sition that conscience is a regulator that does, though but imperfectly, keep the watch in order, we can conceive of a contrivance for evil, of an infinitely more dreadful nature,—a human watch without any regulator at all; a depraved nature without the restraints of conscience,―Judas betraying Christ, and not returning the blood-bought silver, and not attesting to the innocence of the condemned. When we look on the worst form of depravity, the righteousness of God appears when the regulator is brought to bear upon the deranged moral mechanism, and "the wrath of man is made to praise him, while the remainder of the wrath is restrained.' 99 Even our author so argues, unconsciously. The depravity of man seen in this life is to him an argument only for malevolence in God, unless it be considered as affording a demand and demonstration of future retribution. How is that future retribution to come? by any thing added to the nature of man? No; but by the awakening of " the seared conscience," its being vitalized. We believe in a similar awakening of conscience; but it is the bringing to bear upon disordered mechanism the office of the regulator, so that the soul shall image, in its moral harmony, the order of eternity. Conscience" powerful to scourge," he says, is not regarded by man as misery of God's infliction, but only a prediction of such retribution. What proofs does he adduce? Does not the whole history of man abound with sacrifices to make the gods propitious, and is not the cry heard, as the ear is turned to any age, "My punishment is greater than I can bear! 99 Dr. Cheever says, natural theology forces upon us the conclusion that man was made upright, and that he must have fallen because he is now sinful; that when the first sin was committed, the child born to the depraved parents must have inherited their depravity, and this is “rendered certain by the murderous propensity of Cain." But if the murderous propensity of Cain proves the transmission of depravity, what does the propensity of righteous Abel prove? Is the murder of Abel ascribed in the scripture, to a murderous propensity, to a depravity of nature, or to the passions of anger and jealousy, that have been a fruitful cause of murders in all ages. If natural theology hands to us the conclusion that man had become depraved, it also hands to us the conclusion that this de

pravity came not from a totally corrupt nature, but from a depravableness in man, in as much as it points us also to the restraints of conscience.

In vindication of the idea that the misery of conscience was only a prediction of coming retribution, it is asserted, that under the simple light of nature there was no hope of mercy entertained; man was "shut up in prison in thick darknes, and could not come out." "Natural theology could, and must, anticipate retribution, but never redemption. Shut up to natural theology alone, man cannot ever imagine an atonement." We presume that this

193

is perfectly just in view of what our author considers "redemption," and "atonement." Such theology is sufficiently unnatural; and yet when learned doctors treat of the "atonement," they delight to show what they call evidences of a universal recognition of the idea, the principle, and present a vast array of religions where accordant sacrifices have been offered to propitiate the gods. And sometimes to meet the objector, who reasons from analogy, they "affirm that in every instance of substituted sufferings, or self-denial of the parent, the patriot, or the benefactor, there occurs a state of things so analogous to the principles of the atonement, as to show that it is in strict accordance with the just government of God; and to remove all the objections to the peculiarity of the atonement.' On this ground, why should not man find the hint to suggest the way of approach to God in the way of approach to a human being he had offended, and to whom he becomes reconciled? So Butler, in his "Analogy," says: "The visible government which God exercises over the world, is by the instrumentality and mediation of others." "We find by experience that God does appoint mediators, to be the instruments of good and evil to us, the instru ments of his judgement and his mercy." And certainly the fact is easy of proof, that "shut up to natural theology alone," man did imagine an atonement-a method or methods, of being at one with the offended Deity. The gods pitying sinful man, and aiding him to rise; was a common idea in the religions of the world before the coming of Christ. The beautiful story of Psyche embodies 3 Barnes' Introduction to Butler's Analogy, p. 41. 4 Part ii., Chap. 5

6

this idea; and what mean all the sacrifices, the worship and pains-taking of heathendom, but a recognition of some form of an at-one-ment with God. God ready to do for man,' was not wholly lost to the myriads before the coming of Christ; they were not in thick darkness; and when Christianity was preached in the realms of idolatry, its idea of mediation, of a mediator, was not entirely new, but familiar; though the doctrine of "one mediator between God and man "—all men, was the birth of a new sun in the heavens of their thoughts. With the fact of mediation being accepted and practiced before us, the whole fabric of Dr. Cheever's speculations falls to the earth, to nothingness; for upon the ignorance of man respecting any way of escape from the evil of sin, he builds. the hypothesis, that the misery of conscience was not recognized as of God's infliction, but a prediction of coming retribution from his hand. If natural theology had shut up sinful man in such ignorance, did not the revelation of the mediator, in Christ, prove that in this ignorance man had drawn a wrong conclusion, that God had no mercy, that there was no way of escape? and when Christ, the " one mediator between God and man, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," was before the world, what becomes of that "demand and demonstration in natural theology of a future retribution," that held up infinite wrath as not to be escaped. Revelation is thus made to contradict natural theology. Rather should this seeming "demand and demonstration," be resolved into the effect of those "superstitious fears into which idolatry" tortures" its miserable victims.

We own ourselves appalled at the audacity of theologians, who in attempting to press nature into the service of their hideous creeds, call their argument a demonstration from nature of a future retribution, meaning endless punishment, and thereby shutting out the possibility of man's hope of salvation. When did natural theology fail to intimate means of salvation as it intimated eternity to man? While philosophers and sages felt the burden of sin, they also felt the compassion of the gods; and mediation, in some form, is as universal as the idea of responsibility and exposure. What was "the desire of all nations" but for the mediator, to whom every hopeful mood

of mind directed the expectancy of man, prefigured by every reconciler of offended parties? But if nature demonstrates eternal evil for sin, where is the place to set up the standard of Christianity? Was it in the face of nature's demonstration of evil only for sinful man, that the star of Bethlehem shone with the rays of salvation? Rather would we assert that natural theology had its dream of Christianity, as well as Judaism its prophecy; and the enlightened philosopher might well be expected to have anticipated as much as the poor African, who had had described to her the great compassion of God in the gift of his dear Son, and was asked if this was not overwhelmingly astonishing? She replied in the simplicity of her wisdom, "Why no! it's just like him.”

We accept all the teachings of natural theology concerning retribution. We use them every day. They af ford us convincing arguments when we deal with sin, with man and his motives. They are opened to us in rich abundance by every able work on the moral laws of health, and every philosophical inquiry into the relations of body and mind. Physicians of the highest eminence maintain the retributions of the forms of sin that come within their professional observation, and not a few speak as boldly as Dr. James Johnson, where he says, in his "Economy of Health,"

"It would probably be neither a safe nor an Orthodox doctrine to maintain that all sins and crimes are punished in this probationary state, yet I am much inclined to believe that very few of them escape retributive justice, sooner or later, in life. Many punishments are not visible to the world, though keenly felt by the individuals on whom they fall. As the silent and unseen worm corrodes the heart of the solid oak, so a guilty conscience consumes the heart of man, though the countenance may not indicate the gnawings of the worm within! Whenever we have an opportunity of tracing the consequences that flow from a breach of the laws of God and Nature, we find those consequences terminate in suffering, moral or physicalgenerally both. This being the case, we may very safely conclude that such breaches alway draw after them a penal infliction, whether that infliction be patent to the world or not.

In perfect harmony with this idea we find the Scripture testimony. Where sin is, there is misery, whatever may be the realm of being. And to us, the great rejoicing is,

VOL. IX.

7

that the prophecy of natural theology, coming from all its lessons of the uses of evil, and the tendency of all things to good, is established by Revelation, that retribution is an ordinance of God for beneficial ends,-transient suffering pointing to eternal good.

H. B-N.

ART. VI.

Argument for Universalism as connected with Human Freedom.

THOSE Who deny the great result which Universalism affirms, and hold to the opposite doctrine of endless misery, have come, for the most part, to do so on the ground that men have been vested with a moral agency, or freedom, in the exercise of which the lost so choose, and continue to choose, perversely, as to render their perdition inevitable. "Not God, but their own sin condemns them." The creeds do not all read so; but so the convictions of the vast majority run. The centre of the difficulty, it is alleged, is in man's perverted will. God has made him free; and while he desires that all shall be saved and has done all he can to have them saved; while his Son has made an atonement sufficient for all; 1 while his Holy Spirit is ever striving with all to induce them to accept the terms of salvation, he will not violate man's freedom even to save him. This is the popular, taking argument usually urged as a last resort against Universalism, and the covert behind which shelter is sought from its conclusions. When we have reasoned from the elements of the divine character and the principles of the divine government irresistibly to the final reconciliation; when we have appealed to the Scriptures and to their exposition of the divine purpose in Christ; when we have shown in words that cannot be

1

1 For a statement of the modern Calvinistic view of the universality of the Atonement, see Albert Barnes's Introduction to Butler's Analogy.