glory of man is the potentiality within him, capable, it would seem, of everlasting development.

Witness that "angel" who conducted St. John through the world of bliss, and explained to him the meaning of the wonderful scenes that were witnessed. So glorious was that "angel" in form, and so vast in knowledge, that John fell down at his feet to worship him. Then it turned out that the "angel" was just a man. He said he was one of the prophets. Perhaps he was Moses or Isaiah or Ezekiel, or some one of the writers of the Old Testament. They lived in a very primitive age. But see this prophet now. In a few centuries he has been developed to amazing heights of knowledge and blessedness. And we may well believe that such a process of development will go on to all eternity.

Now are we to believe that God has created such possibility of development; yet that it will issue in a single case in utter failure? Utter failure! No; not merely utter failure, but a fate ten thousand times worse than that. For endless torment would mean the development of all possible evil to all eternity. Are we prepared to say that such will be the issue in a single instance, of God's wise, and powerful, and righteous administration? Surely, surely, there will be no such failure.

We cited elsewhere that it is the law of the universe that what is good will endure. But here we have not merely a contravention of that law, but an utter and everlasting breakdown of the divine administration. In a universe where God rules in wisdom, in righteousness, and in love; and where moreover He is possessed of all power, not only physical but moral, it seems almost blasphemy to think of such failure.

There is a passage in the Epistle to the Romans that seems to me to put the question beyond doubt. I refer to the fifth chapter. We have there the fulness of salvation set forth in wonderful terms. In particular, we have the doctrine of the Atonement presented in all its divine efficacy. And you will notice that it is set forth both as to its quality, and its extent.

As to its quality, it is said to be more than sufficient; and as to its extent it is represented to be as wide as the human race. As to its quality, take these words: "Where sin abounded grace did much more abound." As to its extent, take these: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

It seems to me a wonderful thing that these glorious truths were in obscurity so long. I suppose it must be due to the fact that the idea of a limited Atonement came to be really believed. There was evidently a limited salvation; must there not then be a limited Atonement? So that doctrine became a necessary part of a certain system of theology; and men clung to it—honestly no doubt—thinking that if that doctrine would go, their whole system of truth would have to go along with it. All credit is thus due to the men who were so tenacious of what they believed to be the truth.

* * * * *

But we get larger conceptions as time goes on; and it seems a marvel that we had not such conceptions sooner. Take for instance the word "many" as it occurs twice in the one sentence that we have quoted. Has it not the same meaning in both cases? Both good language and good sense—apart from all preconceived opinion—would say that it has. But in the one case "many were made sinners." There is no doubt about the meaning of the word there. Certainly the whole race was made sinners. There is no room for controversy on that ground. But then, in the same sentence it is declared that "many shall be made righteous." If the word "many" in the first instance, means the whole race, has it not the same significance in the second instance? Surely words could not be plainer, or more emphatic.

To be sure, we may not see how such a promise is going to be fullfilled. In earlier times it seemed impossible; nay, a contradiction of what was passing before men's eyes every day. Many that were made sinners were certainly not made righteous. But men saw only the first part of God's administration. They had no idea that another part had to come, in which the promise would be fulfilled. So the promise was minimized, and shorn of its glorious meaning. Surely, the promise will be fulfilled. God is not restricted to this short epoch of time.

Then in regard to the quality or value of the Atonement, we have a wonderful testimony in these words: "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." That is, grace was much more than sufficient to put away the sin, universal as it was. So I reverently think the Atonement could be applied effectually to other worlds, if they need it. But passing by that point, for it is a mystery, I would emphasize the fact that the Atonement was greater than the sin. And think you, will it fail of its effect?

I wish that thoughtful theologians in the Methodist Church would duly consider this. Their theory is, that the Atonement is universal; but they deny universal salvation. Is not that the same as to say that in the case of some, Christ died in vain? But is that possible? If God really desires the salvation of all men, as we know He does; and if He has made provision for the salvation of all men, as He certainly has; will He not somehow and somewhere accomplish His desire? As to the doctrine of falling finally from grace, which Arminians believe, and Calvinists deny, on this basis both are right. Suppose that there is a final falling away in this life, and Restoration in the next, is there not harmony in the highest sense? O yes; in this larger view, there is both falling from grace, and final perseverance.

* * * * *

In fact there is nothing that would unite the Evangelical Churches so effectually as a consensus of belief in universal salvation. This may seem a startling proposition to those who have not given the subject much attention; but after all, it is but an expansion of the idea that God's "counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."

I TOOK THE LARGER VIEW.

We are not surprised, therefore, that we have in Scripture such explicit statements as to the universality of the Atonement. I was brought up in that church which is identified with the theory of a limited Atonement. At an early age, however, I took the larger view of the Atonement, and I hold that view with increasing conviction now. In fact I do not see how the idea of a limited Atonement ever came to command the assent of intelligent men, except that it was found to be necessary as a part of a preconceived system of theology.

* * * * *

Surely it was a great pity that men thought it necessary in bygone years to make their systems of theology so complete. Of course they are complete in the divine mind. But they cannot be so in ours. We see but a short way into the whole scheme of things. And when men thought that God's plan of grace is restricted to the present life, it is not so surprising that they favored the idea of a limited Atonement. They believed that air of God's purposes of salvation are realized in this life. But when we realize that God's saving plans extend into the next life, it is not hard to believe in the Atonement being universal. Thus we can take the plain statements of Scripture in their obvious sense, without twisting them into unison with some preconceived theory.

In my view we ought to accept the plain statements of the Word of God.
If they seem to involve impossibilities, let us wait for further light.
To me it seems that universal Atonement involves universal Restoration:
and that idea solves the whole difficulty.

A noted Professor of Theology once sought to entrap me on that very point. I took a firm stand on the universal theory of the Atonement, He wanted to know what that would lead to; evidently hoping to commit me to Universalism. I said that if it was revealed we ought to accept it, no matter what it led to. At that time I had not accepted the idea of Restoration, but I strongly believed in the universality of the Atonement. Now the idea of Restoration rounds out and completes that view.

A SPONTANEOUS ANSWER.

I fully believe that in this matter I do not stand alone. I believe that this same liberal view of the Atonement is held, consciously or unconsciously, by the great majority of our ministers and members. If a spontaneous answer were asked as to whether Christ died for the whole of mankind or a part only, I feel sure that the general response would be that he died for all. And I appeal to you, if that is not your most inner and sacred conviction? In your best moods, when all theological subtleties are put aside, can you endure the idea of a limited Atonement? I appeal to all men of a candid, progressive mind, if we are not really at one here? Then be faithful to that inner light. It is the light of God.

This doctrine of universal Atonement was endorsed lately by the American Presbyterian Church. In Article VIII of the "Brief Statement" adopted by that Church, these words occur: "For us He fulfilled all righteousness, and satisfied eternal justice, offering Himself a perfect sacrifice upon the cross to take away the sin of the world." Thus the American Church has moved unto the broader basis of universal Atonement.

THE SPIRIT OF THE LARGER DOCTRINE.

And not only has that Church formally taken that position, but the spirit of the larger doctrine has so prevailed in the Church for some years past, that individual congregations could take the broader basis without having their soundness in the faith called in question. In a manual published by the Third Presbyterian Church of Chicago, for instance, the "Articles of Faith" of that Congregation are set forth under seven heads. Article III reads thus:—"We believe that Jesus Christ our Mediator is truly God and truly man, and that by His sufferings and death on the cross He made Atonement for the sins of the world; so that the offers of salvation are sincerely made to all men, and all who repent and believe in Him will be justified and saved." That exposition of the doctrine entirely accords with my view. It was by mere accident I saw this manual; it may be presumed that many other congregations have taken similar ground without challenge.

Not only so, but we have the doctrine of a universal Atonement accepted and clearly expressed in the statement of doctrine proposed as a basis of union between the Presbyterian, the Methodist and the Congregational Churches in Canada, so the orthodox people have cut themselves quite loose from their ancient moorings. Here is a marvel indeed. Wedded to the Confession of Faith as the Presbyterian Church has been, at least in theory, that Confession is now ignored. Surely the truth is advancing.

* * * * *

I am glad to see such an explicit statement of this great doctrine. I can only imagine that the compilers of the Canadian Hymn Book forgot for the time their technical theology, and adopted the expression of their hearts. For, despite all theology, universal Atonement is the faith of the people. Yes, and it is the faith of the preacher. Since I was a child I never heard a limited Atonement preached; but I have heard a universal Atonement preached hundreds of times; and no one raises a cry at want of orthodoxy.

I am glad, especially, that we have been delivered from the hardening effects of the narrower view. In earlier times there were theologians who almost gloated over the damnation of millions of our race. And they were damned—so these theologians thought—simply because they were not elected and Christ had not died for them. With the utmost equanimity orthodox divines contemplated their eternal torment. To such hardness can men be brought by a false view, and in the name of religion. So the position of Queen Mary was logical enough from that point of view. When she was asked if she thought it right to burn heretics, she said: "How can it be wrong for me to burn them for a few minutes, when God Almighty is going to burn them for ever?"

Speaking of the hardening influence of such views, it is a great joy to think that we shall not always be so callous as we are now. Deep down in our souls there is a susceptibility to tenderness that we do not generally suspect. Sometimes, from no cause that we can see, there breaks on our hearts a ripple of peace like a breath of perfume from some far off land of flowers, or a snatch of melody from some distant land of song.

I have the idea that one of the functions of sleep is to arouse this latent tenderness. At all events, we have sometimes a strange tenderness in sleep, of which we hardly seem capable in our waking hours. I remember one very vivid occasion of this kind. A man whom I had seen but twice—a very common man, with no special attraction—I dreamed of, and in my dream I loved him with the utmost intensity. When I suddenly awoke, and when I realized that in this life I should likely never see him again, it was almost agony. Many a time I have had such experiences in sleep; and I doubt not that so have others. Such experiences do seem to be forecasts of the tenderness that we shall yet have for every brother of the human race, when we come to our best. With such feelings, how could we bear the thought that any so dear to us are in everlasting torment?

It may be well to quote here a few passages of Scripture in which the doctrine of universal Atonement is stated with all clearness. It is stated again and again without any ambiguity that Christ died for all. It is said that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." It is said that "He gave Himself a ransom for all," It is said that He "tasted death for every man." We read that "the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

These are but a few of many passages in which the great idea is set forth. Language could not be plainer. Jesus died for the sins of the whole race.

Now the question arises: Will He not find some way of redeeming every soul for which He died? Would He die for the world, and then permit any of the world to perish? Let us remember that He has ways and means of overcoming opposition without doing any violence to human freedom. We instanced the conversion of Saul of Tarsus to prove that point. What He did in that case He can do in others.

BUT A PASSING EPOCH.

Let us remember that He knew well the magnitude of the task He had undertaken. Let us remember that He does nothing in vain. Let us remember that His love, and power, and purpose have undergone no change. And let us remember that this little span of time is but a passing epoch in His administration. He can complete in a future age what He commenced in this age. Nay, not commenced; for His purpose dates back from the eternal past. He is "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world."

When we take this larger view, it is not difficult to believe literally that "His mercy endureth forever," and that it will find scope for its operation so long as one soul remains in alienation from Him. If you have been brought up to the narrower view, and if you have held that view for long years, it may be enlarged in a moment. One flash of divine illumination can reveal wonders of redeeming love.

We might go on at a great length in citing Scripture statements that have really no meaning apart from God's gracious design to men in a future age. Certainly Scripture is the paramount authority, and some will take it as superior to all reason on a question like this. But there are those who do not accord to Scripture the supreme authority; they rely more on reason and common sense; and I am hopeful they will read these remarks. For their sake I will submit some considerations from reason that may come closer home.

* * * * *

One consideration is, that God made a sacrifice of unfathomable depth in giving His Son for the redemption of the race. No one will ever know what it cost the Father to make that sacrifice. Some theologians believe that God cannot suffer. I wonder where they got that idea. I would ask you: If you are a father and have an only son who has never given you offense In thought, word, or deed, but has lived in the most cordial and intimate terms with you for many years—could you give that son up to untold agony and death without making a sacrifice?

Now this is what the Father did when He gave up the Son to suffering and death; only the cordial feeling between the Father and the Son was far more intimate than in our case, and had lasted through a past eternity, whereas ours has endured but a few years.

THE DIVINE IMAGE.

As to the capacity of suffering in such a case on the part of God, we can judge of that faintly by our own case. We were made in the divine image, and suffer in a human degree as He suffers in a divine degree. Conceive, then, if you can, the untold suffering of the Father in making that sacrifice. The suffering which the Father endured I believe will never be measured.

The matter is presented in that way when it is said that God so loved the world that He gave His Son. The word so in that connection would have no meaning if it did not mean sacrifice. I believe it means a depth of suffering which no man nor angel has sounded.

Now can it be thought that the Father would make such a sacrifice for less than the whole race? If the Atonement was suitable for every one of the race was it not intended for every one? And cannot God make it effective for every one? Evidently it is not so now. But all eternity is at God's disposal. Can it be imagined that having made a suitable provision for all, He will be content with saving only some?

In fact I have the idea that God suffered by sympathy with the Son as much as the Son suffered actually. We can never know in this life if that was really so; but I have the idea that there was such divine sympathy between the Father and the Son that they suffered equally. This is holy ground; we shall trespass on it no further.

But do you think the Father will ever be satisfied until every soul for whom Christ died will be saved? He saw the end from the beginning. He is not taken by surprise that so few are saved. Now all eternity is at His disposal. Who can say that in the infinite sweep of His administration, which relates to other worlds as well as ours, there may not be good reasons for saving some of our race in the next life? At all events, His counsel will stand. He will do all His pleasure. The day will come when every prodigal will come home. Then Hallelujah! "The Lord God omnipotent reigneth!"

And so with Christ as well. His sacrifice is the expression of His love, and the only adequate expression of it. He loved us, and gave Himself for us. Paul says, "He loved me, and gave Himself for me." So every believing sinner may say. And in securing the effects of that sacrifice He is not limited to the short era of time. If He had chosen He might have secured the effects of His sacrifice in this age. But for some good reason unknown to us, His redeeming activity is exercised in a future age. We are not surprised. His administration is from everlasting to everlasting.

Such a consideration does not mitigate, in my view, the Father's solicitude for the salvation of His children now. We almost hear His sigh as He says, "How can I give thee up?" And again he says, "O that Israel had hearkened to my commandments!" And this divine solicitude was expressed in human tears when the Son sobbed over the apostate city: "O, if thou hadst only known in this thy day the things that belong to thy peace!"

DESTINED FOR A BETTER WORLD.

I will refer here to one practical difficulty, which is solved by the theory of Restoration. We all know Christian men of whose real goodness we have no doubt whatever. But such a man has often great imperfections. There can be no doubt that he is destined for a better world; but in the meantime he is not fit for it. Such a man, we will say, meets with an accident that cuts him off in a moment. The question is, Where does he go? On the old theory he must go either to heaven or to hell. But he is really fit for neither. The work of grace is far from being completed in him, and therefore he is not prepared for the better world. But he has the germ of grace in him, and it is partly developed; therefore he would be out of place in the better world. Then where does he go? The difficulty is settled at once if we suppose that there is a preparatory stage of preparation for eternal joy. He will arrive at the goal in due time; but meantime he must have his faults and imperfections pruned off. Death will certainly not effect the necessary improvement. All are agreed that the fact of dying makes no change in a man's character. Nor is there any change usually effected just before death. In many cases there is no opportunity. "The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness." So says the Catechism. But there is no evidence of it in the case of one who is stricken down suddenly. But suppose there is a preparatory stage beyond; then all difficulty disappears.

THRUST INTO NEW CONDITIONS.

Nor would it be in harmony with divine operations, so far as we know them, to thrust a frail, human, imperfect spirit into eternal joys so suddenly. He is not prepared for them. He requires a preliminary stage of preparation. It is only in harmony with what we know of God's methods to believe that such is provided. When a child is born into this world, it is not thrust into new conditions suddenly. For a time it is not even aware that it has entered on new conditions; but it adapts itself naturally and easily to its new surroundings. So it is not easy to believe that a soul accustomed to the darkness of earth is thrust at once into the blinding glory of heaven. A preliminary stage of preparation seems to be necessary; and if it is necessary, it is provided.

I raised this difficulty once to an aged minister. At that time I saw no solution of it, and I simply wanted information. He studied a moment and then said, "When the flesh is put off, I think many of our sins and imperfections will go along with it." That was a wise answer, and there is a great deal of comfort in it. But it does not fully meet the case. The flesh is a lodging place for many of our sins, and it is a happy thing to think that we shall drop these sins when we drop the flesh. But there are sins of the mind too; and these we shall not drop with the flesh. They will go with us into the next life. The question is. How shall we get rid of them? The idea of Restoration solves all difficulty.

Besides, we believe that nothing that is really good will ever perish from the universe. In the case we have supposed, the man possessed real goodness; but it was largely goodness in the germ; it needed to be developed. It is only congenial with what we know of divine operations to believe that what is good will be developed, rather than that it will decay into nothingness. From that point of view a preliminary stage of progress seems to be necessary.

I have just met with a lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge, in which he espouses the same idea in a scientific relation. He quotes from Professor Hoffding, who agrees with Browning and other poets, that no real value or good is ever lost. Sir Oliver Lodge says that "the law of evolution is that good should on the whole increase in the universe, with the process of the suns." He says again, "Nothing really perishes in the universe that is worth keeping."

ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENT.

And in this matter he does not confine himself to material things. The same law applies, as he says, to "personality, beauty, artistic achievement, knowledge, unselfish affection" and so on. So he really rises into the domain of the moral and spiritual. Regarded in this light, no incipient goodness acquired in this life will ever die. It will be developed, and in order to its development, there must be some means of development beyond the bourne of time.

* * * * *

We might suppose another case that will bring this principle clearly into view. A house has taken fire. The fire has made great headway, and the house is likely to be destroyed. The whole town has gathered around—some out of curiosity, others from sympathy. The inmates are supposed to be all rescued. But at length a child appears at one of the upper windows. A cry of consternation and of sympathy goes up from the whole throng. How can the child be delivered? The room is lighted by the flames. Clearly the time for action is short. The longest available ladder is placed against the house, but it is a little too short. The whole crowd is in dismay. Must the child perish in the flames? Above the crackling of the fire is heard its piteous cries. Will no one make the attempt to save it? The multitude is painfully irresolute; the case seems hopeless.

FIRM AND QUICK TREAD.

At length a man starts from the middle of the crowd. He is a common, ill-clad, laboring man. The grime of his day's work is upon him. Resolutely he goes forward, pushing the bystanders to the right and left. With firm and quick tread he ascends the ladder. At the top he stands for a moment irresolute. Is it possible to reach the window? It seems impossible. But he makes a spring for it, and by an almost superhuman effort he gains it. He rescues the child.; with great risk he regains the ladder, and begins the descent. He is nerved by the cheers of the crowd; but when about half way down his strength gives way, and he falls. The child escapes all danger, but the rescuer has received fatal injuries; his neck is broken.

Now the question is, where does he go? He was not a Christian. The old theology would say that therefore he goes to hell. We cannot believe it. We have enough of the divine image in us yet to revolt at such a thought. Then let us beware of extinguishing that divine light in our souls. As Carlyle says, "Come out of it, all honest men!"

We have seen that it is a divine law that what is good will survive. Then will the noble qualities in this moral hero have no chance of survival and development? It is true that he is not a Christian. No; but he is a far better man than many Christians. We would expect therefore that he will be subjected to some process of education by which he will rise to the place where he really belongs.

EVERY POSSIBLE ARGUMENT.

If Dr. Adam Clarke had only been imbued with such an idea, he would not have required to labor so hard as he has done in trying to make out a hopeful prospect for Judas. With a truly charitable intent he summons every possible argument in support of the idea that Judas was truly penitent, and that he was saved in his last hour. He may have been; I do not say. But the idea of Restoration opens a far wider door of hope. In that case, there is no need for far-fetched argument. He will be restored, as the worst criminal of mankind will be. The theory of Restoration settles all difficulty.

Closely allied with this case of Judas is the case of all suicides. If we were now holding an inquest on Judas, I suppose our verdict would be that he committed suicide in a fit of temporary insanity. And perhaps he did. At all events it is the most charitable verdict at which we can arrive. Many suicides in all fairness deserve this mantle of charity. And there is more than charity in reserve for all such. We believe there is an opportunity of development which many of them could not have in this life.

And so we may well believe it will be with lunatics. The reasonable view is, that they will begin just where they left off. As they are, they are not fit for the better world; and it would be unjust to send them to a world of woe. Some were idiots from their birth, and so have acquired no evil propensities of which to be divested. In other cases the idiocy was simply due to a clot on the brain. They have left their bodies behind them now, and the clot too. They simply begin at the point where their reason deserted them; and it will come back in due time.

It is a very nice point to determine where insanity begins. I was discussing this question lately with the Superintendent of a large lunatic asylum. We agreed that, while putting no premium on crime, we have to recognize that in many cases there is no real responsibility where in general it would be expected. The whole study of lunacy strongly indicates that there is a necessity for a process of elimination and development under more favorable conditions than the present life ordinarily supplies. And we may be sure that if there is such a necessity, it is provided.

In this connection I think of Blind Tom. He was a very prodigy in music. But apart from that he was a complete idiot, and had been so from his birth. After his death a gentleman who knew him well wrote a sketch of his life. In the noble, concluding words of that article I think we would all heartily join, be our creed what it may. The writer says of Tom: "Blind, deformed, and black, as black as Erebus—idiocy, the idiocy of a mysterious, perpetual frenzy, the sole companion of his waking visions and his dreams—whence came he, and was he, and wherefore? That there was a soul there, be sure, imprisoned, chained, in that little black bosom, released at last; gone to the angels, not to imitate the seraph-songs of heaven, but to join the Choir Invisible for ever and for ever."

Surely this abnormal gift of the poor idiot is a strong suggestion of his immortality. We refuse to think of that divine spark being quenched in everlasting night. And it is almost more impossible to imagine a wholly irresponsible being like him, yet endowed with such a divine gift, being consigned to endless torment. What remains, then, for him but a part in the better world? Yet he was by no means fit for that better world. Is there not then almost forced upon us the idea of a preliminary stage of education? And if that is so in his case, is it not more or less required in the case of every one of us? Think the matter over seriously, and see where it will land you.