1. General history points to a general judgment. If there is no such judgment to come, then there is no one definite moral purpose in human society. Progress would be a melancholy word, a deceptive appearance, a stream that has no issue, a road that leads nowhere. No one who believes that there is a Personal G.o.d, Who guides the course of human affairs, can come to the conclusion that the generations of man are to go on for ever without a winding-up, which shall decide upon the doings of all who take part in human life. In the philosophy of nature, the affirmation or denial of purpose is the affirmation or denial of G.o.d. So in the philosophy of history. Society without the General Judgment would be a chaos of random facts, a thing without rational retrospect or definite end--_i.e._, without G.o.d. If man is under the government of G.o.d, human history is a drama, long-drawn, and of infinite variety, with inconceivably numerous actors. But a drama must have a last act. The last act of the drama of history is "The Day of the Judgment."
2. The other argument is derived from the individual conscience.
Conscience, as a matter of fact, has two voices. One is _imperative_; it tells us what we are to do. One is _prophetic_, and warns us of something which we are to receive. If there is to be no Day of the General Judgment, then the million prophecies of conscience will be belied, and our nature prove to be mendacious to its very roots.
There is no essential article of the Christian creed like this which can be isolated from the rest, and treated as if it stood alone. There is a _solidarity_ of each with all the rest. Any which is isolated is in danger itself, and leaves the others exposed. For they have an internal harmony and congruity. They do not form a hotchpot of credenda. They are not so many _beliefs_ but one _belief_. Thus the isolation of articles is perilous. For, when we try to grasp and to defend one of them, we have no means left of measuring it but by terms of comparison which are drawn from ourselves, which must therefore be finite, and by the inadequacy of the scale which they present, appear to render the article of faith thus detached incredible. Moreover, each article of our creed is a revelation of the Divine attributes, which meet together in unity. To divide the attributes by dividing the form in which they are revealed to us is to belie and falsify the attribute; to give a monstrous development to one by not taking into account some other which is its balance and compensation. Thus, many men deny the truth of a punishment which involves final separation from G.o.d. They glory in the legal judgment which "dismisses h.e.l.l with costs." But they do so by fixing their attention exclusively upon the one dogma which reveals one attribute of G.o.d. They isolate it from the Fall, from the Redemption by Christ, from the gravity of sin, from the truth that all whom the message of the Gospel reaches may avoid the penal consequences of sin. It is impossible to face the dogma of eternal separation from G.o.d without facing the dogma of Redemption.
For Redemption involves in its very idea the intensity of sin, which needed the sacrifice of the Son of G.o.d; and further, the fact that the offer of salvation is so free and wide that it cannot be put away without a terrible wilfulness.
In dealing with many of the articles of the creed, there are opposite extremes. Exaggeration leads to a revenge upon them which is, perhaps, more perilous than neglect. Thus, as regards eternal punishment, in one country ghastly exaggerations were prevalent. It was a.s.sumed that the vast majority of mankind "are destined to everlasting punishment"; that "the floor of h.e.l.l is crawled over by hosts of babies a span long." The inconsistency of such views with the love of G.o.d, and with the best instincts of man, was victoriously and pa.s.sionately demonstrated. Then unbelief turned upon the dogma itself, and argued, with wide acceptance, that "with the overthrow of this conception goes the whole redemption-plan, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the grand climax of the Church-scheme, the General Judgment." But the alleged article of faith was simply an exaggeration of that faith, and the objections lay altogether against the exaggeration of it.
II.
We have now to speak of the removal of that terror which accompanies the conception of the Day of the Judgment, and of the sole means of that emanc.i.p.ation which St. John recognises. For terror there is in every point of the repeated descriptions of Scripture--in the surroundings, in the summons, in the tribunal, in the trial, in one of the two sentences.
"G.o.d is love," writes St. John, "and he that abideth in love abideth in G.o.d: and G.o.d abideth in him. In this [abiding], love stands perfected _with us_,[270] and the object is nothing less than this,"
not that we may be exempted from judgment, but that "we may have boldness in the Day of the Judgment." Boldness! It is the splendid word which denotes the citizen"s right of free speech, the masculine privilege of courageous liberty.[271] It is the tender word which expresses the child"s unhesitating confidence, in "saying all out" to the parent. The ground of the boldness is conformity to Christ.
Because "as He _is_," with that vivid idealizing sense, frequent in St. John when he uses it of our Lord--"as He is," delineated in the fourth Gospel, seen by "the eye of the heart"[272] with constant reverence in the soul, with adoring wonder in heaven, perfectly true, pure, and righteous--"even so" (not, of course, with any equality in degree to that consummate ideal, but with a likeness ever growing, an aspiration ever advancing[273])--"so are we in this world," purifying ourselves as He is pure.
Let us draw to a definite point our considerations upon the Judgment, and the Apostle"s sweet encouragement for the "day of wrath, that dreadful day."
It is of the essence of the Christian faith to believe that the Son of G.o.d, in the Human Nature which He a.s.sumed, and which He has borne into heaven, shall come again, and gather all before Him, and pa.s.s sentence of condemnation or of peace according to their works. To hold this is necessary to prevent terrible doubts of the very existence of G.o.d; to guard us against sin, in view of that solemn account; to comfort us under affliction.
What a thought for us, if we would but meditate upon it! Often we complain of a commonplace life, of mean and petty employment. How can it be so, when at the end we, and those with whom we live, must look upon that great, overwhelming sight! Not an eye that shall not see Him, not a knee that shall not bow, not an ear that shall not hear the sentence. The heart might sink and the imagination quail under the burden of the supernatural existence which we cannot escape. One of two looks we must turn upon the Crucified--one willing as that which we cast on some glorious picture, or on the enchantment of the sky; the other unwilling and abject. We should weep first with Zechariah"s mourners, with tears at once bitter because they are for sin, and sweet because they are for Christ.
But, above all things, let us hear how St. John sings us the sweet low hymn that breathes consolation through the terrible fall of the triple hammer-stroke of the rhyme in the _Dies irae_. We must seek to lead upon earth a life laid on the lines of Christ"s. Then, when the Day of the Judgment comes; when the cross of fire (so, at least, the early Christians thought) shall stand in the black vault; when the sacred wounds of Him who was pierced shall stream over with a light beyond dawn or sunset; we shall find that the discipline of life is complete, that G.o.d"s love after all its long working with us stands perfected, so that we shall be able, as citizens of the kingdom, as children of the Father, to say out all. A Christlike character in an un-Christlike world--this is the cure of the disease of terror. Any other is but the medicine of a quack. "There is no fear in love; but the perfect love casteth out fear, because fear brings punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love."[274]
We may well close with that pregnant commentary on this verse which tells us of the four possible conditions of a human soul--"without either fear or love; with fear, without love; with fear and love; with love, without fear."[275]
NOTES.
Ch. iv. 7, v. 3.
Ver. 3. This verse should divide about the middle.
FOOTNOTES:
[256] Apoc. xx. 12, 13.
[257] 1 John ii. 28.
[258] a?s?????e? ap" a?t??, see Jerem. xii. 13 (for ??? ?????). Prof.
Westcott happily quotes, "as a guilty thing surprised."
[259] _Coming_, e? t? pa???s?a a?t??. The word is not found elsewhere in the Johannic group of writings. But by his use of it here, St. John falls into line with the whole array of apostolic witnesses--with St.
Matthew (xxiv. 3-27, 37, 39); with St. Paul (_pa.s.sim_); with St. James (v. 7, 8); with St. Peter (2 Peter i. 16, iii. 4-12). This fact may well warn critics of the precarious character of theories founded upon "the negative phenomena of the books of the New Testament." (See Professor Westcott"s excellent note, _The Epistles of St. John_, 80.)
[260] (e? t? ?e?a t?? ???se??)--"in the Day of the Judgment"--cf.
Apoc. xiv. 7. We have "in THE Judgment" (Matt. xii. 41, 42; Luke x.
14, xi. 31, 32)--the indefinite "day of judgment" (Matt. x. 15, xi.
22, 24; Mark vi. 11).
[261] 2 Pet. ii. 9, iii. 7--but "_The_ Day of _The_ Judgment," here only.
[262] Cf. our Lord"s words--"_henceforth_ (ap" a?t?) ye shall see the Son of Man _coming_." (Matt. xxvi. 64.)
[263] John v. 21, 29.
[264] Ver. 21.
[265] Ver. 26.
[266] Ver. 24.
[267] Ver. 28, 29.
[268] The writer ventures to lament the subst.i.tution of "judgment" for "condemnation," ver. 24. R.V. It is a verbal consistency, or minute accuracy, purchased at the heavy price of a false thought, suggested to many readers who are not scholars. "In John"s language ???s?? is, (_a_) that _judgment_ which came in pain and misery to those who rejected the salvation offered to mankind by Christ, iii. 19, ?.t.?., e??es?a? e?? ???s??, to _fall into the state of one thus condemned_, v. 24. (_b_) Judgment of condemnation to the wicked, with ensuing rejection, v. 29." Grimm. Lex. N.T. 247. Between this pa.s.sage of the fourth Gospel and Apoc. xx., there is a marvellous inner harmony of thought. "The first resurrection" (ver. 6) = John v. 21, 26; then vv.
11, 12, 13 = John v. 28, 29.
[269] Heb. ix. 27; 2 Cor. v. 10, cf. Rom. xiv. 10; Apoc. xx. 11, 12, 13.
[270] e?" ???--G.o.d"s love in itself is perfected. It might be made as perfect as man"s nature will admit by an instantaneous act; but G.o.d works jointly, in companionship with us. The grace of G.o.d "preventing us that we may will, _works with us_ when we will." The essential idea of eta is _companionship_ or _connexion_. (See Donaldson, _Gr. Gr., 50, 52 a._)
[271] e?e??e??a? ? p???? est? ?a? pa???s?a? ????eta?. (Plat., _Rep._, 557 B). The word is derived from pa? and ??s??.
[272] Ephes. i. 18.
[273] Cf. Matt. v. 48.
[274] Ver. 18.
[275] Bengel. The writer must acknowledge his obligation to Professor Westcott, whose exposition gives us a peculiar conception of the depth of St. John"s teaching here. (_The Epistles of St. John_, 149-153).
SECTION IX.
GREEK. LATIN.
?a? a? e?t??a? a?t?? Et mandata eius gravia a?e?a? ??? e?s??? ?t? non sunt. Quoniam pa? t? ?e?e???e??? e? omne quod natum est t?? Te?? ???a t?? ex Deo vincit mundum: ??s??? ?a? a?t? est?? et haec est victoria ? ???? ? ????sasa t?? quae vincit mundum, ??s??, ? p?st?? ???. fides nostra. Quis est t?? est?? ? ????? t?? qui vincit mundum nisi ??s??, e? ? ? p?ste??? qui credit quoniam ?t? ??s??? est?? ? ???? Iesus est Filius Dei?
t?? Te??; ??t?? est?? Hic est qui venit per ? e???? d? ?dat?? ?a? aquam et sanguinem, a?at??, ??s??? ? ???st??? Iesus Christus: non in ??? e? t? ?dat? aqua solum, sed in ????, a??" e? t? ?dat? aqua et sanguine. Et ?a? e? t? a?at?? ?a? t? Spiritus est qui testificatur p?e?a est? t? a?t?????, quoniam Christus ?t? t? p?e?a est veritas. Quia est?? ? a???e?a. ?t? tres sunt qui testimonium t?e?? e?s?? ?? a?t?????te?, dant, Spiritus t? p?e?a, ?a? et aqua et sanguis, et t? ?d??, ?a? t? a?a? tres unum sunt. Si ?a? ?? t?e?? e?? t? ?? testimonium hominum e?s??. ?? t?? a?t???a? accipimus, testimonium t?? a????p?? ?aa??e?, Dei maius est: quoniam ? a?t???a t?? hoc est testimonium Te?? e???? est??? ?t? Dei quod a?t? est?? ? a?t???a maius est, quia testificatus t?? Te??, ?t? ea?t????e? est de Filio suo.
pe?? t?? ???? Qui credit in Filio Dei, a?t??. ? p?ste??? e?? habet testimonium Dei t?? ???? t?? Te??, e?e? in se: qui non credit t?? a?t???a? e? a?t?. mendacem facit eum: ? ? p?ste??? t? quoniam non credidit Te?, ?e?st?? pep????e? in testimonio quod a?t??, ?t? ?? pep?ste??e? testificatus est Deus e?? t?? a?t???a?, ?? de Filio suo. Et hoc ea?t????e? ? Te?? est testimonium, quoniam pe?? t?? ???? a?t??. vitam eternam ?a? a?t? est?? ? a?t???a dedit n.o.bis Deus, et ?t? ???? a?????? haec vita in Filio eius.
ed??e? ??? ? Te??? ?a? Qui habet Filium habet a?t? ? ??? e? t? ??? vitam: qui non habet a?t?? est??. ? e??? filium vitam non habet.
t?? ????, e?e? t?? ????? Haec scripsi vobis ut ? ? e??? t?? ???? t?? sciatis quoniam vitam Te??, t?? ???? ??? e?e?. habetis aeternam, qui ?a?ta e??a?a ??? ??a creditis in nomine e?d?te ?t? ???? e?ete Filii Dei. Et haec est a??????, ?? p?ste???te? fiducia quam habemus e?? t? ???a t?? ???? ad eum quia quodc.u.mque t?? Te??. ?a? a?t? petierimus secundum est?? ? pa???s?a ?? voluntatem e??e? p??? a?t??, ?t? eius audit nos. Et ea? t? a?t?e?a ?ata scimus quoniam audit t? ?e??a a?t??, a???e? nos quicquid petierimus, ???? ?a? ea? ??dae? scimus quoniam ?t? a???e? ??? ? a? habemus pet.i.tiones a?t?e?a, ??dae? ?t? quas postulamus ab eo.
e??e? ta a?t?ata a Qui scit fratrem suum ?t??ae? pa?" a?t??. peccare peccatum non ?a? t?? ?d? t?? ade?f?? ad mortem, pet.i.t, et a?t?? aa?ta???ta dabit ei vitam, peccantibus aa?t?a? ? p??? ?a?at??, non ad mortem.