The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-02-13


sion resisted. 1t were as impossible
to get anything but endless torture
for the majority of mankind from his
views of the nature of God and man
as it were to add two and two to-
gether and get any number but four.
On the other hand it would be as
impossible to draw the conclusion of
endless torture for any human being
from the early Christian views of God
and man as it would be to put Divine
goodness and human goodness to-
gether and get an unmixed evil as
product.
Now here is the early system, the
old theology which, as DIR. Thomas
said, the early Christians held:
GoD: The Universal Father.
MAN: The divine child.
CHRIST: Gods revelation: mans
example.
SALVATION: Likeness to Christ:
communion with God.
DESTINY: Gods love acting on the
hearts of his children until each be-
comes reconciled to the holy will of
the Father; the Father heart never
giving over one child to ruin, but
seeking them till each is found, as
illustrated by the parallels of the
New Testament.
This conclusion as to destiny is the
only result you can get if you use as
one of theequationsin in your problems
the Fatherhood of God. But the
later Christians did not head their
system with that fundamental idea.
Their system was this:
GoD: King, potentate.
MAN: Subject, depraved.
CHRIST: Sacrifice, substitute.
SALvATIoN: Release from deserved
torture.
RESULT: A few accept the offered
sacrifice and escape; the many refuse
the offer through the perversity and
hardness of naturally depraved
heart, and reap endless woe.
These were the two systems as out
lined to us so clearly by DR.. Thomas,
but he did not tell us how it came
about that the change was made from
the one to the other. The transition
was 30 simple that it needs but to be
mentioned to appear clear. With the
Romans the Emperor was the head
of all earthly power and authority,
center and source of all law and order.
They simply projected their earthly
sovereign into the skies, gave him
dominion over all the universe, and
said THAT is God, King, Potentatep
center of law, source of power, jealous
of his rights and glory. They saw no
spirit of fatherhooi in their earthly
king; they imagined nothing of the
kind in their supreme king. So they
got from their political environment
the first article in their creed.
The second article came as natu-
rally. The Roman authorities rep
resenting the state, looked down
upon the common people as SO many
atoms 80 many subjects to be en-
shaved, taxed, slain or used in any
way to satisfy the whim or enhance
the pleasure or glory of their rulers.
They were dogs, worthless dogs as
individuals, valuable only as sup
porting the state. Now this concep-
tion transferred to the theological
system by Augustine read out total
depravity as plain as day. And the
common people looking up from be-
low, feeling the tyranny of their SUI
periors, readily accepted this view.
Thus they got the second point in
the system, and with these two main
positions established it required only
simple, logical process to get all the
rest.
The third article in the system re-
ferred to Christ, as the atonement
The doctor told us there were two
views on this, one the wrath theory,
the other the justice theory. The
first came about by considering God.
He was king, potentate, exalted far
above man; but man, insignificant
worm, had presumed to disobey. him.
His dignity was offended. he was
wrathful. To placate that wrath de-
manded the greatest penalty for man
it were possible to infict- endless
torture. To release man the holy Son
offered to suffer in his stead and by
shedding his blood-divine blood as
it were-the anger of the great king
was satisfied toward all who would
accept the escape thus provided.
The second, or justice theory, came
about by contemplating the majesty
of the divine law rather than the
source of the law. Man, worthless
creature, had violated the law,-infi-
T.