The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-03-03


me the question, What l did know about
that life?
Any answer on my part was nOs re-
corded, and this for the good reason
that L did not give any. My silence
was not, however, any evidence that l
had no reply to make. Apprehension
that it would open lengthy and fruit
less discussion determined my choice
But as the incident has been given to
the public, / now ask space for my re-
ply in your columns. First, however,
l take the liberty to make one or two
remarks.
When 1 made the o5serva alton in re-
gard to the Jews, intended word in
defense of the Christian ministers pres
ent at the meeting. The Rabbits posi-
tion, as correctly stated by the repor
ter, was, that the question of future
life is mystery, and that it is useless
to discuss that question. But this dec
| laratiOn by the Rabbi implied an opin-
ion On his part about the rest of us that
is not fattering.
The reader of the paper, was Dr. Tut
tie, and we all rejoiced that the ques-
tion of probation in the future life was
so widely and earnestly discussed in
the Congregational church. But, from
the standpoint of the Rabbi, this joy
was rather childish affair. 1t was
joy that the Congregationalists were
engaged in a useless discussion.
One thing more. The Rabbi asserted
that 1.-The Jewish mind was too realis-
tic to discuss the future life"
Whether this be so at present, 1 do
not know, but at the time of Christ,
the Jewish mind was not thus realistic.
The New Testament, as well as other
writings from that period, indicate that
the Jews then had great deal of in
terest in the future life, and questions
pertaining thereto. However, be that
praise that kind of realism, wherever
it may appear, which does not care
about the condition at least of de-
parted friend. More cOmmendable to
ma is that spirit-call it idealistic if
you please-that moved in the bosom
of those heathens, who asked the
ancient missionary about the state
of their dead parents and ancestors,
mentioned in the discussion reviewed
at our meeting. For this spirit, per-
ce've, is nothing but the spirit of love:
that spirit which cannot rest happy
till it knows that all others also are
happy; that spirit which is the main
fspring OF all humane andAtFuly Christ
ian action; that spirit which is the es-
sence of God.
And now to the question. "How
much do know about the future life?7
l know that the future life is some
thing that, as far back as history goes,
has universally or almost universally,
entered into human thought; that it
has been believed in by the noblest in
dividuals of our race, and that faith in
that life has given consolation to thou
sands of souls who could be comforted
by nothing else. Now, already this
fact, 1 think, makes the future life
proper subject of discussion. But 1
can prove the future life to be reality,
and do l know it in that sense? l ans
wer, know it, and can prove it just as
much or just as little as 1 can prove
that there is God and that there is a
difference between right and wrong.
To me, therefore, it is no more useless
to discuss the question of future life
than to discuss any question whatever
of theology or ethics.
AUGUST DELLGREN.