图书图片
PDF
ePub

Conclusion.

This is nearly all that Xenophon has delivered to us of the doctrine of Socrates respecting God and his worship. Of this doctrine different men have formed widely different judgments. Some have dared to equal and even to prefer Socrates to the holy founder of our religion and his apostles; at whose vain attempts we may well wonder. For though he has taught many things excellent, noble, and true; yet not only are the same things found again and again in the sacred writings, but placed in clearer light, and accompanied by many other truths, more closely connected with the true happiness of man, of which no traces are to be found in Socrates. Others, on the contrary, have endeavored to depreciate the well deserved fame of Socrates; partly through ignorance; partly excited by the rash boldness of those who have dared, through undue admiration of Socrates, to undervalue divinely revealed truth; partly without regard to the different circumstances of different ages, judging Socrates as a christian philosopher, and demanding more than is reasonable of him. Hence they are accustomed harshly to censure many things in him, which are not sustained by sufficient evidence of their truth, or which ought not to be severely blamed, when the age and manners among which he lived are considered, though in our times and with our better light and christian knowledge, they would merit strong terms of reprehension. But plainly, Socrates is not to be regarded as a man entirely free from the ordinary failings of humanity; nor as a teacher who can be expected to purify the discipline of morals and the doctrine of divine things from every stain and error, and lead men to that height of knowledge and moral safety, to which God himself has opened to us the way in Christ; but as one, who, under the guidance of sound reason, desired to attain, as far as the weakness of human nature, the state of his age, and the envy of his fellow citizens would allow, to the understanding of the true God and of virtue, and thus to a life of happiness, and who wished to bring others to the same end, by mild

And the supposition

biades of Plato, which may well be compared. is not without plausibility which has before been maintained by some (Athenaeus Lib. XI. p. 506. c.) that the dialogue, which is entitled Alcibiades Minor, was written not by Plato, but by Xenophon.

counsels and persuasions.* That the efforts of this most excellent man were not without effect, we may easily learn from the consideration of his life and teachings; and, after the most exact scrutiny and judgment, we cannot but call him the prince of the philosophers of antiquity, and assign him a place in that rank of good men, whose memory is ever precious.

ARTICLE IV.

THE WEAPONS OF UNIVERSALISM REVERSED.

By Rev. Edwin Holt, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

UNIVERSALISM, in its mutations, has reached a form that conflicts with not a few of the most obvious principles of inspired truth. Its march of improvement illustrates the tendency of a favorite hypothesis to blind the eye to contradictions of the most glaring character, in a doating pursuit of one engrossing end. It professes to teach a system of duty, and yet saps the foundation of all responsibility by making human conduct the result of unavoidable circumstances. It professes to prepare men for the heavenly world, and yet acknowledges no connection between the doings of this life and the retributions of eternity. It professes to give the most exalted conceptions of the Deity, and yet on some essential points it degrades, more than any

It was ever the highest care of Socrates, to inform his friends with the true idea of God and of his relation to men, that not in the light only and in the presence of men, but in solitude, often the mother and the nurse of the worst counsels and vices, they might be restrained from all malice, meanness, injustice, and impiety. Mem. I. 4. 19. IV. 3. 2. The doctrine of Socrates would have made much greater progress, had it not been resisted partly by the common superstition which could not be attacked without danger, and which threatened him with a prison and with death, and partly by the influence of the Sophists, who sustained by their authority the sentiments of the multitude. (Cf. IV.) For who does not prefer to be learned, to being a learner? (Cf. Plato, de Repub. Lib. VI. Tom. VII. p. 87. seq.) To Socrates may well be applied the words of the same writer in the Timaeus, τὸν μὲν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν.

other system, the divine character. It uses with great freedom its own form of reasoning to demolish the system of evangelical faith, but seems not to be aware that its own weapons may be turned with success against its own citadel. We are not sure that the friends of truth have observed how easily and how completely the heavy ordnance of universalism may be turned against itself.

It is proposed to show, in reference to the leading features of the divine character, that the arguments with which universalism attacks our sentiments, may be retorted upon itself with decided success. If these arguments work for the system, they work equally well against it.

I. Universalism brings against God the odious charge of partiality.

It denies the doctrine of a future judgment. It teaches that our future state is not affected by the doings of this life. It asserts that all men are punished according to their deserts in this world. It restricts the punishment of sin to the various misfortunes of life, the reproaches of conscience, and the pangs of death. The system that pronounces these evils to be the only penal results of sin, cannot vindicate itself from the charge of glaring partiality. The following specifications of this charge may be enumerated.

1. According to this system, the punishment of death, which is the worst form of punishment, is inflicted upon all, how various soever may be their grades of guilt.

Justice would dictate that, if death were the highest penalty of the divine law, it should not be inflicted on all with indiscriminate severity. No criminal code of human origin awards capital punishment to every offender- from the traitor that would enslave his country, down to the smuggler that evades the payment of a trivial duty; from the blood-stained pirate, down to the dissipated youth who disturbs the peace by a midnight revel. Such levelling severity would be deemed the grossest injustice. With such severity, however, do universalists brand the government of the blessed God. The infant that

has never lisped a syllable sinks under the agonies of death. The child, whose sins have not risen to the size and enormity of the sins of manhood, is punished also with death. Those who have advanced to the meridian of life, disclosing to the eye of God additional guilt at every step-are punished with but the same severity. And the aged offender, who has grown

gray in sin, whom neither mercies nor misfortunes can reclaim, who devotes the venerable influence of advanced life to the corruption of the young, suffers nothing worse than death. Is there then no difference between the faint dawn of sinfulness, and the vivid brightness of mature iniquity? between the tender blossom and the mellow fruit of sin? between the hesitating air, the uneffaced blush of childish guilt, and the insolent port and vaunting air of experienced wickedness?

It is true that in some instances the agonies of death are comparatively light. Sometimes, indeed, they are but momentary. But this mitigation of punishment, granted, as it often is, with no regard to justice, is only a confirmation of the charge of partiality. The meek and patient Christian, whose life has been a public blessing, often experiences a more direful and prolonged conflict with the king of terrors, than the most worthless votary of vice. Even the child who has scarcely begun to walk in the path of sin, is convulsed on a death bed with throes which lacerate the parents' heart, while the vilest miscreant, by public execution or by suicide, is hurried into eternity almost without a struggle. Would not this be partiality of the most glaring description, if universalism were true? Is the heaviest penalty recognised by this system thus enforced with no just regard to age or character? What could be more glaring injustice?

2. According to the system of universalism a similar specification of the charge of partiality against the Most High is to be seen in the infliction of the punishment of remorse. The stings of conscience are pronounced by the friends of universalism an important part of the retribution to which men are condemned in this world. The compunctions of remorse are inflicted on men with no just reference to character.

Behold the gay libertine, who scruples not to destroy the peace of virtuous families, who glories in deeds that plunge the victims of his ensnaring arts into the lowest depths of degradation, who moves in society like a pestilential sirocco, spreading around him a polluting influence, leaving the imprint of vice and infamy wherever he treads. Observe the gay indifference with which he proceeds in his pathway of crime. Does he feel the agonies of remorse? Question him upon the subject and he will smile in scorn at your simplicity. His moral sensibilities have been long benumbed. Remorse is a stranger to his bosom. He has reached such a proficiency in wickednes,

that he can proceed from crime to crime with unruffled composure. Nay, he plumes himself upon the skill with which he makes havoc of the morals and the happiness of his deluded victims.

Turn next to an humble Christian whose life is stained by no immorality. For a season he is overwhelmed with sorrow. What has led to the distress you witness? What cause has covered his face with sadness? What secret agony preys upon his soul? The cause of his grief is one which he would rather conceal within the sanctuary of his bosom than drag out to public observation. He has detected within himself a diminished interest in the word of God, the fervor of his prayers may have given place to cold formality. The business or the fascinations of the world may have engrossed his attention unduly, or he has felt the workings of an unsubdued spirit of resentment. The cause which seems to his watchful piety so loudly to demand tears of contrition has not been discovered by his bosom friends. And while to the observer's view his life presents the charm of christian consistency, he weeps and mourns before God over the secret offences of his inward life. Nor does he wear the aspect of peace and gladness till the assurance of pardon and favor from his God has relieved his heavy heart. In one hour does he experience more distress than the conscience of the hardened libertine would inflict in an entire year. Is then the humble Christian, who mortifies every sinful desire, more guilty than the bold transgressor who gives a loose rein to his worst passions? If not, why does he endure the compunctions of remorse in such a disproportionate degree? If men are punished only in this life, and if, as is alleged, remorse is a fearful part of the sinner's punishment, why are the compunctions of the vicious so trivial as to be no availing obstruction of their pleasures or their crimes, while the conscientious Christian quivers with apprehension, upon the neglect of the slightest duty? Here is a strange disregard of justice which universalism does not explain.

3. The partiality of the Ruler of the world is evinced also, according to universalism, in the happy removal of the wicked. from earth to heaven, while righteous survivors are still subjected to many sorrows.

The more profligate a man becomes, the more does he shorten his life. According to an inspired proverb, the wicked do not live out half their days. They die and are borne to heaven, if universalism may be credited. Having finished their course VOL. XII. No. 31.

10

« 上一页继续 »