The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-04-06
WHAT DO WE MEAN2

We are always saying-it is one of
| our cardinal doctrines-that punish
ment is reformatory. Indeed, upon
this ground we deny the absolute
endlessness of punishment. Because
divine punishment is reformatory,
therefore it cannot be endless. is our
argument, argument that is as
solid as the "rock of ages" Given the
premises and the conclusion must
follow. A reformatory punishment
cannot be endless. Punishment is
not reformatory unless it reforms, and
| if it reforms, it must cease or else it
must be inflicted after reformation
takes place, which would be mon
strous.
But what do we mean by punish
ment being reformatory? We certain
ly do not mean that mere pain for
wrong doing is reformatory, for we
know that such is not the case. We
see men suffer this pain without any
sign of repentance. Indeed, they
sometimes harden instead of soften
under the infiction of such pain.
Neither do we mean that all punish
ment as seen by us is reformatory.
We do not mean that we see punish
ment working reformation in each and
every case, for we know very well that
we see men everywhere suffering the
punishment of their sins and yet max
ing no effort to reform.
Much less dow mean that punish
ment is the only means of reforma-
ton. People sometimes seem to get
this idea of US. We have SO much to
say about the reformatory nature
of punishment that people seem to
think that punishment is the only
means of salvation we believe in; that
retribution is our gospel; that we
hold that the world is to be saved by
punishment exclusively; that no other
means are to be used in its salvation.
This, however, is very far from the
truth. We have no idea that punish
ment is the only means of salvation
and our gospel is far from being all
summed up in retribution.
But what we do believe, and what
we mean when we say punishment is
reformatory, is that retribution is in
harmony with all the saving forces
of God; that in fact it is one of those
forces. We believe that the great
purpose of God is salvation. That
he aims to perfect all mankind and
is constantly working to secure that
end. Hence we hold that his retribu-
tions are in keeping with this pur-
pose; that in Furnishing men for their
sins he is working to save them; in
fine, that retribution is no. opposed
to salvation, but in harmony with it.
Just here is radical distinction
between the old thought and the
new. The old thought arrayed re-
tribution against salvation. They
had nothing in common. Where re-
tribution began salvation ended
When God began to punish he ceased
to save. Up to certain point all
his efforts were for salvation; beyond
that they were for damnation and
damnation only. Hence according
to the old thought punishment is
never saving. The fear of punish
ment may be, but punishment itself
never. When punishment begins to
be inflicted all efforts for salvation
cease. Herce retribution and saliva
ton are Numerically opposed to
each other. There is no Ieconcilia
ton between them and never can be
any.
Now our thought reconciles them
1t puts retribution into harmony with
salvation. They both work to the
same end. God Furnishes to save
just as he teaches or rewards.
This, then, is what we now NEAR
when we say that punishment is re-
formatory. We mean that divine re
tribution is redemptive force; thai
it is a means of salvation and works
in harmony with the great purpose o.
God to save the world, and also il
harmony with all other efforts to Sc
cure that salvation. S. G.
OUR AGENT IN NEBRASKA.