The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-12-18
QUERIES-T0 BR. SLADE.
BY REV. JAMES GORTON.
Charlotte, Mich.)

| desire not to criticise Br. Slade's
articles on "The Faith of the Fathers"
but to make some queries touching two
points, in which he seems TO accept
what he calls 1.-THE opinions of the
Fathers" but which may have been
only the opinions of some of the Fathers;
certainly not of all of them. The spirit
of Br. Slade's articles is admirable, and
the matter mainly so; but tqueries arise
in our mind as to the two points:
1. That there can be no sin after
death, because there is no temptation.
2, That punishment must cease when
sin ceases, when the sinner repents and
reforms.
Br. Slade seems to state the case in
such way as to lead us to infer that
these are also his opinions and may
rightfully enough be the opinions Of
all Universalists. 1 confess they are
not my opinions.
Take the law Of analogy A man
violates the law of his physical nature
and breaks limb, or becomes diseased.
Suppose now he has become convinced
by his suffering that he has acted fool
ishly. Suppose he repents Of his folly,
and resolves hereafter to be obedient 10
physical law; does that cure the dis
ease at once, or mend the broken limb?
Does not the penalty continue after,
and often long after, the Offense has
ceased And is it not wise and be-
nefcent plan that it is 50 ? Would not
offenses more readily occur if this were
not so? Would not disObedience to
! physical law be considered matter of
much lighter consequence, and so the
return to disobedience be more easy and
certain? Is it not so in the intellectual
realm If a man by neglecting Oppor-
tunities, by refusing to use, and disci-
pline, and educate his intellectual fac
ulties, grows up i'll ignorance and intel
lectual stupidity, and reaps all the loss,
disadvantage, dishonor of such state,
will he by repenting of this folly, by
! beginning TO obey the law of his intel
lectual development, by beginning to
use all his powers and opportunities,
escape at once from the full penalty of
his previous neglect and disobedience?
Again, is it not very wise, and just, and
| beneficent, that he cannot do so, and that
penalty continues long after the offense
has ceased
Now, is it not just the same. in
the moral realm? Does not exactly
the same law obtain? Even in this
world, will Br. Slade undertake to
say that when the wicked man ceases
from his wickedness-repe and re-
forms-that all regret, and remOrse, and
all other evil consequences Of his past
wiekedGess are at once and forever put
away? 1t seems to me we hear of that
doctrine in certain orthodox quarters,
/ and pronounce it vicious ana demorai-
iZiEg. Is it good Universalism Not
with me 1t seems to me to be con-
trary to reason and justice, contrary to
observation and experience, contrary to
the very nature Of things. Simply as a
matter Of observation and experience,
We see that in this life various evil con.
sequences OF sin continue and persist
long after the sin is abandoned Shall
it be said that these evil consequences
are not properly penalty? That is beg
/ ging the question. They are as Ger
i taiuly parts of the penalty OF sin as are
guilt and remorse. They are evil con-
! sequences which would not have been
visited upon the offender except for the
commission Of sin. They grew out of
sin just as guilt and remOrse grow out
/ of sin. And this persistency Of the
/ evil consequences, or penalty Of sin,
/ long after sin has ceased, seems to be
a wise arrangement by which to hedge
up the way of the sinner, by which to
make that way hard and difficult, by
which to more certainly teach man wis
dom aad drive him back to obedience
to divine law. There is, perhaps, not a
single sin or crime that man can com
nit, in which the evil consequences all
cease the moment sin ceases and refor-
nation begins.
From this We may infer, as it seems
TO me, by certain analogy, that the con-
sequences of sin may reach into another
world. Is it said the Scriptures reveal
nothing of this kind ? We should most
emphatically deny this statement. If
the Scriptures do not declare this speci-
fically, they nevertheless do declare it
on broad general principles. But sup
pose the Scriptures do not teach future
life punishment; it is only on the same
principle that they do not say if we sin
to-day, We shall be punished tomorrow
Shall we therefore believe and teach
that there is no possibility of the con-
sequences or penalty of to days sin
being continued into tomorrow? If we
murder to-day, and repent to-day, is
there no possibility of just punishment
for that sin tomorrow? ? But that is
the way Br. Slade seems to me to reason
or sOphistieate. But we may be told
/ that ITDiyersaIism teaches. and Chris