Page images
PDF
EPUB

"it is never too late to mend," is a very great misreading of the nature of things. The arguments may be summed up under the following heads:

1. The law of "Judicial Blindness."

2. The self-propagating power of sin.

3. Scriptural Testimony.

1. The law of Judicial Blindness. This law is, according to Mr. Cook, that when we shut our eyes to the truth and refuse to obey it, we gradually lose the vision of truth and the power to obey.

If, for instance, we have rejected the Gospel and refused to obey its light all through life, even until we enter upon the other life and more light is given us in that life, it is quite certain that we shall not be able to see that light, or if we are, we shall not be able to follow it. By a lifelong rejection and disobedience of the gospel vision we shall have so blinded our spiritual eye and weakened our moral power, that we can neither see nor obey whatever new vision of celestial truth may be given us in the world to come. This law of judicial blindess Mr. Cook unfolds in the following manner:

"Under irreversible natural law sin produces judicial blindness. When a man sins against light, there comes upon him an unwillingness to look into the accusing illumination, and the consequence is that he turns away from it. But that effect becomes a cause. These six propositions are scientifically demonstrable."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"(1) Truth possessed but not obeyed becomes unwelcome. (2) It is therefore shut out of the voluntary activities of memory and reflection, as it gives pain.

(3) The passions it should check grow therefore stronger. (4) The moral emotions it should feed grow weaker. (5) An ill-balanced state of the soul thus arises and tends to become habitual.

(6) That ill-balanced state renders the soul blind to the truth most needed to rectify its condition."1

[ocr errors]

In illustrating these propositions he has the following: "A man sins against light boldly. The consequence instantly is that he ceases to be at peace with himself, and light instead of becoming a blessing is to him an accusation.

1 Transcendentalism, pp. 146-9.

The slant javelin of truth that was intended to penetrate him with rapture fills him with torture. But light having become an accuser man turns away from it. Then the virtues which that light ought to quicken are allowed to languish The vices which that light ought to repress grow more vigorous. Repeated acts of sin result in a continued dissimilarity of feeling with God. This state continuing becomes a habit, then that habit continuing long becomes chronic, and so the result is an ill-balanced growth of character." 2

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Here we have the whole process before us. We shut our eyes to the truth and refuse to obey it, then the truth begins to torture us, and then we turn away from it, and then it tortures us more; then we turn further away, then our misery becomes still greater, and so we go on and on, turning away from the truth and experiencing its retribution until we reach a point where we can see nothing but the blackness of darkness, and our misery becomes as supreme as our blindness is complete.

The best of all his illustrations of this process Mr. Cook takes from Carlyle. "Carlyle," he says, "quotes out of the Koran a story of the dwellers by the Dead Sea, to whom Moses was sent. They sniffed and sneered at Moses; saw no comeliness in Moses and so he withdrew; but Nature and her rigorous veracities did not withdraw. When next we find the dwellers by the Dead Sea, they, according to the Koran, are all changed into apes. By not using their souls they lost them. · And now,' continues Carlyle, their only employment is to sit there and look into the smokiest, dreariest, most undecipherable sort of a universe; only once in seven days they do remember that they once had souls.' " 8

[ocr errors]

This evolution is not according to Darwin, since it works backward instead of forward, but it serves very well to illustrate this law of judicial blindness. It makes very clear the process by which Mr. Cook contends we reach the condition of supreme darkness and supreme woe. By refusing to use our souls we lose them. By shutting our eyes to the light we be2 The same, pp. 149-50.

a Ibid. p. 155.

come unable to see or follow the light. Hence there is a tendency in sin to "final permanence."

Now I am far from denying this law of judicial blindness. I fully recognize the existence of such a law. All philosophy and religion bear witness to its reality. It would be supreme folly to deny that there is a process of losing the vision of the soul.

We all understand very well that by neglecting to use any faculty, it becomes useless. If we do not use our memory we cannot remember. So with the eye of the spirit, with that mental faculty whereby we see the truth: if we do not use that faculty we lose it. If we shut our eyes to the truth and refuse to obey it, we benumb this faculty and our ability to see the truth is impaired. And by a long course of such practice we render ourselves mentally blind, we cannot see the truth when presented, just as a man by constant lying cannot tell the truth. This is what the Saviour means when he says, "From him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath." He means that by neglecting our powers we lose them. They are, so to speak, taken from us.

This law of judicial blindness, therefore, is a reality, and its penalty is also a reality. If we wilfully and persistently shut our eyes to the truth, we bring upon ourselves terrible retribution. Indeed, I know not but this is the most terrible retribution of which humanity has any knowledge. Look over the world's history, and you find that the most fearful and crushing retributions have come upon men and nations because they have wilfully shut out the light that would have saved them. It is a fearful thing to shut our eyes to the truth. God's most weighty judgments fall upon those who refuse to accept and follow the light He gives. The law of judicial blindness and its consequences, therefore, are most fully recognized and accepted.

It does not, however, prove the doctrine in hand. It does not prove that this sinful tendency, under the government of God, will be suffered to go on until sin becomes absolutely permanent. This is the thing to be proven. It is not enough

to show, according to this law, that there is a tendency downward in sin; it must be shown that there is nothing to coun teract this tendency that it will go on inevitably until it reaches a final, fixed condition of sinfulness.

To do this by this argument it must be shown that the effects of the law, that the blindness and the retribution are permanent, that they are moral adamant that cannot be broken or removed. And this is just what Mr. Cook does not prove and what cannot be proven.,

[ocr errors]

On the other hand it is clearly" demonstrable" that these effects, this blindness and this retribution, are not permanent but temporary; that under the government of God they are not final states but conditions by the way. A complete analysis shows that in this retribution there is a power that tends to arrest and counteract the downward tendency in the law of of judicial blindness, a power that tends to open the eyes of the blind and "make the deaf hear and the lame walk." We must see what this law has to say before we decide this question.

Something very analogous to the operation of these two laws is found in nature. By the law of gravitation water always seeks its level, and if this were the only law no leaf would quiver on a tree or plant grow out of the ground. But there is another law in organic growth that counteracts this law of gravitation and carries the water to the top of the highest tree and greens the, leaf there as on the lowest vine. Hence it would be utterly inconsequential to prove, according to the law of gravitation the tendency in water to seek its own level, and then affirm as a consequence that no vegetation could exist. The answer would come very quickly: Why, here is another law that counteracts this law of gravitation, and makes vegetation possible; therefore your argument proves nothing to the point.

Just so in the case in hand. By the law of judicial blindness the downward tendency in sin is established, and then the final permanency of sin is affirmed as a consequence. this does not follow. The argument is inconclusive. It does

But

not establish the point. For here is another law that counteracts this law of judicial blindness and arrests this downward tendency, and so prevents the sin from becoming permanent.

That there is such a law there can be no manner of doubt. That there is a power in the retribution produced by shutting our eyes to the light, which tends to remove this blindness and open our eyes, cannot be denied. All experience testifies to the fact. Human history is brimful of examples of the removal of this wilful blindness by retribution.

The case of the Prodigal is in point. He shut his eyes to the truth and went away into the darkness, and grew worse and worse, until he found himself among the swine. Then he "came to himself." The scales fell from his eyes. The husks and the swine administered a retribution that restored his vision. He began to see the truth. His blindness was not permanent. He did not turn into an ape, but he came to himself and went home to his father.

National examples of this judicial blindness removed by retribution are without number. Egypt would not let the Israelites go. Pharaoh's heart grew harder and his eyes blinder for a long time under the retribution that came from shutting his eyes to the truth. But the Lord's hand was too heavy. He was forced to yield at last. It took very severe punishment, but he came to terms finally and let the Israelites go.

Take France. Never was there an example of greater or more wilful political blindness than that which ordered the massacre of St. Bartholomew. As Carlyle says, "France slit her own veins and let out her best blood when she murdered and drove out the Huguenots." What were the consequences? The French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the Napoleons, and the Franco-German war, with all their terrible woes. But France is learning; she is getting her eyes open. The retribution has been terrible, but it has not been in vain.

Take Great Britain in her treatment of her colonies. How utter was the blindness of the mother country in adopting such measures as brought on the Revolution. But her eyes

NEW SERIES. VOL. XXI.

3

« PreviousContinue »