Page images
PDF
EPUB

In his last work, "Salvator Mundi," the Rev. S. Cox appears as counsel for Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon, and that in due legal form, for he tells us, in the preface, that he is instructed by Messrs. Dobney, Jukes, and Dewes. His first chapter is entitled "The Question Raised." That question we propose to raise again. Taking for a text Matt. xi. 20—24, Mr. Cox opens his case thus, "If the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.' Then why were those mighty works not done ?" An unavoidable question this. We can no more help asking it than Moses could refrain from going to see the "burning bush." But shoes must be taken off here, as there. On the above verse Mr. Cox grounds the further question, "Can we blame them; will God condemn them, and condemn them to an eternal death or an eternal misery, because they did not see what they could not see, because they did not repent, when the very means which would infallibly have induced repentance were not vouchsafed them?"

Here we say stop. This is not going into the matter without shoes, but with "seven-leagued boots." What an awful stride from the words of Christ to a question like that! Mr. Cox has no right to base such a question on Christ's statement. The Lord Jesus neither says nor implies that they were condemned "because they did not see what they could not see.' To suppose that they were, is to "charge God foolishly." Sodom perished because "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly"-Genesis xiii. 13. They sinned against the light they had; and for that they were condemned, and for that only. Matthew Henry does but state the orthodox conviction when he says, "Sodom will have many things to answer for, but not the sin of rejecting Christ, as Capernaum will.”

Still the question presses, "why were they not done?" Mr. Cox replies that "One answer to this grave question is a very obvious one, and is obviously true so far as it goes. For it is manifest that if God were to come and dwell with men, He could only come once in the history of the world. He could not be for ever coming." With that answer we have no quarrel, although it is manifestly incomplete. Still the mystery remains as to why the Divine Wisdom gave to Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, opportunities which would have been better used if given to Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon; and that the Divine mercy allowed nine cities to perish, whereas, if Christ had come at another time, two (Tyre and Sidon) or four (Sodom, Gomorrha, Admah, and Zeboim,) might have been saved. The proper answer is, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight"-Matt. xi. 26. Mr. Cox, not content with this, pours forth his lamentation, saying, "It seems hard and unjust that a man's salvation, a man's life, should hang on the age into which he is born; that the sinners of Sodom, for example, should have had a worse chance than the still greater sinners of Capernaum." Perhaps so, to some minds. The Sybarite felt it hard to have to sleep on a bed of

No recent work is likely to give such an impetus to the doctrine of "Universalism" as this volume from the pen of our friend Mr. Cox. Canon Farrar's "Eternal Hope" is a fine specimen of stirring rhetoric and beautiful feeling; but that is all. Mr. Cox's book is an elaborate and painstaking exposition of Scripture, and will convince where the Canon fails; but, that he has laid himself open to attack, Mr. Fletcher, dealing with the first chapter, and depending mainly on the Scriptures, Dean Alford, Robertson, and Mr. Cox's own words, has effectively shown.-ED.

SODOM AND "SALVATOR MUNDI.”

101 rose-leaves, one leaf of which was crumpled. And it seemed hard for the last set of swindlers condemned to hard labour, that after leading respectable lives so long, they should be so severely punished for one crime. But the world is not ruled by sentimentalism. We are sorry to apply the term "Sentimentalism" to Mr. Cox's complaint, but "it seems hard" to find any other name for it. What are the facts? The law of the round universe in the arc we can see is, that a man shall have one chance, and only one. Says Joseph Cook, "This universe, up to the edge of the tomb, is not a joke. Even if you come weighted. into the world as Sinbad was with the Old Man of the Mountain, you have but one chance. The wandering, squandering, desiccated moral leper is gifted with no second set of early years." Now if that be so in part of the circle, it may be so to "the perfect round."

Going back to argument, Mr. Cox says, "Shall we say then that, although the men of Sodom might have been saved by a gospel they never heard, they nevertheless had all that they needed for salvation had they cared to use the means of instruction and grace which they possessed? I for one cannot say that." If Mr. Cox can't, there are those who can. Dean Alford, on the very text under discussion, says, "This declaration of the Lord of all events, opens to us an important truth, that the destruction of Sodom was brought about, not by a necessity in the divine purposes-still less by a connexion of natural causes-but by the iniquity of its inhabitants, who, had they turned and repented, might have averted their doom." The learned Dean further says, "We know enough when we know that all are inexcusable, having (see Rom. i. ii.) the witness of God in their consciences." But the courage of his convictions impels Mr. Cox again to the charge. "Who," he asks, "dare say of any class of men, in any age, that nothing but their own will prevented their salvation?" John v. 40 is a sufficient answer, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." Waxing eloquent in the cause of his clients Mr. Cox goes on to say, “There are thousands and tens of thousands in this Christian land to-day who have never had a fair chance of being quickened into life.

And there are thousands and myriads more to whom the faith of Christ has been presented in forms so meagre and narrow, or in forms so fictitious and theatrical, that the only wonder is that so many of them care to worship Him at all." Whatever truth there may be in these statements (in our opinion) it is truth of a kind which, as Mr. Cox says in his preface, " may be dangerous, both to him who utters it, and even to those who listen to it." It is a kind of argument that couldn't fail to win cheers from the class of people who so commonly crowd our courts of justice. But that apart. To what does it lead Mr. Cox himself? It leads him to ask, "Which of us will dare to affirm that those ancient sinners of Sodom, born in an age so dark, reared in 'fulness of bread and abundance of idleness,' enervated by a tropical. climate and by the abominations amid which they were nurtured, had all that men needed in order that they might know the only true God, and serve Him alone?" Well, let us see. Mr. Cox says they were "reared in 'fulness of bread and abundance of idleness,' as if that were their misfortune. It was their crime. "This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand

[ocr errors]

of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me therefore I took them away as I saw good"-Ezekiel xvi. 49, 50. "Enervated by a tropical climate" were they? That also was their sin; for be it remembered that "just Lot" and "faithful Abraham" lived in just the same climate. Appropriating words which Mr. Cox would have us repudiate, we say, "doubtless God gave these poor men all that was necessary to life and virtue." F. W. Robertson is, on occasion, a great authority with Mr. Cox, his thoughts are "so precious." But Robertson is dead against him on this theme. He says (Life, p. 506) "Never yet did a nation perish from without, but by a decay from within. The moral ruin preceded the violent outward one. Sarmatia never fell 'unwept without a crime.' 'God came down to see,' &c. This is not fury. Was not this love? Could love save Sodom? Would it have been love to let such a city go on seeding earth with iniquity? No! God is just not to be bought off, coaxed off, reasoned off, prayed off. He is immutable." Was not God merciful to Sodom? Yes, so merciful that even Abraham, generous souled as he was, couldn't put on a face to ask for more. Instead of saying, “the abominations amid which they were nurtured," it would be more correct to speak of "the abominations of which they were guilty." They were not unfortunate. They were wicked. To use Mr. Cox's own words, "Sodom was a synonym for the most utter and bestial corruption.' Yes, so utter and bestial was the corruption that nothing remained but to make them "an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.'

Hastening to his conclusion Mr. Cox inquires, "What shall we say then? For myself I can only say that I see no way out of the difficulty, no single loop-hole of escape, so long as we assume what the Bible does not teach, that there is no probation beyond the grave; that no moral change is possible in that world towards which all the children of time are travelling. I, at least, am so sure that the Father of all men will do the most and best which can be done for every man's salvation as to entertain no doubt that long ere this the men of Sodom and of Tyre and Sidon have heard the words of Christ and seen His mighty works." And we are equally sure that they have not "long ago repented," and we want no argument but Mr. Cox's to prove it. Referring to Jude 7, which says, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," Mr. Cox makes this comment, "Now if we take this æonial fire to signify the punishment inflicted on unrepented sins during a certain age, or certain ages, of time, we not only get a perfectly good sense out of the words, a sense in harmony with the general teaching of the New Testament, but the very sense which this passage, taken as a whole, imperatively demands." Therefore, we say, on that showing, they have not "long ago repented," but are still suffering the "punishment inflicted on unrepented sins." Still Mr. Cox finds " good reason to hope" that the men of Sodom "have been saved, or will be saved." Which? On page 17 it is "have," in italics; on page 127 it is "if" such and such things really happened, "have been, or will be." He falters where he firmly trod. He does more. He risks his temper, and says, "What else, or less, do our Lord's own words imply: 'It shall be more tolerable for them at the day of judgment than for you.' Lives there

SODOM AND "SALVATOR MUNDI."

103

the man with soul so dead and brain so narrow* that he can take these solemn words to mean nothing more than that the men of Tyre and Sidon will not be condemned to quite so hot a fire as the men of Chorazin and Bethsaida?" That is language which Cabinet Ministers in the House of Commons would refuse to characterize. People less skilled in word-fencing would call it insolence. But "Brutus is an honourable man." His stroke was doubtless kindly meant. It doesn't hurt us; but we feel very sorry for poor Dr. Adam Clarke who was so narrow-brained as to say, "It will be more tolerable for certain sinners, who have already been damned nearly 4,000 years, than for those who live and die infidels under the gospel. There are various degrees of punishment in hell, answerable to various degrees of guilt; and the contempt manifested to, and the abuse made of, the preaching of the gospel, will rank semi-infidel Christians in the highest list of transgressors, and purchase them the hottest place in hell! Great God! save the reader from this destruction!" But we forget. Mr. Cox asks, Lives there a man" to say such a thing? Yes, many a one; but who likes to call public attention to men with "brain so narrow?”

[ocr errors]

He of the broad brain then asks, "Must they not mean at least that in the future, as in the present, there will be diversities of moral condition, and discipline, nicely adapted to those diversities?" What boots it to ask such a question? If people are to be "in the future, as in the present," some will have a "more tolerable" lot than others, and that through the whole term of their existence.

Finally Mr. Cox asks, (still keeping in mind our Lord's words) "May they not mean that those who have sinned against a little light will, after having been chastened for their sins with a 'few stripes,' receive more light, and be free to walk in it if they will?" Let Robertson answer. In his Genesis, Lect. vii., he says, "Down came the burning red rain of fire from heaven, the fearful expression of the wrath of God. This strange flood of fire did for the bodies of men what death does for the soul. The attitude in which it found every man, there it sealed him. And so with death: it is the fixing of the form of the spirit in which each man dies, so to remain for ever. There is development, but no change in all the future." Of course men will be as free there as they are here. Robert Burns said

"Auld Nicke Ben,

An' would ye tak a thought and mend,

I dinna ken ye aiblins might still hae a stake."

But what if Milton be right, and Satan, of his own free choice, should say, "Evil, be thou my good?" As for us, we feel with Joseph Cook (than whom no abler champion for the truth has appeared in these times), that "There are two questions about this greater light beyond the grave. First-Will you see it? Second-Will you like it? Unless you have authority, in the name of science, for answering both these questions in the affirmative, you have no right, in the name of science, to rely on a mere possibility, on a guess, and take your leap into the Unseen, depending on a riddle. I, for one, will not do this for myself; not and I will not teach others to do so." J. FLETCHER.

*May we suggest to the Author of "Salvator Mundi" that this passage and one in the Preface reflecting on "the culture and ability" of those who differ from him should be amended in the next edition? Nothing is more easy than to "dub" an opponent "narrow-brained:" but such words are more likely to exasperate than to convince.-ED.

Admission to the
the Church.

II. LETTERS AND QUESTIONS.

THE formidable list of questions printed under the above heading in our last issue seems to have had the usual fate of excellence, for in some quarters it has created quite a consternation, notwithstanding the quieting words with which we introduced it; whilst in other quarters the questions are declared to be totally inadequate for the gravity of the occasion.

One kind-hearted lady casts all the blame of their construction on the unfortunate Editor, and asserts that it is one of his "audacious literary jokes." We don't know what this means, and therefore cannot answer it. Another lady, who signs herself the "Live Deacon's Wife," offers an additional list of questions, to be addressed to female candidates, from which we make two or three selections.

[ocr errors]

(1.) Knowing the close connexion between health and godliness, will you make it a matter of conscience to keep up a vigorous and robust health?"

(2.) "Do you admit that tight-lacing is a sin against the body?"

(3.) "Will you conscientiously change your boots when they are damp, avoid too much tea, avoid taking colds, and seek to be like the model woman mentioned in Poverbs xxxi. 17-'She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms' ?”

(4.) "What are your views of falseness in dress, of false pads, of false hair(may we suggest to the "L. D. W." that fashions are altered?)—and false anything?"

(5.) "What are your views on exercise for the sake of health; on simplicity of diet and of dress?"

And so on; but we forbear to quote more.

"A Total Abstainer" asks-" Is it not the duty of visitors' to put leading questions on the prevailing sin of intemperance ?" etc.

"A Visitor" writes:

"I was appointed recently for the first time as one of the visitors to a candidate for admission to the church of which I have been a member some years; and feeling somewhat in the dark as to the extent of the obligations involved, and having vague and uncertain convictions as to the right or the propriety of probing into the most sacred recesses of any individual soul, the heading of the paper in the February number was hailed with satisfaction as a probable help to my yet unfulfilled duty. The perusal of that paper has left me in a pitiable state of astonishment, and somewhat ludicrous dismay.

"The opening paragraph of the address-that it is often found difficult, sometimes impossible, to obtain the needful evidence from the candidate that he or she has the root of the matter-begs the whole question. What evidence ought we to require save the evidence of a godly life, and the expressed desire to join the church of Christ? It seems the apostles required only the latter, for we read, 'Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the SAME DAY there were added unto them about three thousand souls.' The examination papers suggested by your correspondent would hardly have been filled in and certified to this day if Peter and the eleven had been as curiously morbid in their theological pathology.

[ocr errors]

There is a refreshing simplicity in the remark that 'these questions may fall into the hand of some who may find themselves totally unable to answer them even to their own satisfaction;' and the advice which follows-' we invite them to open their mind to us.' It reminds one of the judge who is reported to have nonplussed the barrister not long ago. The witness had appeared dubious about the obligation of an oath; and the counsel asked him-Do you know where you will go to if you tell a lie ?' 'Brother do you?' gently suggested the Bench.

"

"Let me ask the writer of the questions-Which is most to be marvelled at? The indecency-I had almost written the blasphemy-or the childish frivolity which interjects such a query as this, What is God?'-as the

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »