AN ARGUMENT IN TWO PARTS BY H. H. DOBNEY, BAPTIST MINISTER
THIRD AMERICAN,
FOM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.
NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY AN ASSOCIATION OF GENTLEMEN.
1830
Google Books
Dedication The Publishers of this work would
respectfully dedicate it to Christians of all denominations believing it will
stand the ordeal of the most rigid criticism, and the surer test of the day of
judgment. If the doctrines herein stated are true, it follows that the inherent
immortality of man is a stupendous fiction, unsupported by the analogy of
nature, or a particle of evidence from the scriptures of truth. If these things
be so, it is time for the world to know it and let him who teacloth understand
that it is written, That “whosoever shall add unto the wards of the revelation
of the blessed Lord shall be added unto him the plagues that are written therein
and whosoever shall take away, God shall take away his part out of the book of
life, and the Holy City.” Amen.
In offering to the public another volume on the subject of Future Punishment it will be necessary to
prefix only a few explanatory observations, since much of what might have been
presented in a preface has been introduced into the body of the work, as
occasion was judged to require. In the summer of 1844, the “Notes of Lectures”
were published at the request of the writer’s congregation, to whom they had
been delivered in the early part of that year. Of the reception which that
little work experienced it needs not to speak.
I had counted the cost, and
have never regretted the effort. If it has elicited in some quarters that earthly
passion which blinds the eye, and beclouds the judgments and dethrones love,
and prompts the unhappy victim to snatch up unhallowed weapons, it has also
elicited from others the display of Christian graces, which have greatly
endeared to me some most honoured members of the
household of “faith, to whom I could wish propriety would allow me publicly to
flay that tribute of respect and affection which it would gratify me to offer.
I may however present my praises to the God of
all grace, that the work was owned and blessed by him to the conversion of some
sinners, and to the edification of not a few amiable Christians, whose fervent
acknowledgments have more than counterbalanced the blame of others. Some of my
reviewers complained of the comparative “meagreness”
of the former “Notes,” and expressed the wish that the Lectures had been given
at greater length. I have endeavoured to please them
in this matter. In the present volume not more than sixty pages of the former
edition are retained, constituting chiefly the First Part.
Must I make a distinct reference to the
reviewers of the former little work. The following pages will show that I have
not been unmindful of their animadversions. But the reader, I am sure, will
pardon my declining to notice some critiques that appeared in professedly
religious magazines; the writers of which by their forgetfulness of the law of
truth, and willingness to resort to misrepresentation and slander, have put
themselves out of the pale of honourable controversy,
and preceded any notice of their efforts. The endeavour
to silence inquiry by unworthy insinuations of Socinianism,—Neology,—Infidelity,
I leave them even to repeat, if such conscious untruthfulness be still
congenial with their habits, and compatible with their views of Evangelical
religion.
The Scripture Doctrine Of
Future Punishment In honourable contrast with these
gentlemen is the writer of the article in the Eclectic Review; (as indeed might
have been expected from the high character which that journal has so long
deservedly sustained, and which in the hands of its present editor it can never
lose). To his arguments, forcible in themselves, and so lucidly presented, I
have given as was due the most serious attention. And while I have expressed
myself frankly on the arguments themselves, I gladly take the opportunity of
offering him my respectful acknowledgments for the Christian courtesy which
characterizes his strictures.
If in my rejoinder there be a single
expression which is ever so slightly offensive, I request his forgiveness, and
assure him that offence was the farthest from my intentions. If any of my
readers are disposed to blame the tone in which I have maintained my own views,
and animadverted on those which appear to me erroneous, though popular, let
them consider that it does not become the advocates of supposed truth to
suppress or disguise their honest convictions. I trust there will be found no
imputations on persons; and opinions are fairly open
to the freest animadversions. I have still a painful sense of the “ meagreness” and imperfection of
the work. Many, of the arguments I should have been glad to present at greater
length; while not a few, which might have been adduced with advantage, are
omitted altogether, in order that the volume might be kept of a reasonable
size.
There is, however, the less ground of regret
since Providence has raised up an ally whose work, I am given to understand,
will issue from the press about the same time as the present volume. I allude
to the Reverend E. White of Hereford, who is presenting to the public a work
entitled “Life in Christ: or, Immortality the peculiar
privilege of the Regenerate.” I am thankfully anticipating its appearance, in
the confidence of deriving much pleasure and profit from the perusal, and in
the assured expectation that it will aid” what I must deem the cause of truth.
If I may judge from what I have already seen
of that gentleman’s productions, his book will, I am sure, be characterised by great vigour of
thought, closeness of reasoning, beauty of style, and deep and fervent piety,
while its aim and tendency will be to honour the
Prince of Life, whom having not seen we love. To that
adorable Saviour, the Head over all things to his
Church, I now commend the present effort, beseeching a merciful forgiveness for
its faults, a happy counteraction of its unconscious errors, and his abundant
blessing on its truths.
Should I again intrude on the notice of the
public, I hope it will be with some work which will happily remove me from the
uncongenial arena of controversy, and which will be devoted to the promotion of
that personal piety, the theologia pectoris, which
Luther once designated the German theology, but for which our own country has
been more distinguished than, (unhappily) of late years, the father-land of the
reformation.
H. H. Dobney.
Maidstone, April 14,
1848.
“It is one thing to wish to have Truth on our
aide, and another thing to wish sincerely to be on the aide of Truth. There is
no genuine love of troth implied in the former. Truth is a powerful auxiliary,
such as every one wishes to have on his side; everyone
is rejoiced to find, and therefore seldom falls to find, that the principles he
is disposed to adopt, the notions he is inclined to defend, may be maintained
as true. A determination to “obey the Truth,” and to follow wherever she may
lead, is not so common. In this consists the genuine
love of truth; and ‘this can be realised in practice,
only by postponing all other questions to that which ought ever to come
foremost, ‘What is the Truth?” Arch Bishop Whately.
Solemnity of the Subject
Reasons for discussing it Cautionary suggestions Course to be pursued.
IN undertaking to discuss the Doctrine of
Future Punishment, we are manifestly entering on a most solemn and awful
subject: one indeed that is overpoweringly so. Neither are we unconcerned,
uninterested observers. We all belong to the system of which punishment, when
necessary, forms a part; and it is quite possible for ourselves individually to
experience what is meant by it; possible for those whom we have known and loved
to be the unhappy objects on whom the punishment threatened in scripture may
necessarily alight.
And even if we were infallibly secure, and if
none whose hands we have pressed in friendship or whom we have gazed on with
the eye of affection were at all in danger, yet could we not selfishly
dissociate ourselves from our fellows, nor turn away - in cold unconcern
because we and ours were by some means happily exempt. There is much suffering
in the present state; but wherever we see it here it is considerably mitigated;
we nowhere see pure unmixed suffering, without anything to alleviate. There are
indeed scenes of wretchedness over which humanity sheds many a bitter tear; but
still something may be found as a relief to the gloom, some rainbow that
derives its beauty even from the storm itself. But the scriptures speak in
terms of terrible significance of a state after death, awful beyond all
comparison with the present state of suffering on account of sin, in which
there will be no alleviation.
SOLEMNITY OF SUBJECT
In order to impress this upon our minds, and by ‘the terrors of
the Lord’ persuade us to seek refuge where alone it is to be found, they set
forth the awfulness of this state in a great variety of ways. The most terribly
expressive terms that language can supply, the most painfully striking imagery
that nature can present, are anxiously appropriated in order
to affect us with suitable and salutary dread. Thus
we fled them speaking of ‘the wrath of God abiding upon the sinner,’
‘everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord,’ ‘flames that never can
be quenched,’ and a worm that ‘never dies’—’weeping, wailing, and gnashing of
teeth,’ ‘outer darkness,’ and the second death.’ Now without entering
into the meaning of these terrible expressions at present, how obvious
is it that to all who have not fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set
before them in the gospel, the next stage of existence, the state after death,
will be dismal beyond conception. It becomes us, then, to enter on such a topic
in a most serious and reverent frame of mind.
Far be it from as to address ourselves to such
a theme as a mere speculation, or as a mere intellectual exercise,—
a matter to call forth our powers of debate. The scriptures, which we know from
various and abundant evidence to be the word of God, assert that the doom
referred to will assuredly overtake the impenitent: multitudes therefore who
are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, many even whom we have known, and
some perhaps whom we have loved, will be involved in this awful woe How then
can we approach such a subject except with feelings of deepest solemnity.
The questions that are before us will demand
our closest attention; and we should bring to the examination minds, if
possible, calm and free from prejudice. We shall have
to enquire into the Nature of the punishment spoken of in scripture; and hop we
are to understand those terrible expressions which abound in the sacred volume,
whether literally or metaphorically.
REAS0NS FOR DISCUSSING IT.
We shall ask what may be the
Design of it; whether it is intended as punishment, strictly speaking,
inflicted because deserved, and as a standing memorial of God’s determination
to maintain law and order throughout the universe; or whether it is designed to
be disciplinary, partaking of the character of chastening at the hand of a
Father, rather than of punishment awarded by a Judge. We shall also want to
know how we are to understand those terms of Duration which are employed; and
whether they fairly and necessarily denote an absolute eternity of woe. Nor can
we fail to be solicitous to see how this fact of punishment (for fact it is
stubborn, incontrovertible fact, so that nothing is gained by shutting our eyes
to it) bears on the character of God, whom we are called on to love and in
whose hands we find ourselves.
Thus we may well feel
that as the theme is no trivial one, it demands on our part the most, chastened
temper of mind that by self discipline and prayer we
can attain.
We shall need to advance under the guidance of
sound principles, looking well to each step we take, bidding imagination stand
aside, while speculation must be resolutely and sternly frowned away from our
path. May the spirit of truth dwell in us, and may God bless to our edification
and increased usefulness, and thus to his own glory, the meditations into which
we shall be led. § Many reasons have induced me to enter on the present
discussion, some of which may be mentioned. One has been a wish to correct, if
possible, some of the misapprehensions which exist upon this subject. On no
topic has there been more florid declamation, nor has any been more thoroughly
misrepresented by various dames.
There has often been unintentional
exaggeration on the part of the pious and well meaning. I think they have not
unfrequently, though with the best intentions, treated it in an injudicious and
un-scriptural manner: for piety is no guarantee for a sound judgment, or for
accurate ideas; neither do good intentions necessarily preserve from error.
Future punishment has sometimes been so disproportionately presented, by
Christians anxious to warn the sinner, that the world of woe has been made more
prominent than the heaven which men are invited to secure; and the groans of
the wilfully miserable have been made to drown the
songs of the everlastingly blessed.
This surely is to be regretted; for though God
does not shrink from inflicting necessary punishment, yet punishment is only
the inevitable alternative for those who will not accept his gracious plans of happiness;
just as starvation is the inevitable consequence of persisting in a refusal to
eat. And, again, an undisciplined, imagination has not unfrequently been urged
to put forth all its power to call up the wildest images of terror.
Figurative expressions employed by the sacred
writers have been taken in a literal sense, and then illustrated and
exaggerated till the heart has sickened at the view, and feelings the reverse
of beneficial have been necessarily excited. Some speakers and writers have seemed
to take a most strange and unnatural pleasure in expatiating with rapid fluency
on such coarsely coloured themes, and inventing I
know not what of horror; as though it were not enough for them to make the
Governor of the world a Lawgiver and a Judge, calmly just in the sentence he
pronounces; or as though they would remind us rather of the dungeons of the
Inquisition, than of the court where unimpassioned Justice sits, whose brow is
never clouded by anger, and whose heart is never agitated by feelings of
personal resentment.
The wonder has been that men, after expending
their undisciplined energy in this way for a time, could so readily recover
their own calm and even cheerfulness of mind, and appear so soon to be so
thoroughly unaffected by their own declamation.
Is the explanation this, one is ready to ask,
that they do not really believe what they have deemed it incumbent to affirm I
Again, the punishment of the wicked has too frequently been exhibited by
itself, as though it stood alone; and God has thus been (unintentionally it may
be) represented in a most untrue light, as though he were an austere master, or
an arbitrary monarch. Or, punishment has been spoken
of as necessary to his glory; and so the sufferings of men have been
represented as unhesitatingly inflicted because the glory of God demanded it!
From all which and similar misrepresentations,
put forth by the ill-informed and unreflecting, what but harm can accrue! For
the religion, of which these statements have assumed to form a part, has
thereby increased the dislike of the very persons whom it was desired to
reclaim; while many have been only too willing to accept these exaggerations as
a fair exposition of the statements of the bible, in order that they might the
more easily feel at liberty to reject revelation altogether; under the plea
that the true God, whose character is manifested in his works, and who must be
kind and indulgent, is very different from the one set forth in the bible, and
that therefore the bible is not deserving of their belief, Very unwise, very
illogical, it is true still these are some of the effects, and not unnatural
ones, of exaggeration on the part of Christians, which always overshoots the
mark at which it aims, and which on our present subject, instead of promoting religion,
has promoted infidelity, or a Christianity so pared and cut down, so altered
and abridged, as to be little more than natural religion, and not very distant
from infidelity itself. Would we do good, we must keep the straight line of
truth, nor allow ourselves to be drawn from it to one side or the other.
Another reason has respect to those who have not hitherto yielded up their
minds to the truth of scripture.
Is it not a fact, painful to contemplate, that
though the mighty God, even the Lord hath spoken, and called the earth, from
the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, spoken in tones of the most
solemn warning, as well as tones of tender love, (his threatening even being
but the hoarser voice of his love, saying Do thyself no harm,)
yet multitudes, who do not doubt the bible to
be his word, nevertheless live on, heedless and unconcerned, as though it were
an idle word that God has spoken concerning the future state of the ungodly?
How is this? Are such persons indifferent as to whether they shall be happy
hereafter, the reverse?
COURSE TO BE PURSUED
Not so;
but they do not really believe God will execute his threatening; they seem to
think that it is all very well to threaten, but not well to execute
threatening; so they scarcely believe God will keep his word! I would be
devoutly thankful if I could show them, and any who can, venture to scoff at
the expressions used in scripture concerning future punishment, that the
doctrine affirmed perfectly harmonizes with the stubborn facts of which the
earth is full, and is as truly reasonable in itself as
anything we believe. Scripture rightly understood, and nature rightly read, and
reason rightly used, will all beautifully agree.
And if any one who is
in the habit of scoffing at the notion of sin being visited with suffering
should take up this volume, I would ask him to suspend his mirth at the idea of
future suffering growing out of present disobedience, till he has laughed
himself out of the belief that fire burns, or that any harm can result from
neglecting the existing laws of nature. If he can set at nought,
with impunity, physical laws, and organic laws, and social laws, then, but not
till then, may he expect to violate moral laws without injury.
And his laugh is idle, unphilosophical,
absurd, unless he can afford to sport with all the laws of his present being.
And if such a scoffer be at all capable of anything better than scoffing (if he
be capable, for example, of pursuing a train of thought, and of perceiving when
an argument is fairly constructed); and if he have any portion of manly honesty
remaining, (for a habit of ridicule makes sad havoc among the better parts of
our nature,) I think that the doctrine of future punishment (or the sentiment
that suffering will follow the infraction of God’s law,) may be shown to be as
rational, as beneficial, as desirable, as the indisputable fact that the laws
which , relate to our present organization cannot be violated without harm
ensuing.
Though these may be sufficient reasons for
entering upon this subject, I have yet another, viz.—An humble but earnest
wish, if the Father of Lights will condescend to vouchsafe his aid and blessing,—to justify the ways of God to man. Shall not the
Judge of all the earth do right ‘His work is perfect; all his ways are
judgment; a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he’ It does
not indeed follow that all his ways must necessarily appear right to all his
creatures, at all times, and under all circumstances.
We can easily conceive of many things which would prevent men from forming a
proper estimate of the great Governor; and to some of these we may subsequently
refer. When I speak, then, of justifying the ways of God to man, I have neither
the idea that every reader will be made to feel a perfect satisfaction in the
awful fact of future punishment, nor the preposterous notion of being able to
clear up all the difficulties connected with the subject.
Still it appears to
be that difficulties (over and above those which necessarily grow out of our
present position of partial enlightenment) have been created, and artificially
attached to the subject, which is confessedly difficult enough, even when we
have embraced all the aids that are accessible. It appears to me that by
availing ourselves of the help which God has placed within our reach, some of
the difficulties may be removed, and that we may attain to a position from
which we can look down into the world of punishment—not without sorrow it is
true, deepest sorrow—but still without one feeling of doubt as to the perfect
wisdom of God, and the propriety of his dealings.
It is surely possible to view the future
sufferings of the impenitent, through the medium of principles so obviously
sound, that we shall be ready to exclaim with the company in the Apocalypse,
when the seven angels appear, having the seven last plagues, — ‘Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true
are thy ways, thou King of saints.’ § But it may be
permitted me to suggest one or two cautionary considerations. There should not,
for example, be an impatience of suspense, and a determination to have some
positive opinion or definite view one way or another. And this remark applies
to all our enquiries after truth. Is it not indeed every way better to remain
in suspense for a time, though painful, and to keep the judgment in abeyance, than hastily to take up with conclusions that after all may
be wrong, rather than endure a longer state of uncertainty.
And when scripture has purposely left any
matter somewhat undefined and indistinct, keeping, for wise reasons, the veil
still partially drawn around it, is it for us to lift that veil, or to decide
with certainty its to what is concealed.
On many subjects we see as through a glass,
obscurely; we have all the light that is necessary for our practical guidance,
but not in the present state much more. This is true as to the structure of
revelation generally. Its object is entirely practical, and
suited to a probationary state. What scripture leaves in comparative twilight
it is not for us to present in clearly defined outline. It will not surprise
therefore, if, on some points that will have to be touched, I shall observe my
own rule, and avoid the glare of demonstration, contenting myself with that
measure of light which God may have seen fit to afford. What I find doubtful I
certainly shall not undertake to decide. And probably I may feel bound to place
in this region of dim twilight, some things which many have taken for granted
as indisputable, only for want of a closer acquaintance with the difficulties
which surround the subject.
But let me briefly indicate the course we are
to pursue. Punishment implies crime; Crime implies law; Law implies a certain
relation in which we stand towards one who has a right to enact law, and to
call to account; this leads us to consider the nature of our ‘relationship to
God, and the nature and wisdom of a moral system; and this, again, may almost
compel us to think of the great root of all our mystery and difficulty, the permission
(or rather non-prevention) of evil, in a universe that was created, and is
still presided over, by perfect wisdom, goodness, and power. These are topics
which we cannot altogether avoid. For punishment is not an isolated act of the
divine government; and considered alone, apart from all other truths with which
it stands connected, we must necessarily form erroneous ideas about it; and
very erroneous ones concerning the God in whose dominions it has a place.
We ought net then to
treat of future punishment, awful as the scriptures state it to be, as an
independent and isolated fact, since it is not such. The only point of view
whence we can safely bear to look into the world of
the finally lost, is that from which we can also see the other parts of the
system wherewith it is connected. And do Thou who art
the sole fountain of intelligence, as of being, the Father of Lights, from whom
alike cometh the feebler ray that guides the insect through its little hour,
and the noonday brightness in which cherubim and seraphim continually do dwell,
vouchsafe to us all needful grace; that our understanding may be light in the
Lord, our judgment sound, our imagination the sober handmaid of reason, and our
affections in perfect harmony with all thy holy will.
For since thou art the Author of the human
mind, and canst lay thy all-governing hand at will on all its faculties and
secret springs; thou canst, as we now beseech in the name of thy beloved Son,
give unto us wise and understanding hearts, so that, discerning through the
clouds and darkness which surround thy majestic throne, how gloriously
righteousness and judgment have hewn the seven pillars thereof, we may
reverently admire the counsels of thy wisdom, and forever magnify thy holy
name.
Relation God sustains, what—
The paternal suggested and examined— Some modification necessary— The rectoral
character suggested and examined— Result— Whence the true idea of sin and
propriety of punishment.
IN entering on the solemn subject we have
undertaken, there is one question in particular which meets us at the very
threshold of our inquiry, viz.. What is the true
nature of the relation in which we stand to God I or in other words, What is the character which God sustains toward us? Nor is
this an unimportant question. It lies at the very foundation of the notions we
form, not only on our present subject, but on numerous others of thrilling and
everlasting interest From this point men go off in various directions, and the
farther they proceed, each one in his own several course, the farther do they
separate from each other; till men who had commenced their enquiries together,
starting from some common point, find themselves eventually wide as the poles
asunder.
Thus we come at once,
in our proposed journey, to a place where numerous cross roads branch off in
all possible directions: we anxiously ask which we ought to take, for if we
take a wrong path, the farther we go the more thoroughly wrong do we get. There
cannot arise, in the whole course of our inquiry, a more important question
than the present one; for it is not too much to say that the most momentous
doctrines of religion hinge upon the question;- and our own interpretation of
the peculiar doctrines of Christianity (so far as dogmatic rather than
exegetical theology is concerned, at all events,) will depend on the answer we
give to the question,—What is the relationship subsisting between God and his
intelligent creatures.
RELATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN
Thus, for example, our ideas
as to the nature of sin have their essential rise here; and then, by necessary
consequence, our notions as to the proper remedy, if remedy can be admitted;
and this being only one step farther, out opinion as to the result of sin, if
there be no remedy, or if it be neglected. I feel it .right
to state thus distinctly the fact that our subsequent views will necessarily
take their colour, to a very great extent, from the
decision we come to on this point. Let a man decide this question, either one
way or another, and then his ultimate conclusions, if he reason soundly, cannot
be avoided. If the premises be false, the more accurate the reasoning, the more
certainly will the conclusions be false too: so that to re-examine the argument
will only confirm such a one in his error, all the while the premises are
assumed to be sound.
Let us therefore give our best attention to
this question concerning the relation that subsists between man and his Maker.
Let me suppose myself to be thinking aloud on this all-important subject, so as
to be overheard by several persons, who eagerly volunteer to satisfy my mind;
each hoping to make me a proselyte, and attach me to
his party. Anxious to decide, I thankfully accept the offer, and listen to the
various opinions which they confidently proclaim. The First tells me that my
true relation to God is that of the clay in the hands of the potter:’ that as a
creature, I have no rights whatever, absolutely none; and that God may
therefore do what he pleases with me, (without regard to my character;) that as
a potter may, if he please, break into a thousand shivers the vessel that he
has formed , just so may God devote me to wretchedness or destruction, without
injustice, for that I have no rights; and that as everything depends on the
mere will of God, he may deal with me as an absolute and irresponsible master
with his slave.
I shudder at the picture; but the speaker
draws forth a bible, and quotes chapter and verse. I think, however, to ask him
whether he has quoted the book correctly; and whether those views are really
exhibited there, or whether he may not have taken some few expressions in an
extreme sense, and independently of the connection.
A Second assures me that the first speaker is
quite correct in his assertion, but quite wrong in his conclusion for that it
is in reality a most satisfactory notion altogether, and one at which I need
not shudder, as the preceding speaker would have me; for that the pleasant
bearing of the thing is this,—That as there is no such thing as any right belonging
to any one of us, and consequently no general rights for God to be the guardian
of, the notion of his treating any one of us with a view to the welfare of the
whole is idle; and that therefore, seeing no general interests of the universe
demand to be conserved, God can, if he chooses, make us all happy, whatever we
may be: and seeing he is good, we may be sure, since there is no general good
to be consulted, that he will not use his arbitrary power to make us miserable,
though he might do so, but will use it to secure the happiness of the entire
universe; because there is no such thing as right, independently of his mere
will; and in his thus resolving to make every creature happy, there could,
therefore, be no impropriety.
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF IT
These two men, then, wide as
the whole earth asunder in all their habits, and denouncing each other in no
measured terms, agree, I perceive, in one thing (as extremes do often meet,)
viz. that God may do what he pleases with us all, independently of character:
but the one uses the sentiment to maintain that, however virtuous we are, God
may overwhelm us in misery; the other, that however wicked, god may, with
perfect propriety at any moment forgive all, and make us everlastingly happy.
But a Third claims my attention. He tells me that he belongs to the school of
the second speaker, but has another method of coming to the same pleasant
conclusion, viz. That God is the universal Father; that he looks on all
intelligent creatures as his children; that he is training them all up for
abodes of blessedness, and though some of them are untoward in their
dispositions, yet there are none that will not finally be virtuous and happy.
Now I find this a very pleasant sort of idea, and happy thoughts come filth my
mind, of an infinitely great and glorious parent, making all his numerous
family happy, and himself exulting in the happiness he has made.
If one wanted a pleasant vision, I say truly
this is one: but resolved not to believe a thing merely because I wish to
believe it, I ask for the evidence of the theory, and determine to see if it
can be substantiated. Delighted with this last speaker, I am about to depart,
for the sake of uninterrupted thought and calm investigation, when a Fourth
says he will not now exhibit his view, seeing I am so pleased; but he would
venture to suggest that it would not be safe to trust to such a theory, unless
it could be well sustained; he doubts whether it be more than a very partial
view, and whether the portion of truth it contains be not exaggerated; also
whether analogy, whether fact be not altogether against it, if it is intended
as a complete theory;—and urges me to enquire—not what I deem most fitting, nor
what would most commend itself to my imagination, but simply What is truth?’ Perhaps
I ought not to prolong this imagined scene. Let me then proceed in the more
usual way.
Our question is as to the character which God
sustains towards us. I have mentioned the Paternal: is this the real relation
in which we stand to God, viz. as children to a Father? May every one of us,
whatever we are, equally, and in the same sense, call him Father; carrying with
us the idea we form concerning a kind and indulgent human parent? This is our
present question; let us examine it fairly.
PATERNAL CHARACTER SUGGESTED
It is capable, we instantly
feel, of being very interestingly and captivatingly presented. The idea is full
of amiableness. We dwell in one of the chambers of our Father’s house; we are
individually dear to him; and seeing he is possessed’ of unlimited power, and can do all he pleases none daring to call him to
account, we may of course all of us expect uninterrupted felicity. For- what
father would he be, who should decline to use all the means in his power to
secure the well-being of all his children.
We picture then to our minds a kind and
indulgent father, who can happily gratify all his parental inclinations, and
whose chief delight consists in rendering each dear child perfectly happy: and
we remember that God is everywhere present, and that he is possessed of
unbounded power. With this idea of a father, and with this knowledge of God’s
omnipresence and omnipotence, we go forth to observe the beautiful indications
that of course will meet the eye, wherever it wanders, of God’s fatherly care
and affection for all his children indiscriminately. We certainly observe with
great delight the manifold proofs of goodness, the provision evidently made for
enjoyment. “rig a pleasant earth that God has placed
his children on a glorious sun lights them by day, and by night the fair moon
with her shining sisters diffuses a softer radiance.’ We mark the rich
productions which he has provided for them; how there is enough, and more than
enough, of the fruits of the earth poured forth as from a horn of plenty. We
see the human frame constructed for enjoyment; the physical man made to derive
pleasure from various sources; the mind so constituted, that a far higher order
of gratification, viz. the intellectual, is placed within his reach; while
there are social propensities, which surround him with the objects of warm
affection; and the various relationships of life afford some of the purest and
intense joy that man can experience.
And while we watched the heightened expression
in the countenance of youth, as a new world of happiness begins to open; or
mark the bliss that waits on wedded love; or gaze on the infant, that with so
much of joyous repose draws the milk-stream from the mother’s vein; or read the
emotions that swell that mother’s heart; and remember that ‘love is of God,’—we
respond to the assertion that God is love,’ in the words that are employed, and
we say emphatically, God is love. It cannot be doubted that God is good. The
happiness that exists proves it beyond a doubt. And therefore
since God is one, and his character necessarily uniform and consistent, he is
always good.
Even if we should find less pleasant scenes
than those adverted to; still this could not bring into question the already
ascertained fact of God’s goodness, and, by reason of his immutability, his
unchangeable and undeviating goodness. Let this be settled, that as God cannot
be both good and evil, and we see him good, he must be always good, though we
may not be able to harmonize everything with this attribute,
or may have formed very inadequate and puerile conceits about goodness,
and what it ought to accomplish. But assuredly we have looked a very little way
as yet. It would be very premature to pause in our
examination, quite satisfied from what we have seen, that the true and sole
relationship between God and us is that of father and children.
Let us continue our investigation. We obtain
the confidence of numerous individuals, who each tell us a melting tale of
sorrow; difficulties, embarrassments, heart-rending bereavements, painful
afflictions, a diseased frame, and a wounded spirit.—We
sigh, and pass on. We enter an hospital; and walking
from ward to ward, and marking the pale face, the hollow eye, the look of pain,
the expression of anxiety, we sigh deeply, and wonder that the Father who has
all power does not prevent this: but some ode whispers something about
discipline and chastening, and we try to feel satisfied. We next take our stand
on an eminence commanding an extensive plain, where tens of thousands are
shooting and Cutting each other down, till one party has gained the victory and
marches off in triumph, leaving thousands writhing in agony and weltering in
their gore. Is the great Father aware of all this we ask. And is he able to
prevent it!
Why then does he suffer his children thus to
shoot and stab one another, filling we know not how many homes with anguish, as
wives are made widows, and children orphans! We enter the Inquisition; and in
dungeons of terrible gloom we see men, and women too,
and maidens, chained and fettered; we see them stretched upon the rack, till
every limb is dislocated; we hear their deep, deep groans; and their piercing
cries make us sick at heart.
After months of various and ingenious torture
we see them brought forth to be burned alive We stand next, between the decks
of a slave ship, and find hundreds of our fellow creatures manacled, and
crammed into a space that is to be measured, as to height, by inches; the
loathsomeness cannot be spoken, while the sufferings endured cannot be
conceived. After numerous deaths we see the wretched survivors sold like beasts,
and worked like them, and flogged and tortured at will, till they drop into the
longed for grave. We take the history of one wretched slave,
and find from the history of past years and ages that we could multiply
it by hundreds of millions, till there is presented to the imagination a mass
of wretchedness that is all but infinite. The sighs, the groans, the burning
tears, defy the utmost power to realise them; and the
mind breaks down in the attempt.
But every one’s knowledge of what has been the state of the world for these six thousand years,
renders it unnecessary to present the facts which show that the human family
has from the beginning (no matter just now how it is to be accounted for) been
in some way or other subjected to every form of ill. We have only to think of
what our own memory can supply as to the state of things in different
countries, and through all ages; the public calamities that nave overwhelmed
nations, and the private afflictions and wrongs that have filled to the brim a
cup of bitterness for individuals; and then do we not feel that while there are
abundant proofs of God’s goodness, (and some reasonable account may perhaps be
given why things seem allowed to take their own course,) our idea of the
paternal character has to be somewhat or even greatly modified? Are we not
compelled to acknowledge that if we still call God the universal Father,’ there
are evidently some other elements of character beside the paternal, and quite
as marked, or even more so.
For what father, having the right and power to
interfere, would stand by and see his child racked, tortured, through long very
long months, and then burnt alive, and not indignantly snatch him from the
grasp of brutal tormentors I What father, possessed of sufficient power to
prevent it, would listen to the groans and cries and shrieks that have filled
the air for ages, till every atom of the atmosphere we breathe seems to one who
knows the case, impregnated with woe f That God sees all, and hears all, and
could prevent all, if he deemed it wise to do so, none that believe in the
being of a God can question. Must we not then seek some other answer to our
question; or else greatly modify our ideas of the import of the term, if we
still retain it as the one title which, above all others and exclusively, we
select to denote the relationship in which God stands to his creatures? For
certainly when we think of a father, we instinctively picture to ourselves one
who has a particular and equal affection for each member of his family.
Nor would the amiableness of the best of
sovereigns, who strove to show himself the father of his people,’ no; the
considerate benevolence of the most kind and generous of masters, who made the
interests of his domestics his own, at all approach to our necessary idea of
the love which fills a father’s heart; which is pot a vague and general
benevolence towards all creatures indiscriminately, whether intelligent or
irrational, but a special love for the individual, which can never no never
decay, and which under all possible circumstances, and through all conceivable
changes, will yearn over the child, and unceasingly exert itself at any cost
for his individual happiness, which the father will even prefer to his own.
SOME MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY
History, indeed, tells us, of
a father who finding his sew guilty of treasonable practices against Rome, and
being himself the judge, sternly ordered the lictors to do their duty, and
looked on with unaverted and un-moistened eye, while
their backs were torn by this scourge, their heads stricken from their bodies,
and they lay headless carcases at his feet. But
assuredly it was not as a father, but as a judge,—as a
governor anxious to discharge impartially, and without respect of persons, his
duty to the commonwealth —that he condemned them to die, and saw the fearful
sentence executed. Parental feelings were kept in stern abeyance, while the one
idea of justice filled his soul and ruled the hour. Nor do we ever think of
such a one as Brutus when we form our notions of the paternal character. And
this leads me to remark that I have often observed great confusion to arise (in
some instances, perhaps not quite un-purposed), from the pertinacious use of
this one title as that which best, and above all others, and even to the
exclusion of all others which would serve to modify it, exhibits the true idea
of the relationship that God sustains.
With myriads of such facts as I have adverted
to, (to say nothing just now of scripture,) they who cleave the most fondly,
and in many instances with the best intentions, to this term,—as the one
epithet which shall be applied to the Great Supreme,—are constrained to give
such an account of what a wise father would do, how he would maintain right at
any cost, that their explanation, when they are pressed, exhibits after all a
father from whose heart are banished all those peculiar parental yearnings
which we cannot separate from our thoughts of a human parent, and one who
resolutely maintains law, involve what it may; so that the true idea, after
all, is to a great extent, that of a governor or ruler though a benevolent one.
If, then, with such
an explanation, we consent to retain the term father, we are called on, ere
long, to forget the modification agreed on, and again to form our notions of
God as the universal Father, exclusively or chiefly, from those soft and
endearing associations which are so indissolubly connected with the title. The
previous admissions, which made father identical, or nearly so, with governor
or ruler, are dropped, and God is reinvested, if one may say so, with those
very qualities of human paternity which it was mutually agreed could not apply:
so that when induced by their explanations we have consented to retain the
title, they leave out of sight those very modifications, and bid us ask
ourselves whether a father could act in such and such a way.
TRUE RETALIONSHIPS REQUIRED
We have looked abroad among
men, to see what obtains, and as yet our conclusion is
that we have still to seek the true answer to our question; for that the
paternal, as commonly and naturally understood, is not the only nor even the
chief relation which God sustains. § Let us look forth once more, glancing for
a moment at the Home in which man is placed. Once have we heard this, yea twice,
that power belongs unto God,’ and truly we everywhere see the sublime
illustrations. But do we see anything beside power? Undoubtedly we do. We see wisdom directing power in all its
efforts; so that power is never exerted for its own sake, but
subordinated to the counsels of perfect wisdom. What glorious worlds fill the
heavens; what mighty material masses; and all poised in empty space, and never
since the day of their creation swerving a hair’s breadth from their prescribed
line of orbit.
Worlds, and systems of worlds, revolving round
their own suns, as our earth and her sister planets revolve round our sun; many
such systems forming one grander system, and many such grander systems again
forming one system yet mightier still; and so on till all form one glorious
whole, revolving altogether through space, round some central point, it may be,
whence issues the invisible influence that holds all together in one sublimely
beautiful whole. Now we Are overwhelmed, possibly, with the sense of power; and
yet the conviction of presiding wisdom is still more thoroughly present to our
minds, and we exclaim in delighted homage, in wisdom has thou made them all.
What exquisite perfection of beauty! Well may the Hebrew Psalmist talk of the
morning stars singing together; well may we speak of the music of the spheres;
for, to the cultivated mind, the countless worlds that God hath formed, moving
as they do so harmoniously through space, seem in graceful chorus to praise
their great Creator.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament
shows his handy work.’ Now that unseen influence which is found to act wherever
man has been able to explore, Acts so invariably everywhere, producing such
constant and uniform and palpable results, that men have given to it the name
of law; and they tell us of the law of gravitation, and of centrifugal motions,
or forces, and ascribe thereto, as the divinely appointed secondary cause, all
the perfection of order of which we have been speaking; and every single atom,
as well as every rolling world, obeys this law. The stone which you cease to
hold falls to the ground, and falls by the same law
which secures the order of all the heavenly bodies.
ORDER IN NATURE SECURED BY LAW.
And as we look yet further, we find everything
subject to law in like manner. A great part of our globe, for example, is
occupied by water, which comes before us in various forms. Let us think of it
for a moment. The ocean, with, its rolling billows, filling the soul with the
sense of vastness and power—the waterfall—the majestic river—the babbling
brook—the calm smooth lake, reflecting the clear blue sky—the mountain, like a
silver thread—the gushing fountain: behold one form it assumes. Look again and
it is solid rock; clear, transparent, crystal rock: again, and that rock has
changed its form and is floating in the air as vapour,
and forming clouds of every shape, and coloured by
the setting sun constituting the glory of the heavens.
Look again, and in the form of sparkling dew
it gems every flower and every blade of grass; or it descends as a refreshing
shower, and in falling presents us with the rainbow. But in all its wonderful
and beautiful changes, whether you gaze on foaming billows, or listen to the
music of the murmuring rill; whether you watch the regularly recurring tide, or
trace the raindrop down a pane of widow glass;—every
particle of it is influenced, in every form it assumes, and at every instant,
by invariable law. It is so with the productions of the vegetable world, or as
naturalists prefer to speak,—the vegetable kingdom:
and men of science delight to dwell on what they call ‘the laws of vegetation;’
by means of which whenever not interfered with, the highest perfection of which
the plant is capable is beautifully secured.
And just so with all other departments of
nature; not a single flake of snow was ever formed, except in harmony with
pre-established and invariable law: the breath that by night in winter has assumed
such beautiful crystallized forms on your window, his been in every particle obeying law.
And so everywhere. Man is placed on a world,
every atom’ of which, and every atom of all its productions, and of the
atmosphere which girdles it, is influenced by laws which the all-wise and
all-powerful Creator hath instituted. And all the order and beauty and
perfection, everywhere conspicuous throughout this earth, and throughout the
universe, is the result of the never ceasing working of these laws, which men
call the laws of nature. Everything man sees or hears, everything that his hand
touches or his foot treads on, is entirely under the influence of all-pervading
law; the air he breathes, the water he drinks, the fire which so variously
serves him, the wind which seems so free and unconstrained,—law rules over all;
so that as to his very home, he lives and moves and has his being in an element
of law.
LAW ABSOLUTE IN NATURE
From thus observing the character of his dwelling place, we come naturally
enough to enquire concerning Himself; and we find that, in all his conditions,
he too is the subject of law which he never can violate with impunity. We have
referred to the law of gravitation, and how the admirable order of the universe
is beautifully secured by means of it: but if any man shall lose his balance
when standing on the summit of a tower, he will fall to the ground by the same
law. In which case we never regret the operation of the law, nor wish it should
be suspended, but only regret the ignorance or carelessness of the unhappy a
man, who lies in excruciating agony, the victim of
his own imprudence.
The advantages we derive from fire would fill
volumes; it is as indispensable to our well-being as the air is to our being.
Yet what calamities have arisen when the laws of heat have been disregarded. If
a playful child or a venerable parent has approached too near, the whole person
has been involved in flames, and a lingering death of torture has been the
result: what numbers have been burned in their beds, and how intense the agony
that many have suffered from fire. Yet we never wish that fire would cease to
burn; never murmur at its qualities, which only demand that we should be
attentive. So with water, which is absolutely indispensable to life,—how often has it destroyed life, when its requirements
have been disregarded.
Or, to prevent misapprehensions, He by whom
all things consist, works in one uniform and undeviating method: whatever may
result, certain sequences always follow certain antecedents; and this whether
we observe matter or mind. And to this undeviating uniformity of plan is not
badly given the name of law, because of its absolute in-viability.
MAN SUBJECTED TO PHYSICAL LAWS
It would be easy, but superfluous, to multiply illustrations. What has been
adduced may suffice to show one fact, for the sake of which the present course
has been adopted, viz. That God, having settled a system of laws, the
observance of which produces perfect order, leaves the painful consequences of
neglecting or violating them to take full effect, without any interposition to.
prevent. By perfect conformity to all the laws which regulate the outward
world, and which govern our own organized bodies, we should possess perfect
physical good, in. exemption from all physical evil, and possession of all
physical enjoyment: except indeed as the results of this outward regard to law
might be neutralized or vitiated by disregard to the higher laws of a more
important economy, as the intellectual, the moral and spiritual.
With this qualification—indispensable because
the physical is only a part of one intimately blended whole—the remark holds
good; and thus our welfare is, so to speak, made to
depend on our conformity to the various laws which God hath so admirably instituted.
The language of nature correctly interpreted is, Obey and be happy — Neglect
and suffer.
A moment’s attention ought, however, to be
drawn to one very obvious feature of the system; viz.
That interposition to prevent the evils which necessarily arise from the
violation of these laws of nature, forms no part of God’s plan. You have
nothing but law; beautiful, exquisite beautiful in
itself, and in the perfect order and harmony which it is competent to secure;
yet at the same time painful in its consequences when violated: but man is
completely shut up to law, as to all his relation to the external world, and as
to all his own organization.
He is rewarded, as one may
say, for his observance of these laws, and punished for the neglect. [Butler’s
Analogy, part 1, chapter 2.]
A superficial observer,
indeed, might wish that God had introduced some plan for preventing, or else
immediately remedying, the evils which arise when any of the laws of nature are
violated. But as this is not the case, so also we can
perceive some evils which would necessarily ensue were such interference the
rule. Men would then, as a matter of course, be inattentive and negligent; and
if no harm could possibly result, whatever a man did or neglected to do, there
would be a positive premium held out to indolence and carelessness and every
kind of gratification. Indeed evils of a frightful
character, and whose name would be legion, must- unavoidably ensue, if God were
always to interpose to prevent ill consequences resulting from violation of the
laws he hath so wisely stamped on every part of nature. In fact, greater harm
would be done, even according to our present imperfect apprehension, by
preventing, than by not preventing. So that it is wise and good to allow law to
work out its own results; wiser and better than it would be to interpose.
[Analogy, part 1, chapter 7.]
He is rewarded, as one may say, for his
observance of these laws, and punished for the neglect. [Butler’s Analogy, part
1, chapter 2.] A superficial observer, indeed, might wish that God had
introduced some plan for preventing, or else immediately remedying, the evils
which arise when any of the laws of nature are violated. But as this is not the
case, so also we can perceive some evils which would
necessarily ensue were such interference the rule. Men would then, as a matter
of course, be inattentive and negligent; and if no harm could possibly result,
whatever a man did or neglected to do, there would be a positive premium held
out to indolence and carelessness and every kind of gratification. Indeed evils of a frightful character, and whose name would
be legion, must- unavoidably ensue, if God were always to interpose to prevent
ill consequences resulting from violation of the laws he hath so wisely stamped
on every part of nature. In fact, greater harm would be done, even according to
our present imperfect apprehension, by preventing, than by not preventing. So
that it is wise and good to allow law to work out its own results; wiser and
better than it would be to interpose. [Analogy, part 1, chapter 7.] We may now
leave the path we have been pursuing, and follow another, still seeking to know
the true relationship God sustains to his creatures, But
so far as we have gone, we think we see evidence that the character of God
would be quite as fairly represented by the title, governor or ruler, as that
of father. One thing however is plain; that if we call him the universal
father, he is quite as correctly designated the universal ruler; seeing he
governs, and that by general laws, which very laws by their own operation,
which is of his appointment, reward the obedient and punish those who disregard
them. Nor, whatever we calf him, are the evils which grow out of the violation
of natural laws, any drawback to his goodness; for since greater evils would
follow the prevention by immediate interposition, it would not be either wise
or good to interpose: and thus notwithstanding what
obtains, the goodness of God stands unimpeachable.
We have not yet referred to scripture, we have
merely looked on the world around us, and glanced at the manner
in which God manages it. And to the thoughtful mind which has been
perplexed, and possibly distressed, as some of the statements of revelation,
this school of natural religion may prove not uninstructive;
as also to those unhappy individuals who have ventured to reject or neglect the
bible as a revelation from God. For if this should be found evidently, in all
its parts, constructed in harmony with all that is observable in nature; and if
some of the statements of scripture which have been the most cavilled at, as inconsistent with the character of God, are
in perfect keeping with all the facts that fill the world; then assuredly the
volume of revelation is entitled to the profoundest attention of the hitherto sceptical, nor should the un-welcomeness of some of its
declarations be allowed to prejudice the mind, seeing that in reality they
belong even to correct system of natural religion.
§ We are now then in a better condition,
having glanced at some of those indisputable facts which are open to every
man’s observation, to enquire what said the scripture; and every one that is
intelligently acquainted with both natural and revealed religion will be struck
with the admirable agreement; as, indeed, how should it be otherwise? The
doctrine of scripture, in reference to man’s moral and spiritual being,
harmonizes perfectly with the doctrine of nature touching. his physical welfare; and in like manner reveals God as governing by
fixed and general laws, which observed secure happiness, or if set at nought bring misery and ruin. So that evidently there is a
strong presumption that the author of revelation and the author of the book of
nature are one. In reading the two, we find on every page traces
of identity of authorship; we are in two provinces of the same empire; or, in
two concentric circles, the scriptures being the inner one; or, nature forms
the outer court, but revelation is the oracle of the inner sanctuary.
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE RELATION
Let us take the Mosaic account of the position in which man was originally
placed. And we need not enter into any proof that the
narrative is to be taken literally, since every attempt to reduce it to an
allegory, or myths, has utterly failed. Look then at the first parents of the human race. The pleasant condition in which they were
placed, their own personal endowments, the comprehensive grant made to them,
the blessing which was pronounced upon them,—all prove
the bountiful goodness of their Creator; we might indeed say Father, looking
thus far only, and omitting other circumstances. But perfectly kind as was the
arrangement, there is yet one feature behind which presents God as sustaining
another relation. Listen to the law laid down amid the beauties of Eden; Of
every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat: but
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in
the day that thou eats thereof, thou shalt surely die.’ Let it be supposed a
father, if you will, that placed man in such a garden of delight, making him so
ample a grant, and conferring on him dominion over all the creatures. Dwell on
these and other circumstances connected with the original condition of man; and
consider them as they really are, so many tokens of the munificent love of God
who formed and endowed man as none but a God of love would have done. Suppose
it then the language of an indulgent father, Of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.’ And let it be deemed only the
language of a wise father, forbidding what would be injurious, when he
continues, Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
it.’ But can any one deem,
the concluding part of the sentence to be the language of one whose sole
relationship is that of a father:’ In the day thou eats thereof thou shalt
surely die!’ Let everything around them, and everything in their own
organization and circumstances, be held to proclaim the parental goodness of
their beneficent Creator; and most assuredly we have no desire to weaken the
impression which the mind receives, but rather delight ourselves to visit the
happy groves of Eden, and there reclining beside its crystal stream to receive
into the full heart the in-erradicable conviction
that God is love. But still we feel constrained to ask whether, in the terrific
threatening by which- the prohibition was ‘righteously enforced, we are not
compelled to admit the existence of another than the paternal element. Does
there not seem to be a modification of this, and the adoption of a tone
scarcely consistent with the idea of mere paternity!
True indeed a father rules; he may enact laws
for his children,. and may punish disobedience; but to
threaten them with Death,—to consign them to blank
despair,—to doom them to final and hopeless ruin—this makes ne pause; and
listening to the awful sentence pronounced, we feel constrained to admit the
existence of another element, namely the rectors; while we can but deem this
even to preponderate in the terrible decision, Dying thou shalt die!
And when in an evil hour the law was
disregarded, and the authority of the lawgiver set at nought,
and the first sin had stained. the virgin earth, and man had begun to
experience some of the consequences of disobedience, in the misgivings he felt,
and the upbraidings of conscience, and the promptings
of fear, so that he dreaded to meet his God as heretofore,—was
it not in something of the character of a judge that God manifested himself,
and condemned the guilty parties? And though the judge was pitiful, yet he
drove out the man’ from his home of happiness, and suffered
hid’ to reap as he had sown. So sin entered into the
world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men. because all have
sinned.’ It is true that man was now placed by the kindness of God under
another dispensation, one of mercy and grace; but this had its requirements,
its conditions, and he who did not choose to come under these, remained
absolutely and strictly in the domain of law. And what is the testimony of the
deluge? God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually:—and
the Lord said, I will destroy man; whom I have created, from the face of the
earth.’ We know the issue—and almost holding our breath, like men on the
perilous edge of battle, we realize the scene when the waters rose higher and
higher, sweeping into one limitless sea the couch of infancy, the homes of
manhood, the retreats of age; when every vigorous and every beauteous form were
tossed about like ocean’s playthings; when all that lived drank of the gurgling
waters, and corpse floated like straws on the conquering billows, or sunk by
thousands into the caverns of the deep.
GOD A RULER Was this a Father’s doings, we
ask, or the work of One who at least sustained the character of a ruler and a
judge, whatever other relationships might exist in combination? And so when the four guilty cities of the plain were overthrown
by fire from heaven; evidences of the paternal relationship, are not very
apparent in their melancholy but righteous doom, while another character would
seem to be visible enough.
And we may refer to another, epoch: the giving
of the law to the assembled Israelites, amid the silence and sublimity of
Horeb. Solemn and alarming were the preparations; the base of Sinai was to be
guarded from approach, and whoever ventured to touch the mount was to be put to
death. The command was given to Moses Thou shalt set bounds unto the people
round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount
or touch the border of it: whosoever touches the mount shall surely be put to
death: there shall not a hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot
through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live.” Blessings were
pronounced on the obedient, curses on those who should disobey the in.
junctions given: and one of the first things to be
attended to, when they entered the land of Canaan, was the assembling of the
whole multitude in an appointed spot, and the solemn repetition, by the
Levites, of certain prescribed curses on the disobedient, and certain blessings
to be experienced by the obedient. The entire history of that people would show
how constantly God manifested himself as a law-giver
and ruler, kind, compassionate, and merciful, it is true, but not as sustaining
a merely parental relation.
And now we may refer to all the statements of
scripture concerning the general judgment. It is solemnly and distinctly
asserted that all who have ever lived shall be awakened from the sleep of
death, and shall come forth from their graves, and shall undergo a scrutiny.
The judgment will take place according to
fixed principles, universally applied: there will be, we are assured, no
respect of persons. The statements of scripture are explicit; we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one
may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done,
whether it be good or bad. And the appointed Judge represents himself as saying
to one class, come up hither, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you, from the foundation of the world; and to another’ class,
depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil-and
his angels; and he asserts that the one class will rise to highest bliss, the
other sink into awful woe. ‘These shall go away into everlasting punishment;’
they shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord, and from the glory of his power.’ These facts of revelation, with many
others which might be adduced, harmonizing as they do with those of nature,
plainly teach us that God sustains the character of governor, or the judge of
the whole earth shall he be called. But let not this be misunderstood. What is
objected to is, not the assertion that God is the universal Father; but the
assertion that this title adequately and correctly sets forth the precise
relationship. Neither, on the other hand, would I by any means assert that this
was correctly and fully designated by the term ruler, governor, or judge. Far,
very far, be it from me to deny the paternal element as constituting a part of
that peculiar relation which must of necessity be sui
generis, and to which nothing can be analogous.
In a high and delightful sense God is the
universal father, seeing he gives to all life and breath and all things; his
name is love, and his tender mercies are over all his works: but then we must
dismiss from our minds many of the ideas which human paternity suggests; for he
is a father that rules, and rules according to fixed and wisest principles, and
no more shrinks from the maintenance of law, whatever it may involve, than if
his sole character were that of lawgiver and judge.
To deny, on the one hand, the paternal
character altogether, affirming that the rectoral was all that existed; and, on
the other, to deny the rectoral, and press the paternal exclusively; would be
alike remote from truth. In fact no one word—perhaps
no combination of epithets—can adequately set forth the relation in which God
stands to the intelligences he has formed, and in whom he cannot but feel the
interest of a Creator. He may be correctly said to sustain any relation which
implies production, care, and rule; and may be termed the Master, Parent,
Benefactor, Protector, Sovereign, Legislator, Governor, Judge, etc.
But every one of these terms, when applied to
him, must be greatly modified from their application to human beings. They are
all only various aspects in which he is presented to our minds,
when we look at him through the medium of human associations. The
present point, then, is this: —that the facts which fill the world, as well as
those contained in revelation, compel us in thinking of God to deny the
exclusively paternal character, and to maintain that there is, to say the
least, a very large proportion of the rectoral element in the peculiar relation
that he sustains.
But a conclusion grows out of all this, which
was intimated at the commencement of the chapter, where it was stated that much
of our subsequent views necessarily arose from the idea
we formed of the nature of the relation subsisting between God and matter, a
statement which was illustrated by saying that our views of sin would receive
their colour at this point. And so important is this
to our present subject, and so palpably lying at the very foundation of a
correct religious system, that it may be allowed to show the connection. If for
example (1.) we considered sin merely as an insult offered to God, an affront
put upon his Glorious Majesty; awful as is the idea of a creature insulting the
Infinite Jehovah, yet some might be ready to deem it but generous in such a
being to pass by the affront.
They might think it more becoming the dignity
of Him whose throne never could be subverted, whose happiness never could be affected,
to overlook, than to punish the misbehaviour, though
ever so criminal, of his creatures.
And this notion is strongly rooted in many
minds; for among the better class of men it is held a mark of a little spirit
to be wrathful and resentful, while it is esteemed magnanimous to pass by
offences and insults.
And as, if one man put an affront however
serious Upon another, the offended party may forgive, without standing upon the
reparation that he might claim; so it is thought by
multitudes, that God would only be acting in a manner becoming his own dignity,
if he were to pass by, without notice, the demeanour
of men towards him. It is taken for granted that the Most
High could if he pleased pardon all offences, without punishing them;
and that this would be the most dignified and, if one might say so, magnanimous
course to adopt.
TRUE IDEA OF SIN
Whence it is very easy for such persons to conclude that he will do so; and to
which idea vast numbers are secretly trusting. Hence therefore, the’ intimate
connection of this whole subject with the doctrine we have under review. Or if
(2.) we regarded God merely as the proprietor of the universe, and the Lord of
all his creatures, to whose services he had a claim, so that to withhold these
services was to defraud God of his right; or as the prophet speaks, to rob
God,—so that we become, as it were, indebted to him, as the scriptures
sometimes speak of our trespasses as debts; then also some might be ready to
imagine that (as any human creditor can, if he chooses to do so, excuse any
debtor the sum he owes; and for the most part will do so if the latter have
nothing to pay with), it would be but kind in God to forgive his creatures the
debts they are utterly unable to discharge.
At all events, it is alleged, there would be
no impropriety in thus obliterating the demand; seeing that God himself could
not in the faintest degree be wronged. And, certainly, if the scriptures had
spoken of sin in no other terms; and if this accommodated use of the word
‘debt’ to denote gins were understood literally, and correctly taken to be the
exclusive notion to be formed of sin; it would not seem altogether unreasonable
to adopt such a strain. Again, if sin be regarded (3.) chiefly as to own intrinsic
evil, and a sinner be considered merely as one who has deformed his nature, and
rendered himself vile and odious; then, upon reformation, all the consequences
of sin might perhaps be expected to terminate.
And thus one would
think nothing necessary but reformation; upon which the creature, heretofore
alienated, would as a matter of course be restored to the perfect favour of his Maker. Thus we see
how necessarily our views of sin, and therefore of what ought to be the
consequences of sin, grow out of the conclusion we form touching the relation
in which we stand to God.
Now we have seen that the character which God
sustains is not merely the parental, but also to a very high degree the
rectoral; that of a governor. and lawgiver. And if this be so, of which I think
every impartial observer of the facts of the case must be convinced, our views
of sin must differ greatly from those that have been suggested. It is quite
true that sin is an awful insult offered to the Majesty of Heaven: true that it
is a withholding from God what he has a right to demand from his creatures: and
true that, to an infinitely Holy Being who is of purer eyes than to behold
iniquity, it is infinitely abhorrent, the abominable thing which he hates.
But all this is an exceedingly deficient
statement a the evil of sin; which in addition to all these views is
also to be regarded as (4.) a violation of the law given’ by the Supreme Being,
as Governor of the universe the criminality being not diminished, but
heightened by the fact that the lawgiver sustains the parental as well as the
rectoral character. In scripture phrase, sin is the transgression of the law.’
Whence it is not difficult, after a little further examination, to reach as a
conclusion, the inevitableness of punishment.
Moral System—desirableness of— Excellency of
law seen in its nature— Tendency approved by conscience— Exemplified by Christ
— Propriety of punishment— Yet some not punished— Why Atonement— Bearing of on
impenitent— Punishment inevitable THE fact that sin, over and above all other
views of it is to be especially regarded as the violation of law, rendering the
transgressor obnoxious to the displeasure of the Moral Governor, brings us to
another branch of our subject, and constrains us to consider the nature of the
system under which man is placed, and in which he stands toward his Creator in
the relation of the governed to the governor. It is most
.abundantly evident—from all the circumstances of the case, to which we
need not now refer—that God has adopted a plan of government for his
intelligent creatures, that is admirably suited to heir natures.
He governs them not by mere force, as
inanimate matter is blindly obedient to the physical impulses to which it is
subjected; nor by instinctive impulses, as the brute creation is governed; but
by an intelligent appeal to them; making known his will, expressing what he
would have them to do, promising rewards to obedience, punishment to
transgression.
This is how God hath chosen to govern
intelligent creatures; it is what is meant by the common phrase ‘the moral
government of God,’ which is a government of intelligent creatures, by an
appeal to their sense of right, and by an address to their hopes and fears:—in other words, by the presentation of suitable
motives; i.e. by rewards and punishments. On this subject we must dwell a
little, as it greatly assists toward a right conclusion concerning future
punishment, and indeed concerning other important doctrines. In fact it would be impossible for us to form correct ideas on
our present subject without referring, though briefly, to the nature of a
system of moral government.
MAN MADE UPRIGHT.
We may however treat the matter historically,
as fact, rather than abstractedly, as doctrine: for our religion is eminently
one of facts. That God made man upright, we are assured by the highest
authority. Man as a creature was perfect. Not, however, that we are to
understand by this anything incompatible with the fact that he was of course
devoid of all experience, and was placed only at the
very starting point of his course. But there was no suitable endowment
withheld; God looked upon him, and pronounced him
good. Let us also look at him before sin entered, and while yet the groves of
Eden echoed to his joyous tones. He had perceptive faculties, by which he could
discern the nature and bearing of things about him: he had appetites, the
gratification of which would be one source of pleasure, while it would alit
sustain his being: he had a moral sense, a sense of right and wrong, which
would dictate to him as to the proper exercise of both his intellectual and his
lower faculties; and he was free to act as he might choose.
Thus he had all the
faculties we can deem at all desirable; and all his powers, as he came from the
Creator’s hand, were nicely balanced, or adjusted. Now let us suppose the
improvement, the elevation of this being, to be the benevolent object which his
Maker proposes. How shall this be accomplished? In other words, how shall his
character be improved, matured? What system shall be adopted with a view to the
progressiveness of his character, and thus the increase of his happiness? We
have admired him as constituted by his Maker, endowed as we have seen with
certain faculties, But must-not these faculties be
exercised? Can there be growth in character without these faculties being
called into exercise?
Assuredly not. And if it be wise and good to
endow man with moral and intellectual faculties and with appetites, and with
the power of volition, or will, implying choice, it must be wise and good to
call into exercise the faculties bestowed: the only way, too, in which we can
conceive of real growth in character and happiness. But how much this involves!
In fact it involves the whole question; for what have
we asserted but that it is wise and good to place man in such circumstances as
that there shall be objects to exercise his perceptive faculties, to solicit
his appetites, to invite his volitions, and thus to call out the decision Of
confidence, or the moral sense, in harmony with which ought to be all his
volitions and conduct. But this implies, of necessity, the possibility of going
wrong.
Choice necessarily involves this. In other
words, placing an intelligent creature like man in circumstances the most
fitted, by the exercise of all his faculties, to mature his character, and thus
elevate him in the scale of being, involves the possibility of failure, of
deterioration, of sin, and misery. For infallibility belongs to God alone. It
is an incommunicable prerogative. It would be a contradiction in terms to speak
of an infallible creature, We might as well talk of a
created God. And to suggest that God should so interpose, with a creature thus
situated, as to secure right volitions at every moment, is to suggest that
which would be incompatible with the system which we had previously concluded
to be the best for an intelligent creature thus constituted to be placed in.
For the proper point of time for us to judge
of the desirableness of a moral system, is when the creature, thus endowed,
with all his attributes exquisitely balanced, enters on his course;
which we perceive indeed to involve the possibility, not necessity of failure,
but which at the same time exhibits the best method, if only vigilantly
attended to by the probationer, of continued and unlimited improvement. An
eminent writer has well said—’We will not say that we envy our first parents;
for we feel that there may be a higher happiness than theirs; a happiness won
through struggle with inward and outward foes,—the
happiness of power and victory,—the happiness of disinterested sacrifices and
wide-spread love,—the happiness of boundless hope, and of thoughts which wander
through eternity.’ Now the circumstances in which man was placed, by calling
into exercise his various faculties, were admirably adapted for his
improvement. [Dr. Channing, in his Review of the Character and Writings of
Milton.] He was forbidden to eat of the fruit of a certain tree. His powers of
perception would enable him to perceive the desirableness of the food; and His
appetite would be stimulated.
He might also perceive the undesirableness of
indulging his appetite, because the fruit was prohibited; and in aid of this
would come the moral sense, the feeling that it would be wrong to eat—right to
abstain. The higher susceptibilities ought, we will say, to triumph over the
lower.
And if they had, how decidedly would the
character have been raised by the conflict with the temptation, and by the
victory gained. There would have been an increased tone of vigour;
while the consciousness of doing right, and the exercise of the higher faculties
which had been thus stimulated, would have raised the tone of happiness.
Moreover, a habit of subordinating the lower to the higher susceptibilities
would have begun to be formed; and every repetition of such concepts would have
strengthened the habit of virtue; till eventually such an elevation would, have
been attained, as that the certainty of always acting rightly might have been
confidently predicted.
THE FALL
But on the other hand, and as it happened, the lower. susceptibilities were
allowed to operate unduly; the tempting fruit was gazed on; its alleged
properties increasingly stimulated the desire to partake; the exquisite balance
of the faculties trembled, and was eventually
destroyed by the allowed increase of appetite; present gratification was
coveted; and in an evil hour man reached forth his hand, and, contrary to the
moral sense, broke the law of his Maker.
But to conclude a branch of the subject which
by universal consent transcends the ability of the human mind in its present incipient
state to fathom, and on which it would be the height of presumption to imagine
that one could cast more than the feeblest possible glimmering of light, even
if so much as this may be conceded; we may, I think, very satisfactorily
perceive this, viz., that if it be wise and good to endow man with faculties,
it must be every way desirable that they should be exercised. Thus only can the intelligent creature advance to higher and
yet higher grades. But if a moral system be the wisest and best for such a
creature, as a whole; then, the contingent evils which necessarily may arise
(not must) do not in any degree impeach the wisdom and goodness of the
benevolent Creator.
To return then from the precincts, which we
had nearly touched, of a subject at present shrouded in perhaps impenetrable
mystery, and confessedly surrounded like the throne of the Eternal with clouds
and darkness; emerging again from the grey twilight of reason into the clearer
light of revelation, we shall tread upon our path with a less hesitating step,
for our way is now much plainer.
We better understand the character which God
sustains, and the system under which man is placed. As to the former—whatever
other titles we may call him by—’the Lord is our King, the Lord is our
Lawgiver, the Lord is our Judge.’ And as to the latter, we are governed by
motives presented to us, by an appeal to our hopes and fears;
every way the most desirable method of governing intelligent creatures. God’s
will, then, comes to us in the form, not of mere counsel or advice, but of law.
And as law it is of course enforced by proper sanctions; fenced on the one hand
by the most glowing promises, on the other by awful threatening. We ‘come then
to the consideration of this law, which in substance and essence is given to
all moral agents, and which will never be repealed, nor even qualified. We
might take as a Motto the apostolic assertion, ‘The law is holy, and the
commandment holy, and just, and good.’ Romans 7:12. And so our subject at
present is THE EXCELLENCE OF THE DIVINE LAW.
By the first clause of the text just quoted
the apostle means that the law as a whole is agreeable to the character of God, and calculated to promote holiness. When he goes on to
speak of ‘the commandment,’ he seems to refer to the law taken in its various
parts separately; each specific requirement is ‘holy, just and good,’ with
perhaps a special reference to that one which he had been particularly alluding
to, Thou shalt not covet,’ and which might serve as a
key to the whole, by showing that they extend to the heart. The commandment,’
then is ,holy ‘—pure, free from all defect; ‘
just—agreeable to justice, right in the very nature of things; ‘good’—in the
object and end it is designed and calculated to accomplish, benevolent, adapted
to secure happiness. We might indeed well conclude, even prior to examination,
that a law given by God would necessarily be characterized by highest
excellence.
If we did not know what the law itself was, if
the bare face alone were announced to us, that God had authoritatively
published a law which was to regulate the conduct and feelings of his
creatures, both to- wards himself and in all their intercourse with each other,
we nevertheless might, antecedently to all knowledge of its nature, positively
conclude that the stamp of perfection must be indelibly impressed upon it.
For how could it be supposed credible, coming
from an infallibly wise and good Being, that there should be either deficiency
or •excess? that there should be an arbitrary exaction of more, or a weak
toleration of less, than was exactly proper? To suppose God capable of issuing
a law requiring either more or less than was exactly right, is to suppose him
acting without wisdom and without ‘goodness; in fact, it is to deny altogether
the existence of those attributes which distinguish Deity,—perfect
wisdom, perfect justice, perfect benevolence. We have then, in the essential
character of God, a guarantee that the law which issues from him shall be
neither deficient nor superfluous; his work is perfect.’ And then if he give a perfect law, it must be right to enforce it; and
there must be as much wisdom, and even goodness, in his guarding it when given,
as there is of those qualities in his giving it at first: and consequently it
is as right to punish the violation of law, as it was tight originally to enact
law at all. But we will not rest the case on the presumed excellence of the
law; we will examine it for ourselves; it invites the investigation of the
thoughtful, and it deserves their admiration, for it is beautiful as the laws
which God hath stamped on nature, and by which he secures the order and harmony
of the universe. But what do we mean by The Law?’ We will endeavour
to answer the question, and in so doing shall perceive that 1. The excellence
of the law is seen in its very Nature.
Generally, we mean by the law that which is
commonly called the moral law, presented to us in the shape of distinct
commandments, ten in number; prescribing to each one
of us concerning God in the first place, and then concerning our deportment to
all our fellow creatures. These are illustrated, and their extensive bearing
shown, by many other precepts which are scattered through the scriptures. But
there is not a single injunction or prohibition (of a moral kind we mean, of
course, not referring now to the ceremonial law given to the Israelites, which
has another explanation) which is not referable to one or other of these commandments, and included in it.
If, however, without any amplification, we wish
to have the whole law in a closely condensed form, so that we may bring it
under the eye in one view in all its entireness, we can do so. It lies in a
small compass as summed up for us by its divine interpreter, ‘Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as
thyself.’ Thus it consists a two parts. Let us examine
it in both its branches, and see if it be not holy, and just, and good.’ As to
the First part, is it not well to call on the creature to love, and reverence,
and worship, and obey his all-wise and kind Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor,
to whom he “owes life and breath and all things, and on whom he entirely
depends? Must it not be right to love perfect excellence and goodness—to submit
to perfect wisdom—to manifest gratitude for kindness? Must it not be right to
worship God? and if so, right to worship him in the way which he may see fit to
prescribe? And if all this be tight, is it not of course right to require it?
And if so, would it not therefore be wrong to dispense with it? Then this first
part of the law-cannot be excepted against.
The Second branch is drawn out for us into six
particulars; the admirable propriety of which will be the more readily recognised, if we consider ourselves the objects on whose
behalf the law is made, rather than the subjects to whom it is given. In the
First of which God very wisely and kindly confirms parental authority,
and dictates to children as to their behaviour
towards those who gave them birth. They are to love and respect and obey them,
kindly cherishing them in old age, if need require, tending them and soothing
them to life’s latest hour. All parents must approve this requirement; and if
in any case the young were disposed to murmur at it, feeling it an irksome
yoke, we should appeal from their present to their future selves, when they
also shall sustain the parental character, and will be quite prepared to
approve it.
The Second cannot require any comment: Thou
shalt not kill. Who does not feel that his life ought to be inviolate, and the
life of those he loves? Who does not decide that if any man should invade his
dwelling, and murder his wife, his parent, or his child, severe punishment
ought to follow? See then with grateful admiration, how, by an express
prohibition to all men, God has guarded your life and the precious lives of all
who are dear to you. Similar is the Third: Thou shalt not commit adultery,’
including in the prohibition every kind and degree of impurity. But to whom
shall we appeal? Assuredly not to the violators of this commandment in any
form; not to that) who would, at any cost, throw the reins upon the neck of
their passions, and with base selfishness seek only their own gratification, no
matter at what expense to others.
From such we turn away, as utterly
incapacitated to judge; or we appeal to them in the other characters they may
sustain, and as to the relationships of life which they rejoice to own. Who
does not wish, above his wish for life, that the sanctity of his own dwelling
may ever be most sacredly preserved?
Does not every
one who answers to the name of brother, husband, father, with a
knit brow and a flushed cheek, and in a tone of deepest emotion, assert that
his own beloved relatives ought, by every means possible to devise, to be most
sacredly guarded from even the slightest harm? Would he not have them protected
by the strongest sanctions law can give, shielded as by triple brass, from the
faintest breath of the spoiler?
How benevolent, then, the law which forbids,
under penalty of God’s displeasure, every
one from blighting the fair blossoms you so sensitively cherish.
God himself puts a fence around your dwelling; and in a tone of command that
will not be slighted with impunity, warns off every profane intruder, and
forbids even the faintest wish to wrong you. Thus is
he by this law the kind guardian of your domestic peace. Similar is the Fourth:
Thou shalt not steal.
Again consider
yourself the object in whose favour the law is made,
and you will recognise that hereby God sets a hedge
about all you have; your possessions are to be your awn entirely, and no one is
to deprive you of the least portion, or to defraud you in any transaction. So with the Fifth. All persons are forbidden to meddle with
your fair fame; your character is to be as sacred as your life: God will not
hold that individual guiltless who misrepresents you in any way. And knowing
that all outward improprieties and positive wrongs begin in the heart;—in the Sixth he prohibits all persons from wishing to
wrong you in the least degree, or to gratify themselves at your expense.
Thus God decides how
all persons shall behave to you, thus kindly does he guard you on every hand.
While in other parts of scripture, these requirements are explained to be
positive in their real meaning, as well as negative: so that persons are not to
be content with simply abstaining from doing you harm; they are to do you good
as occasion may require; they are to embrace all opportunities of increasing
your comfort and happiness, and are to love you as
they love themselves. Thus extensively has God cared
for your welfare; thus strict is the charge he has given to all men concerning
you. Is not the law, then, holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good?
And then is it not quite as excellent when you are the subject, as when you are
the object of it? when it is law to you concerning all your conduct towards
others, as when it is law to others concerning you!
2. But observe its excellence in its tendency
to make the observer of it happy.
And it has this tendency in many ways. There
would be in one who should perfectly keep the law a perfect satisfaction with
himself. Conscience would never speak in an accusing tone, but always the
language of approval. There would be a sense of God’s approbation, which would
fill the heart with joy. It will be admitted by every reflecting person, that
happiness does not depend so much on external circumstances, as upon the state
of our own minds. We are dependent on ourselves rather than upon others. Take
an ambitious, restless, dissatisfied man, and load him with riches, honours, authority; will he be happy? You unhesitatingly
answer, No. But why not? Because, you reply, his own
disposition will prevent. Take another,—a suspicious,
jealous, irritable, and revengeful man; place him amongst the peaceful and
amiable; will 4 be happy? No, his wretched temper will be a perpetual
preventive of enjoyment, and if he do not find sources
of disquietude, he will make them. On the contrary, let a man of a cheerful,
contented, grateful, and benevolent disposition, be brought into painful
circumstances, and his situation, though trying, will not deprive him of peace
and happiness.
Or let a meek and gentle spirit, though
sensitive, be exposed to unkindness; still, though grieved, the mind is not
robbed of its peace. We have a beautiful illustration in the Psalmist,—
Princes did sit and speak against me, but thy servant did meditate on thy
statutes.’ We can easily conceive that were an angel to become incarnate, and
to dwell amongst us for a time, exposed to hardship, neglect, and insult, none
of these things would destroy his peace. His well regulated mind would prevent external things,
mere accidents, from affecting his inner self. And so
our happiness is not placed at the mercy of outward circumstances, over which
we have no control: it is made to depend much more intimately upon ourselves,
and the state of our own minds. A good man is satisfied from himself: great
peace have all they that love thy law, and nothing
shall offend them.’ The law of God is such as, if observed 4in its spirit as
well as its letter, would make us happy in our conformity. It prohibits nothing
that is not injurious, it requires nothing that is not advantageous. We know
how pleasant to one’s self are the feelings of
kindness and benevolence. I can confidently appeal to the reader, whether he
has not felt an exquisite glow of delight, when, on some happy occasion, his
breast has been full of goodwill to all around him. Oh yes, if we know what it
is to look abroad on creation with a kindly eye,—to be glad in the joy that was
felt by others, and to wish happiness to the universe, embracing in our
benevolence all ranks of creatures, we can bear witness to the fact that such
feelings of expansive benevolence to others, when self was for a time lost
sight of, have produced a gush of rapturous enjoyment which language is too
poor to describe. Happiness, then, depends on the slate of our own minds, and
the feelings which are prevalent there.
Now the law of God prescribes exactly that
class of affections, and that only, which invariably and necessarily produces
enjoyment in the existence and exercise of them—Love. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with
all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thyself.’ And so love is the fulfilling of the law.’ Allow the imagination
to bring such a state of mind before you as your own; just try the experiment
of imagining how you would feel, if every selfish, unlovely emotion had become
utterly extinct, leaving no trace behind, and pure love to all beings animated
your breast; the heart filled with holy love and reverence for God, so that you
exulted in your relation to Lim, and delighted in all his will; love to God
supremely, and to all his creatures subordinately,—why, your cup would be full
to overflowing, and you would be ready to shout aloud for joy. Thus admirably is God’s law adapted to secure the perfect
happiness of every one that observes it. Thanks be to God for such a law!
3. Its excellence is further seen in its power
to secure the happiness of the entire universe.
Poetry is poor, and the imagination altogether
inadequate, to exhibit the scene which would, everywhere else always, meet our
eye, were the law of God perfectly obeyed by all. Every individual being
possessed of those feelings which we have just alluded to, all would possess in
themselves a source of unbounded happiness. Moreover, the mind of the
individual would not have to depend merely upon itself, but every other being
would regard him with perfect love, and would seek his
welfare. And thus, all loving and all loved, every heart would be attuned to
harmony, and every voice in concert would sweetly swell the universal chorus;
for God would be exalted to his proper throne, and would reign supreme over
willing and delighted subjects, who were ever yielding the homage of love to a
God of love; while the feeling of every heart towards the Great .Supreme first,
and then towards all fellow creatures, being precisely that the exercise of
which causes exuberant gladness, and this being in such a supposed state
uninterrupted, our happiness would meet with no rude check, and being perfect,
so would our bliss be perfect also.
What a delightful vision is thus presented to
our view. The God whose name is love, sitting on the throne of universal
empire, and swaying the sceptre of love over all the
intelligent creation; the teeming myriads of the universe burning with seraphic
love to him, acquiescing, delighting in his will, and dwelling rejoicing in his
presence; their hearts being under the soft control of love, they regard their
fellow creatures with a beaming eye, and the melody of love is heard in every
whisper, and in every note. Nor is all this a pleasant fiction. Such is heaven.
Law perfectly observed there—the law of love—secures the happiness of all.
LAW APPROVED BY CONSCIENCE
And it is nothing but the universal neglect of -God’s law which has transformed
this beauteous earth into the wilderness that it is. Oh how wretched has the
infraction of law made man everywhere!. How earth
sighs, from her deepest recesses, over the ills which have resulted there from,
and wherewith humanity is weighed down and crushed. Whenever man causes a sigh
to rise from any heart, that sigh is wrung from the bosom by his violation of
God’s law. Trace up then all the misery which has filled the world to this, its
proper source, and say whether the beauty of the law is not apparent in the
happiness it can cause, and in the wretchedness which its violation occasions.
4. Its excellence is seen in the fact that the
moral sense, the conscience, of every man approves it.
Among even those who, alas for them! impiously
set themselves against God and his revelation, there is not one that can take
any exception against this law. All have broken it and all by nature dislike it
as a law for themselves, and refuse to obey it; Jut
all have a perception of its excellence. And that part of it especially which
refers to our behaviour to each other, has been
adopted by all classes, and has received even from the ungodly the designation,
— ‘the golden rule.’ And every man wishes all others to regulate their conduct
towards himself by this law, whether he is governed by it or not. And this
universal demand, even from those who have violated it, is a universal
testimony to its excellence. Yes, all men love to see it exhibited and observed
by others.
For who is there so base as not to approve the
‘ self-denying philanthropy of a Howard, the untiring
humanity of a Clarkson, and of many others whom it would be easy to mention?
Yet all that was so admirable in them was conformity, in some good degree, to
this How often men admire, without giving themselves the trouble to think what
it is that imparts loveliness to the objects of their applause. You may perhaps
see one who is fitted to adorn the choicest circles, leaving the elegant
occupations and refined society of her graceful home, entering the abode of
poverty and affliction, to administer with her own hands to the wants of the
suffering, or by her soft and sweet-toned consolations soothing the mind of the
miserable. You may observe her encountering all that delicacy shrinks from, a
ministering angel to the wretched.
LAW EXEMPLIFIED BY CHRIST
You speak in glowing terms of her goodness, but do you recognise
that such a one is only complying, and that but partially, with one branch of
this beauteous law! What we instantly hate, too, is a violation of this law. We
see a sordid wretch, who, having gold in his coffer, loves to keep it there: a
son of misery, aye, a daughter of sorrow humbly sues for a trifle from his
abundance; but the vile ,lover of his yellow earth turns a deaf ear to the
pleadings of distress; anguish may rise, and swell, and overwhelm the soul;—he
beholds it all unmoved, his heart is like the nether mill-stone.
We vent our indignation,—honest,
praiseworthy indignation. But the conduct so justly stigmatized is precisely
the opposite to that enjoined by God’s law, and is
expressly denounced by it. See how, when unbiassed by personal considerations,
we take part with the law, and approve it as holy, just, and good.’ Thus in the meed of admiration
which we bestow on virtue, and in the frown of indignation with which we greet
the contrary, does the moral sense of all men testify to the excellence of the
law. Partial conformity to it presents us with partial excellence and partial
happiness; while perfect conformity thereto, is perfect excellence and perfect
happiness. § 1. The excellence of the law is further shown in the fact that the
Saviour, when intending to exhibit a perfect model of
loveliness of character, made it his rule.
It has been already remarked,
that the loveliest character we ever met with derived all that was really
excellent from conformity to the law of God. There is no imaginable excellence
that it does not comprehend. Take then the finished portrait of perfection
which we have in the whole demeanour of Jesus of
Nazareth. Whatever forbearance, magnanimity, benevolence, self-renunciation, he
manifested, he never went a hair’s breadth beyond the requirements of this law.
Did he forget his own fatigue at Jacob’s well? Did he wipe away the tears from
the widowed cheek of her of ‘Nain? Did he weep in sympathy with the sorrow stricken sisters of Lazarus?
Did he go about doing good, labouring to reclaim the wanderer, to instruct the
ignorant, to bless the wretched, and to raise all
about him to virtue and happiness? Did he bury in oblivion his cruel wrongs,
and pray for his very murderers? Did he forget his own anguish on the cross,
when his weeping mother caught his eye, and when the accents of the dying thief
fell upon his ear?
In no one instance did he ever step beyond the
circle .law had drawn. In all he did, when in
childhood and youth he was subject to his parents, when in after life he lived
only for the good of all around him and for the glory of his Father, he only,
as it was predicted of him, magnified the law and made
it honourable, by complying with its demands. Study
then the character of Jesus, gaze. on the exquisite loveliness that was embodied
his demeanour, and as you admire, recognise
therein neither more nor less than law perfectly observed.
For in his life the law appears, ‘Drawn out in
living characters.’ Here then, we pause.. We have recognised the fact that a law emanating from God cannot be
other than precisely what it ought to be; for the character of the Divine Being
is a guarantee for this. We have considered the law in itself; and perceived
its claims to be admired. We have also regarded it in its legitimate effects,
its adaptation to make the observer of it perfectly happy, and so the entire
universe. We have seen how instinctively men admire its requirements to be
observed by others towards themselves: and have traced the perfect loveliness
of character which distinguished Jesus of Nazareth, to the fact that it was
entirely formed on the model of the law, of which it was an attractive
embodiment.
And now are we not entitled to affirm that the
law which God has revealed for the conduct of his subjects, is as beautiful as
those laws of nature to which we have previously adverted Is there not as much
adaptation in this to produce harmony and happiness in the world of mind, as in
those to secure the order of the material universe? With how much higher
delight, then, may we admire and extol this law of God, than we praise those
other laws which he hath stamped on matter, though they are perfect. But total
admiration is not the point at which we may stop; there are obvious conclusions
which we may not lose sight of. It must be admitted, for example (1.) That it
was every way wise and benevolent and right for god to
give such a law as this; perfectly right to call on all his creatures to love
him supremely, and to love one another perfectly and uninterruptedly;
necessarily right, for we cannot conceive that the opposite course would be at
all right, viz. that he should not call on them to love him, and to love one
another.
LAW MUST BE GUARDED
To dispense with this, would be to dispense with what was essential to the
happiness of all; and which therefore would not have been benevolent, but the
very reverse event unkind and cruel. Then (2.) it must be as proper to guard a
law, so necessary to the general welfare.
By how much it was wise and good to give such
a law, by just so much must it be wise and even benevolent, to insist on its
being obeyed. For as well not enact law, as leave every one at full liberty to observe it or not, just
as he chooses; in which case it would not be law at all. But the proper guard
of law is penalty threatened to the transgressor, which cannot therefore be
dispensed with; the universal welfare requires to be thus protected. It is wise
and good, therefore, to threaten punishment to the man who shall set the law at
nought, for the violation of law is the only thing
that can introduce disorder and anarchy, which has accordingly to be prevented
by all proper means.
But if it be right to threaten, it must be
(3.) right to fulfil the threatening. For it cannot be right for the Supreme
Governor to speak, and not to keep his word. He must ever be the God of truth.
And it would soon be known that though he threatened awfully, it was nothing
but an idle word which might be disregarded with impunity; and then it is all
one, as though there were no such law at all; and so
the entire universe is given up of God, wholly abandoned to utter lawlessness!
But by how much we shrink from this, by so much do we acknowledge that God must
execute his threatening.
That due- regard to the whole, which it were awful beyond conception to think of as not paid,
demands that the law, which is essential to the peace and order and harmony and
happiness of the universe, shall be guarded by the punishment of the
transgressor. Thus, then, punishment is imperative. It is not that God burns with
resentment at the affront put upon him; not that he lays aside for a moment any
of the goodness of his nature; not, as some choose wickedly to pervert things
and say that, according to scripture, he brought some of his creatures into
existence in order to make them miserable but his very regard to the universal
happiness compels him to maintain his holy law inviolate.
INDISPENSABLENESS OF PUNISHMENT
Nor can any reasonable person regret that the law of God, when violated, should
bring suffering to the transgressor, any more than he can regret that fire
should bum and water drown those who choose to brave
them. It is not wrath, it is not fury, it is not passion, which lifts the arm
of justice against the violator of law, but wisdom and goodness; which is not
that blind, undiscriminating, easy goodness which some choose to ascribe to
God, and which would be a weakness exposing to contempt, rather than a virtue
commanding our respect;—but an enlarged and all-comprehensive regard to the
interests of the whole, with which the well-being of the incorrigible
transgressor (if it were possible, indeed, which in the nature of things, it is
not, for a determined despiser of such a law to be happy,) could not be allowed
to come into competition or bring into jeopardy. So that the very benevolence
of God, his considerate regard to the welfare of the many, will nerve his arm
to inflict the necessary punishment on the rebellious. Thus we have calmly
reached this point,—the indispensableness of
punishment when law is broken.
But here occurs to our minds the fact, that
all who have broken this admirable law are not punished. The scriptures happily
teach us that a great multitude whom no man can number,’ who have all dishonoured the law, nevertheless enter on a course of perfect
blessedness. All have sinned,’ and yet countless myriads go to heaven, to be
everlastingly happy! How does this agree with the alleged indispensableness of
punishment? it is enquired; and the question must have a reply, though not at
such a length as might be desirable, for it involves the entire theory of an
atonement.
We must be Content therefore with a brief
reference to a few principles. The fact referred to shows that mercy is
exercised in the actual administration of this system of government; while we
have also recognised the necessity of maintaining,
undiminished, all the authority—the motive power—of law. So
the question arises, how Mercy and Justice are reconciled. Now it must be
remembered that these are not necessarily and essentially contraries. It has
been well argued, that if they were essentially contraries, then,—”
if justice always required the execution of penalties, to exercise mercy must
at all times be necessarily unjust” There is then, considered in the abstract,
no essential opposition between them. The question, how they may be harmonized,
“implies that it may not be unjust to exercise mercy, but, at the same time,
that it may be so; and moreover, that it is so generally—even so generally as
to create a commanding difficulty.
YET SOME NOT PUNISHED
“In the exercise of government, so as to make it an
efficient protection to virtue, it obviously does become a. most grave
consideration how far and under what circumstances, mercy may interpose. Hence,
and hence alone, arises; he competition between the attributes. The protection
of virtue is a just demand upon a government, and this demand may make it
difficult, and in many cases impossible, to extend mercy to offenders.
For the one object, the moral power of law
must be supported; for the other, it would be relaxed, and under extreme
lenity, destroyed. When, therefore, we ask how justice and mercy can be
harmonized, we ask by what means the moral force, the motive energy, of legal
authority may be undiminished, at the same time that
the remission of legal penalties is conceded. This, not an essential
contrariety between justice and mercy, is precisely the point of difficulty.
Secure the authority of law, maintain the force of motive, preserve inviolate
in the minds of subjects, the claims of virtue upon homage, and there will
remain in justice no opposition to forgiveness.
Justice, we repeat, is not a personal feeling
of vindictiveness, but the requirement not to violate rights. “ To reconcile mercy with justice, therefore, is so to
exercise the royal clemency as not to diminish public reverence for just
authority; so to dispense the favour, that crime in
general estimation may retain its odiousness, while virtue in the same
estimation continues at least unimpaired, if not still more illustriously
glorious and excellent.” LAW HONOURED
Were mercy not at all to be exercised, every criminal must suffer; if
indiscriminately, or generally, without some expedient to answer the end of
personal suffering, virtue is degraded, and law abrogated. It is manifestly for
the support of virtue, and as subsidiary to it, of the moral power of law, that
suffering is denounced; fulfil those ends without it, and the necessity for
exaction ceases. But to sacrifice them to mercy, both justice and benevolence forbid: and hence appear both the nature and necessity of
expiation or atonement. A real expiation, then, must fulfil the end
contemplated by threatening and personal punishment;—it
must have for its object the preservation of that regard for virtue in the
general mind, which is itself the end of law;—it must constitute a safeguard
not less effective than the execution of law for the suppression of evil, and
the advancement of good order and happiness.” Now the scriptures teach that the
work of Christ is that which enables the Supreme Governor to be at the same
time a just God and yet a Saviour.’ The mediatorial
plan meets the whole difficulty of the case. The son of God assumes our nature,
‘is made of a woman,’ in the ‘likeness of sinful flesh,’ renders through life a
perfect obedience to the divine law, and at length voluntarily submits to a
shameful death, and is laid as a captive, in the gloomy grave. All this is
plain palpable fact, matter of history. We anxiously enquire wherefore one that
was holy, harmless, and undefiled, suffered as though he had been the vilest
transgressor. That a sinner should be a man of sorrows causes no perplexity;
but that one abundantly attested as the beloved Son in whom the Father was ever
well pleased should have grief for his acquaintance, be exceeding sorrowful
even unto death, and bathed in his own blood die as a God-forsaken one, amid
the exultations and curses of the people,—this mystery
demands solution. And God has given it.
Christ himself had intimated
beforehand, in harmony with prophetic scriptures, that he would shed his blood
as a ransom for the many;’ and after his ascension, God raised up
supernaturally endowed witnesses, who proclaimed everywhere, in great variety
of phrase, that the death of Christ was an atonement for sin—an expiation for
human guilt—a satisfaction be divine justice. ‘In him,’ said they, ‘we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins;’ ‘ he is the
propitiation for our sins;” he died the just for the unjust;’ he bore our sins
in his own body on the cross; he was made sin for us, made a curse for us; “he
gave himself a ransom for all;” he was once offered to bear the sins of many;”
he offered one sacrifice for sins;” he hath washed us from our sins in his own
blood.’ Indeed the scriptures uniformly thus speak of
the death of Christ. [‘The Christian Atonement,’ by Joseph Gilbert]
Christ himself had intimated beforehand, in
harmony with prophetic scriptures, that he would shed his blood as a ransom for
the many;’ and after his ascension, God raised up supernaturally endowed
witnesses, who proclaimed everywhere, in great variety of phrase, that the
death of Christ was an atonement for sin—an expiation for human guilt—a
satisfaction be divine justice. ‘In him,’ said they, ‘we have redemption
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins;’ ‘ he is the propitiation for
our sins;” he died the just for the unjust;’ he bore our sins in his own body
on the cross; he was made sin for us, made a curse for us; “he gave himself a
ransom for all;” he was once offered to bear the sins of many;” he offered one
sacrifice for sins;” he hath washed us from our sins in his own blood.’ Indeed the scriptures uniformly thus speak of the death of
Christ. [‘The Christian Atonement,’ by Joseph Gilbert]
THE PLAN OF MERCY
Now without going into the
whole plan of atonement, or showing how it is that we have redemption through
his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,’ (which has been ably (toile by
others, and by none better than by Mr. Gilbert, in the work already quoted
from) I must content myself with reminding the reader that the mediatorial work
of the Son of God is set forth as that which harmonises
justice and mercy. And we can easily perceive that the authority of law, its
motive power, its moral force, is more than preserved by this compensative
arrangement, which so wonderfully exhibits both the wisdom and the love of God.
In affirming the unambiguous and positive
testimony of scripture to the fact of Christ having procured forgiveness for us
by his death, (not indeed placated God—not appeased divine fury!—as some of our
popular hymns unhappily represent, and as some opponents of the doctrine too
frequently prefer to understand) the author is gratified in being able to quote
a sentence from the late Dr. Channing, whom for so many things all Christians
may justly admire, while they lament the unfairness, of which it is to be
presumed he was unconscious, in dealing with some of the truths denominated
evangelical. “Many of us think that the scriptures ascribe the remission of
sins to Christ’s death, with an emphasis so peculiar, that we ought to consider
this event as having a special influence in removing punishment, though the
scriptures may not reveal the way in which it contributes to this end.” And I
quote it with the hope of inducing any of that denomination to which the
lamented writer belonged, to re-investigate the scripture testimony on this
all-important subject. If the Son of God have indeed died to procure our
pardon, this fact must be the grand central truth of Christianity.
And while I venture respectfully and
affectionately to beseech to this renewed investigation, overpoweringly
persuaded in my own mind that the fact of atonement is written as with a
sunbeam, and drawing a wide distinction between the fact and the philosophy of
it, I would not less earnestly beseech the orthodox to abate, not of their
confidence, but of their asperity; to distinguish between the individual and
his errors, and to demonstrate the superiority of their views’ by their closer,
resemblance to the faithful and true witness. Truth consists as much in actions
as in words, presents a standard for our affections as really
as for our ideas. And I solicit pardon of my reader for taking this
opportunity of giving utterance to a wish long cherished in silence, that a
copy of that incomparable work, Dr. J. Pye Smith’s Scripture Testimony to the
Messiah, could be gracefully presented to every Unitarian
minister in England. Should the eye of some wealthy Christian perchance
glide over this humble page, should heaven happily incline him to make such a
use of the earthly mammon entrusted to his care, who could foresee the result?
BEARING OF ATONEMENT ON LAW
For those to whom mercy is
shown through the. Mediator acquire, by the very means
adopted in saving them, a much deeper sense of their guilt in violating law
than they would ever have attained; while their gratitude, their admiration,
their love exceed the power of language to describe; and sin becomes to them
inexpressibly hateful, while holiness—conformity to God, becomes the joy and
rejoicing of their heart. Never, never can they deem lightly of sin, (violation
of law) knowing at what cost they were redeemed, 1 Peter 1:18, 19; for truly it
is now more than the mere violation of law; over and above this, it is deeply
felt to be an ungrateful crucifying of the Son of God afresh.’ All the
sufferings of Christ engage them against it; every wound has a tongue—powerfully
irresistibly persuasive against sin.
Thus, by the very plan
which is adopted in saving them, they are more powerfully engaged against sin
than even holy intelligences who have never sinned; and their affections, as
well as their judgment, are eternally won over to the side of law. And then as
to the effect of atonement by the death of Christ on others. What is the
legitimate conclusion to be drawn—but that God will never relax the claims of
his beauteous law, never will wink at the neglect of it; for is not this the
language in which atonement speaks to all who are not thereby drawn back to
God, — ‘If these things be done in the green tree, what will be done in the
dry?’ If those even who become righteous are saved thus, and thus only, where
shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? It appears then, that in the wisdom
and goodness of God a plan has been devised and executed, incomprehensibly
.gracious, by which the laws of eternal wisdom are guarded; so that the
goodness of the divine government sustains no disparagement in receiving to favour those who had been transgressors, but who with
humble penitential gratitude avail themselves of the provision made. ‘For God
so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ Christ died for the
ungodly.’ But what bearing has this on our present subject? Much every way. It
is an additional proof of the indispensable of guarding law, as recognised and acted upon by God himself; it reconciles
with this imperative necessity, the salvation of those who embrace the glad
tidings of redemption through the blood of the Lamb; and in reference to others,—to those unhappy sinners to whom our subject
relates, it proves with equal intensity and clearness their awful though
righteous doom. For since Christ hath died to atone for human guilt, and thus
to make peace by the blood of the cross and bring us back to God, those who
neglect the only Saviour, who reject his sacrifice
for sins, doubly seal their own condemnation.
AND ON THE INPENITENT
Lilly pronounces the just, the awful sentence; that sentence the gospel can
revoke; the plea that Christ the Mediator hath died stays the hand of justice, and secures the kiss of mercy. But what if that plea
be not gratefully adopted? We call on men inspired to reply. Let Paul answer it
‘He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy, under two or three witnesses:
of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath
trodden under foot the Son of God?” ‘The Lord Jesus
shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking
vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ’ Let John give evidence. ‘He that believeth on the Sop hath
everlasting life, but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abides on him.’ Let us listen to Christ himself. ‘He that
believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned
already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of
God.’ We come then to a melancholy point. Law perpetually trampled under foot, and the very remedy—costly beyond compare—set
at nought, a double seal is affixed to the sentence
of condemnation. And when the violated majesty of law has brought the guilty to
the bar, lo! The rejected Mediator is the Judge; he who called
and they refused, who stretched out his hand, but no man regarded; and his lips
pronounce the sentence, which the heights of heaven and the depths of hell must
equally justify, ‘Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire. And these
shall go away into everlasting punishment’
JUST CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSING
CHRIST
Thus are we conducted to a point whence we look down, though with half averted
eyes, into the terrible abyss where the finally impenitent are cast; and though
the smoke of their torment rises up in dark volumes, and though there be
fearful weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, we cannot refrain from
approving the sentence which divine justice hath passed on the obstinate
rejectors of mercy, who would not have it in God’s own way. Mercy came to them
with the tear of compassion in her eye, her voice was full of tenderness and
tremulous with the anxiety of love, her hands bore the Olive bough, and she
held forth exultingly a pardon written by justice in crimson characters, and
sealed at the foot of the Redeemer’s cross; but she smiled, she wept, she
besought in vain; in vain she sung of heaven, in vain she told the terrors of the
Lord.’ Day after day witnessed the sinner turning a deaf ear to the voice of
the charmer, coolly neglecting Christ, and virtually saying, I shall live as I
please, and if at last God will overlook whatever he has not approved, and make
me happy in some bright world,—well; I expect it of him; and if not; and so he
turned again and again, after every renewed appeal, to this present evil world,
trusting to God’s mercy to save him after all, though he did not choose to have
mercy in the way which God himself laid down.
Could we not then even mow join in the song of
Moses and the. Lamb as given in the Apocalypse, when there come forth seven
angels, having the seven last plagues, in which is filled up the wrath of God;
Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God
Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.’ And if any
impenitent sinner read this page, one who has not fled for refuge from the
wrath to come, to the Lamb of God who alone takes away the sins of the world,’
I do beseech him at once to hasten his escape from impending ruin, and while
yet the day of salvation lasts, to seek God with his whole heart, in godly
sorrow for sin, imploring mercy in the name of that great High Priest,’ that
Advocate with the Father, who is the propitiation for our sins,’ and who is
able to save unto the uttermost all who come unto God by him.’
Future suffering, whether
penal or corrective— Suggestions to the Orthodox and to their opponents—
Punishment, not Chastening — Idea of from nature of law taught by scripture
phraseology— By its general tone— No tendency in suffering to convert—
Testimony of conscience— Case of fallen angels— Circumstances generally,
bearing of— Conclusion.
HAVING recognised
the indispensableness of punishment when law is violated, our next question
is—Whether the punishment threatened to the sinner is intended in mercy to
himself, designed to correct his faults and restore him to a right state of
mind, so that ultimately he may be introduced into the
society of the blessed, and, being made perfect through suffering, may
henceforth be happy forever? Or, Is the suffering to
be proportioned to his guilt, and inflicted because deserved, without regard to
his improvement, but as a token of God’s displeasure against obstinate
transgressors, and of his inflexible resolve to maintain at all costs the
authority of law!
I trust the question is stated fairly: It
might indeed be put more briefly thus —Is it chastening, or punishment,
(properly so called) that is threatened to the finally impenitent? The
question, then, being understood, one or two preliminary remarks may not be
impertinent. And, 1. The orthodox are not entitled’ to affirm that all the
holders of the first opinion necessarily do away with the appeals to fear which
the scriptures contain; nor that they arrogantly set up their own reason
against the decision of revelation, and the authority of God;—nor that they
cling to the fond belief because they love this present evil world, and wish to
cheat themselves into a sense of safety while neglecting the higher interests
of religion and of their souls.
SUGGESTIONS TO THE ORTHODOX
This may doubtless be
affirmed too truly of some, perhaps of many, who have held the notion; but I
must protest against one sweeping sentence of condemnation passed on the moral
character of men, however widely we may deem them to have strayed, and who
differ greatly ‘among themselves; and in bar of the conclusion so
indiscriminately pronounced by some who, forgetful of the inspired injunction,
presume to judge another man’s servant,’ suggest one or two reflections. It is
quite possible, for example, for individuals differently situated from ourselves, exposed from childhood to quite an opposite class
of influences, to bring to the study of scripture the same amount of honesty as
ourselves, and yet reach other conclusions on some subjects.
The Calvinist and the Arminian (would to God
such names were fallen into desuetude) must forbear thus much with each other
on questions quite as important, and on which scripture says as much, and
speaks quite as distinctly, as on our present subject. And we ought cheerfully
to concede that a man who adopts the sentiment may be actuated by the purest motives, and may deem that he is more truthfully exhibiting
the character of God, and more completely harmonising
all scripture. And surely if it be possible to admit the existence and
operation of a praise worthy motive, this ought in
common candour to be acknowledged. Moreover, is it
not a fact that some of the most deeply thoughtful among the decidedly
evangelical, and even Calvinistic, have, while of course freely using scripture
phraseology, allowed in themselves a secret hope, and even belief, that the
future may possibly reveal that we had somewhat misinterpreted the divine
threatening!
Have not some of the most profoundly and
piously thoughtful been the least confident of the doctrine of never, ending
torment?
Dr. Watts, in his preface to ‘The World to
Come,’ referring to the manner in which he has treated the subject in the body
of the work, after intimating that “though the light of nature and reason”
would have led to other conclusions than those which he thought scripture to
affirm, says, “If the blessed God should at any time, in a consistence with his
glorious and incomprehensible perfections, release those wretched creatures
from their acute pains and long imprisonment in hell, either with a design of the
utter destruction of their beings by annihilation, or to put them into some
unknown world upon a new foot of trial, I think I ought cheerfully and joyfully
to accept this appointment of God for the good of millions of my fellow
creatures, and add my joys and praises to all the songs and triumphs of the
heavenly world in the day of such a divine and glorious release of these
prisoners.” After stating that he had not been able however to see in way the
difficulties could be overcome, he thus continues:
“The ways indeed of the great God and his
thoughts are above our thoughts and our ways, as the heavens are above the
earth; yet I must rest and acquiesce where our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father’s
chief minister, both of his wrath and his love, has left me in the divine
revelations of scripture; and I am constrained therefore to leave these unhappy
creatures under the chains of everlasting darkness, into which they have cast
themselves by their wilful iniquities, till the
blessed God shall see fit to release them” Professor Tholuck,
the foremost champion of evangelical truth in his native land, who, according
to the Biographical Sketch of him by Professor Parks, has been disposed now to
one view on our solemn subject, and now to another, has expressed himself thus;
“If I remember right, my expressions at the time (1834) were
these;—Dogmatically, i.e. as a theologian, I feel myself drawn toward this
opinion (i.e. the doctrine of ultimate universal salvation) but exegetically,
i.e. as an interpreter, I do not know how to justify it.” And since one
periodical at least in a review of that able and interesting pamphlet, What was
the Fall?’ mentioned the late John Foster as the writer of a most
characteristic letter, a part of which is therein quoted, there can be no impropriety
in my saying that that profound and mighty thinker, whose reverent attachment
to evangelical religion none can question, utterly disbelieved and rejected the
popular notion of an eternity of suffering; and without, I think, coming to a
positive conclusion bow their sufferings would terminate, rather inclined to
the belief that ultimately all God’s creatures would be restored to virtue and
happiness.
And I may add my personal testimony to the
fact that very many of both ministers and private Christians, whose cordial and
devout attachment to the general scheme of evangelical truth is indisputable,
mare than doubt the eternity of hell torments. If some of these have as yet no positive belief as to the final result, they are
quite agreed that the popular doctrine is untenable. So far as I have had an
opportunity of judging, I should say that there are comparatively few
evangelical congregations in which will not be found some of the most
intelligent and pious to disbelieve the common opinion. But the distinction
between exoteric and esoteric is not yet forgotten.
And further, would it not be more satisfactory
to every benevolent mind, to entertain the idea, if it were allowable, that
ultimately the entire universe would be free from all sin and suffering, and be
happy in everlasting allegiance to God? Surely we are
none of us prepared to affirm that this would, per se, be an unworthy notion to
entertain of that God who hath made us all of one blood, and whose resources
are infinite.
ON THE BELIEF IN RESTORATION
And I may the more consistently entreat the adoption of a less objectionable
tone, inasmuch as while I can in thought place myself
on. the standing-point of such as hold the opinion, and
look at the subject from their point of view, and understand how they reach
their conclusions (which if an opponent cannot do let him hush) I am
nevertheless argumentatively constrained to reject a hypothesis which, if it
were wise to allow such a state of mind, I could of course unutterably prefer.
And I am the more anxious to do this measure of justice,
because the censure implied falls in some degree first upon myself for a
few somewhat harsh and sarcastic expressions which escaped me in a former
edition.
But then, 2, on the other hand. The holders of
the first opinion are not entitled to charge those who, rejecting the idea of
chastening, maintain that of punishment, with representing God as wrathful,
resentful, burning with fury, taking delight in the anguish of his creatures,
remorseless, vindictive, and so forth. The very plain language of scripture
ought ever to shield us from these imputations, so freely heaped upon us, of
misrepresenting the God and Father whom we love. And it ought to be conceded to
us that, since God certainly does sustain the character of Governor, the
rectoral may at least possibly be the predominant element towards those whom no
heavenly goodness can soften, no celestial blessedness allure, no terrible
threatening affect.
Surely it ought to be conceded, else where is modesty? that there may be in the divine
government, principles yet undeveloped to us—sublimely awful purposes to be
answered, requiring, after every suitable effort has been made and made in
vain, the exhibition of the exclusively rectoral character towards such wilfully unhappy creatures, and their final abandonment to
the doom they have so obstinately provoked. Assuredly it cannot be maintained
that under no possible circumstances might a profoundly deep and large and wise
benevolence—a merciful regard to the welfare of the whole—dictate the
fulfilment, in all their literalness, of the terrible threatening written on
the page of revelation.
And by way of further moderating the
unjustifiable tone often adopted in reference to the orthodox, I may adduce the
more modest and hesitating language of Dr. Charming, who, at the conclusion of
his very impressive discourse) on The Evil of Sin, says—” I have spoken of the
pains and penalties of moral evil, or of wrong doing,
in the world to come. How long they will endure I know not. Whether they will
issue in the reformation and happiness of the sufferer, or
will terminate in the extinction of his conscious being, is a question on which
scripture throws no clear light. Plausible arguments may be adduced. in support
of both these doctrines. On this, as on other points, revelation aims not to
give precise information, but to fix in us a deep impression that great
suffering awaits a disobedient, wasted, immoral, irreligious life.
NOT CHASTENING BUT PUNISHMENT
But to conclude these preliminary remarks, I must profess an increasingly
strong belief that what is threatened to the impenitent sinner is not
chastening, but punishments and I proceed to suggest a few considerations.
§ a. The idea of punishment, strictly
speaking, and not of chastening, necessarily grows out of the nature of law,
and out of that rectoral character which we have already shown God to sustain;
and all that has been previously said, lends its entire weight to this
argument, which needs not therefore be pursued.
§ b. But the grand question is—What said the
scripture If we could make the next state one of discipline by writing
‘chastening’ instead of ‘punishment’ we might feel strongly impelled to use the
milder word, but as we have no voice in the matter, and. God hath unalterably
fixed the character of the next state, nothing can be gained, while very much
may be lost by our putting another than the legitimate sense on his decision.
It is unquestionably that the writers of the
New Testament perfectly recognised the difference
between punishment and chastening. And the copious and flexible language in
which they wrote would enable them to convey either idea quite as accurately as
we can do in English. We accordingly find them using different words to convey
the different ideas. When, for example, they refer to discipline that is
intended to be corrective, they speak as follows:— My
son despise not the chastening of the Lord. Hebrews 12: 5.
Whom the Lord loves he chastens. 6 v:
If we endure chastening God
deals with us as with sons: for what son is he whom
the Father chastens not.’ 7 verse. [See also verses 8, 9, 10, 11.]
If we endure chastening God deals with us as
with sons: for what son is he whom the Father chastens
not.’ 7 verse. [See also verses 8, 9, 10, 11.] We are chastened of the Lord,
that we should not be condemned with the world.’ 1 Corinthians 11: 32. As many
as I love I rebuke and chasten Revelation 3:19.
As chastened, and not killed.
2. Corinthians 6: 9, [See also for the verb, Acts 7: 22, 22: 3. 1 Timothy 1:
20, 2 Timothy 2: 25, Titus 2:12, and for the noun, Ephesians 6:4, 2 Timothy
3:16.]
As chastened, and not killed. 2. Corinthians
6: 9, [See also for the verb, Acts 7: 22, 22: 3. 1 Timothy 1: 20, 2 Timothy 2:
25, Titus 2:12, and for the noun, Ephesians 6:4, 2 Timothy 3:16.] These are I
believe all the passages hi which the word chasten’ in any form occurs in our
translation, or the equivalent word in any form in the Greek, with two seeming
exceptions, (which really form but one) namely, Luke 23: 16 and 22, where
Pilate, whose feelings towards our Lord were favourable
and kind, proposed, instead of putting him to death as a malefactor, as the
Jews de mended, to inflict some comparatively slight chastisement. And in this text it would certainly be quite as fair to consider the
word as denoting Pilate’s intention to prevent Jesus for the future from
stirring up the people,’ which is what he was charged with, and doing aught
that should again displease the Jews, as it would be to consider the proposed
chastisement perfectly and exclusively retributive.
And the evident kindliness of disposition
towards Christ on the part of Pilate would, I think, make the balance incline
this way. These are all the texts, and I think every unprejudiced reader may
perceive that (excepting only this in Luke 23: 16 and 22, which the amounts to
an exception) the idea conveyed by the word, in all of them, is that of kindly
instructing, improving, perfecting, by means of necessary discipline. Thus much for chastening; now for the word punishment. The
following are all the texts in which the word, in any of its forms, occurs in
our English testament. Matthew 25: 46. These shall go away into everlasting
punishment Acts 4:21. So when they had further threatened them, they let them
go, finding nothing how they might punish them. Acts 22:5. (i.e.
Saul of Tarsus) went to Damascus to bring. them which were there bound to
Jerusalem, for to be punished. Acts 26:11.
And I punished them oft in every synagogue. 2.
Corinthians 2:8. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment,—
rebuke or censure) which was inflicted of many.’ 2. Thessalonians 1:9. Who
shall be punished with everlasting destruction.’ Hebrews 10:29. ‘Of how much
sorer punishment suppose ye shall be thought worthy,’ 1 Peter 2:14.
Governors—sent by him for the punishment of evil doers. 2 Peter 2:9. The Lord
knows how to reserve The unjust unto the day of
judgment, to be punished.’ Of these, only four refer to future punishment; in
one of which, namely 2 Thessalonians 1:9, a periphrasis is employed, ‘shall
suffer as punishment, everlasting destruction.’ In another, namely Hebrews
10:29, a word which, as a noun, is only used in this text, but as a verb twice,
namely Acts 22:5, 26:11, where it is well rendered ‘punished.’ And in the
remaining two passages, the word once as a noun, and once as a participle; in
both instances correctly rendered punishment’ and punished.’ Now the only
instances in which this word, m any form, occurs in the New Testament
are—Matthew 25: 48.
And these shall go away into everlasting
punishment. Acts 4:21. So when they had further threatened them
they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them’ 2 Peter 2:9. The
Lord knows how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, to be punished.
1 John 4:18. Because fear hath torment. A thorough exposition of this last
passage (which alone occasions any difficulty as to the New Testament use of
the word would form too long a digression, but I think a close examination
would show that the idea of punishment is really contained in it. Let the
logical connection between verse 17th and this be observed, and that the
apostle has made distinct reference to the day of judgment, at which all who
have possessed true Christian love (his chief theme is brotherly- love,—compare
3: 19-23) will have boldness.* As Christian brotherly love at the same time
implies a perfect fulfilment of the divine commandment, verse 21, it is when,
like Christ’s love in this respect, full of confidence on the day of judgment, anti conscious of its innocence approaches God in judgment
without fear, (3:19, 20.) But in general, St. John continues,—’
Terror (of God) is incompatible with (true Christian) love. True love and
terror mutually exclude each other, because love and
cheerful confidence are inseparable for the terror (of God in judgment) is
grounded on consciousness of inherited punishment; but fear of punishment
annihilates the perfect, and cheerful love which is full of confidence.
This proposition is perfectly understood when
it is recollected that St. John makes Christian fraternal love identical with
the love to God, and considers the former as a
necessary manifestation of the latter, so that perfect brotherly love is, at
the same time, perfect love to God. [fear hath punishment, rendered torment in
our English version] means not, as some suppose, fear is punished, but that
there is a punishment in fear; fear is combined with the consciousness of
punishment.” Dr. Friedrich Lucke, in loc.
But we must close this argument, which happily
the reader of the English testament can understand’ nearly as well as another,
for it is a matter of fact on which his own common sense can decide. There is a
word in Greek which sets forth the idea of chastening, as we ordinarily use the
word to denote that discipline which has the individual’s own improvement for
its object. The word the apostles use in that sense, as the first class of
passages will show; but they never use it in reference to the wicked! There is
invariably a marked distinction in the manner in which they speak of the pious
and the ungodly; the former are chastened, and ‘ chastened
that they may not be condemned with the world;’ the latter are ‘ reserved unto
the day of judgment, to be punished,’ and will go away into everlasting
punishment.’ In fact, these two English words adequately convey the intention
of the inspired writers in reference to the two classes. So that the conclusion
we come to from an examination of scripture phraseology is, That the wicked,
when the present probationary state is ended, will be—not chastened with a view
to their own future good, but punished.
The general style of scripture on the subject
seems also altogether to oppose the notion of chastening, and to convey
exclusively that of punishment; so that any argument derived from the bible in favour of what we need not hesitate to consider
incomparably the more pleasing view, can be but inferential, and so far as I know is never direct. Now of course a really fair deduction is at all times satisfactory enough,
but how often are inferences speciously drawn from premises which, for many
substantial reasons, we are confident do not warrant them, although we may find
it difficult to put our finger on the precise point where the fallacy lies. So that generally speaking, direct testimony must greatly
preponderate over inferential conclusions.
THE GENERAL TONE OF SCRIPTURE.
The present argument then is this—The
scriptures, so far as memory serves me, nowhere in their statements concerning
the wicked after death represent them as being subject to discipline of any kind, but are ominously silent as to anything like instruction
or counsels or motives set before them. Not one solitary hint do we find of any
teacher of virtue, or preacher of a new gospel in the world of Woe; no word
about the periodical opening of the gloomy gates of Tartarus, to let forth into
the glorious liberty of the children of God those of the happy lost who, having
been purified by purgatorial fires, are become meet for an inheritance among
the saints in light. Thanks be to God, the river of water of life flows through
the moral wilderness where now we pitch our tents; and the Spirit and the bride
say, Come! And every one that hears takes up the welcome strain and repeats the
invitation, Come! and every one that is athirst may
Come, and whosoever will let him take the water of life freely.
But there is not the faintest intimation
given, in our only revelation, that the cool and refreshing streams which make
glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High, are
conducted through the nether world of outer darkness and of second death,-
changing into notes of gladness, into strains of most musical hope and joy, the
weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth which the Saviour
represents as the only sounds that fall on the affrighted ear. Quite the
contrary indeed. None of its assertions, its intimations, its figures, call up
any other than dark imaginings; they imprison the affrighted spirit in the
gloomy sepulchre of night, surround it with none but
hideous sights and sounds, and shroud it in deep despair.
While if we pass from the tropical parts of
scripture to the more doctrinal and prosaic, and ask
reason rather than imagination to be the interpreter, we shall find the idea of
punishment exclusively. Thus, for instance, the punishment is uniformly
represented as proportioned to the guilt incurred.
But were future suffering designed to work the
reformation of the offender, it would necessarily have to be proportioned —not
to the past conduct at all—but to his then state of mind. Suppose a dozen
sinners whose guilt is precisely equal; it is quite conceivable that from many
circumstances their several states of mind, when their present, probation
terminates, may stand at very different degrees in the moral scale. Equally
guilty as to the past, it may so happen that they are not then equally hardened
in sin.
SCRIPTURE SPEAKS OF PUNISHMENT ONLY.
If we may illustrate the various shades of
character by imagining a vast number of concentric circles, it is quite
conceivable that of the dozen who• have heretofore stood together in one and
the same, some may pass into the next circle beyond, and others into a still
outer one, while some remain stationary; or, in other words, while all are
equally criminal if judged by the past, some exceed others in vileness if
looked at according to their then state of mind; so that on the supposition of
the next state being corrective, a far less amount of painful discipline would
be needful for some than for others, although their past has been alike
criminal. But scripture uniformly represents the degree of punishment as
regulated exclusively by what the sinner has been and done during his abode
upon earth.
Every one
is to ‘receive according to his deeds’—’ according to the deeds done in the
body;’ he that hath deserved few stripes shall be beaten with few, he that bath
merited many shall receive many. Now on the supposition of the next state being
mercifully corrective and not punitive, quite another mode of representation
would have been the proper one; and there need be no concern at all about the
past, but the exact mental or moral condition at the precise moment of judgment
would alone require to be considered, for what had been would
furnish no criterion whatever. But as the scriptures uniformly represent
the whole of the past as taken into account, every
thought and word and deed being recorded in the books for the purpose, the
inspired doctrine of an exact retribution for the past shuts, us up to the
belief that it is not a mercifully intended chastening from the hand of a
father, but a merited punishment awarded by a judge.
HELL NOT ADAPTED TO
CONVERSION
And this brings us to the threshold of another argument. For seeing that the
scriptures nowhere intimate that there shall be anything beside the mere
penalty threatened; nowhere let fall a hint of instruction, exhortation,
entreaty, and the various other means mercifully adopted on earth to reclaim
the wanderer, and of which we may say with Elihu, Lo all these things works God
oftentimes with man, to bring back his soul from the pit to be enlightened with
the light of the living, (for I think no one will affirm that there is a single
passage in the bible conveying the idea of any kind of pains-taking with the
lost; all the texts quoted in support of the doctrine of restoration being
those which speak of ‘ the restitution of all things’—of Christ’s drawing all men
unto him’— of subduing all things unto himself;’ which belong’ to another head
of argument, and do not affect the present assertion, which is simply that all
the passages bearing on the subject convey the exclusive idea of unmixed and
mere punishment,) we are forcibly reminded of the fact that— There is no
tendency in mere suffering to effect that moral change which the sinner must
experience, in order to happiness and fitness for heaven. Nor will this
assertion be affected by the fact that affliction is often one means which God
makes effectual to the conversion of a sinner on earth. Here no one is exposed
to mere suffering, for here there is hope for the vilest, and he is entreated,
even at the eleventh hour, to flee to Christ for refuge, and to lay hold on
eternal life. Here he has a bible full of pathetic invitations to a throne of
grace and a merciful influence is put forth by God to open his heart that he
may attend to the things which belong to his everlasting peace.
So that no reference to the beneficial effects
of affliction in the present state at all touches the question; and seeing the
scriptures are perfectly silent as to any means of grace vouchsafed in the
world of woe, and that the idea of these is altogether gratuitous, I feel at
liberty to repeat that the notion of the next world being a place of kind
though painful discipline where all, even the vilest, will sooner or later see
the folly of sin, and turn from it with true and permanent repentance, and
acquire pleasing habits of virtue which will render them objects of the divine
complacency, and fit subjects for a world of perfect purity and bliss, so that
all men are on their way to heaven, only some Will have to pass a time in hell
to fit them for it, seems to contradict reason as well as scripture, seeing, as
suggested, there is no tendency in mere suffering to alter the moral tastes of
the sinner.
For,—Sin consists in
a wrong state of the affections, not merely in a mistaken judgment. A man may
be thoroughly convinced of what is wise and right and good, on the one hand,
and what is foolish and wrong and evil, on the other, and yet the clearest
conviction will not alter his bias; he may and often does still prefer what his
judgment disapproves. Take any confirmed sinner, one that is pursuing a course
which all men would pronounce vicious, and unwise even; does the man keep on
his course because his judgment approves it; or because inclination triumphs
over his convictions of right? We all know that men are impelled by their
affections rather than their judgments, and that it is one thing to convince
and another to persuade.
SUFFERING NOT LIKELY TO REFORM
Now what ground is there for assuming that a severer discipline than anything
found on earth will change the affections of the sinner, and make him in love
with holiness and with a holy God? Does mere suffering ever effect this in the
present state? When a vicious man has fairly ruined his constitution by
excesses, and is suffering in his own person the fearful consequences of his conduct,
what do we find? that he is gradually becoming enamoured
of virtue?—that the worn out sensualist begins to love
purity of heart? Our appeal is to all who know the world, whether the very
opposite is not the case; whether there is not rather bitter regret that it is
no longer possible to do as he has done, and the wish that he could still sin
on, without check or suffering. Still the vice is loved, though the
consequences are bitterly cursed.
There is no tendency in mere suffering to
change the affections. Vows of reformation, indeed, we have heard often enough
when the miserable man has been racked with pain; but how frequently, though
suffering is not alone here, was it all an outside reformation that was
promised; the heart remained unchanged, and with returning health there was a
relapse into former habits, which became more thoroughly confirmed than ever.
And are we not always expressing our conviction that the season of suffering is
not favourable for religious impressions? and have
not those of most experience, the least hope of effecting any real change in
the mind of one who is racked with pain on a bed of ‘sickness? A death-bed
repentance we none of us lay much stress upon.
Why then read the lessons of experience
backward when we speak of the next state? for the condition of the wicked is the .next world, while being lasts, is invariably
represented as one of unmixed anguish; the Saviour,
setting it forth by the common metaphor of fire, represents that not a drop of
water will be vouchsafed to cool the burning tongue. What tendency has this to
bring the sinner back to the love of God, I ask. The Apocalypse represents the
natural effects of judgments poured out on some who had set themselves against God,— ‘And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed
the name of God, who hath power over these plagues; and they repented not, to
give him glory. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the
beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for
pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven, because of their pains and their sores,
and repented not of their deeds.’—’And there fell upon men a great hail out of
heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God
because of the, hail; for the plague of the hail was exceeding great,’ 16: 9,
10, 11, 21. It seems thin perfectly unphilosophical, contrary to all reason and
to experience, to believe that severer discipline will of itself alter the
moral tastes of sinners.
TESTIMONY OF CONSCIENCE
Conscience, whenever allowed to speak fairly, testifies to the same effect, by
impressing upon the mind a sense of guilt, which anticipates punishment. And
when men are thoroughly awakened to a consciousness of their real character as
sinners against God (while they earnestly deplore their present moral state, it
is true, and anxiously enquire how they can become perfect in virtue, yet) they
ask first and with more terrible intensity,—what they must do to be saved? how
they can become just with God Past sinfulness rises up before the mind as
deserving to be visited with judgment; and the anxious question is,— How shall
I get my sins forgiven I while the earnest prayer is, Enter not into judgment
with thy servant, O Lord.’ And this sense of obnoxiousness to punishment is
found over the whole globe, everywhere bespeaking the existence of law, whether
written or otherwise. For when the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature
the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile
accusing or else excusing one another.’ Romans 2:14, 15. Which sentence of the
apostle reminds us of a forcible remark by Coleridge,—
“How deeply seated the conscience is in the human soul, is seen in the effect
which sudden calamities produce on guilty men) even when unaided by any
determinate notion or fears of punishment after death.
The wretched criminal, as one
rudely awakened from a long sleep, and half recollecting, half striving to
recollect, a fearful something he knows not what, but which he will recognise as soon as he hears the name, already interprets
the calamities into judgments, executions of a sentence passed by an invisible
judge; as if the vast pyre of the last judgment were already kindled in an
unknown distance, and some flashes of it, darting forth at intervals beyond the
rest, were flying and lighting on the face of his soul. The calamity may
consist in loss of fortune, or character, or reputation; but you hear no
regrets for him. Remorse extinguishes all regret, and remorse is the implicit
creed of the guilty.” [Aide to Reflection.]
The wretched criminal, as one rudely awakened
from a long sleep, and half recollecting, half striving to recollect, a fearful
something he knows not what, but which he will recognise
as soon as he hears the name, already interprets the calamities into judgments,
executions of a sentence passed by an invisible judge; as if the vast pyre of
the last judgment were already kindled in an unknown distance, and some flashes
of it, darting forth at intervals beyond the rest, were flying and lighting on
the face of his soul. The calamity may consist in loss of fortune, or
character, or reputation; but you hear no regrets for him. Remorse extinguishes
all regret, and remorse is the implicit creed of the guilty.” [Aide to
Reflection.]
FALLEN ANGELS NOT REFORMED
If any one should attempt to evade the conclusion to
be obviously drawn from this universal sense of guilt, by ascribing it to
priestcraft,—a very favourite device with many, —I
would simply ask whether it is not somewhat more philosophical, to say the
least, to deduce priestcraft from the wide-spread’ sense of spiritual want
already existent, and of which bad men in every age have taken advantage, than
to assert that a few cunning men in every country have persuaded the masses to
believe themselves obnoxious to the anger of God. I would yield to no man in a
settled hatred to priestcraft, in all its forms, but I must confess to a wish
to be found on the side of historical and philosophical truth; and it appears
to me about as reasonable to maintain that bakers have banded together,
cunningly to persuade men into a belief of hunger, or physicians to persuade us
into a belief of disease, as that the universal sense of guilt had its origin
in a conspiracy of priests!
But I am aware that in some schools,—highly
‘rational’ no doubt,—this facile and very convenient mode of reasoning, which simply
consists in changing cause and effect, and putting the one for the other, is
not so difficult of adoption as common mortals might suppose. There is another
illustration, which most readers will consider to be perfectly legitimate; namely,—That.
Satan and his angels have now been, for these
six thousand years cast out of heaven, and treated as enemies to God and
holiness. They have lost all the happiness they once enjoyed, and their souls
are filled with the deepest bitterest sense of wretchedness. What effect has
been produced on them by their long banishment from the seats of blessedness?
On the hypothesis we are considering, some effect ought to have been produced
ere this, one would think; for if six thousand years of punishment, at the
least, have net availed, in some degree, to soften the minds of the devil and
his associates, there can be no ground for believing that another six thousand
would. And scripture shows that even at the final consummation of all things,
when this world’s history shall come to a close, Satan and his angels will even
then, and God only knows how many long, long ages shall intervene first,—be found as obdurate. as ever, and as confirmed in
their malicious hatred to God and holiness.
HELL UNFRIENDLY TO
IMPROVEMENT
All the Circumstances of the Case make the supposition in the highest degree
improbable. Into that world of sin and misery are to be cast all that have
persisted in neglecting Christ and his salvation. The description of characters
that will be found there is given in terms of terrible significance by inspired
men, as for example,— ”The unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and
all liars,—For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers,
and idolators, and whatsoever loves and makes a lie.’ Revelation 21:8—22:15.
There will be no pious God
fearing person among all the host of the condemned; none of those
restraints which the presence of the virtuous in some degree ever interpose;
while closely mixed up with base and godless men will be those beings who,
unseen heretofore, have taken a malignant pleasure in tempting them to sin. I
ask what greater probability is there that such a world will be a more
successful training place for heaven than earth has been, than there is that a
licentious mind will acquire purity in the haunts of vice, when virtuous
society and all pleasant inducements have failed Yes, when one that has been
given to dishonesty, while surround by the just and good, becomes honest when
all virtuous’ society is left behind, and he is linked in with older and more
experienced rogues, then can we understand how a world where all is sin, and
where virtue hath no place, shall be so good a school for acquiring the love of
God and holiness, as that at length not one solitary sinner shall be found.
I must confess myself—(more especially when I
think of the powerful and well-adapted means that are unsuccessful here—the
oracles of God speaking in every variety of tone—the voice of mercy entreating
sinners to be reconciled to God—the cross erected to attract the eye and win
the heart, so that well may Jehovah ask, What more could I do that I have not
done and well exclaim, Because I have called and “ye refused; I have stretched
out my hand and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought
all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your
calamity. I will mock when your fear Dome&; when your fear cometh as
desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and
anguish cometh upon you: then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer;
they shall seek me earnestly, but they shall not find me: for they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord.
They would none of my counsel; they despised
all my reproof Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.’ (Proverbs
1:24-31.)—I say I must confess myself utterly unable to comprehend how the hell
of scripture is at all regard as a school of virtue where the discipline,
however painful, is nevertheless so successful in every instance that sooner or
later all the impious are subdued and softened and purified and elevated, and
rendered meet for an inheritance among the saints in light, on which they
accordingly enter amid the congratulations ‘of the universe.
A thought so pleasant, indeed, that could we
only find it in our sacred books, none should proclaim it with a greater
emphasis of delight. Were it referred indeed to our
imagination to invent an abode for the impenitent, we might with a touch of the
wand conjure up a scene that should beautifully harmonise
with this milder view; but between the refined purgatory of our poetic fancy,
and the Tartarus of revelation, what concord would there be?
And no proposals have been issued to us to
design for the court of heaven the prison of the universe, but the Great
Architect hath himself arranged all things according to the counsel of his own
will, and hath laid the foundations in the abyss, and built the walls thereof
with atones of darkness, and fixed therein immoveable as fate the everlasting
chains; and sent his heralds to proclaim his righteous will, and to-beseech
men, as though God did himself beseech by them, not to rush upon their doom,
but to flee from the wrath to come, and lay hold on eternal life, by gratefully
embracing the cross of Christ.
But the messengers of his will are
unequivocally to declare that, while God is love, and while he swears by
himself he hath no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would rather he
should turn and live,—yet the day of mercy wanes apace, the open door of
heavenly blessedness will in the fullness of time be forever shut, and all
whose impenitence and unbelief have excluded them there from shall find
themselves in ‘outer darkness,’ where the wrath of God abides on them;” there
remains, only a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which
shall devour the adversaries;’ and ‘they shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord.’ Thus shall
they indeed eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own
devices?
DISPENSATION TO THE INPENITENT
And thus taking counsel not of fancy but of fact, seeking a decision only from
the oracle on Zion hill,—noting the perfect silence of scripture as to any
remedial agency or means to be employed and any deliverance of the condemned
from their chains of darkness, while, on the Contrary, the carefully selected
terms employed, with the general tone adopted by inspired men, the inadequacy
of suffering to effectuate a moral change as illustrated amongst men and by the
history of fallen angels, the testimony of conscience, and the nature of law
whose proper guard is punishment, testify against it,—we find ourselves able to
reach no other conclusion than that the next state is one exclusively of retribution;
that it is not paternal chastening with which the wicked are visited with a
view to reclaim them, but in the strictest sense it is punishment that is
deservedly inflicted.
Oh that men were
wise! that they understood these things, and, recognising
the present as their only probationary state, from which their future must
derive all its colour, would apply their hearts to
understanding, and, while yet the day of salvation lasts, would lay hold on
eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord, for whom be glory forever and
ever.
Whoever is afraid of
submitting any question, civil or religious, to the test of free discussion,
seems to me to be more in love with his own opinion than with truth.” Bishop
Watson.
Popular belief of eternal misery dissented
from — Responsibility of so differing recognised—
Counterbalancing considerations— Burden of proof with whim— Evidence necessary
to establish the common doctrine— If contained in scripture easily and
variously proved— And more forcibly established by being called in question—
Truth alone desirable.
IT is with feelings of deep and even painful
anxiety that I approach that part of our subject which is now before us. With
the preceding chapters my brethren will for the most part agree,
and may possibly accept them as some little service rendered to the
common cause. Here, however, the approval of many will terminate, and with not
a few will be exchanged for something worse than the opposite. Still I must proceed, for Truth, as I believe, beckons me
on. Let me reverently follow. Yet how can I be insensible to the fact that the
direction in which my guide is leading me, is scarcely that in which many of my
brethren affirm Truth to lead?
Beyond a doubt the opinions of wise and good
men are entitled to respectful attention and it is a
grave consideration that the majority of Christian people have adopted views
which I find myself bound to reject; how then shall I not be sensitively alive
to the circumstances of my position? Have so many of the wisest and best of men
been left in error, men too whom God has signally honoured?
Have they been for the most part mistaking the voice of the oracle, and
misinterpreting the counsels of heaven on this solemn subject? Painfully and
oppressively do I feel this argumetaum ad verectindians.
TRUTH NOT PROVED BY NUMBERS.
But, on the other hand, are not the best of
men fallible And have not many of the wisest given
strange proof of ‘their fallibility Did not nearly all the wise and good once
believe, with Pascal and Fenelon, in transubstantiation and all the other
dogmas of the Roman church? Did even the mighty Luther, did the Reformers,
achieve their perfect emancipation from all forms of error, and leave no work
of reformation for their successors? What shall we say to the consubstantiation
of the former, and to the dark doctrine of reprobation so tenaciously held in
the stern and iron age that Geneva, Scotland, and even England knew? Why to
this day it is Church of England orthodoxy to believe that no one can be saved
who doubts the Athanasian creed; and fifteen thousand clergyman
now living have solemnly sworn their assent and consent to that perilous
assertion is it true?
Nor is it so long since it was held sound
doctrine among many of the evangelical dissenters that God had provided no Saviour for mankind at large, but only for a little flock,
a chosen few; and it was heresy to maintain that there were glad tidings for
every creature. And still the innumerable controversies, which are maintained
with a spirit that only too well justifies the current phrase, odium
theologicum, show how marvellously small is every
man’s belief in another’s infallibility, and may keep the writer in countenance
in replying to any who shall unreasonably press the opinions of individuals or
communities, ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye.
Besides, is it not our protestant boast, too
often indeed a mere empty boast, vox et pretence
nihil, that ‘the bible, and the bible alone, etc., and have we not for this
aphorism, admirable if only it were true, complacently decreed the apotheosis
of the author of so gratifying a period Let it not then be deemed quite an
unpardonable sin if we venture to construe the assertion literally, and so,
pushing our way through all that look infallibility, exercise our right of
sitting at the feet of the great teacher, whose words—Call no man your father
on earth, no man your master, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye
are brethren, were spoken not to be eulogised on
holiday occasions, or when they may serve a turn, but to be recognised
as a daily rule of life; “ He is our master in abstract speculation—our master
in religious belief—our-master in morals, and in the ordering of every day’s
affairs.” Most readers will remember that the Athanasian creed professes to set
forth “the Catholic faith,” but in reality is chiefly occupied with a sort of
philosophy, falsely so called, of the divine essence, unintelligible and
contradictory, of which it daringly affirms “ Which
faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall
perish everlastingly!”
SCRIPTURE NOT YET EXHAUSTED
Again, is not theology a science? Is not the word of God better understood now
than in any age since the apostolic! And if no one competently informed will
dispute this, let us ask ourselves whether we have reached the Ultima Thule of
religious truth, so that in the ages to come, those glorious ages! There will
be no discoveries to reward the diligent, and all the people of God will have
nothing to do but re-publish and stereotype for all time ,
the theological works of the present day! Believe it who can. Rather is the
book of revelation perfect. In those unutterably more glorious eras that are in
reserve for the church, there will be no other bible than our own to exercise
the loftier powers of our happier successors to the end of the world.
Nor needs it. Even in the latest age of all,
the wise householder shall bring out thereof things both new and old;’ and that
prayer of the psalmist shall never be in vain, Open
thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. And just as we
have been compelled somewhat to modify the theology of a former day, deeming
ourselves more favoured than our honoured
forefathers, so will the holy men of a coming age take leave to consider some
of the things most surely believed amongst us, not proven, while they will also
bring into luminous prominence some mighty truths which the popular theology of
the nineteenth century dooms to unwise neglect. There is still another
consolation. Truth can stand any test.
The words of the Lord are pure words, as
silver tried in a furnace of earth, and purified seven times. No weapon formed
there-against shall prosper. This is my comfort. And if the popular doctrine of
the real eternity (not of punishment but) of torment be of God, it cannot be
overthrown. It will be the more plainly demonstrated the more it is examined, and will stand out in the bolder relief from the
feebleness of the opposing arguments. The orthodox have nothing to fear. Let
them put their confidence in truth, and in the God of truth.
POPULAR DOCTRINE OPEN TO DISCUSSION
They have beside almost all Christendom, ostensibly, at all events, mi their
part. They can well afford therefore to be calm and fair and temperate and
just; they might well afford even more than this. On the other hand, if the
prevailing notion be of man;—if it be some not much examined doctrine that has
come down to us from the darker ages, some unpurged-away result of the former
universality of a system to which the largest inventible amount of terror was
indispensable;—if, from various circumstances, the religious world have adopted
it with far less of rigid investigation than they have been compelled to give
to other doctrines if it cannot be maintained by the fair application of those
sound hermeneutical principles which are the support of the rest of the
evangelical system;—and if the same sort of ‘reasoning by which this notion is
elicited from a few texts would, to a great extent subvert the very system of
which it is made a part; if all, or only some of this be so, then, whatever of
obloquy may be heaped upon me, or however forgetful some of my brethren may be
of the law of kindness and the higher law of truth, it will ultimately be seen
that no disservice, but the contrary, has been done to the great cause of
evangelical religion, which I would a thousand times rather die than injure.
But not to prolong these introductory observations, let us pass on to a
necessary but brief remark concerning
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
“It is a point of great importance to decide in each ease, at the outset, in
your own mind, and clearly to point out to the hearer, as occasion may serve,
on which side the presumption lies, and to which belongs the [onus probandi]
Burden of proof. For though it may often be expedient to bring forward more
proofs than can fairly be demanded of you, it is always desirable when this is
the case that it should be known, and that the strength of the cause should be
estimated accordingly.” Dr. Whately’s Rhetoric, part
1, chapter 3.
The eminent writer from whom this just remark
is quoted, and to whom the present age owes so large a debt of obligation, has
however laid down a principle from which, though with great diffidence, I must
profess my entire dissent; namely, that the onus lies with him who calls in
question any received doctrine, Surely he who affirms
a thing is bound to make good his assertion. Till proved, it is nothing but his
mere ipse dixit; and I am not to be Galled on to believe it, or else be held
bound to disprove it. I await the proof; when furnished, if sufficient, I
believe; but not till then. Instead, however, of my attempting here what is
already done to hand for us, and by a writer of no ordinary acuteness, the
reader will pardon my referring him to a work in which this point is argued,
and to my mind decided.
The burden of proof then lies with those who
assert that never-ending torment is in reserve for multitudes of God’s
intelligent, but alas! Rebellious creatures. If they affirm this appalling
idea, they are bound to make it good. They, must bring
forth their strong reasons. If it be the doctrine of revelation the proof lies
at hand, and can be easily produced. Till this is
done, not merely is no man bound to believe it; he ought not to believe; he
must wait for the evidence. Let us therefore recognise.
THE KIND OF EVIDENCE DEMANDED
As the burden of proof as whole lies with the asserters of the popular
doctrine, so does it at every stage of the argument. They must make good their
footing step by step from the beginning to the end. With mathematical precision
must they advance, till in-the face of all men they pre
entitled to crown their work with the letters it has often - been so delightful
to pronounce—Q. E. D. I-have never seen this done yet. To my mind there has
been a serious flaw hi all the evidence hitherto presented; and I am sometimes
lost in astonishment that in so solemn an argument, one so overwhelmingly
awful, evidence should be admitted as •satisfactory, of a kind which. would
never be employed on behalf of the grand truths of the gospel; and for this
reason, that the great evangelical verities are so abundantly proved, that the
believer feels that he can afford to cast away everything that is even but
slightly doubtful.
Baptism, in its Mode and Subjects, by
Alexander Carson. L. L. D. Chap. I. As it is only for the sake of this valuable
chapter that the author refers to a work on this controverted subject, about
which more than enough has been written, he hopes to be safe from
misconstruction with the candid reader, who will do himself a wrong if he fail to satiety his mind on so important a point as that
alluded to. For the divinity of Christ, for example, we would not sigh if
enlightened criticism deprived us of fifty texts which it may have been the
custom to quote in its defence. We would exult rather
to be disencumbered of all that could be fairly questioned, though ever so
slightly. We deem the great mystery of godliness to be like the name wrought in
the shield of Phidias; and we can be calm and just and kind to an opponent.
But how is it with the doctrine in question?
Where is that generosity towards an ingenuous enquirer, who is in doubt, which
confidence in the abundance, the variety, the force of evidence so notoriously
inspires? Assuredly, if it be the doctrine of scripture, it is plainly taught
in our sacred records, and in various ways. We shall not be shut up to an
equivocal word or two in a -comparatively few texts; but it will somehow or
other be involved in different lines of argument, the logical force of which
will necessitate our understanding it just so.
But what is the fact of the present case? Take
away the proof sought to be derived from the phrase everlasting punishment’
(which we shall not find on a candid examination to necessitate the belief) and
a few similar expressions, which may be opposed by expressions of an opposite
character, and what is left I Where are the lines of argument, the trains of
reasoning adopted in the scriptures, which only give out a fair meaning when
this doctrine is deduced I like an elaborate lock which will open only by the
application of the proper key, so that the key is thereby authenticated as
genuine. I submit therefore 2. That it is not enough for any party to bring
forward passages of scripture, and cast them before us in their baldness, as
foreclosing all discussion. For there are other classes of texts which would
not, be allowed to prove anything if produced in the same bald manner.
In argument with ‘the common people’ how do we
substantiate the views we present on the great leading truths? Assuredly not by
philological niceties, nor by laying the stress on mere words that look to
teach a certain doctrine, but by masses of arguments from scripture that
demonstrate the indispensable nature of just such or such a view.
ESTABLISH THE POPULAR DOCTRINE
If the universalist, for example, should adduce, as proving his theory, such
texts as these—’ the restitution of all things;’ I, if I be lifted up, will
draw all men unto me;’ God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth;” He retains not his anger forever, because he delights
in mercy;’—then the orthodox would promptly and properly demand that all such
passages should be examined in their connection, that the precise value of each
should be separately ascertained, that they should be compared with and, if
necessary, modified by other statements. But the principle which is sound
to-day against one view, is sound to-morrow even if it make
against another view, and sound every day. So that, 3. Prior to any
investigation of the proper force of terms as employed by the inspired writers,
the mere assertion of everlasting punishment,’ and the like, on the one hand,
is sufficiently met, on the other, by the assertion that the wicked shall be
punished with ‘everlasting destruction,’ that they shall ‘utterly perish,’ and
similar declarations. If the phrase everlasting destruction is not allowed to
settle the entire question at once, so neither can the phrase everlasting
punishment. If one party hold up the one text as decisive, another party may as
fairly hold up the other as decisive. But certainly, prior ‘to investigating
the proper force of terms, there would, to say the least, be an equilibrium
established; or rather, since destruction would be punishment) and everlasting
destruction would be therefore everlasting punishment, the balance (more
especially considering that both texts are thus interpreted by one and the same
principle) would incline against the notion of an eternity of misery.
4. In order, then, satisfactorily to place
with the truths which have a right to be most surely believed among us, the
doctrine of a real eternity of conscious torment, the preachers thereof must
show from scripture,— That when Christ stands forth, not merely as the
deliverer from woe and blank despair and second death, but also as the giver of
eternal life to his followers, this magnificent promise cannot possibly be
understood literally, but must of necessity be interpreted metaphorically. To
the honour which he seems so frequently to assume, as
the dispenser of immortality, it must be shown that he has no title; so that
those who have bent the knee to him for this unutterably grand endowment, which
more than any other makes us partakers of the divine nature, must recall that
portion of the homage which we have rendered to him as emphatically, Christ our
Life;’ for that while we derive our happiness from him, we wear our crown of
immortality quite independently of him, and thus the Prince of Life, who has
upon his head many crowns,’ has in reality one less than his words had led us
to believe. And then they must show,— That when the
God of truth threatens the sinner with destruction, in many mutually consistent
passages, the terms employed cannot be understood literally, but must be
understood metaphorically. Which must be either because man is necessarily
indestructible; or, because the Judge will not exert the power he possesses to
destroy; or, will exert his power to prevent the
sinner naturally dying out of existence, and so will by an act of omnipotence
keep him alive forever and ever in order to torment him! And in reference to
this last idea the remark may be suffered.
That the sinner is either necessarily
immortal, (which will scarcely be affirmed) or else he is immortal only by the
will and conversation of God. So that the above awful inference is just (and
truth can rejoice in undisguised phraseology) that God will, of his own files
act, uphold in life forever and ever the unhappy sinner, for no other purpose
than to punish him. Verily the evidence for this had need be strong. It is not
metaphysical subtleties, nor even philological niceties (invaluable in their
place) that must build the height of this great argument; but mighty masses of
obvious truth must be piled upon a mountain base, to raise this everlasting
pyramid of infinitely more than sepulchral gloom, which is forever and
forevermore to throw its dark and appalling shadow across the universe of God.
We know indeed from the oracles of truth that it is a fearful thing to fall
into the hands of. the living God.’ And knowing the terrors of the Lord’ we
daily beseech our fellows to flee from the wrath to come. But while we scruple
never to use any language which the Most High has employed in his revelation of
mercy, and ascribe to him all the tiles that he
claims—Father—Lawgiver. Judge,—we nowhere find him set
forth as purposely prolonging the existence of his wretched victims—it out, of
his own freewill, age after age, to all eternity, in order that he may fill and
saturate it with most exquisite and unutterable .and unceasing misery.
We say that a theory like this, which presents
the righteous God under such a terrific aspect,—which secures the never-ending
existence of sin and suffering in a universe presided over by wisdom and
justice and love and mercy,—which if really credited by any of us (in the
present state at all events) might well make reason more than totter on her
throne, and convert all Christendom into one mighty maniac cell, where, in the
grasp of the demon of terror, the most benevolent would be the most hopelessly
affrighted,—we say that such an appalling theory, pregnant with horrors which
no created being can by any means represent to his mind (for the vastest
conceptions which the mightiest intelligences form of eternity is of necessity
short of the true idea by a whole infinity) had need be sustained by evidence
proportionately strong. Assuredly if it be a truth it
is second to none on the page of revelation; eclipsed by none more momentous;
but rather does itself overtop and overshadow almost every other.
Surely the disciple of Christ, who is ardently
solicitous to see the universal spread of a vital Christianity, will in an
answerable degree be concerned, as, on the one hand; not to diminish aught from
that salutary amount of terror which the infinite wisdom has exhibited, so, on
the other, not to overlay and burden the gospel revelation with more of the
terrific than its blessed author—the only wise God—has seen fit to embody
therein. And as every word that God has uttered must be true, and every
decision of his will the dictate of profoundest wisdom, the exact truth that
lies in the volume of revelation, whatever that may be, must be precisely that
which above all human computation is the most admirably adapted to produce the
largest amount of varied good, if only it can be discovered and brought to bear
on the judgments and consciences and affections of men. The purer the truth we
exhibit, the mightier and more extensive its blessed results. And in proportion
to the magnitude of any truth, and its bearing on the character of God, on the honour of his government and the welfare of man, will
generally be its evidence; the more important, the more clearly will it stand
revealed. What Christian wishes to blink the question of the genuineness and
authenticity of the scriptures?
IMPORTANT TRUTHS PLAINLY REVEALED.
Who turns pale with fear, and entreats men to
hush and drop the subject, when the Creatorship of the Son of God, or the fact
of an atonement for sin, or of justification by faith, or of a benign and
heavenly influence exerted on the minds and hearts of men, is spoken of? Or
which of the subjects, that we are intelligently confident are taught in
scripture, do we pray and plot to have tabooed? Or what man living deprecates
the most searching investigation into anything he thoroughly believes? And the
more important it is, and the more abundant and clear its evidences,
the more calmly and rejoicing do we court enquiry.
We Christians care, or at least profess to
care, for nothing but truth. Let us have it at whatever cost, and as pure as
may be, fresh welling up from the sacred fount. Yes, if the doctrine of
never-ending torment for innumerable myriads of God’s creatures be indeed
contained in scripture, beyond a doubt it will be found repeated
over and over again, with every variety of phrase and of diligently
sought illustration. It will be indissolubly entwined in numerous arguments;
will be the only fair result to which various lines of apostolic reasoning
conduct Concede text after text, it will still remain.
Such a portentous truth cannot be dimly set forth.
We ask then for the massive arguments to be
produced; and we almost venture to ask for that manly and Christian bearing in
the discussion which the holders of divine truth so naturally exhibit And let it
be pardoned the writer if he add, that it is not the misrepresentation of our
views and arguments—not angry protestations against universalism—nor
insinuations against our orthodoxy—nor unworthy assertions that our doctrine is
all delectable to the sinner—nor presumptuous declamation that, if we be
correct, then “the death of Christ was too costly an atonement,” and that
“another Saviour is provided for the sinner’,” and
that “God was cruel to his Son,”—it is not exactly this kind of thing (of which
there has been no lack) that so grave an argument demands, or by which the
sacred cause of truth can be advanced. Let not the weapons of our warfare be.
thus carnal, lest-the Master reprove us saying, Ye know not what manner of
spirit ye are of.
Will the sinner exist forever
in misery— Previous question, — Is every man immortal— Arguments in favour from reason considered, namely, First argument, The
immateriality of the soul— Second, The general belief and desire of
immortality— Third, The capacities of the soul— Fourth, Tendency to
progression— Fifth, The analogies presented in nature— Sixth, The anomalies of
the present state— Testimony of Professors Stuart and others— Conclusion. For a
satisfactory decision on the solemn question,— Whether
the sinner will exist forever in misery, our dependence must of course be upon
the testimony of scripture alone, to which therefore it behoves
us to betake ourselves with childlike docility. It were
indeed arrogance of the most reprehensible kind to determine beforehand what
answer the oracle ought to give. Let us propose our question in the temple of
truth, let us pause in reverent silence for the reply, and departing rest
assured that the oracle never can deceive. But are we quite prepared to enter
within the veil with such a question, or is something like preparation
requisite?
Instead of rushing thoughtlessly into the
temple, would it not be fitting to understand well beforehand the question we
are about to propose; seeing that if, for want of thought, we have assumed as
necessarily true something which is by no means proved, then, though the
inspired decision be of necessity true, yet the prepossession in our own minds
will not only prevent our rightly understanding the reply, but even necessitate
our misapprehending it. Let us sup= pose, for instance, that it is taken for
granted, without sufficient reason that every man must live forever;—in
other words, that every man is already endowed with immortality.
And suppose (I put it only hypothetically at
present) that this is a mere assumption. Then if the oracle doom
the sinner to everlasting punishment,’ the sentence, though true as intended,
would not be true as understood; for our assumption of his immortality,
introducing a new element not recognised by the
authority, would put an utterly incorrect face on the decision. Now it does
appear to me that this question is generally overlooked, and that it is too
easily taken for granted that the sinner is immortal. But is not this too
important an element in the enquiry to be assumed as indisputable 9 So, I must
confess, it seems to me; and we shall find it facilitate our subsequent progress, if we give a little attention to this preliminary
question. And our inquiry may proceed thus:— 5. CAN
REASON INDEPENDENTLY OF REVELATION PROVE MAN TO BE IMMORTAL?
And if not,— 6. DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH THAT IMMORTALITY
IS THE ABSOLUTE AND INALIENABLE PORTION OF EVERY MAN?—OF
MAN, THAT IS, AS MAN?
But before we enter on the brief examination
of the first question, which will occupy the present chapter, one or two
preliminary remarks may be permitted. For example: The appeal ought to be to
Reason unaided by Revelation. Now certainly what the reason of man could of
itself accomplish, was attained by the venerable sages of antiquity. And so it would be every way satisfactory to make to them
especially, or even exclusively, the appeal as to the discoveries of reason
touching the immortality of man. And thus in the first
instance the inquiry might well assume a historical complexion.
But this advantageous method of proceeding may
be waived, and the student referred among others to one especially who has
treated the subject in his own masterly style. Dr. Whately
has satisfactorily shown [Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian
Religion,’ Essay 1. On a Future State.] that the doctrine of a proper
immortality was not really established among the ancients. And indeed one might expect every disciple of Christ would be
ready cheerfully to concede that, as it was not discovered, so neither is it
discoverable by reason; seeing that, while conjecture is not proof; and guesses
are not discoveries, Christ bath brought life and immortality to light by the
gospel. ‘It is also one thing to show that it is not impossible,—
not improbable even,—and quite another thing to prove the doctrine.
Now if it should be asserted that death is the
utter destruction and entire end of man, against such a conclusion reason might
allege considerations so strong as to render the assertion highly presumptuous.
But it is one thing to stop this assertion, and another to prove man immortal.
Let it be remembered that a future state of existence is not to be confounded
with immortality, as though they were one and the same. Yet many of the
arguments which have been adduced in support of the doctrine of immortality,
have really been no more than arguments in favour of
a future state; which is quite another thing. An
argument may be good in support of the latter, which has not the least bearing
on the former.
And yet how frequently have these two very
different things been confounded. And before we proceed let us distinctly
understand again with whom lies the burden of proof, so that the precise task
to be performed ,may be properly recognised.
We are inquiring whether reason can prove man to be immortal: so that the
ground I occupy is that of a respondent to an affirmative. I suppose someone,
to affirm’ man to lie immortal, for such and such reasons. All that it behoves me therefore to do is to point out the inconclusiveness
of the arguments employed. I am not called on here to affirm anything to the
contrary myself; as the natural Mortality of the soul,
for instance. To repeat what has been said on a previous page,—the
individual who affirms is bound to proof. And I am induced to remind the reader
of this, because some of my reviewers take shelter under the assertion that the
onus probandi rests with me; and call upon me to establish “the natural
mortality of the soul,” on the plea that the assertion “that the soul is
immortal, is, disguise it how we may, unquestionably a negative proposition,
which can only be overturned by positive proof that it dies:” [Congregational
Magazine for January, 1845.] a remark at which it may be allowed to express
surprise, seeing it is not true, either popularly or logically.
For assuredly the word itself, immortal,’
while of course negative by its prefix, is by the urns loquendi
affirmative in its value, meaning that which shall live forever. And indeed the
popular doctrine is boldly and exclusively affirmative, thus,—All
men shall live forever; The wicked shall live forever in a state of torment,.
So that the onus after all, rests with those who affirm it, and all that can be
argumentatively required of me is to point out wherein the favourite
arguments fail. If infinite existence be not proved, the popular doctrine
breaks down of itself, and prior to any proof that may hereafter be offered of
cessation of existence.
But as in every controversy it is of the last
importance to have a clear idea of the terms employed, let us distinctly recognise the meaning to be attached to the word immortal,
and immortality. Which is the more necessary, inasmuch as another reviewer has ingeniously-made out that if God should deprive the sinner
of existence by way of punishment, this very deprivation is a proof of
immortality!
By immortal, then, is meant—one who will live
forever: and by immortality, never-ending existence. He is immortal, not who
might have lived forever, but for certain reasons will not, but only he who
positively shall live forever. And thus our great
lexicographer gives it, and in agreement with him the various encyclopaedias.
Since the reviewer, in the
next sentence, talks about “syllogisms in Barbara,” etc. he may be reminded
that as to the quality of the proposition,—The soul is
immortal, i.e. not mortal,—it is either affirmative or negative, according as
the negative is attached to the predicate or copula. And we have not to
“disguise it” in any way, in order to make it affirmative; but simply to
consider the negative as attached to the predicate, instead of the copula, and
it is done; standing thus,—The soul is not-mortal.
[Eclectic Review for August, 1845, p. 163.]
Since the reviewer, in the next sentence,
talks about “syllogisms in Barbara,” etc. he may be reminded that as to the
quality of the proposition,—The soul is immortal, i.e.
not mortal,—it is either affirmative or negative, according as the negative is
attached to the predicate or copula. And we have not to “disguise it” in any
way, in order to make it affirmative; but simply to consider the negative as
attached to the predicate, instead of the copula, and it is done; standing thus,—The soul is not-mortal. [Eclectic Review for August, 1845, p. 163.] Immortal. Exempt from death; never to
die; never-ending; perpetual. Johnson. Immortal. Exempt from death; being never
to die; perpetual. London Encyclopaedia. Immortal.
That which will last to all eternity, as having in it no principal of
alteration or corruption. Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Immortality. Exemption from death; life never to end. Johnson. Immortality. The
condition of that which is not subject to death. Popular Encyclopaedia.
What then have been the arguments mainly
relied on in of man’s immortality, independently of those found in the volume
of inspiration? As we must confine ourselves to a selection, the least
objectionable and most depended on may alone be adduced; and as I can but name
the argument, so I must content myself with merely suggesting the reply, having
come to attach but small importance comparatively’ to the metaphysical process,
and basing my own hope of immortality on the more sure word of prophecy, to
which we do well to take heed, as to a light which shines in a dark place: The
First argument on which, waiving the remark that we neither know what matter
is, nor what spirit is, but only some of the attributes or qualities of each, I
submit— a. That, so far from proving all men to be immortal, its utmost value
is this,—that since the nature of the soul is probably
distinct from that of the body, so may be its destiny. Let the affirmation be
held good,—Since the body is material, and the soul
may be immaterial, the destruction of the former is no proof of that of the
latter.
The writer, though as far from being a
materialist, as any of his readers, deems himself bound in fairness to present
the argument in this form. Knapp has said not badly, “This doctrine respecting
the immateriality of the soul, in the strict philosophical sense of the term,
is of far less consequence to religion than is commonly supposed. The reason why
so much importance has been supposed to attach to this doctrine is that it was
considered as essential to the metaphysical proof of the immortality of the
soul. But since the immateriality of the soul, in the strictest sense, can
never be made fully and obviously certain, whatever philosophical arguments may
be urged in its favour, the proof of immortality
should not be built upon it.
Nor were the fine spun
theories of immaterialism ever resorted to by theologians to prove the
immortality of the soul, or ascribed by them to the bible, until Hobbes,
Toland, De la Mettrie, and other materialists, had so
perverted the doctrine of materialism as to deduce from it the destructibility
of the soul, or its annihilation at the death of the body. But in truth the
immortality of the soul does neither depend for proof upon its immateriality,
nor can be certainly deduced from it. It is possible for one to doubt whether
the strict immateriality of the soul can be proved, and yet to be convinced of
its immortality. The strongest advocates of immateriality must allow that God
might annihilate a spirit, however simple its nature might be. Why then, on the
other hand, might lie not make a substance not entirely simple, immortal?
Knapp’s Christian Theology. In accordance with which sentiments Mr. Isaac
Taylor says:— “This doctrine concerning what is called
the immateriality of the soul, should ever be treated as a merely philosophical
speculation, and as unimportant to our Christian profession.” Physical Theory
This is all one is entitled to affirm. But this, how far from being a proof of
never-ending existence. All that the argument from immateriality can fairly
accomplish is to show that death is not necessarily the destruction of the
whole man. It is negative rather than positive in its value. But waiving this;
and admitting to the very fullest extent the doctrine of immateriality, I
observe that;— b. Fairly put, it equally proves the m
of all animals, fishes, reptiles, and insects. For the intelligent reader needs
not to be reminded that, by the general admission as well as by proof, they
have immaterial souls as truly as ourselves; seeing
that they remember, fear, imagine, compare, and manifest gratitude, anger,
sorrow, desire, etc. And according to Dugald Stuart, “ Mind is that which feels, which thinks, which has the
power of beginning motion: and therefore the proposition that sensation,
thought, and the power of beginning motion are attributes of mind, is not a
fact resting on experience, but a truth involved in the only notion of mind we
possess.” So that the fact of immateriality is of no logical value in our
present argument, unless to a reasoning person who, not shrinking from assuming
a major of most portentous dimensions, will affirm that all mind is immortal, because
immaterial.
“The power and use of phoney
is great, even in brute animals, in which it is the chief faculty. Most of them
have a good memory, and withal some kind of foresight.”
Dr. Grew, Coim. Sacra. “Birds learning of tunes, and
the endeavours one may observe in them to hit the
notes right, put it past doubt with me that they have perception, and retain
ideas in their memories, and use them for patterns.” “It seems as evident to me
that they [beasts] do reason as that they have sense.” Locke, Essays 80, book
2: “They who will attribute life, sense, cogitation, consciousness, and
self-enjoyment, not without some footsteps of reason many times, to mere organised bodies in brutes, will never be able clearly to
defend the incorporeity and immortality of human souls, as most probably they
do not intend any such thing. For either all conscious and cogitative beings
are incorporeal, or else nothing can be proved to be incorporeal from whence it
would follow also that there is no Deity distinct from the corporeal world.”
Cudworth, Intelligent System, volume 1: “Sensation is an attribute of mind, and
the possession of mind certainly extends as far as its phenomena. Whatever
beings have conscious feeling, have, unless the preceding arguments amount to
nothing, souls, or immaterial minds, distinct from the substance of which they
appear to us to be composed. If all animals feel, all animals have souls.” Dr
Pritchard, on the Vital Principle.
For, as Warburton says, “I think it may be
strictly demonstrated that man has an immaterial soul; but then the same
arguments which prove that, prove likewise that the souls of all living animals
are immaterial. “ So their he who affirms man to be
immortal, because of the immateriality of his soul, is bound to affirm the
immortality, not only of the nobler animal but even of the microscopic animals.
And, so far as mere immateriality is concerned, we may no longer deem it an evidence of a “rude untutored mind” that the “poor Indian
should think, admitted to an equal sky,” His faithful dog shall bear him
company.” Nor can this be quashed by the assertion, which is true, (and the
full value of which I claim for the views to be subsequently suggested that God
can, if he pleases, make the immaterial soul of the rat or spider cease to
exist. For so he can make the immaterial soul of man (too frequently, alas! a
mere - human reptile) cease to exist also. But this is an entire surrender of
the whole argument that man is immortal because possessed of an immaterial
soul.
Well has Mr. Isaac Taylor said “As to the
pretended demonstrations of immortality drawn from the assumed simplicity and
indestructibility of the soul as an immaterial substance, they appear
altogether inconclusive, or if conclusive, then such as must be admitted to apply with scarcely diminished force to all sentiment
orders and it must be granted that whatever has felt, and has acted
spontaneously, must live again and forever. We have the best reasons for the
confident expectation of another life; nor are in any need to fortify our
convictions by arguments which if valid prove immensely more than we can desire
to see established, or could persuade ourselves to
think in any degree probable.” The Second argument is that derived from—
THE GENERAL BELIEF IN AND
DESIRE OF IMMORTALITY
This argument consists of two
parts, which we must examine separately. First, then, as to the alleged
Universality of the Belief, I think it will be admitted that it is yet to be
shown that there has been such a universal belief; except indeed where the
precious volume of revelation has cast its golden beam upon the future.
If we turn to the classic lands of [Physical
Theory, p. 234] Greece and Rome, where, if at all, we might expect to find such
a belief wrought .into the general mind, who that candidly and impartially
examines, uninfluenced by the desire to make out a case, will venture to affirm
that there was a general belief in immortality, amongst either those who drank
of Hymns silvery spring, or those who bathed in the yellow Tiber it Whether we
acquaint Ourselves with the common people, or listen to the esoteric utterances
of the philosophers, we shall alike fail to discover the belief alleged. And in
confirmation of my remark I shall cite a few passages
from Dr. Whately, as a witness eminently entitled to
profound respect.
“When then we find Socrates and his disciples
represented by Plato as fully admitting, in their discussion of the subject,
that men in general were highly incredulous as to the soul’s future existence,’
and as expecting that it would at the moment of our natural death be dispersed
(as he expresses it) like air or smoke, and cease altogether to exist, so that
it would require no little persuasion and argument to convince them that the
soul can exist after death, and can retain ‘anything of its powers and
intelligence;’—when we find this I say asserted or rather alluded to as
notoriously the state of popular opinion, we can surely entertain but little
doubt that the account of Elysium and Tartarus were regarded as mere poetical
fables, calculated to amuse the imagination, but unworthy of serious belief.”
“So far indeed were the promulgators of Christianity from finding the belief of
a future state already well established, that they appear to have had no small
difficulty in convincing of this truth even some of their
.converts.” “It may be said however (and this perhaps is the most
prevailing notion) that little as the vulgar believed in the doctrine of a
future state, it was received and inculcated by many eminent philosophers. . . . But in reality the doctrine
never was either generally admitted among the ancient philosophers, or
satisfactorily proved bj any of them, even in the
opinion of those who argued in favour of it. On the
one hand, not only the Epicurean school openly contended against it, but one of
much greater weight than any of them, and the founder of a far more illustrious
sect, Aristotle, without expressly combating the notion, does much more; he
passes it by as not worth considering, and takes for granted the contrary
supposition as not needing proof.
He remarks incidentally in his treatise on
courage that death is formidable beyond most other evils, on account of its
excluding hope; since it is a complete Germination, and there does not appear
to be anything either of good or evil beyond it’. And in the same work, in
discussing the question whether a man can justly be pronounced happy before the
end of his life, he proceeds all along (as indeed is the case throughout) on
the supposition that after death a man ceases altogether to exist! And it
should be observed that his incidental and oblique allusion to this latter
opinion implies (as I have said) much more than if he had expressly asserted
and maintained it; in that case he would have borne testimony only to his own
belief; but as it is, we may collect from his mode of speaking that such was
the prevailing and generally un-contradicted belief of the rest of the world.”
To the same effect Leland:—” What that great man
Cicero says of the philosophers of his time is remarkable. In that celebrated
treatise where he sets himself to prove the immortality of the soul, he
represents the contrary as the prevailing opinion; that there were crowds of
opponents, not the Epicureans only, but, which he
could not account for, those that were the most learned persons had that
doctrine in contempt.” These witnesses are true. Wherefore I must profess my
conviction that the only proper answer to the present argument is a denial of
the premise; for surely if there were no such universal belief in the heathen
world, and in the absence of revelation, it were a
little too much to expect me to account for it.
§ We come then to inquire into the nature of
this alleged Desire for Immortality, and its proper argumentative value. As
employed by all who lay any stress upon it, it stands thus, All
men are immortal, because they desire immortality. It is obvious to inquire the
basis of this argument. Let us therefore supply the suppressed premise, and
which is evidently this, All men are what they wish to
be, or, will have what they desire to have. This is the major that must be
assumed, in order to make room for the minor,—All men
desire immortality, and the conclusion, Therefore all men are immortal. So that
the fallacy lurks in the suppressed premise, while even the minor is
inaccurately stated. And thus to this argument there
are two objections.
First:
There is no reason for assuming that all men
are immortal because they wish to be. For they all, by the very constitution of
their minds, desire happiness, yet multitudes neither are
nor mill be happy. So that if it be asserted that universality of desire is
proof of one common origin, and must be traced to him who made us, we reply, So
must this instinctive desire for happiness be ascribed to the Author of the
Mind; and. then, since the happiness so ardently desired is suspended upon
conditions, so, for anything the present argument affords, may be the
immortality alleged to be desired: and, as there may be a universal desire for
happiness, and yet multitudes may fail to obtain it (and argumentatively all
might fail) so, even if there were a universal passion for immortality, many
(so far as the present argument is concerned) might come short of it. In other
words, the major premise will be conceded by no man, and so the argument falls.
Secondly:
The object of desire is not immortality in the
abstract, but immortal happiness. Let this be distinctly recognised,
and the argument must stand thus, All men are immortal
because they desire never-ending happiness. But those with whom we are arguing
deny for immense multitudes the happiness which men do really desire, and affirm for them (because of this desire of
eternal happiness) an immortality, not only denuded of enjoyment, but rendered
unutterably -dreadful. Yet assuredly whatever argumentative stress a general
desire will sustain, belongs properly and exclusively to the very thing
desired; and so an opponent ought to affirm,—All men
will be happy, because they desire happiness, rather than —All men will exist
for ever, because they desire unending bliss!
“If the supposition of a contingent
immortality should seem to any a startling novelty, we would request them
briefly to consider it not in relation to actual fact,
but to probable reason. What is there in itself preposterous in the idea that
our Creator may have suspended our immortality on our own endeavours?
Does his sincerity require more than this? Do any of his perfections require
more than this? It might be difficult to see how he could consistently instil a strong craving for immortality into our bosoms,
and yet wholly preclude its enjoyment, but not surely to conceive that he may
have-made it a prize attainable only by diligent pursuit. The conformity of
such a view of the subject to the dictates of natural reason seems even
suggested by the language of scripture. A class is recognised
(Romans 2:7) and spoken of with approbation as seeking for themselves glory, honour and immortality, by a
patient continuance in well doing.” Dr. Gray.
§ And as to the alleged desire for
immortality, it is by no means universal, nor even general, if we may credit
the reviewers. Quite the contrary indeed. For they say that cessation of
existence is precisely the very thing that all the wicked eagerly desire, and
therefore are only to ready to believe! So intensely
do they long for annihilation, according to these gentlemen, that for
suggesting even their miserable destruction,’ I am. absolutely represented as
“providing the ungodly with another Saviour than
Christ,” and exhibiting God as denouncing “ against
ungodly men, as a terrific punishment, what actually is to them the greatest
possible good!” The case then stands thus. Incomparably the larger portion of
mankind, hitherto, have been the ungodly;’—these, so far from desiring to live
forever, desire (according to my reviewers) annihilation. So that, if we
believe this, the assertion of a general desire for immortality is itself
utterly unfounded.. I take leave therefore to devolve
on those who represent destruction as the very thing the
majority of men wish for, the reconciling of this assertion with the
argument for immortality, drawn from the alleged universal desire for it. At
all events they may not use now the one assertion and anon the opposite. The
Third argument is that founded upon—
THE CAPACITIES OF THE SOUL.
This as we all know is capable of being very
rhetorically and interestingly presented, and is at
the same time an argument so pleasing and flattering to us, that we naturally
regard it with considerable complacency. But we are asking for Proofs; and it
is evident that proof is not here. At least not proof of that which is
asserted, and which is—not that man is capable of immortality, if God please,
nor that God may and will render multitudes actually immortal,
but that—Every man, because of his capacities, as he now is, is already endowed
with immortality.
And then a.
If some men have exhibited great capacities,
have all? Have the majority, even? or, rather, is it not an almost infinitessimally small proportion of mankind that have
manifested those capacities on which the argument is founded And
it is quite satisfactory to reason from the few to the many, thus; Certain
capacities are a strong presumption of immortality; Some men have manifested
these capacities; Therefore all men may be presumed immortal.
a. And certainly if stress be laid on the intellectual
capacity which some have exhibited, the same amount of stress may be fairly
laid on the incapacity of others to prove the opposite. But waiving this, I
ask— b.
Why the stress is
laid upon intellectual rather than moral attainments? For even if we were
strangers to revelation, yet believing in a God who is
the universal patron of virtue, it would be greatly more reasonable to suppose
continued existence connected by him with moral excellence, rather than with
intellectual power. And by how much the moral is superior to the merely
intellectual, by so much ought it to sustain a greater weight of argument: and so if the argument derived from the moral status opposed
that drawn from the intellectual, it would destroy it by reason of its superior
force.
Thus then in the
opposite scale to the intellectual capacities of some, let us place the moral
attainments often of the same individuals; and of the mass of mankind, and
assuredly the omen would be portentous our opponents being judges. But since it
is the intellectual capacities that are chiefly adduced, I inquire again,— c.
At what degree in the scale of intelligence we
are to find immortality first annexed? For who doubts that there is every
conceivable gradation of intelligence, from the faintest rudimental intimations
thereof, up to beings equal perhaps ‘even to our loftiest conceptions of God,
(seeing that the conceptions of the creature at their highest are necessarily
finite.) But .then, unless the disputant affirm immortality to be the portion
of all minds, he is assuredly bound, if on the ground of capacity alone he
affirm it of some, and not of others, to show at what degree in the scale this
mighty endowment is first discoverable,—au endowment too which separates by a
whole infinitude its possessor from the mind which is only one degree lower in
intelligence. For looking at the human and lower races together, or as ranged
in concentric circles, do we not, so far as mind is concerned, discover
something like a dim region where they meet and almost intermingle, where there
is a sort of softening down of the differences, where, of the genus mind, the
species almost blend with each other? A remark which I venture to make from
under the broad shield of protection which some of the most distinguished
metaphysicians extend over me. For while consciousness, reason, and the sense
of right and wrong, are among the highest attributes of man, these in a degree
are allowed to be possessed by some at least of the brute creation. Dr. Brown,
according to his biographer, Dr. Welsh, “believed that many of the lower
animals have the sense of right and wrong; and that the metaphysical argument
which proves the immortality of man, extends with equal force to the other
orders of earthly existence.” And it is not the closest observer who will be
the most startled by Coleridge’s remark, about “the dawning of a moral nature”
which he observed in the dog, of which he says, “We not only value the faithful
brute, we attribute worth to him. This, I admit, is a
problem of which I have no solution to offer.” The extracts given on a previous
page from Cudworth would also seem to imply that he attributed some sort of
consciousness to the lower tribes. Unless then immortality be affirmed of all
mind, I ask, since the present argument has to do with capacity alone (and that
intellectual, which only will answer the disputant’s purpose) at what degree in
the scale of intelligence this infinite endowment is first discoverable by
reason Y or, since “ We can imagine all possible degrees of intelligence, are
we to conceive the Creator bound to ally each one of these gradations
indissolubly to infinitude t”* But at this point would probably be adduced,—
Fourthly,--
THE TENDENCY OP MAN TO PERPETUAL PROGRESSION But— a. If the reference be to
intellectual advance, waiving the remark just here that it would be more
pertinent if moral progression could happily be predicated of the generality of
the race, it may be suggested that we certainly see progression, advance, in
some animals below man. The more sagacious tribes are capable of being taught;
and that they learn from experience everybody knows; so that the individual at
all events makes advance.
b. Or if the reference be to moral
progression, to the rising of man higher and higher towards the perfection of
virtue, I ask is it all men, is it even the majority, or is it present any more
than an infinitessimal proportion that exhibit this
upward and divine tendency!
An author already quoted well states the ease,
“To say the most, it appears to us that the argument so felicitously stated [by
Addison in the Spectator] is applicable only to a fraction of the species, and
that no such progress as is described can be attributed to ordinary minds. Of
the vast majority the progression is certainly rather the downward one than the
contrary; rather from the man to the brute, than from
the man to the Divinity. Can there be any appearance of reason then in claiming
immortality for spirits thus self-debased? Where there is no actual
commencement of a given course, is there any rational ground for expecting its
consummation, or will any consistency require the Creator to force perfection
on his creatures!
From the fact that mankind are
endowed with capacities susceptible of endless expansion, it may perhaps be
allowable to conclude that the means of such expansion have been provided for
them; but no law of fitness will require that these means should be universally
effectual. Although the aptitude may, to adopt Paley’s language, infer design;
yet design does not preclude frustration. We are therefore brought back to the
conditional immortality already mentioned. It is only the magna anima: whose
destination this argument would prove it to be perpetually to go on from
strength to strength; to shine forever with new accessions of glory and
brightness to all eternity, to be still adding virtue to virtue, and knowledge
to knowledge to be forever beautifying in the eyes of God himself, and drawing
nearer to him by greater degrees of resemblance?” “Immortality: its real and
alleged Evidences.” By J. Gray, Ph. D. An able and
interesting pamphlet which came into the writer’s bands during the delivery of
the lectures, the notes of which formed the first edition of the present work,
and to which he was indebted for one or two suggestions which he has great
pleasure in acknowledging.
The argument may be legitimately carried even
farther. For by how much an upward-progression is supposed to prove a
never-ending career, open to such glorious minds, by so much ought a downward
tendency to indicate for the incorrigibly debased a gravitation, as Mr. Isaac
Taylor has expressed it, “toward that nihility out of which we sprang.” The
Fifth is the very interesting one derived from— THE ANALOGIES PRESENTED TO US
IN NATURE.
This argument has often been clothed with all
the fascinations of poetry, of which it is so easily and beautifully
susceptible. The day which gradually waned to evening shade, and was then lost
in the darkness of night, is not hopelessly and irrecoverably gone. A few brief
hours of gloom, and lo! the harbingers of returning day; ‘The dawn is up, the
fleecy sky Reddens in orient majesty; And what though winter’s icy hand destroy
all the mellow beauty of the autumn, and lay bare the pride of the forest, and
bind up the flowing stream; what though, like the angel of death, he breathe
into the face of nature, and seal up in marble rigidity all that lately was
instinct with beauteous life, and cover it with his winding sheet? Short is his
triumph;—the voice of spring shall be heard speaking
to the “heart of nature, and his soft warm breath on her cold cheek shall
recall her to -new life, and she shall be adorned with new beauty, and her
praises shall be chanted in every grove. So too the chrysalis, that lay
motionless and dry, and to all appearance dead, wakes up to a higher life, and
gloriously arrayed rises into the air, nestles in the bosom of the rose, and
sips the nectar of the choicest flowers. Thus nature
with a pencil of light traces the future destiny of man, thrown a golden ray
upon his descending path, and leaves him not even in the tomb, without her
perfumed lamp.’ But this can scarcely need a formal reply; though it may not be
amiss to suggest to any whose judgments are led captive by the imagination, that,— a.
To constitute anything like a tolerable
intimation even that man when he dies shall still live, (to say nothing about
his living FOR EVER) we ought to have a great preponderance of instances in
nature, in which from death there is a return to life. The chrysalis so often
referred to, which after a season of torpidity awakes to a higher life, is a
rare instance: we know not many such; while the overwhelming preponderance of
facts is on the other side and that too in reference to the higher classes of
animals, which when they die never present themselves again upon our path.
b.
And then,—these
interesting instances of a return from a death-like state, do not fairly apply.
The analogy fails in a most important point; there is no yielding to
dissolution or decay: the chrysalis remains undecomposed, and
may be made to yield signs of life even during its torpid state. How different
the case with man. He dies, and you can by no process force from the pale
corpse the faintest symptoms of life, and soon affection itself is brought to
exclaim, —’ bury my dead out of sight.’ And then,— b.
After two or three changes, from the egg to
the worm, the chrysalis, and the butterfly, there is a complete and final end. So with the plant; after
a few revolutions of winter and summer, it yields entirely to decay. How then
can we find anything like even an intimation of eternally renewed existence for
man in these phenomena? Pleasing and interesting illustrations of a fact
otherwise ascertained they may be; but no one needs to
be reminded that a poetic illustration is one thing, an argument—a proof
—another. Let it be granted most cheerfully, and even gratefully, that the God
of universal nature has written lessons of instruction for man on all his
works; let these instances of life after seeming death be thankfully accepted
as suggesting, in the absence of revelation, a hope to man that possibly he may
not be left in the dark chambers of the grave, but may
come forth to new enjoyment. Yet this—how far from anything like a proof of
immortality. But the strongest argument is the last, namely,—Sixth,
THE PERPLEXING ANOMALIES OF THE PRESENT STATE.
In the present state how often does vice
triumph, while virtue weeps in secret places. Has it not indeed appeared the
rule for the wicked to flourish like a green bay tree,’ and for the vilest of
men to be exalted? How many, like Asaph, have marked the prosperity of the
wicked, that they are not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued
like other men; their eyes stand out with fatness, and they have more than
heart could wish.’ It has struck the attentive observer in all ages: ancient
heathens were sorely puzzled by the strangeness of this moral phenomenon, while
the reader of the scriptures can lay his hand on many passages illustrative of
the difficulty referred to. Now, as the solution, it was suggested that, God
being what he is, so wise and good and just, the necessary patron of virtue and
enemy of all vice, there will be another state of existence after the present,
in which all these anomalies shall be corrected,—a
state in which piety shall be rewarded and wickedness punished.
a.
I have called this the strongest and most
satisfactory argument that reason can adduce; and is it not so? But who does
not perceive where the fallacy lies?
The argument has merely to be stated in form,
and then no one can be at a loss as to its real value. It stands thus:— The character of God ensures that he will reward
virtue and punish vice, But in the present state this is not fully done, There
remains therefore another state in which all shall be adjusted. Let this stand
as good reasoning; and. no one, it is believed, can wish to enlarge the
conclusion, for the premises will not sustain a larger. How then does it prove
that the next state must be unending, and that man is immortal? Surely something
less than eternity would suffice to rectify all the anomalies of the threescore
years and ten of the present state. For will any one
maintain the, proposition,—that nothing less than time
infinitely protracted would be sufficient for this purpose?
Only let an attempt be made to realise what is meant by the word so easily pronounced,
ETERNITY! and let it be remembered that when we have exhausted all our powers
of calculation, taxing the imagination to multiply all the atoms in the
universe by themselves, each standing for millions of ages, and heaping up all
the illustrations we can invent, till the mind sinks back exhausted and
distracted, even then we have done nothing, literally nothing, towards gaining
any idea of eternity; of which it is not possible for the human mind to form an
idea, for how can the finite take in the infinite? No,—a
Future State may be shown to be not improbable, probable even in a high degree,
but this is quite another thing from a proved immortality. And a future state
protracted through ages that out-number all the atoms of all worlds is after
aft infinitely short of immortality.
b.
But while this is the strongest and most
satisfactory argument that reason can adduce, yet as it does not prove a
never-ending existence, so neither would it be able to satisfy some of the
loftiest and purest minds of antiquity that there was even any future state at
alt. They would have boldly denied the minor premise. For touching the two
classes of mankind—the virtuous and the wicked—there were not wanting men of
noble spirits, who held the elevated doctrine that virtue and vice are their
own reward; that the virtuous, however outwardly depressed
and persecuted, are nevertheless happy even here and now; that the good man is
satisfied from himself;’ and that the vicious, however seemingly prosperous,
pay even during life the penalty of their vice. To such noble spirits, at all
events, there would be no force in the present argument. For if virtue be its
own reward, then there can be no debt to the virtuous to be paid hereafter; so
that the hereafter, if believed in, must be based on some other and less
presumptuous argument.
a.
Besides it fails again on the slightest
analysis. For of the virtuous and the vicious, who could affirm that the former
deserve from God more of happiness than they have already had? Perfect
obedience being due to God, there is no room for desert,
which can have place only when more is done than is obliged to be done. But
waiving this, if the notion of desert had been allowedly entertained at all,
there would have to be set against the supposed claim all the benefits already
received, which would greatly outweigh the claims of the best of the human
race, especially when the desert of ill came also to be taken into the account.. So that on any view, however self-interested, a
man’s delinquencies and God’s previous favours would
more than balance his claim founded on some degree of virtue; the virtuous
therefore could not claim a future state of happiness.
And as to the other class;—though
they might be adjudged by some of their fellows richly to deserve that they
should be punished hereafter, yet who could have affirmed that God is bound to
inflict on any being. all the evil that justice would allow him to inflict? Surely they would not have
denied to the Supreme Arbiter the power or the right to remit punishment if he
pleased; would not have affirmed that God was under obligation to make the
wicked live after’ death, in order that they might suffer the full penalty
deserved, especially if vice bring with it here positive uneasiness, beside the
loss of that present happiness which virtue ensures even now. Reason in its
utmost daring would not have asserted that God was under obligation to pour out
all the wrath that the unhappy wretch had merited. Or, if it had ventured on
such boldness, it never would have proved so false to itself as to assert that
nothing less than infinite torment was due to a finite agent, whose conduct,
however vile, nevertheless derived its quality of finite from the agent.
The infinite for the finite is assuredly no
deduction from reason. So then we come to the conclusion, First, That this
argument when properly stated can at the best do no more than support the
doctrine of a future state, without bearing at all on the doctrine of
immortality; and Secondly, That so far from even this corollary being allowed
to pass as indisputable, one premise which is essential to its existence would
have been nobly denied by some of the very best men that antiquity could
produce.
“Such are the arguments (and we believe that
we have presented all) by which a mighty spirit struggled to overcome the barriers
of heathenism and natural religion. We now see that these efforts were in vain.
Should we have been more successful under similar advantages? If appeal be made
to the in composite, and therefore indiscernible nature of the soul, we may
quash the appeal by reference to the incontrovertible truth that no created
being can know itself, and that therefore consciousness cannot tell us whether
we, i.e. our own souls, be in composite or not. If it
be further alleged that the justice of the moral government of God requires an after life, we reply that no Christian will affirm that any
man deserves future happiness; the only question is, whether it is
inconceivable that the wicked shall not hereafter be punished.
But how can we tell, a priori, whether God is
bound, or may see fit, never to relax anything of the punishment which a
creature has incurred? How the question may be answered with our present
knowledge of God’s character and government, appears to us doubtful. So far as
we know, this argument, drawn from the moral government of God, never occurred
to a heathen, obvious as we may think it; and we are sure that some of their
noblest philosophers would have put it aside by simply saying, that sin is its
own punishment, and virtue its own reward. On the whole,
we are disposed to believe that the only certainty of a future state is derived
from faith in the word of God. While others vaunt themselves on the sufficiency
of their natural reason, we are content to cry with thankfulness and joy, Lord!
to whom shall we go? Thou hut the words of eternal life.’ Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath
begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead.’” Eclectic Review, for February 1838, Article 2.
But we may draw this chapter to a close.
Reason cannot prove man to be immortal. We may devoutly enter the temple of
nature, we may reverently tread her emerald floor, and gaze on her blue
star-pictured ceiling, but to our anxious inquiry, though proposed with
heart-breaking intensity, the oracle is dumb, or like those of Delphi and
Dodona, mutters only An ambiguous reply that leaves us
in utter bewilderment So much the more valuable is a written revelation. And it
is pleasant to the writer to reflect that hitherto he travels in company with
the most intelligent of his brethren; it being generally aped that the
arguments from reason are altogether unsatisfactory. Nor would he have deemed
it necessary to devote even these few pages to the examination of the argument
furnished by unassisted mason in favour of
immortality, had he not found many persons still cleaving fondly to the opinion
that the soul’s immortality is thus demonstrable.
And such individuals seem almost to consider
it religiously important to maintain this, as though, to their apprehension, a
truth revealed in scripture were somewhat less certain because a matter of pure
revelation and not otherwise discoverable; forgetting that the scriptures are
an exhibition of divine truth over and above all that is contained in the works
of God, an addition made by God himself to the sum total of all the discoveries
of natural religion, and given chiefly to communicate what the uttermost
stretch of reason could never otherwise attain to. As to things unseen, ‘we
walk by faith.’ And besides this class, the writer has been compelled to
observe, even in some who grant that immortality cannot be proved by reason, a
proneness to urge the metaphysical argument when they find it a less easy thing
than they had anticipated to make out from scripture alone—a never ending
existence for all mankind. But everyone will consent to the fairness of the
demand, that an opponents
having chosen his ground, shall either honourably
maintain, or as honourably and openly surrender it.
Either reason can prove the doctrine, or it
cannot. If any man choose to assert that it can, good; he has a right to his
opinion, and to the maintenance of it Let him then chivalrously take his stand
here; the disowned however of logic, and to whom the metaphysics of the
nineteenth century will assuredly extend no aid; while the shades of ancient
philosophers, not a whit more shadowy however than the ground he essays to
occupy, leaving their twilight abodes, may throng around in admiring curiosity
to behold the man whose intellectual stature is to dwarf their loftiest powers.
But if it be conceded, as it ought to be, that reason cannot prove man will
exist through all eternity, and that for our knowledge of this we are indebted
to the scriptures alone, let an opponent (or rather let me say a brother
inquirer after truth) confine himself to this more solid ground, without edging
away again into that region of mist and darkness which he had previously
renounced, and which by the general acknowledgment furnishes no standing place
on which the fugitive from revelation can plant his foot.
And we may appropriately conclude this chapter
with a quotation from an eminent expositor, who firmly maintains the doctrine
of eternal misery, and whose testimony therefore, wherewith most intelligent
Christians will agree, is the less likely to be received with hesitation.
PROFESSOR STUART says “The light of nature can never scatter the darkness in
question. This light has never yet sufficed to make even the question clear, to
any portion of our benighted race, Whether the soul of man is immortal? Cicero,
incomparably the most able defender of the soul’s immortality of which the
heathen world can yet boast, very ingenuously confesses, that after all the
arguments which he had adduced in order to confirm the
doctrine in question, it so fell out, that his mind was satisfied of it only
when directly employed in contemplating the arguments adduced in its favour. At all other times, he fell unconsciously into a
state of doubt and darkness.” “It is notorious also that Socrates, the next
most able advocate among the heathen for the same doctrine, has adduced
arguments to establish the never-ceasing existence of the soul, which will not
bear the test of examination. Such is the argument by which he endeavours to prove, that we shall always continue to exist
because we always have existed; and this last proposition he labours to establish, on the ground that all our ‘present
acquisitions of knowledge are only so many reminiscences of what we formerly
knew, in a state of existence antecedent to our present one. Unhappy lot of
philosophy to be doomed to prop itself up with supports so weak and fragile as
this!
“How can the soul be filled with consolation in
prospect of death, without some better and more cheering light than can spring
from such a source? How can it quench its thirst for immortality, by drinking
in such impure and turbid streams as these? Poor wandering heathen! How true it
is—and what a glorious, blessed truth it is—that ‘life and immortality are
brought to light in the gospel!’ It is equally true; that they are brought to
light only there. Nor has all the light which has been east upon the subject of
the soul’s immortality since the gospel was first published, enabled men,
independently of the gospel itself to demonstrate this truth; certainly not to
show, with any good degree of satisfaction, what the future state of the soul
will be. If there be any satisfactory light, then, on the momentous question of
a future state, it must be sought from the word of God. After all the toil and
pains of casuists and: philosophers, it remains true, that the gospel, and the
gospel only, has ‘brought life and immortality to light’ in a satisfactory
manner.” Exegetical Essays on several Words relating to Future Punishment.
Testimony of scripture on
immortality— Mosaic narrative Man made in image of God— Became a living soul—
Force of these expressions, what— Assertion of a reviewer— Apostolic use of
same phrase— Negative result—Garden of Eden— Threatening of death— Import of as
explained by divines— As understood by Adam— His condition— His knowledge— Tree
of life— Second Adam— Affirmative result.
For all knowledge on the
subject of immortality we are indebted to that blessed volume which is
given as a light to our feet and a lamp to our path. We have now, therefore, to
inquire the nature of its testimony; and our second question, as already
stated, is— DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH THAT IMMORTALITY IS THE PORTION OF EVERY MAN?
THAT MAN, AS HE IS, AND INDEPENDENTLY OF CHARACTER, IS IMMORTAL?
In other words,— DO
THEY TEACH AN ABSOLUTE AND UNIVERSAL OR A CONTINGENT AND CONDITIONAL
IMMORTALITY?
In coming to the examination of this question,
let two things be remembered, namely, First, the distinction, already
suggested, between a future state and a proper immortality (for that there is a
future state for all a100:. countable creatures is not disputed); and Secondly, that we must, of course,
leave out of consideration for a time those texts which speak of the future
condition of the wicked as everlasting, because the present inquiry is with the
view of correctly understanding those very passages. To adduce them in evidence
at this point would be to reason in a circle. Necessarily omitting them, we
naturally refer—First, TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION OF MAN.
It is often said that when he was created he was made immortal; and it is alleged that the
opening page of revelation contains proof of this. Which affirmation is based
on two things; namely, The declaration that man was
made in the imago of God; and, The different expression _ that is observable
when man is spoken of, from that employed when the animals are mentioned. Let
us examine these positions; and § 1. The declaration that God made man in his
own image.
But what do we understand by this assertion?
Of course, it has some all-important limitations. God is a pure Spirit;—it is not so that man was made in the divine image.
God is independent and self-existent; man does not resemble him in this. He is
omnipotent and omniscient;—is man, in this respect,
made in the image of God? The Divine Being is infallible and irresponsible;—is
it thus that man resembles him? We might instance other particulars, but these
may suffice. And if man be not like God in any of these glorious attributes,
what reason is there for selecting immortality, and asserting that it is in
this respect that man bears the divine image? Especially since the immortality
of God and of the creature is infinitely unlike, seeing that the immortality of
the Divine Being is essential, and looks backward to the eternity that is past,
as well as to that which is future; in which sense the apostle says, He alone
hath immortality.’ To say that the image of God’ as used here denotes
immortality, is to represent the self-communing God as saying, if it may be
allowed us to paraphrase the expression, “ We have
hitherto made only creatures that will sooner or later die, let us now make an
immortal creature.” And I venture to think that this is not the obvious idea,
and that it has more of verisimilitude to suppose that the self-address rather
exhibits the Creator as saying, “ Hitherto we have made but irrational and
unaccountable creatures, fit only to serve the purposes of a superior; let us
now make an intelligent being, possessed of self-consciousness and a moral
nature, capable of rational happiness, and who shall rule over the inferior
tribes as their lord.” I say this appears to me a more probable idea than the
former one. For since we must find in the expression, the image of God,’ some
characteristic in which man differs from the brute creation; so also must we seek for some obvious endowment which may in
some measure render him like his Maker.
It must be some very manifest quality, visible
at a glance, that shall constitute man, as distinct
from the other creatures, the image of God. And when we have found one or two
palpable points of difference between him and them, such as those alluded to,
and by which he really does bear some resemblance to his Creator, why should we
arbitrarily fix on another endowment which, whether he has it or not cannot
become self-evident (like those other qualities which it is acknowledged on all
hands he does possess) and the knowledge of which unapparent quality would have
to be made known to him by revelation, without which, as we have seen in the
preceding chapter, he never would discover that he possessed it? The very
phrase image of God’ would seem to denote some easily recognisable
resemblance.
Nor is this all. For if the assertion that
mail was made in the image of God proves his immortality, then, the evangelical
statements in the New Testament about a new Creation’ of man, the Christian
being a new man,’ ‘created anew in the image of God,’ Colossians 3:10;
Ephesians 4:24, must imply that- the image had been destroyed—the immortality
forfeited by sin—and restored only by believing in Christ. Not that I should
choose to adduce this as independently proving anything; but only insist that
if the phrase made in the image of God,’ as employed by Moses, proves
immortality—the phrase, as employed by Paul, must mean the same; and so, since
the latter affirms this is restored, it would follow that it had been lost; and
thus, being now bestowed only upon those who are recovered to God, is not
universal, and therefore was not absolute but contingent. So that this argument
will not answer the purpose for which it is adduced.
However, it will most probably be deemed that
these passages from the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians require to be
understood of a mighty moral change, rather than as teaching any physical
change in the condition of man; signifying that he is made holy, rather than
that he is made immortal. And truly this would seem the correct exposition. For
in the one, the Christian is exhorted to be renewed in the spirit of his mind,
and to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness;’ and in the other, is declared to ‘have put off the old man with his
deeds, and to have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the
image of him that created him;’—where man is spoken of as again made in the
image of God, and where the expression appears employed to denote moral
resemblance. Thus then the assertion that man was made
in the image of God will not prove him immortal; or else the apostolic use of
the phrase will show that since the fall this endowment is a gospel privilege.
§ 2. As to the difference of expression
observable when man and the animals are respectively mentioned. The historian
has given two accounts:— GENESIS 1:26 And God said,
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth. 27 So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he
him: male and female created he them: 26 And God blessed them and God said unto
them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
every living thing that moves upon the earth.
GENESIS 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the
dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living soul.
It is the latter statement which bears the
weight of the present argument. And two things are relied on, namely, That God
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and ‘That man became a living
soul.’ These two facts are alleged as peculiarities, marking man off from all
the animals, separating him from them by a whole infinity; he, it is said, has
emphatically the breath of life, and he alone is made a living soul. Now,
suppose we find both these expressions used in reference to “all living things”
without exception;—used so by the same writer—in the same book—and within a
page or two of their first application to man;—must we not, in such a case,
cease to attach any distinctive importance to them, and admit that—either the
phrase does not prove immortality, or else equally proves all things that have
life to be immortal too? Let us see then how Moses has used these two phrases.
As to the term ‘the breath of life,’ if we turn to Genesis, chapter 7, we shall
find it employed in reference to all the other creatures, the beasts, birds,
are:— 13 In the self-same day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the
sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into
the ark.
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and
all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind;
every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark,
two and- two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and
female of all flesh, as God had commanded him and the
Lord shut him in.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the
earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing
that creeps upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of
life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed
which was upon the face of the ground; both man, and cattle, and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and
Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Every reader sees at a
glance that both man and the brute creation are alike comprehended under
the one phrase all flesh,’ and—’ every living substance;’ and that of all alike
and indiscriminately it is said—’ in whose nostrils was the breath of life,’
and of all alike Wherein was the breath of life, that they died,’ that they
were ‘destroyed.’ ‘So thee the term ‘breath of life,’
being applied to man in common with beasts and insects, cannot, in any degree,
assist to prove him, as distinct from them, endowed with immortality.
2: And as to the second expression, ‘man
became a living soul;’ this is no more restricted to man than is the former.
In Genesis 1: 20, we read, ‘God said, Let the
waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.’ Where, by
universal consent, a closer translation would be as the margin testifies, a
living soul;’ so that it would read, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath a living soul.’ Thus, precisely the same words are
employed in reference to man, as to the other creatures.
So much for the argument based on a supposed
difference in the modes of speaking of man and the animals.
A thing was created into that
which it was not before, and which none of God’s other earthly creatures are
ever said to have become—a person. It is this which constitutes the difference
of expression when man is spoken of and when the animals are.” [Congressional
Magazine, January, 1845.]
But it has been said in reply, that the stress
is to be laid, not on the phrase, ‘breath of life,’ nor, ‘living soul,’ but on
the word became.’ The force of the text, as an argument is in the words ‘man
became a living soul.’ A thing was created into that which it was not before,
and which none of God’s other earthly creatures are ever said to have become—a
person. It is this which constitutes the difference of expression when man is
spoken of and when the animals are.” [Congressional Magazine, January, 1845.] I confess I do not see any great force in
the remark, nor has the objector pointed out wherein the power to demonstrate
an endless existence lies; so that I can but offer one or two observations on
the supposed meaning, without being quite sure of really meeting the point which .the writer had in his mind.
a.
I may, however, decline the reviewer’s
substitution of the word person here for soul, which latter word is very
properly used in our common version; although, of course, no one will deny that
there are many passages where the word here rendered soul’ is properly rendered
‘ person.’ But the very gist of the present question
is, Whether a phrase, which,—by the same writer, on
the same page, and in the same connection—is used indiscriminately of man and
the other animals, can prove him as distinguished from them to be immortal,
when all the difference that is observable lies in the fact that the word
became is applied to him. For by reference to the original, it will be seen
that the predicate, living soul,’ is really used of the creatures
indiscriminately, [See in the original, Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30. 2:7, 10.
9:12, 16.] so that in argumentative fairness the whole stress of the objection
must be placed on the word became. And then the assertion to be examined is
really this,—While of the creatures generally it is
said that they had living souls, and they are called living creatures (the same
word being used) it is said of man alone that he became a living soul; or, as
the word is rendered by our translators, in the same connection, ‘a living
creature.’ So that, in truth, this word became is to bear the infinite weight
of an absolute and universal immortality!
b.
The account given of the creation of man is,
as might be expected, somewhat more detailed than that of the creation of the
animals. Although, if we except the divine self-communing which Moses
beautifully represents as preceding the creative act, and the phrase already
noticed asserting man to be made in the image of God, the first of the two
statements respecting the creation of’ man is not very different from that,
which relates to the other creatures. For after saying that God created the
heavens and e the earth, that he made two great lights, and made the beast of
the earth, and created great whales, etc., it is said, in precisely the same
terms, so God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him;
male and female created’ he them.’ From which statement, had there not been a’
subsequent and more detailed one, we should have inferred that both male and
female of human kind were created just as all the animals
before had been, as to the modus creation.
But man being the most important of God’s
works on earth, and several reasons being to be answered by a somewhat fuller
description, which would be both interesting and profitable, the historian,
after having given a brief statement of the six days’ work, returns to this one
point and gives a rather more particular account; thus,— Genesis 2: 7. And the
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground;—and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life;—and man became a living soul.
From which we learn that God first of all made a man of earth; and then communicated to
this, as yet inanimate organism, life. So that that (namely, the dust of the
earth) which, on the first divine effort, ‘became, what it was not before,’ an organised body, by the next, act became (again, what it was
not previously) alive,—or possessed of a living soul,
of became a living soul. By which phrase the historian would not appear to
express more than the result of God’s breathing into him the breath of life,
which breath of life having been breathed into the animals also, they first and he afterwards became alive. For there is no very obvious reason why, if Moses had given as detailed an
account of the creation of the animals, he might not have expressed himself in
the same way; seeing that out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of
the field, and every fowl of the air,’ as well as man. Now, since there is no
life in dust, none in an animal form made of dust, and yet the creatures that
were made thereof had the breath of life’ (7:15-22) and ‘living souls.’ God
must have communicated or breathed into them, when formed, the breath of life,
and so they became, and only so, what they also were not previously, alive, or
possessed of living souls, or became living souls or creatures; (for it is
precisely the same word that is sometimes rendered souls,’ sometimes
creatures!)
Or if anyone should object to this last phrase
being applied to the creatures generally, it would be, I presume, because of
some force which he conceives to lie in the word ‘became;’ since it is asserted
that they had ‘living souls,’ and had ‘the breath of life.’ But to have life is
to be alive. And I would have him ask himself what difference he can find in
the inspired historian’s mode of expressing himself that shall bear this
infinite weight, sought to be put on the word—’became.’ God certainly gave, or
put into, or breathed into the animals ‘the breath of life’ (evinced by the
fact that they had it) and they became alive. When,
then, God breathes into ‘the man, as yet inanimate, the breath of life’
(precisely the same phrase) what is there in this communication of life, or
‘the breath of life,’ to him which at once endows the hitherto inanimate clay
organism with immortality, when the same breath of life’ communicated to all
other creatures leaves them mortal? There is an infinite difference between the
two, on the objector’s view; yet where is it taught in the history? I ask. In
the word ‘became,’ says the objector; that one word will support the whole
weight of the doctrine of man’s immortality.
This word, then, ought of itself to shut us up
to the idea of endless permanency: whatever ‘becomes’ anything that it was not
before, must forever be what it has become.’ For unless he will affirm this, he
does not gain his point by laying all the emphasis on the word became;’ and if
he will assert this, there are plenty of passages, to which, if he apply the reasoning, they will confute the notion. The
writer, however, knows at least one individual who would be sorely reluctant to
think his own bright hope of immortality had to rest on any such basis as this;
and I can scarcely conceive that except within the compass of theology,
anything of importance would ever be based on •such a foundation—a pyramid
built on a needle’s point.
a.
But fortunately we
have this very text, on which so -much stress is laid, quoted in the New
Testament. The apostle writing to the Corinthians expressly says 1 Corinthians
15:45 and so it is written, The first man Adam was
made a living soul. Here, then, is the same Spirit that dictated the phrase
originally to Moses, now prompting Paul to quote the self-same expression,
giving it in another language. What it means as used by the apostle in Greek,
that, under the circumstances, it means as used by the historian in Hebrew. But
the scope of the argument will show the apostolic idea of the Mosaic
expression.
Reasoning with the deniers of a resurrection
of the dead, after he had pointed out some consequences which would
legitimately follow if there were no resurrection [namely, that then there
would be nothing to hope for beyond this present life, so that in that sad case
it would be but reasonable to make the most of the passing hour, —’let us eat
and drink for to-morrow we die’ [See this illustrated in a subsequent chapter
on The argument from the Resurrection.] he proceeds to notice a supposed
difficulty which one of the objectors might urge, ‘How are the dead raised up
and with what body do they come?’ Towards the close of his answer to which, he
intimates that it ought not to be so very difficult to believe in a
resurrection body different from the present, seeing that there are already
great varieties of bodies in creation.
Why, then, may there not be a spiritual body?
Which he accordingly affirms there is, saying, verse 44, There is a natural
body [a soul body] and there is a spiritual body [a spirit body.] In support of
which assertion he quotes our present text, Genesis
2:7 saying, And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul’.
Mark, this assertion of Moses is quoted by the
apostle to show—what? That man was created immortal?
Nothing like it, but—that there is a natural, an animal body, a soul body; which is what, therefore, according to Paul, Adam
became.’ Moreover, the first man Adam was so made a living soul, or, if it will
please better, had so become’ a living soul, as to leave room for such a second
Adam as should be- even to him a quickening, LIFE-GIVING, spirit.
So that if, in these days of multiplied
infallibilities, it may be allowed us to prefer an
apostolic and inspired exposition of the original record, we shall respectively
take leave still to affirm that there is no expression on the opening page of a
progressive revelation which teaches the unutterably grand prerogative of an uncontingent immortality for all mankind.
Hitherto our argument has been chiefly
negative. Let us advance a step. It is submitted then—not only that, from the
fact of precisely the same terms being employed in reference to man and the
other creatures, immortality as distinguishing him from them, cannot be proved
from the original account of the creation, but,—that
there are circumstances in the history of our first father which look in quite
the opposite direction.
Let us then ascend the stream of time, till,
near its source, we find ourselves in the garden home of the first inhabitants
of the virgin earth. Worn as our spirits often are, is it not refreshing to
wander in thought among those bowers of paradise, and. breathe the ‘vernal
airs,’ and recline beneath the spreading branches, while the heaven’s deep
blue, the earth’s unsullied green,’ the sunbeam glancing on the golden
fruitage, the rustling of the woods, the murmur of the streams, and every note
of every insect, and all the sights and soul* of rejoicing nature, steep the
senses in elysian reverie.
But it is not thus, it is not thus, that we
are now to visit the birth-place of our kind. We have
a solemn question to ask the sire of men, and we gaze on him with awful eye.
For while we could lose ourselves in soft delight, as we contemplate the
loveliest pairs That ever since in love’s embraces met,’ yet one anxious
question weighs upon our spirits, and we enter our father’s leafy home only to
have, it solved. For we have heard, like the muttering sound of distant
thunder, that to them thus full of life, to whom existence was a mighty boon,
God threatened in case of disobedience’ Thou shalt surely die!’ and we ask, What means this All important is the inquiry, WHAT WAS THE
DEATH THUS THREATENED?
I shall confine myself for obvious reasons, to
two opinions, namely, that which may be designated the orthodox one, and that
which appears to me the more consistent. The popular orthodox opinion
concerning the death. threatened to the sinner is, that it includes several
things; —namely, First, The entire and perpetual alienation of the heart from God,
the love of sin and hatred of holiness, an overpowering bias to all evil, the
thorough corruption of the moral nature,—commonly called spiritual death;’
Secondly, All the evils and miseries of this present life, but without any
mitigation (for relief belongs to a remedial system); Thirdly, The separation
of soul and body, when the latter returns to corruption,—or death temporal;
Fourthly, The separate existence of the soul in an intermediate state of misery
and shivering anticipation of worse.
Fifthly, A resurrection of the body and
reunion therewith of the soul, in order that the entire man may be capable of
intense anguish, which, without one moment’s interval, shall be his dreadful
portion forever and forever,— commonly called death
eternal.
These ideas, often expressed, as indeed they
ought to be - if true, in very much more appalling language than I have used,
are perpetually exhibited’ as constituting the death which is’ the wages of
sin,’ and which, to speak after the manner of divines, is thus made to consist
of “death spiritual,—death temporal,—and death eternal;” current phraseology
which falls glibly from the lips of thousands.
On this notion I submit a few remarks. But I
shall not comment on the apparent strangeness of the idea that God condemns
those who have sinned once, to sin on and on forever; although it does seem
somewhat mysterious to represent him that is ‘of purer eyes than to behold
iniquity,’ as speaking to his ‘creatures after such a fashion as this,—”So
unutterable is my abhorrence of sin, which is the only thing in all the
universe that I hate, that if you sin, I will doom you to sin forever. In token
of my hatred thereof you shall sin to all eternity. Beware, therefore; for if
you disobey me in this one thing, you shall instantly be rendered averse from
all good, and greedy of all evil. So utterly beyond all finite comprehension do
I loathe the least degree of wickedness, that if this be ever found in you,
then wickedness shall constitute your very nature, and rise to a giant growth
in you, and you shall hate me, with increasing intensity, through the cycles of
eternity.” I say, although this (which I have put into other phraseology,
because the accustomed and hacknied terms are often,
and for that reason, “ the tombs rather than the
symbols of ideas”) constitutes a part of what is meant by the phrase “death
spiritual,” I offer no comment thereon, but in submitting a few remarks shall
confine myself to the bearing on our present subject.
We have seen then what is the orthodox opinion
on the death threatened to the sinner—that it includes death temporal,—death
spiritual,—death eternal.
But if this be, as divines tell us, what is
now meant by the death threatened to the sinner (for death has from the
beginning of the world down to the close of revelation been the penalty
threatened to the sinner) it must have been the death originally threatened to
Adam, which indeed is generally agreed; for who supposes the death threatened
to the first sinner, to differ from the death threatened to the second, or any
other? All through scripture death is exhibited as the just wages of sin, and
assuredly it is fitting to take our first idea of its meaning where first we
find it used.
But I think it must be obvious on examination
that Adam could not have understood it so. The terms of the sentence would not
of themselves convey this notion. It is not their plain and obvious meaning.
Common sense would never put this interpretation’ on them. To make them stretch
thus thoroughly ad infinitum requires a mighty theological theorizing, such as
we may be quite sure never entered Eden. And I submit that Adam could never
have understood the sentence to include what the popular belief finds in it,
unless the words had been so explained to him; of which as there is no account
so it may not be taken for granted, in order to make
out a theory.
It is true indeed that some persons seem to
imagine. Adam of quite another order of beings than ourselves,
endowed with I know not what of superhuman knowledge. Whether consciously or
not, it is the imagination, though often verbally proscribed and -denounced,
rather than either reason or revelation, that has been generally courted to
describe the personal and relative condition of our first parents, and even the
severest theology his, perhaps almost unwittingly, allowed poetry to rule the
hour.
But assuredly he had no faculties that we do
not possess. And quite as surely he was not only in
the first stage of his being, but at the very starting point of his course,
which might stretch on and on through all eternity. Such a moral agent needs to
be disciplined and trained. His faculties must all of them be exercised,
without which, as there could not be growth, improvement, there would not long
be happiness, except indeed of the very lowest kind. But even Eden, simple as
were its arrangements, was adapted for our first parents, as they were
constituted. Adam would have to acquire knowledge in the ordinary way, in order
that thus his mental powers might be exercised.
Let no one object to this reference to “common
sense,” for, proscribed as this very suspicious endowment often is from the
domains of theology, I should not have ventured on inviting so heterodox an
ally, had not one of my reviewers happily given me leave to do so, by
intimating that ‘common sense’ was already engaged in the pending cause, but alas
for me! Retained on the other side, saying, “Common sense will do stern justice
by Mr.
Dobney’s theory, and
we for our own parts shall weep no tears of grief.” [Cong. Meg.] So that
‘common sense’ it seems is not only free to plead, but invoked to sit even on
the judgment seat, to do “stern justice!” But if this be so, and if common
sense be indeed throned as arbiter, I possibly may not need those “tears” of
sympathy which it is so cruelly resolved beforehand to withhold.
Being placed at the very commencement of his
‘ours’, intended to be progressive, he would require indeed to be supplied at
once with the needful amount of knowledge; and as he was created with the full
use of his bodily senses without passing through the stage of infancy, so
doubtless he was created in the full possession of his intellectual powers, and
probably knew, by something like intuition, just so much as would enable him to
Move forward from that starting point, under the usual laws of intellectual
existence. But it is not God’s wont to over-endow any
creature, nor so to impart knowledge as to supersede the necessity for the
creature’s; very best efforts. Just enough, and no more than enough, of
endowment for human beings beginning their career, is what commends itself to
our judgment as most desirable, and most in harmony with the principles on
which the all-wise God seems to us to proceed. And if we think of the human race in its entireness, study the history of
humanity as a whole, we find that, speaking generally, there has been progress.
We may suppose Adam to have been created
perhaps in the beauty and vigour of early manhood,
and to have awoke out of nothingness somewhat as we awake out of sleep, with
just so much of knowledge as was needed for the circumstances in which he was
placed, but not more; more he must acquire by the exercise of his powers, with
such oral communications as his Creator might see fit to make.
To suppose more than this would be quite
arbitrary on our parts. We have no right to assume for instance that Adam was
by intuition an astronomer, beside whom the Herschel’s of the present day are
children; or that he knew of the earth’s roundness, or
could read its earlier history as geologists do now, on the rough and flinty
faces of the rocks; or recognised the value of
mathematical lines and curves, or understood intuitively the various laws of
nature. For while we have no warrant for it, everything concurs to
discountenance the notion.
We may, generally speaking,
take men’s ideas of God as a pretty good criterion of their intellectual
status; more especially if they have not been subjected to a long operation of
debasing influences. And if we could ascertain the amount of our first parents’
knowledge of God, we should have a standard by which to take their intellectual
stature, We ask then did God, so often afterwards in
patriarchal times, assume a visible form in order to instruct the new-born
intelligences? The circumstances of the case, joined with the fact of such
appearances subsequently, would lead us to believe so, while some of the
intimations in the Mosaic narrative would plainly teach the notion. Adam seems
to have seen in vision during sleep the process of the creation of Eve; the
narrated circumstances of which would necessitate the idea of a visible form.
And he sought to hide himself from the presence of the Lord;
which may again convince us of the fact.
But if so, how incipient, how puerile almost,
comparatively, must be the ideas formed of a God whose shape is seen by the
eye. When for instance in later times Abraham conversed with the Lord in human
form, with the angel Jehovah, who condescended to accept of the hospitality of
his tent; or Jacob “wrestled the livelong night with the mysterious stranger,
of whom at the close he said I have seen God face to face; how can we suppose
those patriarchs, honoured as are their names
forever, to have those loftier conceptions of the Divine Being which, from a
larger acquaintance with the magnificence of the universe, from the corrections
which science has supplied, and above all from the more elevated writings of
later prophets and apostles, and especially from the instructions of Christ
himself, it is our privilege to acquire?
* Genesis 18: 1-8. And the Lord appeared to
him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent
door in the heat of the day; and he lift up his eyes and looked, and lo, three
men stood by him; and when he saw them, he went to meet them from the tent
door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found
favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from
thy servant; let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet,
and rest yourselves under the tree. And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and
comfort ye your hearts; and after that you shall pass on: for therefore are ye
come to your servant. And they said, So do as thou
hast said. And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it,
and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a
calf tender and good, and gave it to a young man: and he basted to dress it.
And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it
before them; and he stood by them under the tree: and they did eat.’ * Genesis
32: 24-30. And Jacob was left, alone; and there Wrestled a man with him until
the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he
touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of
joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said let me go for the day breaks; and
he said I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
And he said unto him, What is thy name? and he said,
Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more
Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince halt thou power with God and with men, and
has prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me
I pray thee, thy name; and he said, Wherefore is it, that thou dost ask after
my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place
Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved l’ In
teaching children about God, we, of course begin with such ideas as their
little minds can receive; and if they grow up pious and thoughtful, and are favourably situated, they rise in their conceptions of God
higher and higher as long as they live. It is so with ourselves. In childhood we conceived a bright and glorious
form sitting august on a lofty throne, surrounded with obedient and
swift-winged servants; and we have been ever since gradually correcting our
early ideas, and acquiring loftier and still loftier views of the Infinite
Spirit, who is from everlasting to everlasting, the author and sustaining power
of all existence. But what pious and intelligent English youth of the nineteenth
century has not higher views of God than patriarchs would necessarily form,
having seen the object of their worship in the human shape, and stood by while
he partook of the hastily dressed meal?
Thus then was it with
the earliest individuals of our race, in the earliest period of their
existence. And that we are correct is pretty clearly
evidenced by the fact of their almost amazing simplicity, in thinking they
could conceal themselves from his view, if they cowered behind a tree! ‘And
Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the
trees of the garden.’ The child of intelligent parents among us that has not
past his tenth year, has acquired corrector ideas of God than this indicates.
Why they could not have known that God is a spirit, to whom all things are ever
present. Nor will it do to reply that the sin they had just committed
immediately caused a wonderful obscuration of their intellect. For if the
understanding became suddenly darkened, this would happen either naturally, as
the inevitable consequence of sin, or by immediate interference. But we have no
hint of God’s having at once interposed to darken and distort on their minds,
the image of himself, nor yet is it credible that he should so act.
Neither is it the natural tendency of an act
of disobedience, however heinous, to deprive a man instantly of the knowledge
he had possessed immediately before. A long course of hardened sin and
degrading vice, indeed, will cloud our perceptions of the beauty of the Lord
our God,’ incapacitate us to enjoy communion with, him, and prompt to unworthy
ideas. But no one day’s sinfulness, nor indeed a whole life of sin, would sink
an intelligent English Christian, who should thus miserably fall from a state
of holiness, from his elevated ideas of “the Infinite Jehovah into such notions
as pagans form,—would not transform a Howe or a Foster
into a Hottentot! Has the Prince of the power of the air lost his knowledge of
the Divine Being by the natural operation of his long-continued apostasy? Why
if to blot out of the memory knowledge that was previously there be the natural
operation of transgression, then would all knowledge, especially of God,
gradually ebb out of sinful minds.
The ideas then that Adam had of the Divine
Being immediately after his sin, were in harmony with those he had previously
formed; and thus we have the desired standard whereby to take his intellectual
proportions, which, in connection with all the circumstances of the case,
forbid our imagining him in the first days of his existence, while fresh with
the dew of his youth, likely or indeed able to deduce from the simple phrase
Thou shalt die, all that divines five or six thousand years afterward, in the
plenitude of their theological might, are skilful
enough to excogitate there from.
Let it be remembered that, as we have no
reason to suppose him skilled in the physical sciences, while his ideas of God
were manifestly and almost necessarily very puerile, we may be quite sure he
was still less skilled in pneumatology, and was little
enough of a metaphysician. If he believed himself destined to an endless
existence, endowed with an immortality that could not be alienated, it must
have been, either, because it was revealed to him (of which, all-important and
decisive as it would be, as there is no intimation so we may not suppose it)
or, because he had reasoned out-the fact for himself; which for many reasons it
is submitted he was incompetent to do. When then I am gravely assured that the
death threatened to Adam included, as divines say; “death spiritual, death
temporal, and death eternal,” in addition to all other objections, I reply that
it surpasses my power to believe that he to whom it was threatened could so
have understood it, unless it were explained to him to mean so, which not being
intimated, is not to be assumed.
There is nothing indeed on which it more behoves, or in fact so much behoves,
that there should be perfect and transparent explicitness, as in a sentence
denouncing evil in case of transgression. One who is in any danger of violating
law, ought to be able by due pains-taking to
understand the threatened consequences of voluntary ill-doing. It would not be
righteous in a human lawgiver to threaten ten stripes and inflict a thousand,
or to threaten a day’s imprisonment and then commit to the galleys for life, or hated over to the grim executioner. This, amongst
men, would be properly denounced as most flagrant tyranny. Let the man whom it
is wished to deter from a criminal act know explicitly the full legal,
consequences of crime. Yet—not to lay any stress at this point on what
nevertheless appears a forcible objection against the idea of endless torment
as the proper punishment of sin, namely, that it cannot be made level, to the
apprehension of the creature whom it is intended to warn thereby—it does not
appear to me that Adam could possibly have understood the threatening as
intending what the orthodox make it to mean,—misery here, separation by a
painful process of body and soul, intermediate state of terrible suspense and
awful suffering, resurrection of the body and reunion of the spirit in order to
increased torment, which should last forever!
I repeat, I cannot see how the simple
assertion—Dying thou shalt die, can bear this infinite weight so fondly put
upon it. When God speaks, he surely speaks to be understood, in order that
those whom he addresses may know something. Is it any part of wisdom to
pronounce words that no one can comprehend the real meaning of, or which seem
to mean one thing, but in reality mean quite another,
and that the very opposite, and even infinitely more dreadful? How was Adam to
understand that death meant life, —endless life—endless life in torment?
On the contrary, the very words would seem to
shut us up to the idea that utter destruction, cessation of existence, return
to that nothingness out of which the divine power had called him, was the death
threatened to our first father in case of transgression. An interpretation
which is not only the most natural in itself, considering
all the circumstances, but to which we are additionally impelled by the
exposition of the sentence which the author thereof himself gave, when after
the transgression he appeared to judge the guilt-stricken pair. ‘In the sweat
of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of
it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return.’ How utterly unlike the strain in which divines expound the
original sentence! Not a word here about an intermediate state of misery for
the disembodied spirit, and a resurrection to everlasting wretchedness. The
return to dust is what the judge awards. Why then cannot theologians acquiesce
when the mouth of the Lord hath spoken?
Is it not evident that Adam had as yet, at all
events, no notion of two natures constituting him one person—no notion that the thou whom God addressed could not return to dust, but
must survive the dissolution of the body? Or, are we
to suppose that Adam stood there begirt in
metaphysical panoply of proof, and saying within himself, “It is only this
naturally perishable body which is doomed after all; the Lord hath passed no
sentence on my immortal spirit, which will survive the decay of this animal
frame, and which being not sentenced shall therefore be unscathed.” For be it
observed, the Judge sentences only to death, and a return to dust. And God
himself, it is earnestly submitted, in his min best interpreter.
Seeing then that God said not a word about
everlasting misery after death, and that there is nothing whatever to induce
the supposition that Adam had reasoned out for himself -the doctrine of his
immortality, and so of the natural survival of the spirit after the body’s,
dissolution, it ought to follow that he would understand the threatened death
to mean cessation of existence. While it would seem self-evident that if Adam
did not, and from the circumstances could not, understand his sentence to
include everlasting misery in hell, this could not be what his righteous judge
intended.
§ And this interpretation is confirmed by the
peculiar circumstances connected with the Tree of Life; concerning which a
remark or two may not be irrelevant.
The Mosaic narrative must be either wholly
allegorical, or wholly literal. I am constrained to take it literally, and to
agree with those who consider the allegorical utterly inadmissible, as
involving far more of difficulty and inexplicableness. And herein I am happy
again to find myself at one with my evangelical brethren generally, so that the
reasons which compel to this view need not detain us, but we may proceed to our
point.
I suppose the common belief is that, prior to
his transgression, Adam was perfectly proof against every form of ill, and that
every, kind of pain and suffering is to be traced up to the Fall. But have
people exorcised their common sense’ when they have rested in this belief,
which nothing in the scriptures necessitates, or even warrants? We need not
pause to prove, what no intelligent reader will deny, that what are called the
laws of nature had been in operation long before man was placed on the earth.
The twin sciences of geology and astronomy have settled that point forever.
Ages ere man was created, incalculable masses of vegetable matter had been
buried deep in the bowels of the earth, to form those inexhaustible coal-beds without which our mines of iron, etc. would be
useless. and man must have been in little better than a rude uncivilised condition. And as there had been decay in the
vegetable world, so also in the animal kingdom; as is shown by the fossil
remains of creatures which comparative anatomy demonstrates must have lived in
an earlier stage of the world’s history; not to mention those extensive
formations which are the result of insect industry overwhelming to realise. The sin of man had nothing to do with rendering
the animals mortal, or altering their natural
dispositions, or their physical structure. The bible breathes no syllable to
this effect, and the indisputable facts of science utterly disprove it. Poetry
indeed adopts the idea, and beautifully presents it to our captivated
imagination. But while we do all fitting honour to
the true bard, and to ‘immortal verse,’ yet poetry is not to write our creed.
All the laws of nature, then, being in
harmonious operation, was man exempt from their influence I ask. Had he fallen
from a tree, would he not have been bruised? Supposing there had been a fire
kindled in Eden, was the man insensible to its heat?’ Would it not have warmed
him? And would it not have inconvenienced him, had he approached too near I Had
he laid his hand in it, would he not have been burnt? Or, had there been any
sharp instrument there, say a sharp flint, would it not have cut him? And if
so, would not the blood have flowed, or would there have been no sense of pain
or, would it have been perfectly safe for him to fall into one of the four
rivers that bounded his leafy home? And yet this is the belief, not the less
confident for being adopted without warrant from either scripture or reason, of
thousands of Christians, who seem to take for granted that Adam was charmed
against the influence of all the laws of nature. And what Southey makes Kehama inflict on Ladurlad, as
the direst curse which even a poet’s wildest fancy could invent, Christian
people suppose to constitute a part of the blessing
resting on primeval man; namely, an absolute exemption from the laws of nature.
And grave divines, in their gravest moments, outdoing the old Greek bard who
made his hero vulnerable only in the heel, make the first man, all flesh and
blood as he was too, invulnerable and impossible in
every point!
Nor will it help out
their amazing theory, for which they cannot show one jot or tittle of warrant
from holy scripture; to plead that, as God possesses all power, he could
miraculously endow Adam, as Homer endowed Achilles, with invulnerability, and
give to flesh the properties of marble. We are not to invent miracles at our
pleasure. The Creator does not perform his work so imperfectly as to be obliged
to interpose at every moment with miracles; the value of which Is chiefly
evidential, and our sense of their value makes us the more sensitive to the
mischief which is done by the ready habit of referring everything to miraculous
agency. We are not treading the region of fable and romance, be it remembered.
It is not the early origin of the Roman people that we are inquiring into, at
the hands of wonder-loving historians, who string together the popular legends
of their ancient bards;1; we have a more sure word of
prophecy.’ The divinely instructed writer of the first page of this world’s
history was of quite another race I wean. What he records we believe
implicitly; but fables are not to be foisted into his narrative, to answer the
purposes of a theological system.
“I charm thy life From the weapons of strife,
From storm and from wood From fire and from flood, From the serpent’s tooth,
And the beasts of blood: From sickness I charm thee, And time shall not harm
thee; And water shall hear me, And know thee and fly thee; And the winds shall
not touch thee When they pass by thee, And the dews shall not wet thee When
they fall nigh thee.” Southey’s curse of Kehama.
Warm flesh and blood like any of ourselves,
with just the same apparatus of veins and arteries and nerves, the body of our
earliest ancestor was of course as capable of pleasure, and therefore, from the
nature of the nervous system, of pain as our own. A sharp flint or a thorn
would have wounded his foot as easily, or hat he fallen with his head against a
rock it would have ached as readily, as my reader’s;
for it was no fairy land that he inhabited, but a garden of this every day world’s earth, with just such trees growing in it,
and just such streams surrounding it, as we gaze on now. It was no other planet
than this same that was the home of the infancy of our race. And since the
tendency of all compound bodies is to dissolution, the bodily frame of Adam was
as liable to decay as any of the organised substances
about him. Here then we see the value of the tree of life, which (interpreting
the whole narrative literally, with the rest of the orthodox,) we understand to
be what its name imports, a tree adapted to sustain life.
And since the Creator has been mercifully
pleased to endow. plants with various medicinal virtues, so that the vegetable
kingdom is full of nutritive and remedial agencies, and to give to the very
atmosphere we breathe something of vital power, it is only in harmony with
palpably existing arrangements to believe that there was in Eden a plant more
abundantly endowed, than any now known, with life-sustaining and remedial
virtue; whose property it was to counteract the natural tendency to dissolution
of the bodily frame of our first parents, and to repair the ill consequences
that might arise from accidental injury.
And such a view of the Tree of Life appears to
be authenticated by the allusions made to it in other parts of scripture. For
though these should be shown to be metaphorical, yet the metaphorical
presupposes the literal, which is its necessary basis. Thus in the new
Jerusalem of the apocalyptic vision, John saw in the midst of the street of it,
and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve
manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree
were for the healing of the nations,’ (Revelation 22: 2,) on which Professor
Stuart, the most recent commentator on the Apocalypse, says” Nor is it the
fruit only which is of use to the inhabitants of the new world. Even the leaves
of the trees are sanitary to the nations. In other words, The
distant nations may derive healing and life-preserving virtue from the leaves
of the trees, carried abroad, and distributed among them.”.
So then the reason
alleged for the banishment of the man from the garden, namely, Lest he put
forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,’
becomes quite intelligible, and was a necessary consequence of the sentence
pronounced, Thou shalt’ die,’ — ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return.’ Deprived then of access to this remedial and
life-sustaining plant, exposed to the various incidents which would naturally
befall, subjected to the wear and tear of daily toil and sorrow he would sooner
or later, having naturally reached the highest point of maturity, descend the
hill of life, and with weary step, finding even the grasshopper ‘a burden,
would come nearer and nearer to the evident termination of his course. No
counteracting tree of life inviting him to eat thereof and renew his youth, the
old man, bending beneath the weight of years, saw the grave before has, and
yielded to the stroke of death. And all the days that Adam lived, were nine
hundred and thirty years; and he died.’ What merciful revelations were made to
him by his benevolent Creator, what hope, faint at first like the first streak
of morning light, but growing brighter and brighter as he travelled onwards,
sustained his dejected spirit, it falls not within the scope of this chapter to
inquire.
“That man was originally created of an
immortal nature, and that our first parents would have been exempt from death
but for a change introduced into their nature at the Fall, is by some persons
taken for granted very hastily. The scripture-account in Genesis rather implies
the contrary; namely, that they were to be preserved from death by the
continual use of a certain medicine (as it may be called) appointed for that
purpose,—the fruit of ‘ the Tree of Life for we are told that man was driven
out of Eden, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and
eat, and live forever.’” Arch bishop Whately’s Scripture Revelations of Future State, page 3.
‘We have visited that garden of the Lord which
he was appointed to dress, only to ascertain—Whether the amazing fact of an uncontingent immortality for all mankind, is among the
first lines of truth conveyed on the opening page of a progressive revelation,
which, in one of its latest declarations, states that ‘Christ brought life and
immortality to light;’—and, What was the nature of the sentence passed on man.
And finding precisely the same terms employed
in common in speaking of Adam and the inferior creation, we conclude that
unless those terms prove the beasts, birds, fishes and
insects to be immortal, they cannot prove that he was. While yet further, we
find ourselves imperatively compelled to believe that the sentence pronounced
in case of transgression, considered in itself, and as it must have been
understood by Adam, and as it was expounded by the Judge himself, and was
illustrated in the banishment from the life sustaining tree and by the fact
contained in the concluding record of the historian; (‘Thou shalt die, said
God; and he died,’ wrote Moses) conveyed the sole idea of cessation of
existence—a return to that blank nothingness out of which he was brought,---and
that, unless a remedial system had mercifully intervened, when Adam died there
would have been an utter and everlasting extinction of his conscious being:* A
conclusion to which we are still further impelled by s. consideration of the
benefits conferred on our mortal race by the Second Adam, the Lord from
heaven,’ who (thanks. be unto God for his unspeakable gift) is, unto all his
followers, A LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT, the author of the resurrection, and the giver
of everlasting life. But these ideas must be worked out in subsequent and
distinct chapters. If the reader has not perused a pamphlet which appeared
early in last year, entitled, “The Fall; what was it?” and published by Jackson
& Walford, I take the present opportunity of commending it to his serious
attention. He will find it to be the production of an acute, a cultivated, and
a vigorous mind, whose endowments are sanctified by fervent piety, and happily
consecrated to the highest objects.
THE ARGUMENT PROM
RESURRECTION— Preliminary observations— Theories extant, Three— The First— The
Second— The Third— Great importance of Resurrection in the estimation of New
Testament writers— Illustrations of this— Christ consoling Martha— Paul
comforting Thessalonians, etc.— His discourse to the Corinthians, chapter 15—
Christ’s confutation of the Sadducees— In how many states of embodiment does
man exist, 2 Corinthians 4:1-8.— Other passages—Result—Connection with preceding
Chapter, and subject generally.
We have already seen reason to believe that
the death threatened to Adam was the death of the entire man, the cessation of
all conscious existence, which would therefore. have
been his doom had it not been for the mediatorial work of the second Adam. But
many other things concur to establish this belief. Among the chief of which, as
already intimated, we shall find the inspired declarations concerning the
blessings that accrue from the mediation of Christ. And of these, having heard
man sentenced to death, we may with propriety come at once to consider that
grand evangelical doctrine which has so close a connection with our subject,
and so decided a bearing thereon, namely, THE RESURRECTION
The reader will not however expect me to attempt more on this interesting topic
than our immediate purpose requires. We begin with a few preliminary
observations.
1: All Christians of every denomination
believe in a resurrection of the dead. It is one of those great doctrines of
Christianity about which, as a fact, all are thoroughly agreed; and although
there is a diversity of opinion as to some of the particulars, such as—Wherein
precisely it consists, and, When it has place-7yet as to the great fact
itself’, no question is ever raised by any parties that receive the scriptures
as a revelation from God.
2: The scriptures attach greatly more
importance to the glorious fact of a resurrection from the dead, than the ,majority of evangelical’ Christians of the present day
are wont to do. A remark however which will probably have to be repeated in the
course of the chapter, and may therefore be left for
the present.
3: All Christians agree that the resurrection
body different most materially from our present grossly corporeal frame. The assertion
of our Lord—that ‘they who are accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage,’—will
suggest one point of difference. While the apostle’s declaration, — ‘Meats for
the belly, and the belly for meats, but God shall destroy both it and them,’
—we suggest another. And a third inspired assertion will show that the
difference is yet more extensive, for—’This I say brethren, that flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither can corruption inherit in
corruption.’ So then our resurrection body will not be
one of bone and muscle, and heart and lungs, and veins and sinews, etc.; it
will not be corruptible, as a body so composed naturally is It will not
therefore be that same corruptible body which was laid in the grave, or burnt
at the stake, or devoured by beasts, or eaten by fishes.
For while all the multitudinous particles,
which composed that gross body, had previously existed Have the creation in
every variety of combination, so have they subsequently entered into as many
other strange combinations; helping to form, first,—soil; then taken up by
—vegetable substances, and, as such, assisting to compose—various animal forms;
which, being partaken of by human beings, have been assimilated, and so found
again as the particles of—a human body. So that the particles of which our
present bodies are composed, have been, through all preceding ages, the
component parts of numerous other bodies, both vegetable and animal; and will be
again, after our dissolution, and so to the very end of time. And the apostle
emphatically declares, in that interesting analogy which he institutes between
the seed-corn cast into the ground and the lifeless corpse, — ‘Thou sweat not
that body that shall be.’ 4: The scriptures nowhere represent any of the human race as consciously existent in a perfectly
disembodied state, as naked spirits. If any reader fancies that he knows
passages which intimate such a state, he will probably find• on re-examination,
that they do not support the notion. The phrase ‘separate or intermediate
state,’ whether good or not, is of quite our own coining. Moses died and was
buried; yet he appeared on Tabor with Elijah, and he was visible—or embodied;
and if reference be made to the parable of Dives and Lazarus, though parables
were never constructed to teach psychology, yet there is no intimation of a
disembodied state.
4: Nor do the scriptures ever speak of three
successive bodily states for man. They only recognise
the present body and the resurrection body; the animal body, or soul-body; and
the spiritual, or spirit body. If poets or divines pleasantly represent a third
body, as intervening between the present and the resurrection body, it should
be recognised that, however this may seem to them
logically necessary in order to fill in the sketch made by an inspired pen,—yet here revelation ceased, and here man undertook to
complete what the divine artist omitted.
Whether the picture thus jointly finished is
pleasanter to look upon, and, if so, whether it is also more truthful, I do not
undertake to determine, but merely note the fact. Seeing then that the doctrine
of the resurrection is so capital an article of Christianity, it is not
surprising that it should have engaged the attention of thoughtful men, who, in
the endeavour to harmonise
the various statements of scripture on the, subject,
have almost as a matter of course, proposed different hypotheses. The extant
theories on the subject of resurrection are three, and so far
as I know, it would be difficult, or impossible, to suggest a fourth which
should be quite distinct from the others.
THE FIRST THEORY IS
That when man dies, the emancipated spirit passes into an intermediate state,
which is one of consciousness, and therefore one of happiness or misery,
according to the character. In which separate state the spirit continues till
the period, believed to be intimated in scripture, when this world shall come
to an end,—that is, the last day;’ when the spirit shall come from its abode in
Hades, to the surface - of the earth, whence shall be evolved the very body
(though changed in many of its properties) which it had tenanted during its
mundane existence; and that, in some unexplained manger, the conscious spirit
shall recognise and glide into and again take
possession of the newly-raised body, which somehow would seem to be raised in a
state of life and so the spirit being once more lodged in the body shall
proceed forthwith to judgment.
This theory is the one most
commonly received. But the holders of it are divided into two classes,
differing among themselves on one important point. The majority represent the
spirit as not altogether unclothed and naked during the intermediate state, but
as provided with a temporary corporeal vesture or vehicle, by means of which it
can take cognisance of, and commune with, an external
world. And beautiful are the scenes of the celestial paradise, amid which the
departed and semi-glorified saint ‘Waits with his blessed companions the resurrection
morning, when, again lodged in a more material body, he shall be raised to
heaven, to be with Christ forever, and his bliss (heretofore incipient only)
shall be complete forever.
Of course this theory,—which
by some is so modified as to make heaven itself the abode of the saints
immediately after death, and prior to the resurrection, which they nevertheless
anticipate at some more distant period,—has very much to recommend it, or it
never could have been so prevalent. Agreeably with scripture, it represents an
immediate entrance on a higher state of existence and happiness for the
righteous, and the reverse for the wicked. And it also represents the
resurrection as more or less important, according to the view entertained of
paradise, and whether the departed believer is locally with Christ, or not. It
has also some grave objections lying against it. Such for instance as the fact
alluded to, that scripture nowhere represents us in three successive states of
embodiment, which this theory manifestly does. For, however shadowy the forms
which tenant the Elysian fields of the popular theology, it is beyond dispute
that each blessed inhabitant of paradise is conceived and spoken of as already
possessed of a spiritual body.’ If any of my readers should chance to be
unacquainted with Mr. Sheppard’s “Autumn Dream; Thoughts in verse on the
intermediate state of Happy Spirits, etc.” they will be thankful in proportion
to their taste and their sense of the beautiful, to be introduced to one of the
most pleasing volumes which the present prolific age has produced; the amiable
and accomplished writer being at the same time a scholar, a philosopher, a,
poet, and a Christian of a pure and elevated mind. To his very interesting
appendix I am indebted for one or two quotations in a previous chapter, which,
though ascribed to their authors, were accidentally omitted to be acknowledged
as derived through Mr. S. In this pleasing poem the reader will find the view
suggested in the text beautifully presented.
This leaves it very difficult to represent the
resurrection as really so important a matter as the
scriptures uniformly make it to be. Conscious, happy, embodied, what more, in reality, is a resurrection of a former body to
accomplish for them?
Against those holders of the popular notion
who make heaven itself- the abode of the pious immediately after death, and yet
believe in a general and simultaneous resurrection at the end of the world, and
a universal judgment, there is this additional objection, which also lies to a
considerable extent against those who even distinguish between paradise and
heaven, namely,—that there is something of awkwardness, which the scriptures
seem to avoid, in making beings who have already entered, and many ages since,
on a state of happiness or misery, come from those abodes to be judged, and to
receive a formal award to the very condition which has long been familiar to
them. To have been in heaven with Christ for glorious ages, and then to stand
at his bar for judgment, and be invited to enter heaven as their eternal home,
as though they had not been there already, scarcely seems to look exactly like
the scripture account, while it would almost appear to be wanting in congruity.
Nor is this all. There is another difficulty, namely,—that the idea of a saint already with Christ,’
present with the Lord,’ (who is. in heaven, be it renumbered, in his
resurrection and glorified body, wherewith ne ascended from the brow of Olivet)
coming from heaven to earth, to glide into a body raised simultaneously from
the ground, he being in reality already possessed of a spiritual body, would
seem an invention which—however poetically it may be exhibited and really it
has been most beautifully described=—has not one syllable in scripture to give
it countenance. If it be a necessary deduction from other of the inspired
statements, —good; but the sacred writers have nowhere represented just this
sort of thing as constituting the resurrection. The New Testament speaks of the
dead awaking, arising, etc., but nowhere breathes a word ‘about an already
conscious spirit in some far off abode of tranquillity,
and who has been for long ages clothed in some sort of ethereal or spiritual
body, coming to this earth again and-getting into another body, which is
enticed out of the earth, or evolved out of some corpuscle that has been
preserved by omnipotence for its future habitation.
Probably the exigency of the case compels the
adoption of this as a necessary inference; seeing that scripture lays the
greatest stress on a resurrection, speaks of a last day when it should take
place, and yet beyond dispute intimates an immediate entrance on a state of
final blessedness with Christ in heaven, which the translation of Enoch and
Elijah, with the appearance of Moses (who had died like other men, but who was
now evidently in the same state with the two glorified men already mentioned)
on the mount of transfiguration, would greatly confirm.
“A poet,” says Mr. Sheppard, in his’ valuable
“Thoughts on Private Devotion,” chapter 27.” A Poet who has attempted to
describe that awful period, when many bodies of the saints, which slept,
arose,’ represents their separate spirits, in the luminous vehicle of the
intermediate state, descending, by divine command, to contemplate their own sepulchres. Rachel, the mother of patriarchs; attended by
her guardian angel, approaches her lonely grave And, as she spake,
there streamed from forth the tomb, A soft-ascending vapour,
like the dew .
That moistens roses, or the silvery mist
Around a vernal bowel’. Her spirit’s gleam Brightened the vapour,
as a setting sun Tinges the dewy west. She marks it waive, And
soar, and sink, and fluctuate gently still Near her, and yet more near; and
venerates Creation’s changeful mysteries, profound In grandeur, in minuteness
as profound; Nor knows the fond affinity, nor deems How soon with that
soft-floating ambient veil Thy voice, Almighty Saviour,
shall involve Her own enraptured being. Yet she bends To
watch its beauty with a strange delight, While the companion seraph eyes the
scene Elate. Then spake the all transforming voice:— She sank: she seemed to melt in tears away;
Delicious tears; as if her being stole Through some cool glade, and thence
emerged in light, Amidst the fragrance of a flowery shore. —She wakes; she
sees; she feels herself enshrined In a new form,
bright, indestructible; And with intense blessedness adores Him that hath
summoned this access of joy.
It is tree that the second party of those who
hold substantially the popular theory, but who deem the disembodied spirit to
be so in reality, and to remain unclothed in’ the place of souls,
self-conscious, but not cognisant of any other being
save the intimately present Great Spirit, occupied in profound contemplation,
having memory perfected, and either with placid joy anticipating the
resurrection morn, or with deep despair dreading its approach,—I say it is true
these avoid some of the objections which have been hinted at as affecting the
views of their more numerous brethren. But while this modification has some
most important advantages, it is not without some attendant difficulty. With
scripture, they make an instant entrance on a state of consciousness, which is
one of happiness or misery; and, in harmony with revelation, they make the
resurrection epoch of greater importance than do the others, while they also
scripturally avoid making a third state of embodiment. The chief objection that
I shall submit is, that, however we may feel psychologically compelled, we have
no scripture warrant that I can remember for representing man as existing in a
purely disembodied condition, as a naked spirit; while the view can scarcely be
harmonised with some important passages to be
hereafter examined, such for instance as 1 Corinthians 15: 2 Corinthians 5. Let
it be remembered however that at present I am merely stating the extant
theories; which I desire to do impartially; some principles on the subject will
be subsequently submitted for the consideration of the reader, but the present
statement seemed to be previously
THE SECOND THEORY IS
That for all perceptions of an external order of things, and even for
consciousness itself, man is entirely dependent on organisation.
So that when this present organised frame is
dissolved, there is a cessation of all conscious existence until the end of the
world, when God, by his mighty power through Christ, will recall into new life
all that have slept in death.
This theory concurs with scripture in
exhibiting the dead as asleep, and so in making the resurrection to be indeed
an all-important epoch, on which everything depends,—an
awaking to new life. It also makes an instantaneous entrance on our final state
of reward or punishment, seeing that, in reality, the
moment of awaking would seem to the spirit the very moment of falling asleep,
since there would be no consciousness of anything whatever in the interval, or
of intervening time. And thus it certainly places
judgment and its final consequences close at hand. As near as we are to
‘death—so near are we to judgment, and to heaven or hell. The theory still
further agrees with scripture in recognising no state
Of pure disembodiment; and in making but two bodily
states, the present animal body, and the spiritual body.
But on the other hand
it also has some serious difficulties to contend with. Among which, passing by
those which we may leave pneumatology to suggest, it shall suffice here to
allude to the fact already referred to, that Moses, for instance, who had died
and been buried as other men, appeared and conversed with Christ on the mount
of transfiguration; and the fact, that the Saviour
promised to the dying thief to be with him that day in paradise, (the method of
explaining which is scarcely - satisfactory); and again, though we dare not lay
much stress on a parable, except for the moral it establishes,—Dives is
represented by our Lord as in a state of consciousness while yet his brethren
lived, as is Lazarus also; while they who have died in the faith generally are
said to be now inheriting the promises.
Among living authors who appear on the whole
inclined to adopt this view, perhaps it may not be allowable to refer to
Archbishop Whately, who, although he does not
dogmatically affirm and defend this view, yet evidently seems inclined, stating
the arguments on both sides,—to consider it as, on the whole, the least
encumbered and most scriptural THE THIRD THEORY IS
That at death the spirit leaving the earthly house of this tabernacle,’
abandons it forever, and returns to it. no more; but instead of going out
naked, unclothed, assumes at once its final, its spiritual body. In other
words, that the resurrection of every man [standing again, rising] takes place
immediately on dying.
A theory which resembles the other two in one
respect, namely, that it has some important scriptural recommendations in its favour, but some very formidable objections to encounter.
The advantages are these;— That, in harmony with
revelation, it makes no purely disembodied state, and but two bodies, the
present and the resurrection body; while it presents all the sublime realities
of the unseen world as close at hand, the judge before the door, and ourselves,
all of us, on the very threshold of either heaven or hell. On this theory, it
would be said that Enoch and Elijah passed into their final and glorified state
without dying, which same condition Moses reached through death; and that every
believer goes at once ‘to be with Christ,’ and every sinner is instantly doomed
to the abyss,—the judgment taking place immediately on
individuals as they pass into the unseen world. But it is not an easy task for
its advocates fairly and satisfactorily to reconcile with this view the
numerous impressive references in scripture to the last day—the end of the
world—the simultaneous resurrection of the dealt, and general judgment.
I am not solicitious
to discuss the merits of these several theories, in the present work, nor would
it be of any advantage to our immediate object to state which appears to me the
least encumbered with difficulty, and most accordant, on the
whole, with scripture. It suffices to have intimated, impartially I
trust, the extant theories. To adopt either would necessitate far too long a
digression by way of justification; while no disadvantage can accrue from the
reader’s kindly consenting that the author shall, for a time, be at liberty to
consider the remarks made in the introductory chapter, page 15, as not
altogether inapplicable to the details of the present subject. Beyond a doubt,
all the passages of scripture, properly understood, will be found to support
consistently one view, and only one.
The name of Professor Bush, of New York, is of
course that which instantly suggests itself in connection with this theory! as
the name of a gentleman whose learning and acuteness and piety, long devoted to
the illustration of the scriptures, will secure that as much shall be said in
its defence as can be said. The preparation of the
present volume, joined with the pressing daily duties of the Christian ministry,
has prevented my examining his recent work on the subject with the care which
it evidently deserves; nor did it come into my hands till the present chapter
was written.
Let us now proceed to connect the doctrine, or
fact, of the resurrection more closely with our proper subject. And § 1. Few
will deny that the resurrection, as already intimated, is uniformly represented
in scripture as a much more important doctrine than the popular style of the
pre, sent day makes it to be.
While we heartily profess to believe in a
resurrection at the end of the world, we nevertheless endeavour
to animate Christians by reminding them that they will, ere many suns have set,
enter on a state of glory, where no tear shall ever dim the eye; and we so
speak of “ the intermediate state” that, in reality, the resurrection becomes
comparatively unimportant; as is the ease especially at such times when we
attempt to console Christians who are mourning the decease of pious friends. We
comparatively seldom, or never, derive our chief consolation from the glorious
fact of the resurrection; but, almost as a matter of course, talk to them of
the happiness of the disembodied spirit, of its bright celestial companions,
its lofty engagements and inconceivable enjoyments;
leaving but little room for the resurrection -to be so very important as Christ
and apostles represent. And far be it from me to dispossess a single Christian
mind of the idea of immediate happiness at death. But all I mean to suggest
is—the different manner in which the New Testament
speaks on the subject from that which we adopt.
Inspired men laid much greater stress on
Christ’s raising the dead in incorruption, glory, and power. How exultingly
does Paul dwell upon it, The trumpet shall sound, and
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Now let the sounding of the trumpet be deemed
a mere poetical ornament, which his sublimely exciting theme would abundantly
justify, yet how evident is it that, his song of triumph is elicited by the
glorious resurrection which he anticipates; while we not seldom seem to think
death thoroughly conquered by the very circumstance that it only, as we
frequently sing, “Strikes off our chains, breaks up our cell, And gives us with
our God to dwell.” But when the same apostle would encourage the saints at
Thessalonica ‘concerning them which were asleep, that they. should not sorrow
as others who have no hope,’ he derives his consolation from the fact of the
resurrection; saying — ‘If we believe that Jesus died and rose again even so
them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For the Lord himself
shall descend from heaven [where the pious are not till after their
resurrection, whatever and whenever that may be] with a shout, with the voice
of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise
first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the
Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.’ Similar
to which was our Lord’s own strain, when, full even to overflowing of
tender sympathy, he endeavoured to console the
sorrowing Martha as she wept at the grave of Lazarus, ‘thy brother shall rise
again.’ We should have said,—Weep not for him; his
emancipated spirit is now set free from all the cares and grief and anxieties
of this sinful state. Seraphs are his bright companions. He is before the
throne of God, and enjoys the unutterable blessedness
of the beatific vision. Faith is changed into sight, and
hope into fruition.
Let it be remembered I am not casting the
faintest blame on this method of consoling those who weep over the remains of
the pious dead; but only observing that our Lord, instead, turns her thoughts,
not to the intermediate state, but to the resurrection. The teacher sent from
God,’ who divinely knew all things, to whose eye Hades was completely open, and
who could have touched any string he pleased, chose to direct her attention to
this topic, and not to that.
In corroboration of the remark, that the New
Testament lays a much greater stress on the resurrection than is common amongst
us, we may quote two or three other passages of scripture. It will be
remembered that it is promised to some as a mighty blessing, and that the
apostle represented himself as labouring to be found
among the happy number who should attain to it.
John 6:39, 40. And this is the Father’s will which bath sent me, that of all which he hath
given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
And this is the will of him that sent me, That every one which sees the Son, and believeth on him, may
have everlasting life; and I will raise [d G-diva)] him up at the last day.
Luke 20:35. ‘But they which shall be accounted
worthy to obtain that world, and the. resurrection from the dead.’ Philippians
3:11. ‘If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.’ Now
whatever explanation we adopt—whether we explain the peculiarity of such
passages, as the last two for example, by supposing the adoption of current
phraseology which expressed only the common opinion of the Jewish people at the
time, who certainly did not generally believe in a universal resurrection, and
many of whom deemed it a peculiar prerogative of their own nation, (which notion
of theirs, evidently alluded to in other parts of scripture, will serve, if
remembered, as a key to some important passages in the New Testament); or
whether we suppose that the resurrection of the wicked, to undergo a second
death, a resurrection therefore which would not be permanent, is not deserving
the name;—we perceive that it was “at all events counted a great thing by our
Lord and his apostles to attain to the resurrection of the dead.’ It may
perhaps be objected that Christ’s words, Thy brother
shall rise again,’ intimate his attention of immediately raising Lazarus. This
however does not appear correct. Nor does it comport with our Lord’s usual
method to announce in the very beginning of the inter-’ view his full design.
And 5:40, would seem to refer to some remark .not
recorded by the evangelist.
But there are some passages which demand a
little closer attention; and the reader is requested to observe the peculiar
line of argument which the apostle adopts in 1 Corinthians 15 12 Now if Christ
be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no
resurrection of the dead.
13 But if there be no resurrection of the
dead, then is Christ not risen.
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of
God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised
not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is
vain, ye’ are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in
Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them -that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die even so in Christ
shall all be made alive.
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all! why are they then baptized for the
dead?
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in
Christ Jesus our Lord, I die, daily. 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is
it to me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.
There were some in the Corinthian church who
affirmed that there was no resurrection of the dead, 5: 12. To controvert” this
heresy the apostle takes considerable pains, not putting down his opponents by
his apostolic authority, be it remembered, but by argument, sound speech that
could not be condemned. Let us observe, as far as our own subject is concerned
at least, what he concedes and what he asserts.
5: It is evident that he lays the greatest
possible stress .on the fact of a resurrection of the
dead. He even goes so far as to say that, were there no resurrection-, all his
efforts and self-denial as a Christian, and his labours
and sufferings as an apostle, would be ill-bestowed and vain. For in that case he would receive no - recompense. What advantage is it
to me, if the dead rise not?’5:32. So evident was this to his own mind, that he
does not hesitate to say that, in such a case, the thoroughly Epicurean motto
would be worthy of adoption—’Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,’ 5:32,
as the best that could be made of a sad case.
6: So that it certainly appears as though he
believed the maxim to be a sound one,—No resurrection,
no future existence. For only so could he bring out such a conclusion as that
contained in verse 32, where he evidently teaches that, in that case, death
would be the utter end of man. For on the supposition of the natural
immortality of the soul, there would have been no room for the conclusion, even
though the body had never experienced a resurrection. For let it be supposed
that an individual in the present day should deny that there was any
resurrection whatever of the dead body, and that another who believed the soul
to be immortal, in argument with him, should say—’ If there be no resurrection,
then it is of no consequence how we live:—good or bad it will be all one at
death.’ Would not every bystander, and even the denier of the resurrection
himself, with one voice proclaim it a most amazing instance of the non
sequitur?
And if any of our modern Christians who
believe the soul to be immortal, and who also believe in a resurrection of the
body at the end of the world, had been standing by the apostle when he dictated
this, would they not have been strongly tempted to interpose with an earnest
remonstrance, couched in some such strain as this,—But, Paul, even granting
that there were no resurrection, it would by no means follow that it would be
all one at death, whether a man had led a virtuous of a vicious life. You
surely forgot that the soul is capable of joy or sorrow, quite independently of
the body, and can be either happy in heaven, or racked with anguish in hell,
and will be through all the ages that have to elapse before the resurrection
that we anticipate occurs. And surely the bliss or misery of the soul after
death will depend on what we have been here; so that you ought not to say that,
if there be no resurrection, it is of no consequence how we act.
You are surely staking too much,
and laying far too great a stress on the resurrection.’ What answer the
apostle would make, it is not for me to say. He sometimes rejoined with a ‘Wilt
thou know O vain man—’ or he might have said significantly, I think I have the
mind of Christ.’ For my own part, I have not the presumption to disagree with
an apostle, and always rest satisfied with either the argumentative processes,
or the authoritative assertions of inspired men. And I therefore receive with
implicit faith the apostolic doctrine contained in the conclusion, What advantage is it to me, if the dead rise not?’ No one
can deny the apostle to teach that, if there were no resurrection of the dead,
it could not be of the least consequence, after death, what had been the nature
of the life led on earth, and that the best plan, in such a case, would be to
make the most of present pleasures. And, in connection with this, he teaches
that but for Christ there would be no resurrection; that is, if Christ had not
successfully mediated, as proved by his own resurrection, there would have been
no resurrection of the dead.
And if no resurrection, no conscious existence
after death, rendering it worth while to be religious
here. For otherwise there would have been no room for his concession, that, in
that case, his pious labours were vain, and that to
seize the animal pleasures of this life would be as good a thing as a man could
then do. And swat death man would have utterly perished. And this because they
would then have been ‘yet in their sins.’ In this way then ‘death passed on all
men, because all have sinned.’ The entire scope of the
argument shows that it is in this sense he uses the word ‘perished.’ If Christ
be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins: Then they also who
are fallen asleep in Christ ARE PERISHED, verse 18. To substitute the notion of
misery after death, instead of the idea of a literal perishing, would just do
away with all the force of the apostle’s argument throughout. For he proceeds
all along upon the supposition, that it is the fact of a resurrection
,that alone makes it worth our while to scorn present pleasure, and to labour agreeably to the will of Christ. Everything depends
on a resurrection of the dead. Now there is such a resurrection for mankind, because Christ is risen, whose resurrection is a
proof of the sufficiency of his atonement for the sins of the world. So the resurrection of man is proved by, and grows out of,
so as to be dependent upon, Christ’s resurrection. If then Christ had not
interposed, no man would have risen. And this non rising, remaining under the
power of death, would be perishing’ And this perishing’ would have been so
complete and final, as that, had it been the prospect before him, Paul would
himself have said, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die.
So then when Adam died
he had not the mediatorial system supervened on the original law of humanity—he
would have perished altogether, according to the threatening, Dying thou shalt
die.’ But while he was only made a living soul, the second Adam was made A
LIFE-OWING spirit, who will by his mighty power bring all the dead to life
again, to be judged every man according to his works. So that while, in the
supposed case (that is; of no resurrection) Paul would have said What
advantages is it to me, if the dead rise not?’ and would have esteemed the
Christian life to have been the most miserable of all, 5: 19, yet his
triumphant language was, But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the
first-fruits of them that slept: for since by man came death, by man came also
the resurrection from the dead,’ (20, 21) on which resurrection we see he makes
everything to depend.
It may perhaps be objected against me that in
this paragraph the apostle is not so much employed on what we now exclusively
understand by the word resurrection, as on a future state of existence in
general. And possibly an attempt may be made to distinguish between the words,
according to Dwight, for example, who says” He evidently, from the sequel,
means to say existence after death, for existence beyond the grave i.e. of the body raised from the grave, is what is usually
understood by the term.
The subject of this chapter is future
existence of man. This word is commonly, but often erroneously, rendered
resurrection. So far as I have observed it usually denotes our existence beyond
the grave. Its original and- literal meaning is, to stand up, or to stand
again. As standing is the appropriate posture of life, consciousness, and
activity, and lying down the appropriate posture of the dead, the unconscious,
and the inactive, this word is not unnaturally employed to denote the future
state of spirits, who are living, conscious and active beings. Many passages of
scripture would have been rendered more intelligible, and the thoughts
contained in them more just and impressive, had this word been translated agreeably
to its real meaning,” etc. System of Theology, Sermon 165.
But notwithstanding the distinction he draws
between the two words, the word Isyckosacnc is often
employed to denote the resurrection, whatever may be the exact idea thereof;
and not only often, but generally, as a Greek concordance will show; which will
also show that the speakers and writers of the New Testament used the words
interchangeably, in a manner which will not bear out Dwight’s distinction.
And if an attempt should be made to render
future existence, as something distinct from a proper resurrection, the
strangest confusion would arise, more especially among those of us who prefer
the first of the three theories suggested, and whom it would almost send in
quite another direction; seeing it is this same word which is used, for
example, in the following, besides many other passages; Luke 14:14. ‘Thou shalt
be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.’ John 5:28-9. The hour is
coming, in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto
the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of
damnation.
John 11: 24. ‘Martha said unto him, I know
that he shall rise in the resurrection at the last day.’ 1 Corinthians 15: 42.
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown,’ etc.
There are many similar passages, but these
will suffice. And the reader will perceive that in these the word is used in
connection with the last day and the final reward to the good and evil. So that
the holders of the first theory could not safely consent to the proposed
rendering which, made by Dwight, is fatal to his own scheme of the
resurrection, as given in the very sermon which he commences with the criticism
I have quoted.
But this change which he advocates, would not
in the least degree interfere with, much less set aside, the only point for the
sake of which I trouble the reader with this chapter on the resurrection. For
my object is to show that the death threatened to Adam was extinction of being.
Which I partly do (besides other reasons) by showing that the scriptures make
so much of the resurrection effected by Christ, that everything depends upon
it—no resurrection, no future existence. Now if it could be shown, according to
Dwight, that in this paragraph the apostle is speaking of a future existence
simply, my argument stands precisely as it did before. It is quite untouched by
the change. Nay, we reach the position I have taken all the sooner, and I have
not to come into collision with nearly so many of my brethren. For all concede
that we are indebted to Christ for the resurrection;’ and if the term be used
generically for ‘future existence,’ as Dwight say’s, then—since Paul declares
this to be die result of Christ’s mediation—my object is gained the sooner, by
a simple reference to 5:21, which sustains the whole weight of my assertion;
For since by man came death, by man came also the future existence of man.’
Then (without my having to show that for future existence we are dependent on a
resurrection) we have a distinct apostolic assertion, which there is no
gainsaying, that for a future existence at all, we are indebted to Christ our
life, the second Adam, who is ‘the Life-giving Spirit.’ Thus
scriptural is die position to which I humbly seek to draw the attention of my
brethren beloved in the Lord.
And further than this. As by adopting the
proposed rendering, we gain a most clear and decisive idea of one part of the
antithesis employed in 5: 21, namely, future existence,—we of course have the
key to the meaning of the other member of the sentence, death,’ which must
therefore mean cessation of being, thus;—” As by man came that death which is
the cessation of conscious existence, by man came also the renewal of conscious
existence.” So that, either way, I submit that the position taken up in this
work, in reference to the original threatening of death, is argumentatively
fair, tenable, and scriptural.
And the main idea which runs through the
apostle’s argument, namely, that future conscious existence is
connected with, and dependent upon, the resurrection, if not identical
therewith, as Dwight’s rendering would in reality make it, seems involved in
our Lord’s own discourse with the Sadducees, which deserves our careful
examination. See Mark 12: 18-27. Luke 20: 27-38, and MATTHEW, chapter 22:
23 The same day came to him the Sadducees,
which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master,
Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his
brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and
the first when he had married a wife, deceased, and having no issue, left his
wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third,
unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection, whose wife
shall she be of the seven’ for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do
err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the
dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the
God of the dead but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they
were astonished at his doctrine.
Let it be remembered,
that the one point in dispute was that touching the resurrection of the dead.
This was therefore the one point to which Christ addressed himself; as is also
shown by verse 23, which introduces the narrative; and by verse 31, where our
Lord formally mentions it as that of which he was about to treat—’That the dead
are raised, even Moses showed you at the bush.’ How then does Christ prove from
the Pentateuch, which the Sadducees acknowledged, that the doctrine of the
resurrection was really (though perhaps seminally) contained therein? Which was
precisely what they denied. Simply by one indisputable circumstance, namely,
that after the decease of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God still
called himself their God, saying, I am the God of Abraham.’ To this Christ adds
the comment, which would be unquestioned, that ‘God is not the God of the dead:—the non-existent—the utterly perished, (in which sense
the Sadducees, only partially wrong, used the word death’) but of the living.
And his argumentative deduction—not indeed formally stated at the close,
because it had been at the beginning—was, that therefore there was a
resurrection!
Observe, the question just then opened was not
concerning the separate and conscious existence of the soul after death. And therefore it was not to prove this, that he showed that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had not utterly ceased to be: His argument, to be
satisfactory against that particular class of objectors before him, and
demonstrative of the point he had undertaken to prove, shows the living again
which he predicted, to be dependent on a resurrection. To deduce from the title
God had assumed that, therefore, since he is not the God of the dead but of the
living, the patriarchs were still existent, in a separate state, would not have
met the case at all, unless the living after death be itself the resurrection.
His argument, strictly logical when correctly stated, is this:—As
God is not the God of the dead, of those who have finally and forever ceased to
be, there must be a resurrection of those of whom he calls himself’ the God.
I question whether we should consider
ourselves quite free to reason (for it is reasoning,—and
not authoritative assertion) precisely as our Lord did on this occasion. A modern
teacher would find no argument at all for a resurrection, as we commonly
understand it, in the phrase quoted by Christ; but would easily find one,
because of prevalent opinion, for the continuously conscious existence of the
patriarchs, independently of the bodies they had laid down., We should have
said,—God is not the God of the dead [the utterly perished] but of the living,
But he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Therefore these still live, and
as the resurrection has not taken place, they live in a separate state.
God is not the God of the
dead [utterly and eternally perished, which was the sense in which the
Sadducees used it, with whom he was disputing] but of the living. But he calls
himself the God of the Patriarchs, Therefore these
still live—or will live again [which is the same thing with him to whom the
future is present, shall and who calls the things that are not, but be, as
though they already were.]
With us it would be a striking and
satisfactory proof of a continuance of conscious existence after death—but no
proof whatever of a resurrection; and yet it is to prove this last exclusively
that our Lord, who could not have reasoned inaccurately or sophistically,
adduces it; and his acute and learned disputants, to their deep mortification,
were forced to acquiesce, and stood confounded by his wisdom. Quite contrary to
the inference we Should have drawn, our Lord’s reasoning, which is perfectly
syllogistic, if we bear in mind the thesis he undertook, makes the life, which
he therefore predicates of the patriarchs, to be one with and dependant upon the resurrection, in seeming accordance with
either the second or third theory of resurrection; thus,— God is not the God of
the dead [utterly and eternally perished, which was the sense in which the
Sadducees used it, with whom he was disputing] but of the living. But he calls
himself the God of the Patriarchs, Therefore these
still live—or will live again [which is the same thing with him to whom the
future is present, shall and who calls the things that are not, but be, as
though they already were.] But then, as already intimated, since it was a resurrection our Lord undertook to establish, which he
establishes only by proving a life after death, the life which carries with it
a proof of resurrection, must either be itself identical therewith, or else dependant thereupon.
It might indeed be said in reply to this, that
our Lord argued with the Sadducees on their own principles, as though in
reality he had addressed them thus. You affirm man to be entirely dependent on
bodily organisation for conscious existence, so that
when the corporeal frame is dissolved by death he ceases to be. But since you
admit the authority of the Pentateuch, you ought to have perceived that even
Moses in whom you believe tacitly confutes your gloomy tenet—that man never
lives again. For he /rays that God called himself the God of the patriarchs
long after they had died. Now you do not suppose God would call himself the God
or Father and Friend of any whom, notwithstanding their pious confidence, he
had suffered to pass forever into nothingness. This would make the title their
God’ perfectly unmeaning, and indeed unworthy. The Mighty God does not so deal
with those whom he vouchsafes to favour, as to let
them drop out of being forever, as your Sadducees suppose. So that evidently
his servants are not clean perished, but will live
again. And since this is plain, the next step is equally so. For since you deny
man to be possessed of an immortal spirit that can consciously subsist without
a corporeal organism, it must follow, from what has already been said, that—if
you are right on this point—there is a resurrection of the body, so that they
shall live again, and God’s title be vindicated when he calls himself still
their God.’ I have endeavoured to put this objection
as forcibly as I can, as it behoved me to do since it
was present to my own mind, and notwithstanding the probability that some of my
readers, unprepared for the otherwise inevitable conclusion, will be pleased at
my providing an answer to my own argument, which I allow to be possessed of
considerable force, nor would it surprise me if many of my readers deemed it
perfectly satisfactory. It does not however appear to me to meet the case. For First,— The air of the narrative altogether does not at all favour the notion that our Lord was occupying the ground of
an adroit polemic, who would be content to silence an acute opponent by
adopting a strain of argument which, while it would shut the mouth of the
objector for the time, is -nevertheless not correct in itself, not true in the
abstract. To conquer in a controversy is a small thing. Too many indeed most
unworthily contend for victory rather than truth. But as this is invariably the
mark of an essentially little mind—no matter in whom found—and and most unworthy, and injurious, and even fatal, habit, so
we are quite sure that the Faithful and True Witness’ was infinitely above
taking pleasure in the mere discomfiture and confusion of opponents; who, had
they returned to the discussion, taking other ground, might in their turn have
shown his apparent proof to be no proof at all of the thing he undertook
argumentatively to establish; and might have suggested to the three recording
evangelists, that they need not occupy any portion of their brief narrative
with the record of this incident, inasmuch as their Master’s argument was no
independent proof of a resurrection—but a proof thereof only on the Sadducees
principle—no organisation, no life. For if this
ground should be abandoned, the apparent proof of a resurrection vanishes into
thin air again; so that their Rabbi has not really and substantially proved a
resurrection, but only silenced a party that came to him with an objection, and
thus gained a momentary advantage over an opponent;—a
triumph indeed for the abler disputant personally, but no gain to the cause of
truth.
To illustrate this let us suppose some
Sadducee, after a momentary surprise at the ease and adroitness with which the
Galilean had completely silenced his party, resuming thus:—”Rabbi, we do honour to the wonderful wisdom which dwells within thee;
and never had we dreamed that any proof of so incredible a doctrine as that of
the resurrection (which the common ignorant people hold indeed, and our opponents
the Pharisees, who, are cunning enough to adopt the most popular belief,) would
ever have been established from the writings of our great lawgiver. And my
brethren here have drunk the wine of astonishment, and
are filled therewith; while our enemies who make long their phylacteries, shoot
out the lip at us, saying, Aha But let their triumph be short. Though in truth
one of our tenets appears to be disproved, yet verily their doctrine is not
therefore established. We have hitherto believed indeed that there is no
immaterial soul, capable of existing independently of the body, and have
therefore denied a separate state; while, finding no syllable about a future
life, least of all about a resurrection of the body, in the writings of our
father Moses, we have denied the doctrine of the Pharisees as a superstition.”
But admitting the authority of Moses, and the validity of the principle—that
God would scarcely call himself the God of the eternally non-existent, we now
must assuredly concede that there is therefore some sort of life for the
children of God after death. But this is all that thou has
established. While indeed thou hast adopted the very basis of our system, namely,—No organisation, no life.
“For either the sentence thou hast quoted from
Moses contains really a proof of the resurrection, or it does not. If it does
not, we are not confuted touching the resurrection, and nothing has been done;
for it was a resurrection thou undertook to make good. If it does, it does this
only by first of all admitting and affirming our own
philosophy to be correct, namely, that man does not exist after death as a pure
spirit, and that for conscious life there must be organisation,
which the Pharisees deny. Or, if thou refuses this
axiom of ours, then, thou hast established from Moses a life after death
indeed, but verily no resurrection of the body. So that while we must
henceforth admit on the authority of Moses, whose sense thou hest so ably elicited, a life after death, (which indeed we
can allow much more easily than the notion of a resurrection of dead bodies,—a
reassembling of multitudinous scattered particles which from the creation have
existed in all sorts of combinations, and have helped to form the bodies of
numerous other individuals,)—we are confirmed by the failure of thy argument in
our disbelief of a resurrection, which if any scribe could have established
thou could, as indeed thou didst undertake to establish it” But not to prolong
this imagined reply on the part of some Sadducee present, and which ‘appears to
me to contain a sufficient answer to the chief and only forcible objection that
I think can be advanced against the principle I have elicited from our Lord’s
discourse, I do submit that the air of the narrative altogether seems to caw
the conviction that the three evangelists, who have each of them narrated it at
unusual length, deemed it a most striking argument, and recorded it, not merely
as a wonderful instance of what may be called cleverness in silencing an
opponent, but a most wonderful illustration of the astonishing wisdom with
which our Lord spake, and a divinely irrefragable
proof, derived from the Pentateuch itself, of that grand doctrine which he
undertook to establish; and which we therefore cannot consent to look upon as a
striking illustration of the argument ad hominem, and nothing more, which is
all the supposed objection makes it to be. By how much the argument is sound
and good, and of independent value, by so much must it of course be held to
establish the very point our Lord undertook to prove. And then its entire
force, like that of the apostle’s argument to the Corinthians, is, as
already-stated, to this effect,—No resurrection, no
future life.
But perhaps it may be urged again, that the
word is used generically for future existence, and not so much for that
resurrection, to express which it is usually appropriated. And indeed Dwight argues that it does generally mean, and
especially in this passage, simply the existence of the soul after death.
Two answers suggest themselves. The first
is—That the Sadducees, who came to Christ thinking completely to silence him,
would, as a matter of course, being practised and
subtle disputants, select the more difficult and less credible of two obnoxious
tenets, held by an opponent, in Order the more easily to perplex him. Now the
existence of the soul after death, is one thing; the resurrection of a body—all
whose particles have been dissipated and have re-entered into countless other combinations,—and the re-occupancy thereof by the conscious
spirit, some thousands of years or ages hence, is a second and very different
thing. To the eye of reason this latter tenet would appear very much less
credible than the former. Now the, Sadducees, I say, would as a matter of
course choose the more difficult of the two, in order the more, surely to
succeed. And accordingly we find that it was the
resurrection they fastened on. For their question shows this, In the
resurrection, whose wife shall she be?’ Which inquiry proves that it was not
about a separate existence of the naked spirit, that they were come to dispute,
but about the resurrection, generally believed in and properly so called, an
embodied state,—and still future, (as the phrase
shows—’ shall she be n to which such a question might not be wholly irrelevant.
My second reply as intimated on a previous
page, is—That if it refer to the existence after death simply, then, since this
word, either as a noun or a verb, is commonly used to express the resurrection
from the grave, the rising again at the last day, at the end of the world, do.,
and since we also believe in a conscious existence immediately after death, it
will have to be maintained, in order to be consistent, that the phrases last
day,’ end of the world;’—are used relatively to the individual, or in
accordance with popular phraseology current at the time; seeing that this takes
place at once on dying, this very one which is elsewhere represented as taking
place at the last day, etc. Nor will I affirm that this view is therefore necessarily
incorrect. That which contradicts our previous notion is not for that reason
false. But I bring forward the consequences to show that this endeavour to escape from the view I have taken, only
renders me a service, by shortening my process. For to repeat what was said on
the 15th chapter to the Corinthians. If the future existence of man be itself
the resurrection, then, since every Christian concedes the resurrection to be effected by Christ, it follows that but for the Saviour there would have been no conscious existence for
the sinner after death. By man came also the
resurrection [fiverarcrars] of the dead.’ It has been
already submitted that scripture recognises’ only two
bodies for man—the present animal-body, and the spiritual-body, and at the same
time knows nothing of -any conscious existence in a perfectly disembodied
state. Which of course makes the resurrection [leaving it as
yet as open question, what is meant by it precisely, and when it takes
place] to be all important. It at the same time undoubtedly teaches the
immediate enjoyment by the saint of the presence of his Saviour,
and the blessedness of heaven. In confirmation of which remarks, the reader is
requested to study attentively in Its connection-
2 CORINTHIANS Chapter 4:
17 For our light affliction, which is but for
a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.
18 While we look not at the things which are
seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are
temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
2 CORINTHIANS Chapter 5:
1 For we know that if our earthly house of
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made
with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to
be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.
3 If so be that being
clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan,
being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that
mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now he that bath wrought us for the
self-same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing
that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather
to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord.
At the close of chapter 4 the apostle
testifies how lightly his manifold afflictions sat upon him. And afflictions
were they of no ordinary kind, ‘troubled on every side,
perplexed—persecuted—always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord
Jesus—always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake;’ or, as he speaks in a
subsequent chapter, -when he is compelled to compare himself with Others—’ in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons
more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes,
save one: thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered
shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeying often, in
perils of water, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in
perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in
perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren: in weariness and painfulness,
in watching often, in hunger and thirst, in fasting often, in cold and
nakedness.’ Yet with sublime heroism he points to calamities and sufferings
which would drink up the spirits of most of us, and
says These light afflictions! These light afflictions!’ Do we ask the secret of
this victorious composure V He-tells us that he was habitually regarding the
unseen realities of the next state, ‘Knowing that he which raised up the Lord
Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.’ Here we
perceive distinctly that it was his confidence in a resurrection that lightened
his spirit of its load, and cheered him on his lonely
and stormy way. We ought to compel ourselves to notice this, agreeing exactly
as it does with his wont on other occasions.
For it was his habit to console himself with
the thought of being raised from the dead, which was the recompense of the
reward ‘unto which he had respect;’ as the first chapter of this epistle also
shows, for having said We would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble
which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure above strength,
insomuch, that we despaired even of life,’ he goes on to say, ‘But we had the
sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in
God who raises the dead.’ 2 Corinthians 1:8-9.
But let us return to our proper passage. The
apostle having said that notwithstanding all his troubles he persevered in his
arduous course, animated with the confident hope that God who raised up Jesus
would also raise him up, 5:14, regarded without displacency
the perishing of his outward man, 5:16, seeing that his afflictions would work
out for him a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 5:17. For he was
accustomed not to look at the visible, which is the fugitive, but at-the unseen
and eternal 5:18.
Let it be observed that all this grows
directly and continuously but of 5:14, (5:15 being parenthetical, and arising
out of the last clause of the preceding verse). The being raised up by Jesus is
the thought which, as the grand source of his joy, and secret of his career, he
is dwelling on, which reconciles him to the perishing of the outward man, and makes his afflictions light as the gossamer. Our
division of chapters here is peculiarly unfortunate; 5:1-8 being but a
continuation of the interesting subject, the word, For, marking the close
logical connection, — ‘For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle
be dissolved,’ called before out outward man perishing, for we have a building
of God, a house not made with hands,’ that is, another body, eternal in the
heavens.’ Which does not mean that the body he would have was
at that time in heaven waiting for him to enter into it, but it was a heavenly
body, a body invested wherewith, he should dwell forever in the heavens. But it
may be allowed me to paraphrase the entire passage,
without pausing to give the reasons for the rendering I shall adopt, which I
trust will be obvious to the general reader. Continuing the thought which he
had announced towards the close of chapter 4: he thus proceeds, “For we know
full well, that if our body, which alone persecutors can hurt, or hunger and
fatigue affect, were to be overcome of death, which sooner or later must be, we
are quite assured that we shall be found more gloriously arrayed. This indeed
is a vile body in which we often groan, feeling acutely the ills of life, but
Christ is able to endow us with a body fashioned like
unto his own glorious body. And such awaits us. I have called the present body
a house, and as such what is it but an earthly house—a house of dust—in the
formation of which human beings were ( instrumentally)
employed; but the body I shall have!
or to keep to the figure, the house which
awaits me, is in no-wise of human origin [not made
with hands] it is celestial [in the heavens] and unlike this changing decaying
structure, is eternal.
“Oh! How I long to find myself in this
celestial body, [earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with my house which is
from heaven.] I say, I, could long for evening to undress, to lay down this
gross corporeal investiture, and find myself in that body of heavenly texture
which awaits me. For I have no fear of being found utterly disembodied; and
though, if such a thing might be, I could prefer to pass without dying into my
ultimate condition as Enoch and Elijah did, yet am I more than ready to welcome
the sharpest pangs of death, in order to find myself relieved of all the ills
attendant on humanity in its present condition, and invested with that
spiritual body in which I shall, oh glorious hour! Find myself present with the
Lord. For in this body I am absent from my Saviour, in that I shall be forever with the Lord.” To me
it appears that this purposely free paraphrase gives the exact idea of the
passage. In which Paul contrasts the present body with the next; longs to lay
down the one and assume the other, which he calls eternal, and on the
assumption of which he would find himself present with the Lord; and recognises nothing as intervening between quitting the one
body and finding himself in the other and eternal one, the investiture with
which was essential to his being present with the Lord. The eighth verse is the
logical conclusion of the whole.
Now remembering that scripture recognises no perfectly disembodied state, and only two
bodies, and that the next is the resurrection body, we are again conducted to
the same conclusion to which Matthew 23 and 1 Corinthians 15 brought us, and are again reminded of the grand importance of the
resurrection, which is a more capital doctrine in scripture than in our modern
systems of theology. And we may just refer to another text which seems to look
in the same direction.— 1 Corinthians 1:30. But of him
are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,
and sanctification, and redemption.
Here there is a beautiful order maintained in
the ideas suggested, and a very admirable gradation till the highest good is
reached. Paul speaking as a Jew, and using abstract
terms instead of expressing himself as would be natural with us, here teaches
that Christ first of all enlightens the mind, makes us wise: which we all know
to be the first thing in order. Then, when the enlightened sinner, perceiving
his condition and his need of another righteousness than his own, asks how can man be just with God, Christ is revealed to him as the
Lord our righteousness; or in other words, through Christ he is justified, or,
made righteous in the legal sense. Then his next great want is to be made holy;
and Christ begins and carries on the work of rendering him morally meet for an
inherit time on high, by his word and example and spirit; so that he becomes
holy by Christ. But though enlightened, pardoned, and made holy, he must die,
and then what advantage is it to him, what will he be the better for all that
he has experienced? Christ is still further revealed to him as his Redemption,
that is, (here) as he who will redeem him from death and the grave, [according
to the use of the word, Romans 8:23 and Hosea 13:14, which last passage Paul
quotes to this effect 1. Corinthians 15:44-45.] So then Christ crowns his
enlightening, justifying, and sanctifying work, by gloriously raising such from
the dead,—the day of which is called the day of
redemption,’ unto which the believer is sealed, Ephesians 4:30.
All that this passage is quoted for, is
additionally to show the greater stress the apostle laid on the resurrection
than we are accustomed to do, who (unlike Paul, who represents himself and
fellow Christians—Romans 8: 23, as groaning within themselves, waiting for the
resurrection—’ the adoption, to wit the redemption of our body,) long to be
unclothed, to lay down. the body, and find ourselves
in the world of spirits, which we represent as possessing all the advantages
which inspired men expected only in the resurrection state.’ But we so conceive
of the’ intermediate state’ as to make the resurrection state comparatively
unimportant. Perhaps it might be found not quite impossible to harmonise perfectly the confident expectation of more than
all the blessings we promise ourselves at death, with the general tenor of the
apostolic scriptures; but this is no part of our proposed design. And the
present chapter may best conclude with a summary which will connect it with the
subject we have undertaken, and which, laying down only general principles,
will commit us to no particular theory.
1: There is a resurrection of the dead,
generally. This however, which is no deduction of reason, is a doctrine
peculiar to revelation, and constitutes one of its grandest disclosures.
2: The final judgment of each
individual, with its award to heaven or hell, is consequent upon
resurrection.
3: The resurrection state was that which
apostles longed for, earnestly desiring to find themselves in their house from
heaven, or heavenly house, that is, their second, their spirit body.
4: Future conscious existence is connected with, and dependent upon, if not identical
with, resurrection, so that—No resurrection, no future life.
5: The resurrection grows out of the
mediatorship of Christ, so that—No Mediator, no resurrection, and therefore, no
future state.’ I am the resurrection and the life.’ From which it follows, that
had not the mediatorial system supervened on the fall of man, and had the
sentence been consequently executed on Adam and remained in force, he would
have utterly ceased to exist at death. But while, to repeat a remark already
made, he was only made a living soul or creature, liable to dissolution, the
second Adam is a life-giving Spirit, who will by his mighty power bring all the
dead to life again, to be judged every man according to his work. When all that
are found to have embraced the salvation of the Son of God, shall, according to
his promise, have everlasting life; they shall not die anymore; shall never
perish; shall have a right to the tree of life, and crowned with immortality
shall dwell in his blissful presence, where there is fullness of joy, and
pleasures forevermore.’ What follows however upon the resurrection we had
better inquire in a distinct chapter. It suffices here to connect the present
with the preceding, and to have shown how the scripture doctrine of the
resurrection supports the views already suggested.
And thus we recognise how unutterably important is the evangelical
doctrine of the resurrection, and with what reason apostles laid so much stress
upon it as they did. For, first among their own countrymen, most of whom
already reckoned confidently on a resurrection, accounting highly thereof as a
prerogative peculiar to their favoured nation,—these perfectly taught teachers of a pure
Christianity, preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.’ And when
they entered among the Gentiles it was evidently one of the very few simple but
grand truths which they laid down as a basis; and so
Paul, in the very metropolis of Grecian literature and refinement, ‘preached
unto them Jesus and the resurrection.’ While, as we have seen, they were
accustomed to soothe their own agitated minds, and to
animate their spirits, with the thought of being raised up by Jesus.
But while this is not the proper point at
which fully to reply to an obvious objection, we may be allowed just to glance
at the difficulty, and suggest a solution. It will
occur then to some, that, if for future existence we are dependent on a
resurrection, and for a resurrection we are dependent on a Mediator, this
doctrine, while it shines with a divine brightness on the saved, bears with intense
awfulness on all those who ‘rise to shame and everlasting contempt,’ and to
endure the horrors of the Second Death! The intervention of Christ, it will be
said, while an unutterable blessing to the righteous, is absolutely a heavy
curse on the impenitent; for, had there been no such Mediator, at death they
would have ceased to be, whereas now they are raised up to be judged, and
‘punished with everlasting destruction.’ Good had, it been for them if there
never had been a Saviour at all. This is true. We
admit it to be a most just and weighty remark.
But it does not bear against us as an
objection any more than it bears against the popular view. For on the common
notion, will it not be unutterably worse, and to all eternity, for those who
reject Christ, than if they had never heard his name, or there had been no
Redeemer? Is not precisely this ‘the condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men loved darkness rather than light?’ And is it hot perfectly in
keeping with all God’s other principles of government, that our
responsibilities are proportioned to our advantages, and that our greatest
curses grow out of our greatest blessings neglected. It is true that the
mediation of Christ,—as the Shekinah between the Israelites and the Egyptians was
all light and glorious to the one people, and gloom and darkness and terror to
the other,—is an infinite blessing only to the righteous, and that it does
render the lot of those who obey not the gospel greatly more terrible than it
would have been, had Christ never died for our offences, and rose again for our
justification, and besought us to come unto him and be saved. This is the very
doctrine of scripture, and it is level to our own sense of right.
New Testament Doctrine of
Immortality— Two distinct classes of texts— Living forever promised on one
hand, Everlasting Destruction threatened on the other— Meaning— Christ the
Great Teacher, 2 Timothy 1:10— Eternal Life and Second Death—how to be
understood— Literally or metaphorically— Prefatory Considerations— Literal
sense preferred— Only possible sense in many passages— In some where Life is a
matter of promise— Objections considered— Result— Inference.
LET the reader pardon a momentary
recapitulation in order to connect the present with
the preceding chapters.
As, on the one hand, reason cannot prove the
immortality of man, so neither, on the other, do we find the doctrine recorded
on the first page of revelation, as a truth which Adam knew on the first day of
his creation. Contrariwise, the evidence leads us to believe that our first
parents must have understood the threatening of death as denoting a return to
that state of blank nothingness from which the Almighty fiat had so recently
called them, and from which we are saved only by the mediatorial scheme, of
which the resurrection is a part.
But having ourselves reminded the reader of a
distinction between a future state and immortality, and perceiving, as every one must at a glance, that even a universal
resurrection does not necessarily imply a universal immortality, since it is
quite conceivable, to say the least, that one who shall die again may die
again;—the very next question which arises is,—Will the incorrigible sinner,
who for sufficient reasons may live again after death, live forever f or What
is his final destiny?
And here we are reminded that, according to an
apostle, Christ is especially the grand teacher of immortality; so that instead
of lingering in the groves of Eden, or passing our
time in the tents of nomadic patriarchs, or interrogating the God-favoured leader of the Israelites, we turn at once to the
pages of the New Testament, as on such a theme our most explicit and every way
most satisfactory oracle.
§ What then does the New Testament reveal
concerning immortality? We have not found it the inherent, absolute, and inalienable
prerogative of man as man, prior to our entering the school of Christ; what
shall we find here f .Much about Life,’ Eternal Life,’
Immortality,’—But what? We will bring the various passages together, with those
also which speak of those unhappy and inexcusable sinners who do not come to
Christ for the blessings of salvation, and then see to what conclusion they
conduct us.
The righteous shall go into life eternal.
“He shall receive in the world to come,
eternal life.” He that believeth in him shall have eternal life.’ Whoso
believeth should have everlasting life.’ He that hears my words hath
everlasting life.’ That everyone who sees the Son may
have everlasting life.” He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.’ Whoso
drinks my blood hath eternal life.’ I give unto my sheep eternal life, and they
shall never perish.” He should give eternal life to as many as thou has given him.’ To them who seek for glory, honour, and immortality, eternal life.’ Being free from
sin, ye have the end, everlasting life.’ The gift of God is eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ He that sows to the
spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting.’ Them that should hereafter
believe on him to life everlasting.” In hope of eternal life, which God
promised.’ And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal
life.’ The record that God hath given to us, eternal life.’ ‘Looking for the
mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.’ He that believeth not the
Son shall not see life.’ The preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that
perish.’ ‘Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.’ Many walk whose end is
destruction.’ Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord.’ Lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.”
Them which draw back unto perdition.’ But these as natural brute beasts made to
be taken and destroyed shall utterly perish in their own corruption.’ The day
of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men.’ He will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire.’ For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and
all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble. And the day
that cometh shall burn them up, said the Lord of hosts that it shall leave them
neither root nor branch.’ As the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to
shivers.’ ‘If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.’ Whosoever was not found
written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire. This. is the
second death.’ We observe one thing very prominent on the face of all these
declarations, namely, that he alone hath everlasting life who seeks salvation
from Christ. It is the prerogative of the true believer to say with the
apostle, this corruptible must put on in-corruption, and this mortal must put
on immortality.’ It is they only ‘ who, by patient continuance in well doing,
seek for glory, honour and immortality,’ that will
have eternal life;’ it is their exclusive privilege to have their names
enrolled in the ‘ book of life,’ and to ‘ eat of the tree of life, which is in
the midst of the paradise of God,’ and to drink of the pure river of water of
life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.’
While the second death,’ perdition,” everlasting destruction,’—whatever may be
meant by these terms, which we will presently examine —await those who will not
come unto Christ, that they might have life.’ Of course
we are not unaware of the common practice of explaining life’ to mean
happiness, and immortality’ to mean an eternity of bliss; while “destruction,”
perdition,” “death”, are explained to mean an eternity of miserable existence.
Nor will I deny that life’ may be sometimes used in the sense alleged. But then
that it is invariably used so, no one will affirm on the other part; while everyone
will admit that it is frequently to be understood in its primary and common
signification. So that we must try to discover the precise force of the words
as used in the numerous passages now adduced, which are presented above merely
as generally illustrative of the manner in which the scriptures uniformly speak
of the future portion of the two opposite classes of mankind,—the
pious and the ungodly.
And without casting any unworthy imputation on
any parties, I may be allowed to say that it does seem to me that unwarrantable
liberty is taken when these words, touching the future state, are invariably
taken in their secondary sense; their primary being set aside, chiefly because
expositors have previously determined that all men, without exception, are immortal;
which assumption of course necessitates their seeking for some other than the
natural interpretation, when Immortality is promised on the one hand, and
Destruction threatened on the other. For if man be absolutely
immortal, an endowment already possessed cannot be a matter of promise;
and so also if he be immortal, he cannot literally perish, ‘or be punished with
everlasting destruction;’ and thus another sense has to be sought for such
terms. For my own part, I am disposed to urge in its obvious sense the
exhortation of our Lord,— ‘Fear not them which kill
the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to
destroy both body and soul in hell.’ Matthew 10:28.
But of course the
reader demands ‘to know the grounds on which I understand the terms alluded to
in their literal sense. To this subject therefore let us come, and may the
illuminating Spirit, that inspired the scriptures, be our guide to a correct
interpretation of them. The course we propose to pursue is, first to make a few
general observations, and afterwards examine separately some of the passages
quoted.
§ But before we proceed on this course, let us
advert somewhat more distinctly than we have done to the apostle’s declaration
that Christ is the great revelation of immortality: For it were utterly
desirable to leave this declaration unnoticed, and especially as by far the
ablest of my opponents deems the text alluded to a sufficient proof of an
eternal existence for all mankind. I refer of course to— 2 Timothy 1:9-10. Who
hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus
before the world began, but is now made manifest by
the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath
abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Let the reader distinctly
understand, however, and please to keep in mind, that I by no means adduce this
text to prove that Christ bestows upon us immortality (though we shall perhaps
find this to be the doctrine of some other parts of Holy Writ) but am quite
satisfied with the ordinary interpretation. Nor will I object to those
expositors who take life and immortality’ to be put by hendiadys for immortal
life.’ Let us then understand this text to teach that Christ bath
authoritatively revealed the grand fact of an existence beyond the grave, and
that forever; that he has thrown the full light of certainty on what before was
but dimly guessed at, or doubted of, or absolutely ridiculed by heathen
philosophers, while it was not properly understood by the Jews themselves. For
though it surprises me to find that any can believe the pious under the
patriarchal and mosaic dispensations to be altogether ignorant of a future
life, when the apostle so distinctly affirms that they sought a better country,
that is a heavenly,’ and had respect to the compensation of the reward;’ yet,
on the other hand, it is not easy fairly to extract the doctrine from the early
portions of scripture, while, beyond all doubt, the promises and threatening
made to the Israelites related to temporal blessings and calamities. [See these
collected in an Appendix to Archbishop Whately’s
Essay on the Future State. Essays on the Peculiarities,]
Let the reader distinctly understand, however,
and please to keep in mind, that I by no means adduce this text to prove that
Christ bestows upon us immortality (though we shall perhaps find this to be the
doctrine of some other parts of Holy Writ) but am quite satisfied with the
ordinary interpretation. Nor will I object to those expositors who take life
and immortality’ to be put by hendiadys for immortal life.’ Let us then
understand this text to teach that Christ bath authoritatively revealed the
grand fact of an existence beyond the grave, and that forever; that he has
thrown the full light of certainty on what before was but dimly guessed at, or
doubted of, or absolutely ridiculed by heathen philosophers, while it was not
properly understood by the Jews themselves. For though it surprises me to find
that any can believe the pious under the patriarchal and mosaic dispensations
to be altogether ignorant of a future life, when the apostle so distinctly
affirms that they sought a better country, that is a heavenly,’ and had respect
to the compensation of the reward;’ yet, on the other hand, it is not easy
fairly to extract the doctrine from the early portions of scripture, while,
beyond all doubt, the promises and threatening made to the Israelites related
to temporal blessings and calamities. [See these collected in an Appendix to
Archbishop Whately’s Essay on the Future State.
Essays on the Peculiarities,] And so late as the very time of our Lord’s abode
on earth, the best educated and most acute of the Jews themselves disbelieved a
Future life altogether. So that no one can fairly allege that the subject did
not need to be authoritatively settled. Let the text be taken as an assertion
that Christ has dispelled the darkness which hovered over the tomb, and has established once for all the doctrine of a
never-ending existence. This was au unutterably glorious Fact for apostles to
go forth to publish to mankind. But this general and indefinite assertion
leaves abundant room for a few inquiries and remarks. And— 1: If the clearest
revelation ever made of a future and immortal life—a revelation which, as
compared with all preceding knowledge on the subject, is called a bringing to
light, implying previous dimness and even darkness,—was made by Christ; then is
it not quite incompatible with the hearty belief of this to maintain, as many
so fondly do, that the very first page of revelation plainly teaches the
immortality of man?
2: May not the general assertion, that Christ
has placed the doctrine of immortality in a clear light, still leave room
fairly for the question, Does this relate to all mankind, or to some only? that
is, Is it absolutely or contingently true 1 For Christ also placed in clear
noon-day light the fact that God forgives sins; while it is nevertheless true
that he forgives only those that turn to him in true repentance. And in our
text the apostle evidently intends the assertion as something exceedingly
blissful; but immortal life is a glorious fact only for the saved. As the
Eclectic Review says, mere existence is not necessarily a blessing.
6: And certainly in
the very verse before the text the apostle speaks not of all mankind, but of
some only. Let us read it in its connection. ‘Who hath saved us, and called us
with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own
purpose and grace, which was, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality
to light through the gospel.’ So that if we read the two verses together, as we
ought, our present text would really seem to have its most appropriate meaning
in an assertion of the glorious abolition of death, and enjoyment of immortal
life, for all that are saved and called with a holy calling, according to the
grace given them in Christ, Jesus before the world began.’ On the meaning of
which expressions, I appeal with considerable confidence to my evangelical
brethren.
7: It is quite the manner of inspired writers
to assert in a general way, and without any restriction, blessings which the
God and Father of all has exhibited for all, but which nevertheless will be
really enjoyed only by some, because only some will avail themselves of the
provision so amply made.
8: The immortal life here spoken of is connected with the gospel, ‘bought life and immortality
to light through the gospel;’—so that it would seem to be one of the gospel
blessings, and if so, to be enjoyed on gospel terms. But not laying much stress
on this, it does seem important to observe— 9: That if Christ hath more clearly
than any preceding teacher revealed, and that authoritatively, an immortal
existence for man, we are bound reverently and submissively to sit at his feet, and learn of him the true words of God on the subject.
So that we have to refer especially to our Lord’s own discourses, since Paul
says Christ hath set the subject of immortality in a clear light,
and proclaimed it unambiguously. Now I ask—Where? In what recorded
discourses hath Christ made the doctrine of immortality plain, except .in those
very discourses of his wherein he promises Life, Eternal Life, never perishing,
etc.? Which, if we understand them literally, do indeed exhibit him as the
authoritative revealing of life. But if all these passages are to be set aside,
with the gratuitous assertion that the word life is not to be understood
literally, then hath Christ nowhere set this mighty doctrine in the clear light
which is affirmed.
But the popular exposition of those passages,
in the gospels denies that they are to be understood literally, and proceeds on
the hypothesis that man is so plainly immortal that it needed no teacher sent
from God to reveal that!
Where, I ask, has the Saviour
authoritatively revealed the amazing fact of immortality, (which Paul says he
has placed in a cloudless light) except in those very passages which are denied
to teach the doctrine. A denial which our theological
system alone renders necessary; for in all the discourses in which our Lord
reveals Life, Everlasting Life, it is held out as the peculiar prerogative of
those who believe on him, and to whom he announces himself as the bestowing
thereof.
From all which I feel compelled to refuse my
assent to the interpretation which would make this verse teach a universal and
unconditional immortality; and am compelled rather to think, not only that it
contains nothing contradictory to the views suggested in this work, but that it
harmonises therewith. And since it drums Christ to be
the authoritative teacher of the amazing fact of immortality, it remits us to
himself to learn with reverent submissiveness the truth from his own sacred
lips. So that we must ‘inquire the doctrine of Christ as recorded by the
evangelists.
But it would be neither fair to my readers,
nor courteous to the best of my reviewers, to pass, without notice, the
remarks• of on opposite character which have been made on our present text. The
Eclectic Reviewer says,— “With Mr. Dobney,
we do not hold the necessary immortality of the soul. With him also, we do not
hold human reason competent to prove anything on this point. We hold, however,
the actual immortality of the soul; and regard immortality as an attribute originally
conferred on man, in congruity with his rank as a rational being, and with the
designs of God respecting him.
“In order to adduce scriptural proof of this
sentiment, we quote the declaration of the apostle, 2 Timothy 1: 10, that
Christ hath vanquished death, and brought life and immortality to light;’ and
we hold this quotation to be amply sufficient for our purpose. Christ is here
said to have brought to light,’ or to have fully and authoritatively revealed,
life and immortality,’—that is, the fact of a future and immortal existence for
mankind. We say for mankind, meaning the whole human race, in opposition to the
restriction held by the author, for the following reasons. First, because no
distinction is made by the apostle, and his language must consequently be taken
universally. To introduce a distinction of which he has given no intimation,
would be totally unauthorized and unwarrantable.
“Secondly, because the entire structure of the
passage forbids restriction. The life which Christ is said to have brought to
light, stands in direct contrast with death, and must be regarded as
co-extensive with it. As death occurs to all, so the life and immortality
belong to all. Besides, if the immortality be denied to any portion of mankind,
so also must the life, for they obviously go together. It would do strange
violence to this text to make it teach future existence for all, and immortal
existence for a part. But, as Mr. Dobney admits, all
are to live hereafter; consequently, all will be immortal. In truth, however,
although the terms are two, the thing intended is one and indivisible. Life and
immortality is only a Greek idiom for immortal life.
It is an immortal existence which Christ has revealed; and this immortal
existence, is the only future existence for man of which anything is made known
to us. It follows, therefore, that all’ existence in a future state will be
immortal, and, that the idea of a limited existence for any part of mankind is
not merely unsupported, but contradicted, by the language of the apostle.” I
accept the rendering, immortal life.’ My reviewer then lays down two
principles, on which we are at issue. Let the reader judge.’ His First is, that
“Because no distinction is made by the apostle, his language must consequently
be taken universally.” Let us look at that — And it is obvious to remark; that
of course this principle is of no use, unless it be sound and good. But how
shall we ascertain this? Let us just throw it into the form of
.a general principle, which a student of scripture might take as an
unimpeachable canon of interpretation. Well then it would be this,—Whenever
a general declaration is made, and no distinction is at the time made by the
writer, it must always be taken absolutely, and in its widest sense. But I am sure
the reviewer himself would be one of the last men to lay down such a rule, and affirm that general terms are always to be
understood universally, and that to no passage must we apply a restriction,
unless the writer himself has made a distinction. For if he will affirm this,
it will be easy to produce plenty of passages in which the use of universal
terms, no distinction being drawn, must compel his assent to doctrines much
more odious to orthodoxy than that maintained in these pages. Let us think a moment.
‘If I be lifted up, will draw all men unto
me,’ said the Saviour; all men,’—here then I apply my
reviewer’s canon. No distinction is made by the [speaker] and his language must
consequently be taken universally.’ So then we have
Christ’s word for it, that all men will be drawn to Christ. The apostle tells
us that God will have all men to be saved,’ and as he introduces no
distinction, my reviewer, faithful to his own principle, must believe this to
be absolutely true of every individual of the human race. , So too he will
understand in like manner of all the human and fallen angelic race, that God
will reconcile them .all to himself in Christ Jesus; for the apostle says that
to the name of Jesus all shall bow, of celestials, terrestrials, and sub-terrestrials,—and
all things are to be reconciled, and, in the Apocalypse, the whole creation is
represented as echoing the song of praise which the elders and angels before
the throne commence. But there are scores of such texts, in which there is no
restriction made by the writers, and where therefore the universal sense must
be conceded. Verily, the universalists will be thankful for this convenient
philological axiom, and will proudly claim him for
themselves. The first principle then cannot stand.
Let us look at the Second. It is, that the
death abolished, and the immortal life revealed, stand in direct contrast with
each other, and are therefore co-extensive. Very well, this is quite
intelligible. The death abolished stands in contrast with the life revealed.
But the life is ruled to be immortal existence,’—then what was the antithetical
death abolished? By my reviewer’s own law of antithesis, to which we shall
refer on a subsequent page, the death which is the
antithesis of the immortal life, must be therefore non-existence, or perishing.
Yes, if life and immortality is a Greek term for immortal life, in the sense of
never-ending existence, then, according to his own rule respecting antithesis,
the death abolished must have been the exact opposite to the life or existence
revealed, and so must be death literal, or cessation of being. But if Christ
‘abolished’ this in any way, it must have been what men, without Christ’s
mediation, were exposed to.
But the reviewer says Christ “vanquished
death,” which as the opposite to “immortal life” must be taken literally. Then
men must have been in danger of it. For as an apostle disdained to fight as one
that beats the air merely, so we may be quite sure that Christ does not
“vanquish” airy nothings.
But he adds “It would do strange violence to
this text to make it teach future existence for all, and immortal existence for
a part.” Well, but who attempts to do this!
The announcement, on one page of revelation,
that Christ hath vanquished death (which is meant for a part of the blessing, I
presume, in harmony with similar declaration) and revealed immortal existence,
does not surely close the question against all further inquiry; does not
preclude our asking, and obtaining from other passages an answer to the question,
Has Christ vanquished death for all men and is this immortality which he
reveals the prerogative of all!
Still further, my reviewer, on another page of
his calmly argumentative and forcible paper, lays it down that death, when
threatened to the sinner, or mentioned as that from which Christ saves, -means
the entire aggregate of all the penal consequences of sin. Well, then, I fear
the universalist will again claim him. For according to his axiom, since there
is no restriction made by the apostle, the terms must be understood
universally. And so on his own principles—first, as to
the meaning of death from which Christ saves, and then as to the unrestricted
character of the text —all the penal consequences of sin for all mankind are
abolished by Christ. And as Life; Eternal Life, (and immortal life is an exact
synonym) according to him, denotes the entire aggregate of good conferred by
Christ, then too, remembering his law about no restriction, seeing all men have
this immortal life, all men are to be happy.
But as we shall probably have to refer to this
subject again, and as I trust that what has been said will be considered to
meet the objection of the reviewer, it is not necessary to make my reply more
copious. It will however be more complete, if the reader will kindly refer
again at this point to the suggestions already submitted on this passage. (pp.
162-165.)
And now, since we are free to pursue our
proposed course, I respectfully solicit attention to the following §
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
1. It will be at once recognised
as a universally acknowledged canon of interpretation, that the literal sense
is to be preferred in all’ cases in which it does not involve a contradiction
of other parts of scripture, or an absurdity, or anything derogatory to the
character of the Divine Being.” I hold it for a most infallible rule in
exposition of sacred scripture that, when a literal construction will stand,
the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more
dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changes the meaning of
words, as alchemy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of anything
what it pleases, and bringing in the end all truth to nothing.”— Hooker,
Eccles. Pol. In agreement wherewith the Eclectic Reviewer also says, ‘We admit
at once that the terms in question [eternal life and everlasting destruction,
etc.] like all other terms in human language, are to be understood in their
literal sense, unless cause can be shown for otherwise interpreting them. We admit,
consequently, that the burden of proof lies with ourselves.” Now, to my mind,
the literal interpretation of such passages as exhibit ‘life’ promised to the
righteous, and death,’ ` destruction,’ threatened to the wicked, is not fairly open to any charge of involving the contradictory or
absurd. And, more than this, it perfectly harmonises
with everything the scriptures contain on this momentous subject. For,— 2: It
is not an impossible thing that human beings, who, —having wilfully
and perseveringly violated that law which is holy and just and good, and on
which the moral order of the universe depends, and without harmony wherewith,
they never can themselves be happy,—persist in ungratefully and impiously
rejecting the great salvation, which God in his infinite compassion has
provided, should perish, utterly cease to be. No one it is presumed will affirm
in the present day, whatever view on the point was popular in the last
generation, that this is an impossibility that He who made us cannot remand into
that blank nothingness from which by his fiat alone we sprang. Surely none will
deny that “He can create, and He can destroy.” 3: As it is not impossible, so
neither is it, of itself, an absurd thing, to suppose that creatures, who
contradict the great design of their creation,—who do not choose the fear of
the Lord, who will not be persuaded to embrace eternal happiness (and the
all-wise Creator alone knows precisely in what way the minds he hath made and
endowed can best attain to true and perfect bliss) but will persist in setting
at nought their benevolent Maker and Government
should therefore at some period lose that existence, which by their own folly
and wickedness cannot be otherwise than wretched.
We cannot conceive, I say, that there is
anything in this notion, considered in itself, so
shocking to our understanding, so repugnant to our common sense, that it must
instantly be discarded as an absurdity. If the only two theories now under
discussion be considered together, there is no one who can pronounce the
destruction of the incorrigible to be absurd, as compared with the doctrine of
their endless existence in torment. On the contrary, if the question between
the two theories were to be decided by the human understanding, it is submitted
that no one would see any absurdity in the idea of their ceasing to be, whose
existence could never be a blessing to themselves, nor a source of happiness to
others.
10: It is not so improbable a thing—that no
calmly thoughtful person could entertain it. On the contrary, were scripture
silent on this one subject of the destiny of the wicked, (revelation else
standing as it does, and revealing the mighty fact that God is love) and were
we left to discover for ourselves, by the light which shone on the character of
God, and on other parts of his designs, what would in all probability be the
doom of those that obstinately refused to be made happy in god’s own way,—which
is the only way,—it would not, I think, seem less probable that such unhappy
beings should perish altogether and utterly, than that they should be, by the
divine conservation, kept alive, not only for inconceivable myriads of ages,
but forever and ever, in exquisite and unmitigable torment. This would
scarcely, I think, appear a probable notion to a human mind that, striving to
become more and more like our Father in heaven, looked abroad on the whole sensitive and especially the intelligent
creation with an eye beaming with benevolence.
I know indeed that this strain of remark is
quite capable of abuse, and that some sort of answer may without much
difficulty be given. I therefore beg to be distinctly understood. The very
utmost that I intend by this paragraph is, that the notion of ceasing to be is
not of itself, nor a priori, an improbable one as compared with the dogma
(still supposing no positive revelation on the subject) that God will by his
own ceaseless . preserving power—for by him all things
consist ‘—keep the wicked alive forever and ever, in
order to their never-ending torment.
I think I might even go farther,
and affirm that their entire destruction would (if we were left as
supposed) appear inexpressibly more probable, than their preservation on
purpose to be tormented through infinite ages. There would be the character of
God to guide us to such a conclusion; and the fact that the saved, being
confirmed in holiness, could not eternally need so awful a spectacle as a
perpetually visible warning to themselves against sin. For the memory of the
past on earth—their former degradation, and rescue by the free grace of God
through Jesus Christ—the unspeakably wonderful plan of salvation—the
never-to-be-forgotten scenes of the final judgment, and the going away with
weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth of the ungodly into the place assigned
for them, there to undergo the second death,—with the deep consciousness of the
misery of sin—their indebtedness to God—and with their ever growing enjoyment of
heavenly happiness—will suffice, to say nothing of the watchful care of Him who
promises that they shall never perish, to preserve them when once saved, from
ever again involving themselves in transgression and consequent misery. While
no end would be answered in the experience of the lost themselves, by their
being forever sustained by Almighty power, in order to
be forever the objects on whom divine wrath might exert itself.
So then we are shut
up to scripture. And I thank God with all my heart that we are not left to the
uncertainty which, on such a subject, must else be inevitable if we had only
unaided reason to guide us, but that we have a most sure word of prophecy, to
which we shall do well to give most diligent and reverential and grateful heed.
Only it may be suggested that, for a doctrine so unutterably appalling in
itself—horrible beyond the conception of the mightiest angels—yea, of all
except God himself—we ought to have the plainest, the most unequivocal
testimony.
11: As the literal interpretation of those
texts which threaten a second death, destruction, etc. to the incorrigible
sinner, does not involve an impossibility, nor an absurdity, nor, a priori,
anything improbable, so also it is not contradictory to any other statements of
scripture. And it is submitted that so harmonious are the passages which treat
of the ultimate “doom of the impenitent, that ‘the common people,’ who are to
the full as deeply interested in the subject as the more ingenious, would be
likely to construe them all literally, unless taught differently.
In which case, the general tenor of scripture
threatening would naturally convey to them the idea of a miserable
destruction,’ and not of unceasing torment. For they would find the disobedient
to the gospel threatened with not seeing life,’ with perishing,’ with being
consumed as stubble,’ destroyed like chaff by fire, with ‘second death,’ and
the like. While even such persons would be quite competent to expound Matthew
25:46, by 2 Thessalonians 1:9; and to observe that when it is said, Revelation
‘they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever,’ it is not human
beings that are spoken of; and that when 14:11, a similar assertion is made, it
is not of the future state at all that the angel herald speaks, but that he is
there announcing the woes forthwith coming here on earth, on those who
worshipped the image, etc. (which passages we shall consider hereafter.) If
then the literal sense involves nothing contradictory, nothing impossible,
nothing absurd, nor a priori, improbable even, but the contrary; then,
according to one of the most obvious and commonly received canons of no already alluded to, not only would there be no
presumption against the literal rendering, but the presumption ‘would be
altogether in favour of it. Here, then, we may close
these preliminary observations. And now our inquiry relates to— ETERNAL LIFE,
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The question we have to consider is,—not whether this word is sometimes employed in a
secondary and figurative sense, to denote the highest and all possible
good,—but whether, when it is one of the objects held out to be sought after,
and is matter of promise by God through Christ, it has, or includes, the idea
of continued and never-ending existence. The holders of the popular doctrine,
proceeding on the assumption that all men have eternal life, in the literal
sense, must of course deny altogether that the idea of existence is even
included in the terms life,” everlasting life, nd the like. For seeing, according to the common notion,
that the wicked have everlasting life (taking the phrase literally) as well as
the righteous, when this is promised to the followers of Christ, as something
peculiar to them and unutterably glorious, they must perforce affirm that the
phrase is used metaphorically, and only so. Will the serious reader do me the favour to consider the following observations.
7. That Existence, and existence only (or at
all events chiefly) is meant by such words in some passages cannot be disputed.
For instance, —Whom Christ appearing to John
in Patmos says, Revelation 1:18, I am he that lives, and was dead; and behold I
am alive forevermore;’ no one will affirm that the glorified Saviour, although of course unutterably happy, meant at all
to convey the idea of happiness by the assertion of living, and being alive
forevermore; but the idea of an existence gloriously exempt forever from all
liability to a second death. So Professor Stuart rightly expounds.—”
I was indeed subject to the power of death, yet only for a little time, for
behold! I live forever and ever; I have risen to a life which can never be
interrupted, never cease.” Stuart in loc.
And so when in Revelation 4:9, 10, “The living
creatures give glory and honour and thanks to him
that sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever; and the four-and twenty
elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that lives
forever and ever;”—no one will wish to do away with the literal sense of the
phrase employed; which appears to be used here something like the I AM’ of the
Old Testament, to set forth the idea of infinite and independent existence. The
Jews were accustomed to speak of God as emphatically “ the
living God,” in distinction from the heathen deities which Were either the
objects of nature, the creations of their fancy, or the work of their own
hands; and the formula was common, ‘As the Lord lives,’ etc.
So we are assured, Hebrews 7:25, that Christ ‘ is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God
by him, seeing he ever lives, to make intercession for them,’ where, without
dispute, the phrase is used literally. As it is in 5:16 of the same chapter,
where Christ is said to be a priest ‘not after the law of a carnal commandment,
but after the power of an endless life.’ But as any concordance will give many
similar passages, the reader needs not be detained on this first remark, except
to observe,— That Christ himself, in the days of his
flesh, as well as subsequently, used the word in that literal sense which it
would naturally convey. Thus, for example, when he said, John 5:26, As the
Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself: No one will affirm happiness to be here intended, although God is the
happy God, and Christ partakes of his felicity, or deny that the word is used
in the strictest literalness. But to advance a step, it may be observed;— 8. That the word is sometimes to be understood
literally when men are spoken of; which will not be
denied by the keenest disputant.
Thus the apostle, in his famous discourse on
Mars’ hill, speaking of God, says He gives to all life and breath and all
things. . . . In him we live and move and have our
being.’ And Christ affirmed in a passage we have already examined,
God is not the God of the dead but of the living.’ Where by
dead’ we must necessarily understand the idea that our Lord was then when in
controversy with the Sadducees, who held that death was the utter end of man,
and that all who had died were clean perished out of existence, And that
forever. Christ proved that the notion as they held it was false, for that God,
after the decease of the patriarchs, had styled himself their God. Here the
word living’ then is necessarily used by our Lord in its natural sense; and, in
this passage, he who brought life and immortality to light teaches that there
is an existence after the body has yielded to decay. God is not the God of the
utterly non-existent and perished. Death and life are here used for existence
and non-existence: But as a concordance will give a great number of texts in
which the literal is the only possible sense, the reader is referred thereto,
that we may avoid filling pages with quotations, and may come still nearer to
the very point of the present argument. And it may be remarked,—
3. That the word is sometimes to be understood literally, when employed in a
declaration of the benefits bestowed by Christ on those who believe in him.
As for example—John 6:57-58, when Christ says As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father;
so he that eats me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which, etc. He
that eats of this bread shall live forever. No expositor would expound it thus,—’ As the happy Father hath sent me, and I am happy by
the Father, so he that eats me shall be happy by we,’—although a true
sentiment. For the question all through the discourse was not concerning
happiness, but about bread that could preserve from death, which
.the bread furnished through Moses in the wilderness could not do. And
in the verse here quoted, since no one would wish to set aside the literal
sense of the word in the first and second clauses, so neither can it be
rejected in the last; especially if regard be had to the scope of the entire
discourse.
So in John 14:19,
‘Because I live, ye shall live also.’ Where again no one will venture seriously
to expound it, though the sentiment is true, Because I am happy, ye shall be
happy also.’ And to revert to a passage already quoted, John 5:26, when Christ
says, For as the Father hath life in himself, so also hath he given to the Son
to have life in himself;’ in this connection it is, when obviously using the
word in its literal sense, that he says in the verse immediately preceding,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live: For, as
the Father hath life in himself.’ And the statement of our Lord to Martha,
weeping bitter tears of sorrow, may perhaps be fairly adduced.—John
11: 23. Thy brother shall rise again.’ But at that moment of intense grief,
when her recent loss was so vividly realised, the
prospect of the general resurrection, to her apprehension so indefinitely
remote, did not very greatly pacify her mind; and her gracious Lord, intending
to gratify her with scarcely half-formed and not to be, intimated, begins to
remind her that the general resurrection was to be accomplished by himself, who
could therefore at any moment quicken whom he would. It is to his words, at
this point of time, that the reader’s attention is invited.
When he says, in verse 25: ‘I am the
resurrection,’ we of course understand him, by the use of a common figure of
speech, to mean that he would be the efficient cause, the author of the resurrection,—he would accomplish it. Now the word
resurrection’ is universally and of necessity here taken in its literal sense.
So therefore must the next word be, — ‘life.’ ‘I am
the resurrection and the life.’ Strange indeed would it be to interpret the one
word literally and the next word figuratively. In whatever way Christ is ‘The
resurrection,’ in that same way must he also be the life.’ And it would indeed
be something very like wresting the scriptures, to serve a purpose, to
understand the word resurrection literally, and make the very next word; life, metaphor.
Our Lord teaches that he would raise the dead,
and make them live again and that if any who had believed were already dead, he
would nevertheless raise them to life; while of the then living who believed
and who must of course taste of death, it was a glorious fact that their death,
not being final, was not strictly speaking deserving of the name, for that they
should live forever. This seems to me the general sentiment of these verses •,
which are adduced here in support of the idea that life, literally understood,
is made the matter of distinct declaration and promise
by Christ. For in this passage it will not do to spiritualise the words, life,’ and he shall live,’ dead,’
and ‘shall not die forever,’ seeing there was no question mooted about
spiritual death and life, nor about misery and happiness. And to engraft these
ideas would be not only gratuitous, but would spoil
the beautiful propriety of our Lord’s discourse on that sorrowful occasion, and
make it altogether irrelevant.
And if the life here promised could possibly
mean happiness, then, according to the principles laid down by the Eclectic
Reviewer, and already referred to, since Christ is the resurrection to all men,
and the assertion, am the resurrection and the life,’ is made generally and without
discriminating any; all who are raised from the dead by Christ will also be
made eternally happy by him! A conclusion which none will allow to be deduced
from this text. I submit, then, that we must understand the terms in this
passage literally.
But here it will doubtless occur to the
reader, that if the spiritualising process would make
against the popular notion, by representing happiness (life, taken
metaphorically) as co-extensive with the resurrection,—so
the literal rendering of the passage makes as completely against my view, by
exhibiting continued existence after resurrection as equally the portion of
all. It is but fair that I should acknowledge whatever force lies in this
rejoinder: but it is I believe, apparent, and not real. Let it be remembered
then that in the last of the above two suggestions, I am merely using the
principle of an opponent to convince him that on his own principle he must
consent to understand the word ‘life’ literally.
For the understanding it figuratively, for
happiness, and then applying to the declaration hi; canon, that when no
discrimination is affirmed the sense is universal, would make him a
universalist. I, however, deny this principle, so that the argument stands good
against an opponent, but not against myself. And so I come back to this;— Christ is the author of the resurrection, and the
giver of the life to be then enjoyed. This is a general assertion; leaving us
yet to ascertain who are to be raised—who are to be endowed with life.
We are elsewhere assured that all the dead,
both small and great, shall be raised, but that they only shall receive
everlasting life, Who are saved by Christ; I give unto my sheep eternal life,
and they shall never perish: All that are ‘in the graves shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of condemnation.’ Let this
passage be accepted as expository of the former one, showing who are to receive
the crown of life when they are raised from the dead; for as in that, life must
be understood literally, so in this. And then, by my reviewer’s law of
antithesis, taking life literally, we understand the resurrection to
condemnation to be a retributive resurrection to a second death.
The reader will be so kind as to remember,
that all I am asserting under this third head is, that sometimes, at all
events, life is to be literally understood, when it is the subject matter of
declaration and promise by Christ, and I have adduced as one proof the passage
in John 11:25. Another text already quoted may be referred to, merely with this
one object in view, namely, 2 Timothy 1:10, Christ has brought life and
immortality to ‘light through the gospel.’ As suggested before, I cheerfully accept
the ordinary interpretation, that life and immortality are put by hendiadys for
immortal life, and so content myself with pointing out the fact, that this is
another passage in which life, as made the matter of declaration by Christ,
must be understood literally. Which leads us to make another remark, although
already somewhat anticipated, namely— 4. That a belief of this assertion of the
apostle’s—that it is Christ especially who path set in a clear light the mighty
doctrine of immortal life—would seem to shut us up to a literal rendering of
those passages which contain such phrases as ‘life,’ eternal life,’ ‘not
perishing,’ and the like, as used by our Lord.
For the case stand thus. An inspired apostle
declares that Christ hath brought this subject of a future and endless life to
light. Then it is but reasonable to expect to find in Christ’s discourses this
subject of infinite existence treated of more distinctly than in any preceding
revelation. And the points on which a mind yearning for immortality requires
authoritative instruction, seem to be these. First—Is there immortality for man
at all? And if so,—Is it the prerogative of all men
indiscriminately, or only of some And if of some,—Of whom, and how obtainable.
Let it be borne in mind that the clearest
light ever shed on this momentous topic is that cast by Christ. We come then to
him who is expressly designated THE LIFE,’ and of whom John says, [John 1:4],
‘In him was life; and the life was the light of men,’ which assertion he seems
to make as still further illustrative of the previous statement that the Word
had created all things; the Logos was possessed of, and was the source of, all
living energies. But before we proceed to inquire at the hands of Christ
himself, the true doctrine of immortality, it will be well to consider rather
more distinctly the very significant assurance, on the opening of John’s
gospel, that ‘IN Him was LIFE; seeing that it is of life we are inquiring. But
as an independent exposition would doubtless be every way preferable, Idlall introduce a part of Tittmann’s
commentary on the phrase.
“The word like the Hebrew, when used of God to
express some divine attribute, as in this passage, evidently denotes the power
to possess and impart life, the principle of life, life-gluing power, creative
power. Wherefore, as God lives forever, and as he is the author of life, he is
called ‘.the living God,’ in opposition to idols,
which have neither life nor power. 1 Samuel 17:26-36; Psalms 42:3; 84:3; 1
Thessalonians 1: 9; 1 Timothy 6:17. In the last passage, this explanation is
added: Who gives us richly all things to enjoy.’ For the same reason he is
called ‘the fountain of life,’ Psalms 36:10, and the God of life, Psalms 42: 9;
and he is said to make alive,’ to quicken,’ Deuteronomy 32:39. 1 Timothy 6:13;
and we are said ‘to live in God,’ as our life and activity are his gifts.
The connection requires this meaning to be
assigned to the word ‘life,’ in this passage; for, in the preceding verse, John
had spoken of the creation, and he now adds these words, ‘in him was life,’ in
order to show the reason wherefore he ascribed, and could ascribe, so
astonishing a work to the Son of God,—namely, because he is able to impart life
to things which were not.
“The same thing is evident from the parallel
passage, chapter 5: 26 verse, which must be compared
with this, in order to a clear perception of the force and meaning of the word
tco1: For John could not ascribe life to the Son of God, in a sense different
from that in which he himself claimed it. But in the passage referred to, he
says, that he hath life in himself,’ which must be understood of the power to
possess life, and impart it to others. The preceding
and subsequent context require this interpretation. For in the preceding verses,
he ascribes to himself the power to raise up and quicken-the dead; and in the
following verse, the power to judge, and to reward and punish them,—both which require almighty power. Again, the example
of the Father, to whom our Saviour appeals, puts this
interpretation beyond all doubt.
As the Father hath
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.’ When
‘life’ is ascribed to the Father, it manifestly
denotes life-giving power. It cannot mean life simply; for the question is not,
does God live, but, does he impart life? but the
phrase, hath life in himself,’ must signify, hath power to impart life to
others. The meaning may be expressed thus: God is not like men, who ‘live, and
move, and have their being’ in God: he has life in and of himself, he gives
life to all, and all who have life have it from him. The Son has life in the
same way as the Father: he has it in himself as the
Father, and he can impart it to others as the Father. From all this it is
evident, that the word ‘life,’ in the passage under consideration, bears the
meaning which I have assigned to it; and the words, in him was life,’ have
reference to all created things, or to the whole universe; those which follow,
‘and the life was the light of men,’ refer to the human race.
The meaning may be expressed thus: he has life-giving power, but he puts it
forth chiefly for the happiness of men.” “In this passage, then, John exhibits
the divine dignity of the promised Saviour in two
ways. In the words ‘in him was life,’ he ascribes to him creative power; an
attribute peculiar to the one living and true God. Again, in the words `and the
life was the light of men,’ he ascribes to him power to communicate happiness
to men, and represents him as the only author of human life and felicity; and
that for two reasons; partly because he created men, but principally because he
redeems them from death and misery, and brings them, as it were, into a new
life; a life of faith, purity, and spiritual jog, in this world, and of
immortal happiness and glory in the world to come.” To him then, I say, made
flesh and tabernacling amongst us, through whom God made the world, (‘For by
him,’ etc. Colossians 1:16-17) and who is to all creatures the fountain of
life, whence all their living energies are derived, we reverently approach,
with the sentiment of Peter on our lips, — ‘Thou hast the words of eternal
life.’ And sitting disciple like at the feet of the great Master we are ready
to treasure up in our hearts the gracious words that proceed out of his mouth.
Our question is touching life—and life interminably prolonged—drawn out to all
eternity. Assuredly he could not use words plainer or more relevant, than those
employed in the very question we anxiously propose. It is of life and of
eternity, we ask,—it is of life and of eternity, he
speaks. And in these self-same and plain terms he tells us of the very thing we
inquire about; that is, he speaks to us of Life,” Eternal Life,’ Everlasting
life,’ ‘lever perishing,’ etc. in a word, of immortality.
So far then this might be satisfactory. But he
goes on to predicate this eternal life of a class only, speaking of it as the
gift of God through Christ, and connected with believing on him; affirming that
God so loved the world, that he gave- his only-begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but should have
everlasting life.” I give unto my sheep eternal life, and they shall never
perish.’ ‘That he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.’
While he affirms of all others, that they shall not see life,—that
they shall be burned up like chaff,—be destroyed both body and soul,—lose their
life—perish.
Since, then, on this most momentous of all
subjects, we are to a great extent shut up to Christ; and then seeing that the
very best terms to denote the idea of never-ending existence are employed by
Christ, namely, such as everlasting life, etc., I feel compelled to ground my
own hope of immortality on his mercifully plain direction; and so to follow
implicitly his instructions, laying hold on eternal life by cleaving to him
with full purpose of heart, and expecting it as the glorious gift of him whose
title is—The Prince of Life, and who is emphatically styled—’Christ our Life.’
For since we are referred to Christ for the clearest light on this subject, and
must therefore of necessity find much in his discourses about immortal life, I
ask again,—Where does Christ place in clear light this
doctrine of immortal life, if not in those very passages where he treats of it
in these and similar terms.
But for various reasons, and many of them
praiseworthy, religious writers have been anxious to demonstrate that immortal
life was placed in a very satisfactory light long before Christ; and they
scarcely derive any portion of their proof of such an amazing fact as infinite
existence from the great teacher, who, according to an inspired apostle,
emphatically brought it to light. But deriving their belief independently, and
for the most part affirming that a universal immortality is plainly
discoverable on even the very first page of revelation, they are driven to the
necessity of making the chief revealing of the doctrine not to teach anything
on the subject, or next to nothing; as indeed there was, according to the
popular notion, but little need he should!
But, assuredly, if
Christ be ‘emphatically the teacher of the doctrine of immortality, which by
apostolic authority we are bound to consider him, he has taught us to whom it
pertains. And then as certainly he has taught, as plainly as words would allow,
that this is the gift of God, through himself, to, them that believe. So that
by how much we lay a fair philological and historical stress on the apostle’s
assertion, 2 Timothy 1:10, by so much do we seem compelled to understand our
Lord literally, when he promises eternal life to a class.
Here I may be allowed to introduce a paragraph
from Arch bishop Whately on
the subject.
“On the whole then, the Scriptures do not I
think afford as any ground for expecting that those who shall be condemned at
the last day as having wilfully rejected or rebelled
- against their Lord, will be finally delivered; that their doom and that of
the evil Angels, will ever be reversed.
“What that doom will be,—whether
the terms in which it is commonly spoken of in Scripture, “death,”
destruction,” perishing,’ etc., are to be understood figuratively, as denoting
immortal life in a state of misery, or more literally, as denoting a final
extinction of existence,—this is quite a different question. It is certain that
the words, ‘life,’ ‘eternal life,’ etc., are always applied to the condition of
those, and of those only, who shall at the last day be approved as ‘good and
faithful servants, who are to enter into the joy of
their Lord.
“ ‘Life’ as applied to their condition, is usually
understood to mean happy life.’ And that theirs will be a happy life, we are
indeed plainly taught; but I do not think we are anywhere taught that the word
‘life’ does of itself necessarily imply happiness. If so indeed, it would be a
mere tautology to speak of a ‘happy life;’ and a contradiction, to speak of a
‘miserable life; which we know is not the case, according to the usage of any
language. In all Ages and Countries, ‘life,’ and the words answering to it in
other languages, have always been applied in ordinary discourse, to a wretched
life, no less properly than to a happy one. Life, therefore, in the received
sense of the word, would apply equally to the condition of the blest and of the
condemned, supposing these last to be destined to continue forever living in a
state of misery. And yet, to their condition the words life’ and immortality’
never are applied in Scripture. If therefore we suppose the hearers of Jesus
and his Apostles to have understood, as nearly as possible in the ordinary sense,
the words employed, they must naturally have conceived them to mean (if they
were taught nothing to the contrary) that the condemned were really and
literally to be destroyed,’ and cease to exist; not, that they were to exist
forever in a state of wretchedness. For they are never spoken of as being kept
alive, but as forfeiting life: as for instance, Ye will not come unto me that
ye may have life He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son
of God, hath not life.’ And again, perdition,” death,” destruction,’ are
employed in numerous passages to express the doom of the condemned. All which
expressions would, as I have said, be naturally taken in their usual and
obvious sense, if nothing were taught to the contrary.” [Scripture Revelations concerning
a Future State, p. 226.]
“ ‘Life’ as applied
to their condition, is usually understood to mean happy life.’ And that theirs
will be a happy life, we are indeed plainly taught; but I do not think we are
anywhere taught that the word ‘life’ does of itself necessarily imply
happiness. If so indeed, it would be a mere tautology to speak of a ‘happy
life;’ and a contradiction, to speak of a ‘miserable life; which we know is not
the case, according to the usage of any language. In all Ages and Countries,
‘life,’ and the words answering to it in other languages, have always been
applied in ordinary discourse, to a wretched life, no less properly than to a
happy one. Life, therefore, in the received sense of the word, would apply
equally to the condition of the blest and of the condemned, supposing these
last to be destined to continue forever living in a state of misery. And yet,
to their condition the words life’ and immortality’ never are applied in
Scripture. If therefore we suppose the hearers of Jesus and his Apostles to
have understood, as nearly as possible in the ordinary sense, the words
employed, they must naturally have conceived them to mean (if they were taught
nothing to the contrary) that the condemned were really and literally to be
destroyed,’ and cease to exist; not, that they were to exist forever in a state
of wretchedness. For they are never spoken of as being kept alive, but as
forfeiting life: as for instance, Ye will not come unto me that ye may have
life He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath
not life.’ And again, perdition,” death,” destruction,’ are employed in
numerous passages to express the doom of the condemned. All which expressions
would, as I have said, be naturally taken in their usual and obvious sense, if
nothing were taught to the contrary.” [Scripture Revelations concerning a
Future State, p. 226.] Here however we are called upon to meet one of the chief
objections urged against the doctrine we suggest.
It is alleged that, since the righteous do not
merely exist, but are made perfectly happy through Christ, and since eternal
life is emphatically the phrase by which the blessedness he communicates is set
forth, it must necessarily be understood figuratively to mean happiness, and
stands for the entire sum of the blessings Christ bestows. And it is asked,
since eternal life is so emphatically promised as the magnificent result of a Saviour’s obedience unto death, how can we believe that
nothing more is meant than mere existence, drawn out though it be to all
eternity.
This objection has been urged as powerfully as
it can be in the Eclectic Review, and it will be but right therefore to state
it in the writer’s own words.
“Taking, in the first instance, the passages
which express the future state of the righteous by the term life, the question
before us is, whether, in them this term can be satisfactorily understood, as
meaning existence merely.
Now, when we consider that what is thus spoken
of under the term life is the subject of divine promise, the gift of God’
through Christ Jesus, the result of his death, and the reward of faith in his
name, it is to us, we confess, in the highest degree unsatisfactory to
understand the term used of existence merely.
Some inestimable blessing must be here
intended. Mere existence, however, is not necessarily, or in
itself, a blessing. Whether it be a benefit at all, or the contrary,
depends wholly on the kind of existence, and the manner in
which it is employed. It may be conceived of either as void of good, or
as full of misery. Mr. Dobney holds it to be
conferred for a very long. period upon the wicked. We conclude, therefore, that
the connexion demands some other meaning for the work
‘life’ in these passages than existence merely, and as happiness is an idea
very much to the point, and consistent with the usage of the term, we, in
agreement with the great majority of scriptural commentators, adopt this as the
meaning of it.” Eclectic Review for -august, 1845, p. 155.
Every one perceives
that the entire force of the question, which the reviewer has proposed in order
to answer, lies in the adverb• wherewith he ends the sentence. Take away his
“merely,” and what follows is nothing to the point, for he is arguing against
the idea of “mere existence” being all that Christ has gained for us, etc. All
of which as no one has affirmed so no one will contend for. And with all
respect it is submitted that the question is not, as he ingeniously states it,—whether mere existence be all that Christ bestows, but
whether or not Christ does bestow that immortality which he fills with
unspeakable happiness? For the reviewer himself admits on the following Age
that there are other terms in scripture which convey the notion of holiness,
communion with God, etc. I affirm, as strongly as words will serve, that the
saved shall receive through - Christ, to whose gracious mediation they owe
every blessing both in this world And in that which is
to come, every form and degree of good of which they are capable, and not bare
“existence merely.” The reviewer then supposes two things which may be alleged
in bar of his conclusion; which conclusion however we
submit to be altogether useless to him, ab, initio, because he has, as we
conceive, though of course unintentionally, somewhat mis-stated the question.
But we quote again.— “It may be said further, that,
although the term g life,’ as descriptive of the future state of the righteous,
no doubt means happiness, it means existence-also, and conveys the compound
idea of a happy existence. This, however, is saying that a word has Iwo
meanings in one and the same case, and that it ‘is at the same instant to be
understood both literally and metaphorically; which
seems to us to be altogether inadmissible. We can understand how it may be necessary
to interpret a word literally in one case, and metaphorically in another; but
what warrant there can be for interpreting a word in both ways at once is to us
unintelligible. It is not until we have ascertained that the literal meaning of
a term will not serve, that we have any liberty to annex a metaphorical meaning
to it at all; and how, after this, can the literal meaning be retained? The
term life cannot justly be made to convey the compound idea, happy existence.
It may mean either existence, or happiness, as taken either literally or
figuratively; but the taking it to mean one determines that it does not in that
case mean the other. Besides, if life means happy existence, death may mean
miserable existence; a supposition entirely fatal to
Mr. Dobney’s argument.
“We return to the conclusion, therefore, that
the term life, when used descriptively of the future state of the righteous,
does not denote existence, but happiness exclusively.
“We do not know that it is necessary to
strengthen this conclusion by collateral evidence. It may be observed, however,
that the future state of the righteous is represented in scripture, not
exclusively by the term life, but by other terms also. These terms, whether
more brief or more extended, are uniformly descriptive of happiness in various
forms—of holiness, of communion with God, of the presence of Christ, of honour, of freedom from suffering, and other kindred ideas.
These are evidently the counterpart of the word life; the several elements
which go to make up that state of happiness, most felicitously and emphatically
expressed by the single term. Nowhere among these diversified descriptions do
phrases occur, tending to show that existence itself is one of these elements;
yet, if this were a part of the gift of God,’ so important a particular, might
be expected to appear, if not always, yet on some other occasion than in the
use of the term life, which is so obviously generic, and inclusive of the whole.”
I shall content myself with offering a remark or two on the chief points of the
foregoing extract, seeing that whatever force there may be in the entire
argument I am conducting lies against the doctrine which the reviewer
maintains. But since he alleges that if existence itself’ were ‘a part of the
gift of God,’—and it seems strange to question this!—so important a particular
might be expected to appear on some other occasion than in the use of the term
life, I inquire what better terms could have been selected Remembering the
Egyptian darkness that covered the whole earth on the subject of a future life
and immortality, would it not be every way best for that great Teacher, who
came to be a light unto the Gentiles, and whom the common people heard so
gladly, to use great plainness of speech How was life to be better designated
than by the self-same word itself, with the addition of the epithets eternal,
everlasting, abiding forever; and then the expression of the same thought
negatively,—shall not die forever, shall never perish, shall not die anymore?
Christ says As the
living Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Sort to have life
in himself,’ — ‘the Son quickens whom he gives life to whom he for the second
Adam is a life-giving spirit;’ - ‘because I live ye shall live also,’ etc. If
these terms are to be set aside as not teaching our indebtedness for infinite
existence (and let anyone try to realise it) to
Christ, I can scarcely conceive how the fact was to have been taught; except indeed
the scriptures had been constructed on quite a different plan from that which
infinite wisdom has adopted, and by which truth is not so much formally stated,
as in creeds and catechisms and articles, as it is incidentally communicated.
And if these terms are to be denied as teaching that continued existence itself
is obtained for us by Christ (which existence he also fills with ever
increasing happiness) then the scriptures would almost seem unfit for the
common people; for that this is the obvious sense I respectfully submit.
And as to ‘Life’ being generic and inclusive.
Suppose it be conceded, what philological, or even dogmatic objection would
then lie against understanding it thus Life’ is a term generic and inclusive, and means-
(1.) Existence, literally; conscious being, without which of course no other
good can be possible: and— (2.) Happiness, because generally life is esteemed
of the highest importance; “skin after skin (one article of property after
another) yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.” So that the most
valuable endowment of man, without which he could have no other, is well chosen
as the term by which to set forth the whole sum of happiness, and thus the word
Life’ may mean continued existence made happy. For, in further reply it is submitted,— 12: That no argument whatever can set aside the
fact already shown, that there are passages in which the term must necessarily
be understood literally, when life—eternal life is the subject matter of
declaration and promise.
13: And if such passages are not allowed to
teach the grand doctrine of immortality, which Christ placed in the clearest
light, there are none that do teach it; and the apostolic assertion, 2 Timothy
1:10 is eviscerated.
14: The same objection would apply equally to
passages in which God is said to live forever and ever; and it would be as
reasonable to ask in a tone of triumph, “What! Are we to believe that mere
existence is predicated of God? Surely God is infinitely happy; and therefore,
when an angel or an apostle affirms barely of him that he lives forever and
ever, this formula must convey the idea of infinite felicity.” Everyone would
perceive this sort of argument to be of little value, and the reply would be ready;—We know from other sources that God over all is happy
forevermore, and are content to find in this one phrase the one idea, which is
indeed magnificent beyond conception, of infinite existence.
So we know’ from
other passages that they who receive the gift of life shall be made gloriously
perfect in all respects, in knowledge, purity, bliss; that they shall see God,
shall reign with Christ, etc. Why not be content, then, to derive the amazing
fact of never-ending existence from those texts that teach it; and the
ineffably glorious characteristics of that everlasting life, from the texts
which more distinctly exhibit them?
15: Besides, even if it be conceded that the
phrase eternal Life is, in scripture terminology, the technical term for the
whole aggregate of the blessings bestowed on the righteous, why should the idea
of immortality, which after all must lie at the basis, be excluded as one of
the blessings conferred? If the phrase includes many things, why may not
infinite existence be one of the many?
And would there not be a beautiful propriety
in selecting that endowment which is indispensable to
all others, and in itself the mightiest of all, as precisely that which,
because of its grandeur, shall be chiefly adopted as representative of the
whole?
But against this it is laid down, as though it
were an in. disputable axiom, that the word must have one or two
significations, and cannot have both: it must be interpreted either literally,
and so mean existence only; or figuratively, in which case the literal sense is
altogether excluded.
I reply, (1.) by denying the soundness of the
principle, which almost seems made for the occasion. For if there were a single
passage in which a word was used both literally and figuratively,—the
physical and primary sense being combined with the spiritual,—the objection is
met. Now I submit that there are many passages in the New Testament where the
same word is evidently inclusive of both significations. I may here quote
Professor Tholuck on John 1:4, in which text he
considers both senses, the physical and spiritual, to be combined in the word Life.— “This [light] was imparted to man, at the creation,
by the communication of the life. It may here be asked whether it means all
life, and consequently the natural also, or whether it means exclusively the
life in God, spiritual life, 1 Timothy 6:19. The first assumption is found, for
example, beautifully expressed by Theodore Mops. He makes the energy of life to
gush forth, so that he may not live alone but that he may impart life to others
also. But the power which is in him is not only able to give life, but also to
till the minds of men with knowledge.’ The source of all living energies actually dwells in the Logos, and their highest
manifestation is the life of the spirit in man. It is therefore not necessary
to attach to the idea of spiritual life exclusively, especially as in the first
instance is without the article, though it must be added that a reference to
the spiritual life prevails.” And on John 5: 21-29 he says, “An unprejudiced
examination will show that in this passage Christ speaks of his agency both in
the spiritual and bodily resurrection.” That is to say, that
when Christ speaks of raising the dead, he uses the same phrase in two
senses—the literal and figurative. Further, this eminent expositor adds,— “In this discourse the spiritual and physical
agencies of Christ are probably combined. According to the biblical
representation, (and also according to 5:24, and 4:14,—6:58,)
the resurrection, of believers and their glorification which will then
commence, is only the last step, the final culminating point of the operations
of that divine and living principle which they have received within themselves,
and which, proceeding from the inward to the outward, transforms and glorifies
their entire being. See Romans 8:10-11, and the author’s Comm. on the passage,
together with the extracts from the Fathers of the Church. Christ, then may at
first very properly combine that twofold agency, and afterwards divide it and
speak first of the spiritual one, and afterwards of the physical one, as the
result of the former. In Matthew 11: 5, also the ‘the dead are raised up,’ and
the poor have the gospel preached to them,’ may refer at the same time to both
spiritual and physical agencies and effects— is probably different here from
Ephesians 2: 5-6, and denotes the positive
communication of life to those who have been made free-from death.” And (2.) by
reminding the reader, that the very holders of the popular notion falsify this
same principle, when they treat of the death threatened to the wicked; which they understand to include both the literal
and metaphorical sense, making it to mean, first, natural death, second,
spiritual death, (a state of sin) and third, eternal death (or everlasting
misery.) Here, though they do not understand by it
non-existence, they do make it to have both a literal and a figurative sense.
And if they may so deal with the word Death, others may so deal with the word
Life, without risk, one would imagine, of blame from any of those who refuse
allegiance to that same principle of interpretation for themselves.
5: And as to the remark with which the
reviewer clenches his argument, saying—”The term
life,” etc. If life means happy existence, death may mean miserable existence;
a supposition entirely fatal to Mr. Dobney’s argument”--I submit the question, whether his latter phrase
“miserable existence” is the proper antithesis to the former, “happy
existence.” My evidently acute and every way to be respected opponent is
professedly arguing against the word life’ having a compound meaning, that is,
against its meaning, 1. Existence, and 2. That that existence is a happy one.
But his objection drawn from the antithetical term ‘death’ represents an
antithesis to only one part of the compound idea. Whereas in fairness it ought
to be an antithesis to both’ parts, thus,—If life
means a happy EXISTENCE, death must mean a miserable DESTRUCTION, a miserable
dying out of existence. Here the antithesis is complete;
which it is not in the sentence I have quoted. And thus
a fair adoption of his own principle confirms instead of confuting my argument.
And arguing more correctly as it seems to me,
that is, deriving the meaning of each of the two parts of a compound idea from
its antithetical fellow, how could the reviewer consistently object to my
stating the case as derived from his own article thus,—The
reviewer affirms the death threatened to the wicked to mean miserable
EXISTENCE; which is a compound idea. The antithesis to which must in all propriety
be a compound idea-too, each part of it being exactly antithetical to its
fellow in the first. Therefore the life promised to
the righteous must mean a happy DEATH! Here each part of the compound idea has
its exact opposite; the antithesis is perfect. But then the conclusion is
inadmissible. The premises from which it is legitimately derived therefore must
be refused; that is, the definition given of death, that it means miserable
existence.’ This must be abandoned, for, adhered to, it involves an absurdity
as soon as it is tested by the law of antithesis fairly applied. Still further,— 6: Kindred passages serve also to guide us to the
literal interpretation. For if we had other texts of scripture, in which
permanent existence was promised in other phraseology than that now under
consideration, it would doubtless strengthen the conviction that we are right
in literally interpreting such terms as—everlasting life, living forever, etc.
But we certainly have such texts.
And 1 John 2: 17 might be adduced as an
example, — ‘The world passes away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the
will of God abides forever.’ No one, it is presumed, will wish to set aside the
literal rendering here, or attempt to make the assertion convey any other idea
than that of the mighty fact of never-ending existence; seeing that it is
antithetically asserted of the righteous, in distinction from the
transitoriness and evanescence of the world. So that here, also, the glorious
prerogative of infinite existence is made the subject matter of declaration,
and in reference to a particular class, in a manner which refuses to be
sublimated by the spiritualising process,
and demands the rigorous adoption of the literal sense.
And this passage reminds us of the promise
recorded by Isaiah 53:10, as rendered by Bishop Lowth,
(Dwight also adopting it)—”If his soul shall make a
propitiatory sacrifice, he shall see a seed which shall prolong their days.”
Quite in accordance with many other prophetic assertions, as, for example,
Psalm 89:35, ‘His seed shall endure forever;’ and 21:4. ‘He asked life of thee,
and thou gayest it him, even length of days forever and ever.’ If, however, the
Bishop’s rendering should be objected to, the argument
does not suffer, inasmuch as, on the received translation, prolonged existence,
notwithstanding he should die, would then be promised to the Messiah—’he shall
prolong his days.’ [Similar is the rendering by Dr. Ferdinand Hitzig, by
Michaelis, Seiler, Gesenius, and Rosenmueller;
quoted by Dr. Pye Smith in his invaluable work on the Sacrifice and Priesthood
of Jesus Christ. p. 288.] Accordantly with the promise in another Messianic
psalm, ‘Thou wilt show me the path of life,’ 16:11, and again, ‘With long life
will I satisfy him, and show him my salvation.’ 91:16.
But before we quit our present subject, I may
remark that it has often been interesting to observe how preachers and
commentators, as if unconscious of the conclusions to which their statements
would necessarily lead, sometimes treat quite literally passages of the kind we
have adduced. We may select one illustration from among preachers, and another
from among expositors.
The late Robert Hall, in a
sermon on 1 John 5:12, ‘He that hath the Son hath life,’ remarked, “There were
four ways in which we may become possessors of what was not our own: first, by
force; second, by purchase; third, by inheritance; fourth, by donation. The
possession of Jesus Christ was by the gift of the Father: the
Father only adequately rewards the Son’ by conferring eternal life on his
followers; No less a gift than the making them partakers of his own eternity!”
[Fifty Sermons delivered by the Reverend Robert Hall, M.A., from Notes, etc, by Reverend T. Grinfield,
M.A. p. 483.]
The late Robert Hall, in a sermon on 1 John
5:12, ‘He that hath the Son hath life,’ remarked, “There were four ways in
which we may become possessors of what was not our own: first, by force;
second, by purchase; third, by inheritance; fourth, by donation. The possession
of Jesus Christ was by the gift of the Father: the
Father only adequately rewards the Son’ by conferring eternal life on his
followers; No less a gift than the making them partakers of his own eternity!”
[Fifty Sermons delivered by the Reverend Robert Hall, M.A., from Notes, etc, by Reverend T. Grinfield,
M.A. p. 483.] If we partake of eternal existence through Christ, then of course
none except his followers are immortal; and so the
whole doctrine of this work is drawn after this first principle. So difficult
is it for anything but truth to be thoroughly consistent.
Of expositors, let us take Professor Stuart,
Selecting him in preference to all others, because he has, in a most able
treatise which is far beyond my praise, maintained the eternity of hell
torments; in which, while he denies, as we have seen on a former page (109,
110) that reason can Trove man immortal, he nevertheless strangely omits to
make good this indispensable first point, the very foundation stone of his
whole superstructure; but quietly taking it for granted, has thereby built his
prison house for eternal misery on the sands, or in other words, rendered his
otherwise masterly work nugatory for his purpose. Strong is the bow which his right hand holds, and bright and pointed are the feathered
arrows of his quiver, but—the bowstring is awaiting.
But leaving his book on the subject,
and turning to his latest valuable contribution to our theological
stores, we shall find that even he Tails to keep clear of the admission which
overthrows the doctrine of a universal immortality, and with it that of eternal
misery. It shall suffice to quote his remarks on the Water of Life, and Book of
Life. Thus he writes on— Revelation 3:5. He that
overcomes, the blot shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out
his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father,
and before his angels.
“I will not blot out, that is,—I
will suffer to remain, or cause to be retained. The form of expression is a
litotes, that is, an affirmative sense attached to a negative form of
expression. Book of life is a frequent idea in both the old and New Testament.
Heaven is first conceived of as a city; then those admitted to dwell there are
citizens; their names of course are conceived of as inscribed in the
city-register. Names thus inscribed in cities on earth, are blotted out when
life ceases, or when crime is committed, and for future of privilege ensues.
Not to be blotted out, of course implies therefore continued life and
privilege.” But if not to be blotted out of the book of life, is equivalent to
affirming their “continued life,”—then, seeing this is graciously promised as a
peculiar privilege to a class, it would follow, as a matter of course, that
others will be thus blotted out, that is, will not have “continued life.” For
how can that be seriously promised as a privilege and a reward, which is
already possessed independently and inalienably? But let us recur again to
Professor Stuart’s Commentary.— Revelation 22:1. And
he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of
the throne of God and the Lamb.
“In Genesis 2:10, seq. we have a description
of a river in Eden for the sake of watering the garden. But the writer had in
his mind the passage in Ezekiel 47:1-12, where a stream issues from under the
new temple, and disports in various directions. So here, a river issues from
the throne of God- and the Lamb, in the new city. The whole is modelled after
the oriental manner of building palaces, near or in which a fount of water, or
jet d’eau, is indispensable, for the sake of coolness
and refreshment. The implication is, of course, that they who drink of these
waters of life are immortal, that is, will never die.” But if to drink of the
waters of life is a beautiful figure for the idea of possessing immortality;
and if to drink of these waters of life is set forth as one of the glorious
prerogatives of the followers of the Lamb, as indeed it is, then it ought to be
conceded, that neither did they originally possess this immortality in their
own right, nor are they immortal whose obstinate rejection of the Saviour excludes them from these waters of life.
I trust the objections against a literal
interpretation of the terms in question have been fairly met, and that it will
be seen the preponderance of argument is in favour of
the view suggested. But let us not close this chapter without again distinctly recognising an important fact; namely, that our conclusion
will not be in the least degree invalidated by the adduction
of passages, be they ever so numerous, in which Life—Eternal Life is used
metaphorically. For if there were a thousand texts in which fair criticism
could find only the figurative employment of the term, these would not detract
from the authority of those other texts relating to the righteous, in which an
enlightened criticism would find the literal sense. And then if there were
such, be they ever so few, they establish the doctrine that life infinitely
protracted (immortality) is the gift of God through Christ to those who
believe.
And then again, if immortality be a
prerogative conferred on the pious through the Mediator, it must follow that
sinners were not ab initio endowed therewith; and also that none who reject
Christ and his great salvation will live forever; and so, consequently, the
threatening to them of destruction, of perishing, of second death, must be
literally understood; and therefore the death threatened to Achim was that
which has been already intimated, and the popular doctrine, unsustained
by scripture, must be abandoned.
Yes, all this, if there be only one text in
scripture which teaches that life, in its literal sense, is conferred by Christ
as a blessing on believers. And this view, happily, harmonises
the whole of the sacred writings on this and kindred subjects; so that, though
on this point, we recede from orthodoxy, we in that proportion approach nearer
to truth; though we shake a human system, I thank God, we establish the
scriptures. Nor will the affectionate disciple of Christ fail to recognise the proof, hereby afforded, of the personal
dignity of the Son of God. Who is he that has the
power and the right to confer immortality on whomsoever he will? Verily, he of
whom it is said, ‘in him was life,’ and who can truly say ‘I give unto my sheep
eternal life,’ manifestly stands before us ‘in the form of God,’ anti as though
in very deed he deemed it no usurpation to equal himself with God. To whom then
shall we bend the knee in reverent adoration, if not to him who, as the Prince
of Life, can place upon our brow the diadem of immortality? Well may we be ever
‘looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God,
even our Saviour Jesus Christ;’ for, when Christ, win
is OUR LIFE, shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory.’
Meanwhile, shall not those on whom his royal name is named, be solicitously
careful to glorify him who, to bring them back from the land and shadow of
death, counted not his own life dear to him, but yielded himself to death, in
order that he might destroy death, and deliver them who through fear thereof
would else have been all their lifetime subject to the bondage of most
miserable despair. But now, where is thy sting, O Death? O Grave, where is thy
victory? Through Christ, the mortal shall put on immortality; and Death, that
last enemy, .shall be destroyed. Hallelujah! For the
last Adam is a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. Well may the apostle say, ‘the love of
Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then
were all dead; and he died for all, that they who live, should not henceforth
live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again.” .
‘Lord, henceforth engrave this sacred law of
gratitude more deeply upon our hearts, and let our lives show forth thy praise.
EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR
TEXTS Mark 9:43, etc. Worm that dies not, and fire that is not quenched—
Matthew 25: 48. These shall go away into everlasting punishment-
2 Thessalonians 1-9. Punished with everlasting destruction from, Romans 2: 8-9.
Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish—
Revelation 14: 10. Smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever— Revelation
20: 10-14. Tormented day and night forever—Cast into the lake of fire— Matthew
16: 25. Lose his own soul— Matthew 3: 7-12. Chaff burned up with unquenchable
fire— Other texts— Result.
Hitherto we have been chiefly occupied with
suggesting general principles, and with showing the insufficiency of the basis
on which the doctrine of eternal misery is made to rest. Yet while these
general principles, if sound, carry the entire result, which is also obtained
if the popular notion be shown to be unfounded, yet probably there may all
along have lurked in some minds the conviction that, although the popular
notion is open to objections that it may not be easy to answer, yet the plain
unambiguous testimony of scripture is so decisive, that it has only to be adduced,
and the controversy is settled to the triumph of orthodoxy.
And yet the devout Christian who has
implicitly received the common doctrine, and trembled
at the bare thought of calling its correctness in question, will be surprised
to find how few texts even seem to support the notion. Let him collect them,
and he will perceive that most of them are highly figurative; so that the real
sentiment has to be brought out from underneath the
drapery in which it is so strikingly exhibited. When, for example, we read of
flames, do we suppose that there will be real fire? If so, fire would very soon
utterly consume any bodies that might be cast into it, unless they were all
preserved there from by a never-ceasing miracle, and
rendered eternally incombustible. And if the bodies were once consumed, and
perished, as material bodies must soon be in material flames, the spirit would
not be hurt by fire, whatever its intensity. And if any one
supposes the fire to be material, then he must literally understand the mention
of the worm that never dies. And then we have vast multitudes of immortal
worms! But as no one in the present day will press this sense, the question is
fairly open—What is meant by un quenchable fire, and a
never-dying worm?
Let us devote the present chapter to an
examination, separately though briefly, of some of the chief passages of the
New Testament, which treat of the future sentence of the ungodly. And for the
sake of replying at once to the question just proposed, we may begin with— MARK
9:43-48.
43 And if thy hand offend
thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having
two hands to go into hell, into that fire that never shall be quenched; 44
Where their worm dies not, and the fire is tot quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend
thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life than having two
feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; 46 Where
their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:
it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God
with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dies not, and the fire is
not quenched.
Very terrible is the announcement which our Lord
thrice repeats. And assuredly we have no wish in the faintest degree to
diminish its terribleness. But we have now simply to inquire its meaning.
This phraseology was by no means new. It was
familiar to the minds, of the people who gathered round our Lord. From their
early childhood it had repeatedly fallen on their ears, being of not
un-frequent recurrence in the sacred books which were read in their synagogues
every Sabbath day. The Teacher of Nazareth was himself a Jew, and he adopted
the well-known phraseology of the ancient prophets of the nation.
Thus Ezekiel wrote,
20:45-48. Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, set
thy face toward the south, and drop thy word toward the south, find prophesy
against the forest of the south field; and say to the forest of the south, Hear
the word of the Lord; Thus said the Lord God, Behold, I will kindle a fire in
thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the
flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north
shall be burned therein. And all flesh shall see that I the Lord have kindled
it: it shall not be quenched.’ A brief explanation of which may be subjoined.
Ezekiel being in the northern part of Chaldea,
Judea would be to the south of him. ‘The forest of the south means the people
of that land. The impending judgments of God were to be to them as a people
what fire would be to trees. And just as trees would be consumed by the
‘flaming flame that should not be quenched,’ so should the Jewish people as a
nation be utterly desolated.
Here then fire is the symbol of destruction.
And it is called unquenchable, simply to denote that nothing should arrest its
progress till it had consumed that whereon it preyed. So too Jeremiah had
written, 17:27, ‘But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day,
and not to hear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the
Sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall
devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.’ Where again the
meaning is similar, namely, that desolating judgments are threatened against
the people, who, in their national capacity should be destroyed. An idea set
forth by the figure of Jerusalem, their metropolis, being burned with fire that
should never be quenched. But who would ever dream of city gates and palaces
burning forever? Beyond all dispute unquenchable fire,’ when the phrase is used
by the prophets is the symbol of utter destruction.
So Isaiah had
expressed himself more than once, to whose language we will attend somewhat
more particularly. Thus, denouncing the judgments of God against the land of
Edom, he says—34:8-15. “For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, and the year
of recompenses for the controversy of Zion. And the streams thereof shall be
turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof
shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke
thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation
it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever. But the
cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall
dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the
stones of emptiness. They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but
none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall
come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the
fortresses thereof: and it shall be a habitation of dragons, and a court for
owls. The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the
island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. There shall the
great owl make her nest, and lay and hatch, and gather under’ her shadow; there
shall the vultures also be gathered, everyone with his mate.” Now here no one
has ever dreamed of interpreting literally. For the streams of Idumea never have been turned into pitch, nor the dust into
brimstone, nor has the land ever become burning pitch. Moreover
it is said in the same connection, the owl and raven, &o., shall dwell
there, which would- be quite irreconcilable with a literal interpretation. What
then can the meaning be but precisely that which everyone understands it to beg
Namely, that this terribly expressive imagery is employed to set forth the idea
of utter and hopeless desolation, ruin; in fact,
destruction as a nation.
Thus Barnes correctly
explains it—Isaiah 34: 9. “And the streams thereof. The idea here is, that
there would be utter and permanent destruction. There would be as great and
awful a destruction as if the streams everywhere should become pitch or resin,
which would be set on fire, and which would fill the land with flame and
desolation. This image is very striking, as we may see by supposing the river
and streams in any land to flow not with water, but with heated pitch,
turpentine, or tar, and that this was all suddenly kindled into a dame. It
cannot be supposed that this is to be taken literally. The image is evidently
taken from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:25-28), an image
which is more fully used in reference to the same subject in Jeremiah 49:17-18.
‘And Edom shall be a desolation;—as in the overthrow
of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neighbour cities
thereof, said the Lord, no man shall abide there, neither shall a son of man
dwell in it.’ And the dust thereof into brimstone. The ruin shall be as entire
as if all the soil were turned into brimstone, which should be ignited and left
burning. 10. It shall not be quenched night nor day. That is, the burning
brimstone and pitch (verse 9), the emblem of perpetual and entire desolation
shall not be extinguished.” Before adverting to the next passage of Isaiah, it
will be as well to remind the reader of the circumstances connected with the
valley of Hinnom (whence the word Gehenna) also called Tophet. It lay just
outside Jerusalem, to the south-east of the city, and was a deep valley,
formerly very fertile, and, abounding in pleasant trees, afforded a delightful
retreat. This spot was selected by the idolatrous people for the worship of
Moloch. Here his horrid image was set up—made of brass and hollow, which being
heated, their children were placed within its arms as a sacrifice grateful to
the god, while loud drums were beaten to drown the cries of the innocent
victims. At a later day it was purposely defiled, and
made a receptacle for all the filth of the city. The carcases
of malefactors were cast there. And to consume the putrifying
remains, and prevent contagion, fires were-kept perpetually burning. Thus it became a most noisome and hideous spot; and the smouldering fires that were ever to be seen there, the half
burnt corpses, and the worm rioting on corruption, would well supply the most
terrific imagery.
In allusion to all this, Isaiah, when
foretelling the destruction of the vast Assyrian army that encamped before
Jerusalem, and threatened soon to make an end of it, says, that just as if this
place had been purposely prepared for them, shall they perish and be consumed.—30:27-33. “Behold, the name of the Lord cometh
from far burning with anger, and the burden thereof is heavy, and his lips are
full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire. And his breath as an
overflowing stream shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations
with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a girdle in the jaws of the
people, causing them to err. Ye shall have a song as in the night, when a holy
solemnity is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goes with a pipe to come
into the mountain of the Lord, to the Mighty One of Israel. And the Lord shall
cause his glorious voice to be heard, and shall show
the lighting down of his arm with the indignation of his anger, and with the
flame of a devouring fire, with scattering, and tempest, and hail-stones. For
through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down which smote
with a rod. And in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which the
Lord shall lay upon him. it shall be with tabrets, and harps; and in battles of
shaking will he fight with it; For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king
it is prepared: he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and
much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.”
And here probably the carcases of the hundred and
fourscore and five thousand men whom the angel of the Lord slew in one night,
were brought to be consumed.
We may now turn to the closing sentences of
Isaiah’s prophecies.—” And it shall come to pass, that
from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh
come to worship before me, said the Lord. And they shall go forth,
and look upon the carcases of the men that have
transgressed against me. For their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire
be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” 66:23-4.
The complete triumph of the cause of true
religion is here set forth under most appropriate and striking imagery. The
people of God are represented as victorious over all their adversaries. And as
the inhabitants of a long-beleaguered city, whose foes at length are all
destroyed, come forth and walk over the field of recent conflict, where their
enemies to a man were yesterday stricken down, and mark with stern satisfaction
the completeness of their overthrow, and watch the fires that are kindled to
consume their putrefying remains,—so shall the faithful followers of God one
day see all opposition and hostility forever effectually put down. But let it
be observed that the imagery conveys the idea of complete destruction exclusively;—not the lingering torment, but the utter end of
the wretched enemy. It is their carcases that are
lying exposed under the face of heaven. And it is on their carcases
that the worm rots, or the flames kindles in order to
consume.
Here then we have the origin of the New
Testament phraseology. We first read of unquenchable fire, and of a worm that
never dies, in the prophets. Where either literal fire is not at all intended, but is used as an image of complete destruction;
or else, though called unquenchable, is called so, not as absolutely and in
itself inextinguishable, but relatively to the object cast into it; fire that
should not cease to burn till the carcases were
consumed. Now, whatever the sense which an English reader, not very heedful of
the Old Testament, would put on such figurative expressions, to the minds of
the Jewish people, to whom they were addressed, the one idea would be that of
final and irretrievable ruin; not never-ending
torment, but utter and everlasting destruction.
If indeed we had met with such language for
the fiat time in the New Testament, we might perhaps have said,—
Fire is the most terribly expressive metaphor for torment, and unquenchable
fire will therefore denote unceasing torment. And this would be fair, if the
figure occurred for the first time, and there were no other passages to assist
in the right interpretation. But even then, it would have been equally fair for
another to reply,—No, fire is that element which, more
than all else, utterly consumes and destroys what it kindles on; so that it is
manifestly employed to denote the hopeless destruction of the wicked. This
would have been as fair as the former. But when we recur to the origin of the
phraseology, this last interpretation becomes the only allowable one. The usus loquendi of the prophets, from whom it is derived, decides
the matter, especially when this so completely harmonises
with all the other parts of scripture.
§ Matthew 10: 28.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. We need not explain what
it is for the body to be killed —to be deprived of life—of all conscious
existence. Our Lord well knew the only idea his phrase about destroying the
body could ‘possibly convey. But he uses the word ‘destroy’ as equivalent to
the word kill,’ which he had ° used in the preceding clause,
and uses it in reference to both body and soul. Evidently teaching the
disciples, what indeed none ought ever to have doubted, that it is at all
events in the power of God to kill the soul, to destroy it, as the body is
destructible. And he teaches them to fear on this very account; and to let this
greater fear of God, who could destroy both body and soul, overpower and expel
the lesser fear of persecutors, who were not able to kill the soul,’ but could
only destroy the body. In other words, our Lord certainly did set before his
hearers, as a fearful warning, the idea of an entire destruction of their whole
conscious being.
This, I think, was unquestionably the only
idea of which his words were fairly representative,
and which they must unavoidably suggest. And if the thing itself be deemed
impossible, or if it shall be affirmed that God never will destroy both body
and soul in hell, then did the Faithful and true Witness’ do what some of his
followers (with reverence be it spoken) would scruple to do, and ought to
scruple,—namely, employ as a motive an argument, the perfect inaccuracy of
which was at the time known to him. For, since the soul is not indestructible,
the use of the word ‘destroy,’ in reference to both it and the body, could, it
is submitted, fairly convey but one idea. The sense of the word as used in
reference to the body, which could be understood, would fix the meaning of it
as applied to the soul.
Nor is this the only similar use of the word destroy.’ From several instances let us take one. The last
enemy shall be destroyed—Death,’ where the only possible meaning, and
universally received, is—shall utterly and forever cease to be. Death
personified is to cease to exist. This cessation is called destruction. The
sinner is destroyed too —loses his soul—his life—this whole life. And this may
appropriately introduce another text, namely,— §
Matthew 25: 46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.’ This is one of the three very strongest passages
which can be adduced in support of the popular doctrine of a literal eternity
of torment for the ungodly. The same term of duration, [everlasting] is really
used in reference to the punishment of the wicked, which is employed in
reference to the happiness of the righteous. This is beyond dispute. So that it
is scarcely to be wondered at, that multitudes should rest satisfied with the
easy argument,—” If the everlasting misery of the one
class may terminate, so may the blessedness of the other; for since the
self-same word is employed in both cases, the happiness and the misery must be
of equal duration.” This is easily said. Every brain can comprehend, and every
tongue repeat it. And it looks so very like a sound and conclusive argument,
that one is not surprised to find the many, when it has once been put into
their mouths, abundantly satisfied with it. With multitudes it is of course
perfectly decisive, and renders all investigation
superfluous and idle. But it does utterly surprise me to find any intelligent
Christians laying much stress on an argument, whose insufficiency is so
apparent the moment one looks at all beneath the surface. So
it is however. And men at whose feet one might be glad to sit in silence for
twice the period that Pythagoras imposed, have adduced it as perfectly
conclusive. It demands therefore the most respectful consideration, and I
submit to the candid inquirer the following suggestions.
The argument derived from the use of the same
epithet, everlasting, is not decisive; and that for several reasons. And even
if there were no other passage which affirmed what would be the ultimate doom
of the incorrigible, and if this were the only one in all the New Testament
which taught anything on the subject, even then it would not prove an absolute
eternity of woe. For while, on the one hand, no man can deny that the word aionos, [everlasting] and those of kindred import, are
repeatedly, and most frequently even, used in the sense of an absolute
eternity; as when used in reference to God, (of whose immortality however we
are convinced without the use of this term, which indeed does not add to the
strength of our conviction) and as used in reference to the righteous (of whose
never ending happiness we are all convinced by other lines of reasoning, and
not by the use of this word alone;) so, on the other hand, ought no man to deny
that these terms are often used in a limited sense.
“The unfixed practice of our English
translators in rendering the scripture terms of duration, has thrown a
disadvantage upon certain very momentous questions, and has made many
affirmations of the inspired writers seem vague, which probably were to
themselves, and to their first readers, quite definite; or at least more so
than they are to our ears. The confusion hence arising has led certain
controversialists to found an argument upon the
supposed force of a single term to which scripture usage has given a very great
latitude of meaning; and which therefore must, in every place, receive its
specific value from the subject in hand. Most fully may it be granted that in
the apostolic axiom—as well as in Many other places—’The gift of God is eternal
life,’ there is included—infinite, or never-ending existence. But our
persuasion of this fact must not be made to hinge on the native or independent
force of the adjective there employed; but upon the evident intention of the
writer, as illustrated or confirmed by other means.” Saturday Evening, p.
454-455. We may quote also from Professor Stuart, who says,—” If he (the
reader) be accustomed to philological and exegetical studies, he will also
perceive that, so ‘far aft the simple idea of the word is concerned, the sense
of it is substantially the same in all the cases now to be designated; and that
the different shades by which the word is rendered, depend on the object with
which it is associated, or to which’ it has a relation, rather than on any
differences in the real meaning of stair itself.” Exegetical Essays, etc.
It cannot be denied, for instance, that they
are sometimes used to denote simply a very long, but indefinite period, and in
cases where it would be absurd, and indeed impossible, to attach to them the
notion of an absolute eternity; and that they are sometimes used when the
palpably evident intention is to affirm that that condition which is
predicated, shall continue so long as the person or system to which it relates
shall last, without thereby affirming the absolute eternity thereof.
So then eternal misery might be misery which
continued as long as the individual threatened
therewith should continue, without deciding that he would exist forever; and
which, if trite, would have to be independently established. So that before
this text can be fairly adduced as proving the sinner will exist forever in
misery, an opponent must prove the sinner to be immortal. In which case his
argument will be less unsound; although he must know, if he have
competently investigated, that the case would not even then be entirely closed.
All the land which thou west, to thee [Abram]
will I give it, and to thy seed forever. The utmost bound of the everlasting
hills. Ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever. Ye shall observe this
day in your generations by an ordinance forever. His master shall bore his ear
through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. Your seed shall inherit it
[the land] forever. An everlasting priesthood. An everlasting statute. The
house shall be established forever to him. They shall be your bondmen forever.
It shall be for an ordinance forever. The earth [land] which God gives thee
forever. It shall be a heap forever. These stones shall be a memorial forever.
The leprosy of Naaman shall cleave unto thee [Gehazi] and to thy seed forever.
Him and his sons forever to burn incense before the Lord, to minister unto him
and to bless in his name forever. Not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be
removed. And this city shall remain forever.. The land
which I gave unto your fathers forever and ever. The everlasting mountains were
scattered. Everlasting chains until, etc. Genesis 13:15, 49:28. Exodus 12:14;
17; 21: 6; 32:13; 40:15; Leviticus 16:34; 25:30, 46. Numbers 10:8; Deuteronomy
4:40; 13:16. Joshua 4:1; 2 Kings 5: 27. 1 Chronicles 23:13; Isaiah 33:20.
Jeremiah 17:25; 7:7; Habakkuk 3:6; Jude 1:6 with many other passages which a
concordance will supply.
But if an opponent should still persist in
pointing to the use of the same epithet everlasting, and
refuse to allow any weight to the above suggestions, I take leave to inquire,
whether his philological principles will not somewhat disqualify him to
maintain the truth of Christianity itself. Never could he convert an
intelligent Jew to the Christian faith. For what is one of the favourite strongholds in which a son of Abraham entrenches
himself against the followers of Jesus of Nazareth? Is it not this—that the
polity and ordinances of Judaism were to be ‘everlasting?’ Just as strenuously
as do some of my opponents persist in repeating ‘everlasting misery,’ adducing
the word everlasting as precluding argument, and foreclosing all discussion,
just so perniciously does the Jew turn a deaf ear to all the Christian arguments,
and doggedly repeat that the statutes of Moses, ‘the ordinances of the house of
Jacob’ are ‘forever;’ they are everlasting;’ so they cannot terminate and
cease, to be superseded by something else;—wherefore Christianity must be
utterly false—an imposition. See just what it is that blinds the eye of the
unhappy Jew to this very day. And what is it that hardens his heart against our
blessed religion? What but precisely the same argument which my opponents
adopt, when they affirm that the word everlasting’ must prove the misery of the
sinner to be eternal. Earnestly and affectionately do I entreat them to look at
this; and so to perfect their philology as to enable
them to maintain the truth and honour of our holy
religion against all corners.
But it is by no means, or in any degree, on
the foregoing remarks that I would rest the answer to the argument derived from
our present text. Those remarks are only intended to remind the inquirer of the
difficulty which an opponent ought honestly to feel, in the way of his
affirming the eternity of hell-torment from this passage. I consent with all my
heart to waive them even; I do waive them altogether; and rest the case
entirely, so far as this text is concerned, on my next reply, to which rather I
invite attention.
2: Let it be cheerfully granted, then, that
the word everlasting must, in each part of this text, be understood in its
largest widest sense, as denoting an absolute eternity.
Let this be conceded. And I not only concede
it—I affirm it, and believe it. What then? Does my
opponent make out his case anymore satisfactorily? Not a whit. He gains nothing
thereby. I know very well how this text is perpetually quoted—or, one might
say, misquoted. People are not content with the phrase everlasting punishment;
they must substitute another word for punishment. And what shall it be? Misery,
or torment, no matter which. And so our Lord is
represented as saying, ‘These shall go sway into everlasting misery’ (or
torment). Whereas he says nothing of the kind. Let us reverently adhere to his
own expression; he says, everlasting punishment,’ and not ‘everlasting
torment.’ And the two things are utterly distinct. I affirm as strongly as any
man that the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment; but then I deem
it my duty to say as our Lord said, punishment I have not the presumption to
correct his phraseology, in order to harmonise it with my notions. But orthodoxy does this. And
it is only by substituting misery, ‘or torment,’ for punishment, that this text
can be made to support the popular doctrine. But let us not add to his words,
lest he reprove us.
It is an indisputable fact, and terrible
enough, my brethren, without our exaggeration, that the wicked shall go away
into everlasting punishment. But what is punishment? Is misery, or torment, a
fair and proper synonym? It will not be asserted. Johnson defines punishment
“any infliction imposed in vengeance of a crime.” Whatever a judge justly
awards to an offender for his crime is punishment Stripes--fines--deprivation—imprisonment—
degradation—death--may be the punishment awarded in an earthly court. And
whether it be a night’s confinement in a cell awarded to a child, or a flogging
awarded to a young thief, or transportation to the felon, or death to the murderer,
it is with equal propriety called punishment in each case. And the substitution
of the word misery’ or torment,’ would be utterly inadmissible. Yet the present
text will not answer the purpose of my opponents unless they make such
substitution, which in pulpit harangues I have perceived to be generally done.
But as many of them, whose aim I am sure, like
my own, is only to ascertain the true mind of the Spirit, will acquiesce in the
propriety of adhering to the use of the word ‘punishment,’ in which case I
agree with them that it will be everlasting, the issue is joined on the
question—What is the everlasting punishment which this text affirms, but does
not define? And so this text cannot prove the popular
doctrine, which has to derive the answer from other portions of scripture. So
that we are precisely where we were,—agreed however
that, whatever it is, ‘it will be everlasting.—And then I submit, in general,
that the whole of the second part of this volume is a reply to the question.
But not to pass away under cover of the general plea, though fair, I shall trouble
the reader with another consideration.
7: The question is narrowed, be it remembered,
to this, What is the punishment which is to be
everlasting? And . here each party must be prepared to
concede what is fair. On the one’ side, I of course admit that the everlasting
infliction of torment would be everlasting punishment. On the other side it
must also be allowed, that, in case God should really destroy the incorrigible,
literally destroy them, so that they forever cease to be, this infliction of cleat);
would be punishment. No one would; in such a case, hesitate to say that utter
destruction constituted the punishment threatened to the ungodly. It is
believed that no one could possibly object to the use of the word punishment in
such a connection. And then surely a complete and final and irretrievable
destruction—a destruction which is forever is to all intents an everlasting
destruction. And so everlasting destruction would be everlasting punishment.
And for the phrase everlasting destruction we have the highest authority in 2
Thessalonians 1:10, to be presently considered. And it is submitted that this
text affords ,not only a warrant. for calling
destruction a punishment, and applying thereto the
epithet everlasting—but also a fair exposition of the passage we are
considering— These shall go away into everlasting punishment.
Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction.
In corroboration of which, it may be observed,
that the everlasting punishment affirmed by our Lord, Matthew 25:46, is the
same thing as is threatened in 5:41, where our Lord represents himself as
addressing the same party (as in our text he is speaking of them) ‘Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.’ But that fire is everlasting, in
relation to the object east into it, which is not quenched till the object
itself is consumed, just as chaff is said, Matthew 3 to be burned up with
unquenchable fire. And as has been already shown, the scripture usage of the
phrase, everlasting fire, shuts us up to the idea of complete destruction.
Hoping the reader will consider that this often quoted passage has been fairly examined, and will
perceive that it affords of itself no warrant for the popular doctrine, we will
pass on to the examination of another text.
2 THESSALONIANS 1:7-9. And to you who are
troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with
his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them who know not God,
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished
with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory
of his power.
In commencing our remarks on this awfully
important passage, we may repeat that, by a generally received canon of
interpretation, the literal sense is to be preferred wherever possible. To
understand the threatening here in its literal meaning involves nothing
impossible since of course God can blot out of existence, if need be, those who
continue only by his sustaining power. Nor does it contradict any other portion
of scripture, we think, but on the contrary, harmonises
with all the other statements concerning the doom of the incorrigible. If the
apostle had intended to express the idea of a literal and complete destruction,
he could not have selected more appropriate phraseology; while, had he meant to
convey the notion of an eternity of torment, we find it difficult to conceive
of this as the most fitting vehicle for such a sentiment. The presumption then
is in favour of the literal sense.
And so strongly have expositors felt this,
that some of them admit the literal sense in part. —Thus, for example, Whitby,
who takes the ‘flaming tire’ to be literal, says” These positive torments on
the body are not to begin until the raising of the body, when Christ shall come
in flaming fire to take vengeance on them who would not obey his gospel,’ the
world that now is being reserved to be set on fire, for the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men.’ At which time I conceive the righteous shall be
snatched up into the air, and be forever with the Lord,’ 1 Thessalonians 4:17,
and the wicked shall be left to the devouring flames. “I also do conjecture
that this fire may be called eternal, not that the bodies of the wicked shall
be forever burning in it, and never be consumed by it, since this cannot be
done without a constant miracle; but because it shall so entirely consume their
bodies as that they shall never subsist again, but shall perish and be
destroyed forever by it”—Whitby in loc.
He afterwards goes on to declare his belief
that the soul, thus separated a second time, by this second death of the body,
will exist forever in misery. I need not animadvert on any part of the
exposition, as my only object is to show how the phrase ‘everlasting
destruction’ is taken literally, as to one part of man, by a commentator who,
taking for granted the soul’s immortality, is therefore obliged in consistency
to understand this phrase as having a literal signification as to one part of
the sinner, and a metaphorical sense as to the other part. Similar is Macknight, who says:-
“So that our Lord’s sentence [Matthew 25:41] is to be understood literally of
the devil and his angels, as well. as of the wicked; and that the effect of
this burning upon both will be the utter destruction of their bodies, without
any hope of their ever regaining new bodies; while
their spirits, surviving the destruction of their bodies, so long as it shall
please God, shall be made unspeakably miserable by their own thoughts, without
any enjoyment whatever to alleviate the bitterness of their most melancholy
state.” In his next note, he expounds the everlasting destruction’ of our text
to be the destruction (literally) of the “animal life,” though not of the
thinking principle.” Macknight, in loc.
So obvious, we see, was the literal sense to
these expositors, that they readily adopt it to the fullest
extent which their mental philosophy would allow. But what reason there
is to make a distinction which the inspired apostle does not draw, or confess I
do not so readily, perceive. For beyond dispute, the sinner in his entireness
can be destroyed literally; and if the word has any literal force at all in
this passage, I submit that it comes in all its tremendous fullness against the
whole man, and not merely against a part of his nature.
But the only reasons that can be alleged
against literally understanding the threatened destruction as pertaining to the
whole man, are—that the man, as to some part of his nature, is indestructible
even by the power of God, which no one ought to affirm; or,—that the sinner is
immortal, and so cannot be literally destroyed; which must be proved as well as
affirmed; or,—that this rendering would contradict other passages, which being
plainer must give the sense to the more obscure. Against which all the
arguments suggested in this work lie, while the literal sense harmonises with all other parts of scripture that bear
directly or indirectly on the subject. The error that lies at the root of so
many expositions is the quiet and perfectly unquestioned assumption that every
man is immortal. Which even they, as easily as others, take for granted, who
concede that this cannot be established by reason, and who do not previously
establish it from scripture, nor independently of those very texts to the
interpretation of which they bring the unproved doctrine as the fitting key.
Here it may be well, however, to notice two
objections which the Eclectic Review has urged against the literal rendering of
our text. The First is drawn from the addition of the phrase, from the
presence, etc. and is thus expressed “If by destruction a cessation of being
had been here intended, the apostle would naturally have closed with that word.
With this meaning, what can be intended by destruction (cessation of being)
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” The language
is not only redundant but unintelligible.
It seems obvious, that the destruction
specified is a punitive banishment from the presence of the Lord Jesus, and exclusion
from those displays of his glory which will constitute so large a portion of
the blessedness of his saints.” To which it may be replied, that to me it seems
equally obvious tilt, if the apostle had meant this, he could have expressed it
much better than by representing the sinner as eternally destroyed. And that so
far from this banishment from the presence of Christ, and from the displays of
his glory, being a punishment to the sinner, he will not have the slightest
wish to be near Christ, nor to behold his glory. And so
I might retort on my respected reviewer the language he has (with less
correctness however) adopted on another page, in reference to my view—that the
sinner will be utterly destroyed, namely, “That God is by our author’s opinion,
brought forward in the majesty of his wrath to denounce against ungodly men as
a terrific punishment what actually is to them the greatest possible good!”
For, certainly, the farther .the wicked can remove
from a glorified Saviour whom they hate, the better
pleased will they be. But it was not to make this observation that I quoted the
Review. Let me explain then the strict propriety with which the apostle could
say—’destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power,’—a phrase at - which it surprises me the writer of that article should
have stumbled.
The apostle as a Jew was, even by early
education, much more intimately acquainted with the Old Testament scriptures
than it is common for us to be, (the study thereof constituting a chief part of
the education of a Jew). It would be perfectly natural, then, for his
theological style to be formed, to a considerable extent, on that of his
ancient scriptures. And we accordingly find that much of the peculiar language,
and allusions, and figurative expressions of the New Testament waiters
generally, is derived from that venerable source. Now the phrase, `the presence
of the Lord,’ was a very ancient one. As was also another and often equivalent one,—’ the glory of the Lord;’ by which was generally meant,
not the moral character of the Divine Being, which according to our ideas
chiefly constitutes his especial glory; but that bright luminous cloud of
overwhelming splendour which we commonly call the
Shekinah,’—the well known symbol of the divine
presence.
It may not he amiss to add, for the sake of
younger readers, that a great many, passages of scripture receive their most
expressive and truthful illustration from the right understanding of this
common Jewish phrase, as used in the sense now given. Thus
the promise of the coming of the Messiah was conveyed in these terms, The glory
of the Lord shall be revealed.’ So the prophet; and
the evangelist records, the disciples beheld his glory;’ and all Christians,
having their minds enlightened from above, behold ‘the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ.’ This objection will be considered more at length in the next
chapter.
The supernatural cloud of brightness then, the
Shekinah, whence often proceeded the voice of God, was denominated sometimes
the presence of the Lord,’ (from which, as stationed at the entrance to Eden,
before which, in all probability, our first parents and the pious of that early
age presented themselves, Cain was driven out, See Genesis 4:14-16.); at other
times, ‘the glory of the Lord.’ And sometimes fire is represented as coming
forth from this ‘presence of the Lord,’ or from the glory,’ either to consume
the sacrifice, as in Leviticus 9:23¬24, or to punish the guilty, as Leviticus
10:2; Numbers 16:19-35. The New Testament teaches us eagerly to expect the
‘appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus
Christ,’ — ‘the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,’ again. and all flesh
shall see it together.’ Remembering then the manner in which the Jewish writers
used these two phrases, we see with what perfect propriety the apostle could
use the peculiar language of the text, to denote, if he wished to do so, that
the ungodly should be utterly consumed, and that their destruction would be
caused by an all-devouring agency, proceeding forth from the judge, who comes
with the glory’ of the Father. And I ask, does it not seem as if he meant to
say that, as sometimes of old devouring flames shot forth from the Shekinah—’
the glory of the Lord,’ so, when Christ shall appear in glory,’ to recompense
all men, He shall flash forth from the presence of the Lord, and consume the
rebellious, as he had affirmed just before, verse 8, in flaming fire taking
vengeance,’ etc.
I say this without meaning to express any
opinion as to whether material fire will be employed, but merely to show, in
answer to the reviewer’s objection, how naturally the apostle could say
destruction from the presence,’ even if he meant a literal destruction.
The Reviewer’s Second objection to the literal
rendering is thus expressed.
“As a further evidence
that the term destruction, when used descriptively of the future state of the
wicked, cannot be understood of extinction of being, we may notice the
annexation to it of the epithet everlasting,’ as in 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Considered
as extinction of being destruction must be held to be a summary Acts In what
sense can it be said to be everlasting? It is in itself a
final as well as a momentary act; and the term everlasting, as connected with
it, is either redundant or unintelligible. Does it not seem clear, that the
apostle, in speaking of everlasting destruction, means to describe something
which has continuance—as a state of suffering, and not the act of a moment—like
extinction of being?” I must confess myself unable to perceive much force in
this objection, for it seems to me that the word everlasting may be prefixed
with equal propriety to destruction, whether this be understood, literally, or
metaphorically. The sinner may be everlastingly banished, or everlastingly
destroyed. If the adjective be applicable to the one, it is just as much so to
the other. And as everlasting banishment would be a banishment never to be
revoked, so everlasting destruction is a destruction that being complete and
final is never to be reversed; just as the psalmist says, ‘When the wicked
spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is
that they shall be destroyed forever.’ And does not the reviewer assume too
much, when he affirms that destruction is a momentary act? In one sense indeed
it is, just as dying may be called a momentary act. There is the articulum mortis, I know; that is, there comes a moment
when the man ceases to exist, though he did exist the very moment before. And
yet the act of dying, (speaking the language of everyday life) is sometimes
fearfully protracted, and the precedent strife and anguish are terrible to
view. Why then must the second dying be a momentary act (except indeed we
determine to construe metaphysically the popular terms of apostles, who wrote
chiefly for the common people); why may it not be, if God see fit, awfully
protracted I God can destroy the sinner altogether; can do it either by an act
of his own, or by withholding his sustaining power, in which case the miserable
creature would naturally sink into that nothingness out of which he was
originally brought. And how fearfully protracted this dying out of existence
may be, who can tell I God grant that neither he who writes, nor he who reads
these lines may ever know.
I admit that in one sense it must be a
momentary act; that there would be a moment in which it might be said— Now he
is extinct,—last moment he was in being. But just as
common-sense people unhesitatingly say of some poor creature whose death-bed
they come from watching, “He was dying for a whole day and night,” or, “ for a whole week,”—so, for anything we know, may the
second death be fearful in the process, to say nothing here of the shivering,
anticipation and all the precedent misery. For if the soul quit its clay tenement
so lingeringly as it often does in the present state, the yielding of itself to
death may be in something of the proportion of its superiority to the body.
However, all I mean here is to protest against the affirmation that the second
death, if it mean destruction, must be “a momentary
act;” by which, as seeming to make it devoid of all that is terrible, it almost
appears as though the reviewer sought somewhat unfairly (may I be pardoned if
wrong) to prejudice the exposition we suggest. Especially when, on a subsequent
page, in endeavouring to show that my view after all
is nearly as terrible as the popular one, he writes thus, “He holds, moreover,
that this [the suffering previous to destruction] does not exhaust the vials of
this wrath, but that the threatening comprehends the final extinction of being;
which, considered as a punitive act, and as constituting a large part of the
wrath against sin, must be held to be an awful calamity.” Romans 2: 8-9. But
unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation
and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also
of the Gentile.
The apostle speaking of the day of wrath, and
revelation of the righteous judgment of God,’ (which day’ would denote some particular period; for eternity is nowhere called the day of
wrath) affirms that God, who is no respecter of persons, will render to every
man according to his deeds. To one class, namely, those who have sought for
glory, and honour, and immortality,’ he will award
eternal life.’ To the other class, the disobedient, who have yielded themselves
up to unrighteousness, he will render indignation and wrath, tribulation
and anguish.
Now it is manifest that this passage teaches
nothing as to the duration of that tribulation and anguish, which his
indignation and wrath will occasion. On the supposition of a miserable
destruction for the ungodly, there will be terrible scope for the manifestation
of the righteous indignation’ of God; and for the endurance of unutterable
anguish.’ This passage their does not decide anything on our question.
Although, if the tribulation and anguish were never ever to cease, one wonders
that the apostle did not avail himself of this element of terror, to heighten
the description by which he would fain affect the mind, and decide it to seek
for glory, honour, and immortality. I think most of
the believers of the popular notion would have done so. They seldom, in their
harangues on this subject, omit the never-ending character of the anguish. And
if the apostle had believed just what they do, it appears to me he would at all
events have introduced it here. It would have so well answered, if it had been
true, his benevolent purpose. But he has not intimated a word of the kind. On
the contrary, he speaks first of a day, or particular period
of wrath; then, of those who have rightly sought for immortality, obtaining
eternal life; and finally, of some as perishing without law. So that this
passage affords no countenance to the doctrine we are opposing; while it does
appear even to give some colour to the view we
believe to be scriptural. – * I still feel compelled to adhere to our English
version of this text, which represents the righteous, by patient continuance in
well doing, seeking for glory and honour and
immortality, notwithstanding the Reviewer, with whom it is true are most
expositors, says “The position of the word immortality, at the close of the
sentence, requires it to be regarded, after the Greek idiom, as an adjective;
so giving to the whole phrase the idea of immortal glory and honour.” Now, I respectfully ask, what is the Greek idiom
that requires this rendering? That the figure hendiadys is often used, I most
cheerfully concede. But surely no one will affirm, that when two or more nouns
come together, the last must be construed adjectively; for how many, texts
occur to the mind in a moment which refuse submission to such a rule. Take, for
instance, the phrase in 5: 10 of the same chapter, ‘But glory, honour, and peace to every man that works good;’ no one
renders it peaceful glory and honour; and 5:4,
Despise thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering? I
am the resurrection and the life, does not mean, I am the living resurrection. So Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption; where, as I have already shown, is a beautiful
gradation and rise in the thought suggested, till we come to the last
magnificent result. He that prophesies, speaks unto
men to edification and exhortation and comfort.’ There shall be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.’ Etc.
Now, since reason cannot prove man immortal,
and since the general tenor of scripture seems to make immortality contingent,
it appears to me a somewhat arbitrary thing expositors to affirm that the word
immortality is used adjectively here; and I feel bound to retain it as our
English version gives it, which represents immortality as a blessing to be
sought for.
But let us pass on to the consideration of
another text. And as I said there were three passages in
particular, which, more than all others, are thought to teach the
orthodox doctrine, we will come at once to the examination of them. One however
has been already considered, namely, Matthew 25: 46. The remaining two are
found in the book of the Apocalypse. The first is-
REVELATION 14:9-11. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud
voice, if any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his
forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,
which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation: and he
shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels,
and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascends up
forever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast
and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his name.
This is indeed an awful passage, and, more
decidedly perhaps than any other, seems to favour the
common notion of an eternity of misery. And I must confess that I have myself
adduced it in former years in support of that doctrine, which I once held as
firmly as any do at the present time. But a more careful examination of the text,
in its connection, led me to consider my earlier interpretation of it to be
untenable; and I respectfully submit the following suggestions to the judgment
of the candid inquirer.
1: It is contrary to one of the soundest and
most obvious rules of interpretation, to derive a momentously important
doctrine from a book so full of symbol, and .of the
most elevated poetry, as the book of the Apocalypse is on all hands allowed to
be. And the advocates of any tenet—no matter what—must be hard driven, if they
are glad to take their stand amid the hieroglyphs that attract us to the isle
of Patmos. Nor will the holders of the popular notion themselves consent that
other doctrines shall be deduced from, or modified by, the bold and figurative
language of this, nevertheless, profoundly interesting
and instructive book.
The orthodox will not allow their psychology,
for instance, to be affected by it. Nor will they suffer the millenarian to
prove his theory there from. And indeed in reference
to all other matters, excepting this of eternal, torment, they lay down and
apply the soundest principles touching the interpretation of symbolic language.
And I may be allowed to protest against any departure
there from in favour of a notion, which, more than
most others, demands far proof the plainest and most
unambiguous testimony of the inspired’ writers, when in their gravest and least
excited moments.
Nevertheless, let us examine the passage. And
I think that even if the testimony of the seer, expressed as it is in the most
elevated style of poetry and symbol, be allowed to be put in evidence, it will
not go the length of serving the cause for which it is called. For I submit
that the terror-striking announcement of this ‘third angel’ does not at all
relate to the future condition of sinners after the judgment day. For,— 3: Their torment is in verse 11, represented as
synchronous with their worship. ‘They who worship the beast have no rest,’ etc.
And then the holy angels and the Lamb alone are mentioned, 5:10, as the spectators
of their punishment. Now let it be remembered that these willing worshippers of
the beast and his image were the furious agents in the sufferings of the
saints, to comfort whom the angel announces the retribution -that should
overtake their persecutors. If, then, this passage had related to the future
state, would not the saints have been naturally associated as spectators with
the holy angels and the Lamb What good reason can be assigned for the omission,
except that the judgments threatened in this verse are to Like place before the
saints have joined the glorious assembly above I That is, that the vengeance
denounced is inflicted here on earth, and during the time-state. A conclusion
to which I am imperatively compelled by observing another thing, viz.— 8: That
in subsequent chapters we have the fulfilment of these very threatening exhibited; which fulfilment indisputably takes place here
and now. An examination of the general scheme of this portion of the Apocalypse
will I trust sustain this view to the satisfaction of the impartial student.
Chapter 13 commences another grand epoch: to
which the preceding chapter is introductory, by again going back to the
commencement of the Christian era. The 13th chapter is taken up with the vision
John had of the first beast, that arose out of the sea, with seven heads and
ten horns, and who blasphemed God’ and his name, and his tabernacle, and them
that dwell in heaven. And he made war with the saints, and overcame them, and
had power over all kingdoms, and tongues, and nations. Then the seer beheld
another beast coming up out of the earth, having two horns, as a lamb, but
speaking as a dragon. This doeth great wonders, deceiving the nations, and
causing them to make an image to the first beast, which all must worship, or
die. And so great is his power that none may buy or sell, but those who receive
the mark of the beast.
This 13th chapter, then, opened a fearful
state of things for the Christians to contemplate. More tribulation for - them,
even after Judaism had lost the power to oppose. Fresh persecutions and fiery
trials. Yet, their homes must be outraged, their persons tortured, their lives
poured out Fearful prospects! What will become of the sacred cause they have
espoused? Let them be calm. The kingdom of Christ is founded upon a rock, and
the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. Only let them keep a stout heart, and be undaunted and faithful to the end.
To strengthen their faith, and animate them
with confidence amid their sufferings, the 14th chapter discloses pleasant
things. It represents in brief that, notwithstanding all, multitudes would be
heroically faithful to Christ, whose patient devotedness would inspire the
songs of heaven. Then, an angel is seen flying in the outstretched heavens,
having the blessed gospel to proclaim all over the earth, in
spite of the severe persecutions waged to exterminate the truth. Let
this satisfy the suffering saints that the cause, which was dearer to them than
life itself, was safe. A second angel then announces the fall of Babylon,
speaking according to prophetic style, in the present tense, — ‘Babylon is
fallen, is fallen,’ etc. as though it had already taken place. Although. the
catastrophe had not in reality occurred, and is
subsequently described more at length.
Then comes the third angel, denouncing the
righteous judgments of God against the worshippers of the beast and his image,
in the language of our present text. These are to ‘drink of the wine of the
wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
indignation, and are to be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence
of the holy angels and of the Lamb.’ * On our present text, Professor Stuart,
who nevertheless, strangely as it appears to me, makes this passage teach the
eternity of bell torment, whereas I submit it has no reference to the future
state at all, more correctly says (though it makes against his own
interpretation which states the threatening to refer to future punishment)—”We must go to the Old Testament for the full explanation.
There God is often said to give the cup of inflammation or indignation to
nations whom he is about to destroy; etc. Isaiah 51:17. Lamentations 4:21.
Jeremiah 25:15-16, 49:12, 51:7. Ezekiel 23:31-34. Job 21:20. Psalms 75:8.
Persons intoxicated are unable to destroy or even resist those who assail them;
so that to represent them as intoxicated in the way of punishment, is to
represent them as devoted to irremedial destruction.
Or we may present the matter in another light. Criminals about to suffer, were
often through compassion of executioners or bystanders presented with a
stupefying potion, which would diminish their sensibility to pain, but which of
course was the index or precursor of certain death. Thus
in Mark 15: 23, it is recorded that Jesus refused to drink the wine mingled
with myrrh,’ which was proffered him when he was about to be nailed to the
cross. The holy Saviour would not abate any portion
of his agonies, by the use of an intoxicating drink.
But in whichever of these two ways the expression in our text is accounted for,
the meaning remains substantially the same—for the drinking of such an
intoxicating cup is the prelude to certain death,” This angel, having performed
his mission, which was so well adapted to sustain the saints during the period
of their persecution, retires; and John is left awhile to muse on the vision he
had seen. Meditating on the terrible calamities of that period to which
chapters 13 and 14 relate, he testifies to the need there will be of patience,
5:12. And while so musing, a voice from heaven, confirmatory of his thoughts,
bids him write that then it will indeed be a blessed privilege for Christians
to die rather than to live, that they may rest from the calamities and labours of that trying period. Then he sees in vision every
preparation being made and matured for executing the judgments which the angel herald
had announced. Let the remainder of this 14th chapter be carefully read. It
shows judgment beginning, and only beginning.
The 15th exhibits the preparation that is made
to execute the threatening of our text; while the
victorious followers of the Lamb sing the song of anticipated triumph. Seven
angels receive seven golden vials full of the wrath of God.
The 16th opens with the commission solemnly
given to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out
the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. And the first went,
and poured out his vial upon the earth;’ and there fell a noisome and
grievous sore upon the men who had the mark of the beast, and upon them which
worshipped his image, 16:1, 2, [compare our text, 14:9 and 10, first clause].
Let the whole of this chapter however be carefully read. The threatened
judgments are executed on the kingdom of the beast and on his worshippers. And
some of the language in which this is described is precisely that in which the
threatening of our text are couched. See, for
instance, verses 8, 9, 10, 11, where they are exhibited as scorched with fire,
and as fearfully tormented; while the angel of the waters, verse 5, and another
out of the altar, verse 7, praise the Lord for the righteousness of the
judgments.
The 17th chapter is occupied more particularly
with the mystic Babylon which is to be destroyed, and
verse 16, shows how the ten horns will hate her, and eat her flesh, and burn
her with fire. While the 18th goes on to announce the manner in which the
judgments just about to overtake her (‘she shall be utterly burned with fire,’
5: 8,) will affect the spectators,—”The merchants of
these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off, for the fear
of her torment, weeping and wailing,’ etc. verse 15. And they died when they
saw the smoke of her burning,’ etc. verse 18. The 19th shows the joy there
would be, when this idolatrous and persecuting power was put down; and in verse
20, the beast and false prophet were cast alive into a lake of fire, burning with
brimstone.” With the exception of this last verse, I
think it will be apparent that the judgments threatened in 14:9, 10, are
exhibited in the subsequent chapters as executed upon earth. While the verse
just quoted, 19:20 has no reference at all to the future state after the
general judgment, which has not .yet taken place. And
the language is precisely that of the prophets, already considered, whereby
they denoted the entire and utter and final destruction of some hostile power.
Moreover, the beast and false prophet are symbolic personages; so that the fire
and brimstone are symbolic too. And if we ask, of what,—the
answer must be that, by the uses loquendi of the
inspired writers, this is symbolic of utter desolation and destruction.
So, then, John being his own interpreter, the
announcement of the angel in 14:9-11 (given both to warn Christians against
being seduced into worshipping the beast, and to animate them with the certain
prospect of the destruction o( those powers that
opposed the progress of the gospel) receives its fulfilment in the disquietude
and defeat and destruction of the abettors of the beast, so that according to
the prediction of the second angel, the blessed gospel should win its
triumphant way to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.’ To my own
mind, then, it is evident that this passage, taken in its connection, has no
reference whatever to the condition of the wicked after the general judgment;
and therefore affords no countenance to the popular
doctrine; but even makes against it, by showing the strongest phraseology—’the
smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever,’—used in reference to this
present state.
In proceeding to consider the next passage,
the very striking one contained in Revelation 20: 10-14, 15. It may prove
advantageous to notice the 10th verse and the 15th separately, although the
popular doctrine generally connects them. Let us take the former one first.
§ REVELATION 20:9-10. And they went up on the
breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the
beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and
devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be
tormented day and night forever and ever.
We have just said that the orthodox commonly
connect the 15th verse with this,—namely, And
whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of
fire,’ and hence affirm that all the unsaved, devils and men, will exist
together forever in misery. I trust it has been shown that the other passages
generally adduced in support of this notion, not only do not really teach it,
but absolutely make against it. But on the present text I submit 9: That the writer
simply affirms that the devil shall be tormented forever and ever;
which, whatever be the legitimate meaning (concerning which we need not
inquire), no one disputes. At all events, I am not disposed to embarrass my
present subjects with any inquiry into the fate of fallen angels. What I have
undertaken is sufficient. And so I simply remind the
reader that this text says nothing at all about sinners of the human race. It
is not the inspired assertion here that men shall be tormented day and night,
for ever and ever. John does not say they shall. He only says that the devil
shall. And men are not devils.
This is sufficient so far as this verse is
concerned; but we may add another remark.
10: Whatever this lake of fire may really symbolise, it is before the great day of judgment that the
devil is represented as cast into it. It is moreover that into which the beast
and the false prophet were previously cast, long before the final close of
human history, 19: 20. Now the beast and false prophet are not individual and
historical persons really. They are symbolic persons. Many expositors tell us
that they symbolise a system, which is to come to an
utter end, rather than particular individuals. If so,
the idea of torment is not to be literally understood, of \course. But this I
waive altogether, seeing my subject does not require me to touch upon it. Let
it suffice to observe that this verse does not, in any way whatever, refer to
sinners of the human race at all; but only to the
devil.
There is a sentence, however, of terrific
import, only five verses subsequently, which does refer to men, and in somewhat
similar terms. And to this we therefore come.
§ REVELATION 20: 11-15. And I saw a great
white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven
fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and
great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was
opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things
which were written in the books according to their works. And the sea gave up
the dead which were in it; - and death and hell delivered up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged every man according to his works. And death
and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And
whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of
fire.
Let this be taken for a highly elevated
description of the last judgment and the final doom of the wicked. They are
cast into the lake of fire.’ Verily, the ears of every one that hears it may
tingle at the terrible announcement. But what is the import of the terrific
assertion? Orthodoxy ingeniously connects this 15th verse with the one we have
just considered, and pronounces thus,—”The lake of
fire is the symbol of the torment the devil shall undergo. This torment is to
be day and night forever and ever. Into this same lake the wicked are to be
cast. Therefore they also are to be tormented forever
and ever therein. This is not indeed expressly inserted in the text, but it is
a fair-inference.” On my part I deny the soundness of
the e reasoning. Let the reader judge.
11: The inference is not a necessary one.
Because in the lake of fire the devil shall be tormented forever, it does not
necessarily follow that quite another race of intelligences, east into the same
lake, must therefore exist as long as he does and
endure the same torment. If the orthodox use it, it proves too much for them.
If they say that,—because the devil, being cast into
the lake of fire, is tormented forever, therefore sinners cast into the same
are for that reason tormented forever,—we must hold them to the point, and they
must in fairness affirm something more. They must affirm, for instance, that
all men, even the least guilty, will endure precisely the same torment as the
devil himself, who has been plying his rebellious and murderous trade these
thousands of years; seeing that the least guilty of the lost are cast into
precisely the same fire as the devil. But if they shrink from this, as surely
they will, and say—No, that can never be; the fire, though precisely the same,
will produce various effects, according to the degree of guilt;—they
surrender the entire case. For if the same fire may produce different effects,
according to the individual, so that the torment of some shall be mild in
comparison with that of others, then, though it may torment the devil forever,
it may not torment human sinners forever. If it may produce different effects,
it may torment the one and destroy the other. At all events the inference of
the orthodox cannot be shown to be a necessary one. But further, 12: The
inference is not a fair one. For while, five verses before, the lake of fire
may be the symbol of torment, in the very verse preceding our text it is the
symbol, not of torment, but of extinction. In verse 14, Death and Hades, being
personified in accordance with the structure of this highly poetic and symbolic
book, are represented as both cast into a lake of fire. What then does the
being cast into the lake of fire mean, in verse 14? It denotes the utter
ceasing to be of Death and Hades. There is to be no more death. And this plain
fact is-poetically set forth by the striking image of Death cast into a lake of
fire; fire being the acknowledged symbol of the prophets for destruction. So Death, the last enemy, is to be destroyed.’ This is the
undisputed sense of verse 14. And all expositors are agreed that here—in the
very verse before our text—the lake of fire is the symbol of final destruction,
and of nothing else.
When, then, in the
very next verse, sinners are represented as cast into the same lake of fire, is
It not obvious and legitimate to retain the sense necessarily attached to the
symbol of fire in the verse before, rather than to overlook the near and go
back to the remoter passage? Especially since even that remoter text itself is fairly open to discussion as to its meaning, while in the
nearer passage the meaning is unquestionable.
And to this interpretation we are additionally
led by the phrase the ‘book of life.’ It being those whose names are not found
written therein, that are to be cast into the lake of fire. The book of life’
is a book from which some names are threatened to be blotted out, (22:19, ‘God
shall take away his part out of the book of life.’) So that it does not mean
the book in which are-recorded the names of those that shall be eternally
saved. What does it mean then? On a previous page (211,212) we have given
Stuart’s explanation, which the reader will perhaps kindly read again, with the
remark founded thereon. As to have the name blotted out of the book of life, Revelation
3 would imply forfeiture of life, and that the individual would be blotted out
of existence, so, not to have the name found written therein would be
equivalent, and would denote that the individual, for some cause, would not
obtain everlasting life. So then all whose names were
not in this book—all who through their own accursed folly would not lay hold on
eternal life—are cast into that lake of fire, which in the immediately
preceding sentence is made to symbolise final and
everlasting cessation of existence. And the being cast into this lake, into
which Death and Hades are cast to be destroyed, is the second death. That is,
the sharing the same fate as death and Hades meet,
which is destruction literally, — ‘this is the second death.’ So that this passage
also harmonises with the rest of scripture, as indeed
scripture cannot but be uniform and consistent. And affording no countenance to
the doctrine of an eternity of torment for all the unsaved (and therefore for
even the youngest and the least criminal equally with the vilest—for the
youthful sinner, and the man who had enjoyed least religious light, though
still enough to condemn him,—equally with the devil himself, the wholesale
destroyer of virtue and happiness, and who was a murderer from the beginning,’)
it does affirm the destruction of all who hive not
laid hold on eternal life.
And I do venture most respectfully to beseech
my fellow Christians not to exhibit the Holy One, whose very justice is a
perfection, as plunging all the unsaved of every age and nation and degree of
responsibility, into one and the same state of never-ending torment; unless
indeed, after mature and devout investigation once more bestowed on the solemn
theme, they become convinced that it is indeed the doctrine of scripture,—that
all of every shade of character, who are not meet for an inheritance among the
saints in light, are involved by the righteous judge in one indiscriminate and
fiery mass of living torment—the least guilty of the lost hand in heed; and
that forever, with that unutterably fallen spirit who had dared, through long
very long ages, intelligently and perseveringly to oppose the blessed
government of God, and who had been the Ruthless deceiver of the nations, and
the wholesale murderer of the human race.
For linking the 14th and 15th verses with the
10th, as the advocates of the common notion do, and thin; making lost men—all
the lost—to be tormented forever and ever, because the Devil is, the above
conclusion is inevitable. And then, indeed, clouds and darkness,’ but of
another kind than we have heretofore affirmed, are round about the throne of
the Eternal, fearfully hiding the ‘righteousness and judgment’ which we are
sure must constitute the foundation thereof.
I thank God, who righteously requires the love
of my whole heart, that, in his blessed revelation, there is nothing akin to
what I find in human books, to make my religion one of terror rather than of
reverent affection, reversing the apostle’s declaration, and making perfect
horror to cast out love. And I would implore my fellow Christians, to
re-examine for themselves the statements of that thrice and four times blessed
book, from which too many derive their ideas only at
second hand, and through fallible and oftentimes grievously mistaken interpreters.
MATTHEW 16:25-26. For whosoever will save his
life shall lose it and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own
soul? For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
MARK 8:35-37. For whosoever will save his
shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s,
the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for
his soul?
The one thing to which I invite attention here
is that our translators have differently rendered a word which occurs four
times in two verses. Twice they say ‘life,’ twice ‘soul.’ And hence, to the
English reader, the passage would convey an idea somewhat different from that
which it would do if the word had been uniformly rendered. There is no reason
for twice translating that word ‘soul,’ in the last verse, which they had just
before twice translated ‘life.’ Since our blessed Lord saw fit to use one and
the same word four times in the same connection, and same sentence even, is it
not every way desirable to make this sameness manifest in the translation?
Then the case stands thus. Christ had
intimated to his disciples the sufferings and death which were before him. This
they could not receive. They were not prepared for it. And the strongly
impulsive Peter replied—’Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto
thee.’ From the tenor of the Saviour’s reply, it
would seem that this reluctance of the disciples to entertain the notion of
their Master’s ignominious end, arose partly out of a secret
. and unexpressed dread of the result to themselves,
if he should be successfully smitten down by the hand of persecution.
Our Lord, therefore, as was sometimes his wont, replied rather to their secret
fears than their spoken words, and assures them that his true followers would
have to bear the cross. It is in this connection our text occurs; where he
teaches them that if anyone should seek to prolong his life by unworthy
concessions; by the abandonment of his cause, for instance, he would ultimately
lose it altogether. Christ, the only dispenser of life, would disown him as a
follower at the great day; the consequence of which would be that he would
emphatically lose it. But that if a disciple out of strong attachment to truth
and holiness, out of love to Christ should be ready to sacrifice life itself in
his cause, such a one, though his life might be cut short on earth, should
nevertheless find it. The Prince of Life would acknowledge him as a friend and follower, and give him to drink of the water of life and
partake of an endless existence. On this he founds a most impressive appeal.
For what would it profit a man to gain by apostasy a little prolongation of his
days on earth, or to gain, if it were possible, the whole world, and then
absolutely lose life, itself?
The consistency and coherence of the entire
passage require a uniform rendering of the chief term, on which the assertion
and appeal are made to hinge. What man is he that desires life and loves many
days, who by a powerful instinct of his nature craves life and length of days,
even forever and ever, let him cleave to Christ with full purpose of heart, let
him faithfully adhere to him through evil report and good report, and through
the direst storms of persecution, for in Christ is life, and laying hold of him
we lay hold on eternal life. Whatever bearing this passage then has upon the
subject, is entirely in our favour, conveying the
idea of a forfeiture of existence to those who do not continue to the end the
true disciples of Christ.
§ MATTHEW 3:10-12. And now also the axe is
laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree
which brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I
indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in his
hand, and he will thoroughly purse his floor, and gather his wheat into the
garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Here the forerunner of the Messiah inquires of
the Pharisees and Sadducees who had warned them to flee from the wrath to come.
Let this phrase, the first time we meet with it in the New Testament, be
observed. In continuing to speak on this awful theme, the preacher, comparing
the people to trees, asserts that every tree which brings not forth good fruit,
is hewn down, and cast into the fire.’ Then, affirming the superiority to
himself of the Messiah, just ready to appear, he asserts that He will baptize
with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.’ By which we are led, by all the
circumstances and by the context, to understand that Christ will purify some by
his Spirit, and will visit others, who resist the Holy Ghost, with judgment, or
fire. A sentiment more plainly taught in the next verse, where those that are
baptized with the Holy Ghost are set forth as ‘his wheat,’ which he carefully
gathers safe into his garner.’ While the incorrigibly sinful, ‘being as
worthless as chaff,’ which no one would care to preserve, are set forth under
this significant emblem. And it is asserted that the chaff shall be burned up
with unquenchable fire.’ Now most undeniably the idea suggested by chaff being
cast into the fire, is that of complete destruction. Chaff, cast into fire for
its worthlessness, and remaining there unconsumed, would be a miracle indeed.
And the idea is so incongruous that, out of the region of controversial
theology, no one would for a moment entertain it. Besides, John says of the
chaff that it is to be burned up. This, so far as this passage is concerned,
ought to settle the matter. But divines will not have it so. And they say the
chaff is to be cast into the fire indeed, but is not
to be consumed at all! And so with the trees that
bring not forth good fruit; they also are to be cast into the fire, but are not
by any means to be burned up; they are to be forever burning, but newer burned!
And the word ‘unquenchable’ is made to sustain the theory. But surely this
word, used in reference to chaff, ought to convey the idea that the devouring
flame should not be quenched till it had consumed the material cast into it;
and in relation to which alone it is called unquenchable. Just as, in the
passage already quoted from Isaiah, it is skid of Edom, The
streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dug thereof into brimstone,
and the land shall become burning pitch; that shall not be quenched night nor
day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever.
How like is this terrific strain, on which we
have already remarked, to the language of the New Testament, in figuratively
describing the future lot of the wicked. The reader will kindly pardon a
repetition which our present text calls for, and will
observe how manifestly it is used simply to set forth the idea of utter and
permanent destruction (as a country, that is) and nothing more. For first, so
far from the land becoming burning pitch which should never be quenched,’ it
was not destroyed by fire at all. And then, in the very verse which says, it
shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever,’ it
is also said, from generation to generation shall it lie waste; none shall pass
through it forever and ever.’ And in the next verse, But the cormorant and the
bittern shall possess it, the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it,’ etc. a
quite sufficient proof that the figure was used, as already intimated, to
denote complete and permanent destruction.
Or, since New Testament language may possibly
carry more conviction, we may refer to the strain of the apostle Jude, who
says, verse 7, that Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, are set
forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.’ But certainly those cities are not burning now, for the waves of
the Dead Sea roll over them in gloomy silence. But inasmuch
as the fire from heaven, which fell upon them, utterly destroyed them,
never again to be rebuilt, it is called ‘eternal fire.’ That is, fire, not eternal in itself, but in its effects.
And under our present text we may include the
various parabolic allusions, nearly all of which look the same way. Thus
Matthew 13:30 and 13:40-42, where the wicked are represented as tares cast into
a furnace to be burned up, because utterly worthless. It is true we here meet
with the frequent assertion that ‘there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth.’ But this does not lend the slightest countenance to the doctrine of
eternal torment. How long the unhappy victims of their own accursed folly will
be suffering the consequences of their fatal choice, ere the final catastrophe,
who can say? But while consciousness lasts, their wailing will be fearful
enough. But let the reader observe that the tares are sooner or later to be
burned up. It is for this that they are cast into the furnace.
The same remark applies to the next parable,
Matthew 13:47-50, which compares the kingdom of God to a net which gathered
both sorts of fish. Ultimately, the bad were cast away, because of their
worthlessness—thrown into fire to be consumed and got rid of.
It is the same result which is brought out in
another assurance of our Lord. Matthew 21:44. ‘And whosoever shall fall on this
stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to
powder.’ Just as the falling of an immense block of granite would crush all
life out of the unhappy man whose folly should bring it down upon him, so would
opposition to Christ the great corner stone of God’s spiritual temple, bring
down swift destruction on the rash and guilty offender.
So also in another parable, Matthew 24:45-51,
the unfaithful servant is represented as ‘cut asunder;’ as in Luke 19:27, the
sentence which the King pronounces on those who had refused allegiance is,
‘Those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither
and slay before me.’ But all such images as these,—trees
burned up—chaff consumed—tares and worthless fish cast into a furnaces heavy
stone grinding a man to powder—a rebellious servant being cut asunder—enemies
being slain, etc. etc. will fairly set forth nothing but absolute destruction,
and would seem to be by no means adapted to convey the idea of eternal survival
in misery.
Nor do any of the slightly different class of
parables countenance the common doctrine of perpetual torment. For consider
those which represent a faithless servant, or a guest unsuitably arrayed, or
wedding attendants whose carelessness made them too late in their arrival has
left or cast into outer darkness. What is the explanation? Everyone knows it.
We are to conceive of magnificent apartments, where costliest preparations are
made for a sumptuous banquet. The torches blaze on high. All is brilliancy and
life. From the feast and mirth, however, the unworthy servant, and the rude
discourteous guest, are excluded. Where are they then? Without;—
in the dark streets. The gloom of night involves them, and the cold air chills
them, while all is joy’ and gaiety within. This is the picture. The excluded
are weeping with mortification and disappointment and vexation, while they pine
and shiver in the cold, and are destitute of the good things provided.
All know this is the basis. But what is there
to favour the notion that this weeping and wailing
shall never cease? No more than there is to support the idea that in the actual
scenes, which might have served our Lord for the parable, the excluded guests
wept and raged forever. The fact is, there is no allusion to duration at all;
none to the continuance of the lament, none to the cessation. And as of course
I do IRA adduce this parable as favouring the
doctrine of the present work, so neither can the popular advocates fairly quote
it as countenancing their notion.
A similar remark applies to the parable of
Dives. Our Lord shows an ungodly man in a state of wretchedness after death.
How long it would last is not intimated. It is true there was no hope for him.
He could not buoy himself up with the prospect of restoration to enjoyment. But
whether that torment should endure forever, or would ultimately destroy him,
the parable does not intimate. It teaches a terrible and hopeless state for the
wicked after death, and that is all.
And so these somewhat
different parables do not in the least degree interfere with those others which
do plainly intimate a positive result, and that—absolute destruction.
§ The fact is, all
the New Testament passages on the subject arrange themselves under three
separate heads.
The First class includes all those which
affirm there will be tribulation and anguish, without any reference either to
eternal duration, or to cessation, whether by recovery or destruction. So that
on all those which fall under this first division, there is no dispute. The
orthodox, the universal restoration theory, and myself,
can with equal propriety use them in our appeals to sinners. And had there been
no other statements given in the scriptures, the question—What will become of
the wicked, ultimately? Must have been an open one.
The Second class of texts comprises the few
which at first sight, and prior to that examination which on all doctrines we
must give to God’s book if we wish rightly to understand it, seem to favour the orthodox view. But on these, it is submitted,
first; that they do not necessarily convey the idea of eternal torment. That
is, that a fair exegesis does not bring out this interpretation as the fair and
inevitable one. Secondly, that while some of them, when examined as we think
impartially, do not fairly warrant the common belief at all; others of them, as
Matthew 25:46, for instance, leave the final result to
be determined by other parts of scripture.
The Third class consists of those numerous
texts which either literally affirm, or metaphorically teach, the doctrine of
this book. “Behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh
shall burn them up, said the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither
root nor branch.” They are chaff, and tares, which are to be burned up—they are
to perish like brute beasts—they are like meteors which disappear in the
blackness of darkness forever—they are to be ground to powder—sawn asunder —to
lose their life—utterly to perish—to die—to suffer the second death—to be
punished with everlasting destruction, etc. etc.
We take then what we deem the only fair idea
of these passages. And we do it, first, because we recognise
with all the orthodox, the imperativeness of the literal and obvious sense,
wherever it will stand. And we submit that it will stand in reference to our
present subject. We do it, secondly, because the interpretation of all the
other parts of scripture, that are either immediately or indirectly, closely or remotely, connected with the subject, becomes
more thoroughly consistent on this view, than on that which unhappily prevails
in the evangelical churches generally. We do it, thirdly, because so many lines
of scripture argument conduce to this one point, and, to our minds, shut us up
to the conclusion. And, fourthly, having, first of all,
derived it from the only authoritative source of information in reference to
the future, we find it every way more consonant with our inevitable idea of
righteousness than is the orthodox view, and altogether more calculated
beneficially to affect the minds of men. But we may with most advantage pursue
these reflections in another chapter.
It will, however, be an act of injustice to
us, if any of our opponents shall affirm that we first of all
presumed to decide what ought, or ought not, to be the proceedings of the court
of heaven, and that then we set ourselves to maintain it from the scriptures.
To say this, would be entirely to misrepresent the order of our convictions. We
first derived the idea from “the lively oracles,” and then rejoiced to find how
truly their decision is echoed by the judgment and the conscience; to which we
find God himself so frequently making an appeal on the righteousness of his
proceedings; ‘Are not my ways just and equal? Said the Lord.’ Yea, verily,
‘just and true are thy ways, O thou King of Saints!
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
9. That destruction is not necessarily an
evil— 10. That sin deserves never-ending punishment— 11. That the proposed
theory diminishes the value of the soul, and consequently of salvation— 12.
That it weakens the power of religion over the conscience— 13. That it has an unfavourable aspect on the doctrine of atonement— 14. And
is incompatible with the doctrine of degrees of punishment— 15. Minor
objections--Result.
Against the doctrine submitted in these pages
many very grave objections are urged, to which the most serious and respectful
attention on my part is unquestionably due. And indeed
it has been anxiously given. For it is no light thing, on any subject, to
differ from the great body of religious men, one’s brethren in the faith and
hope of the gospel. And especially is it a solemn thing to seek to modify the
faith of the evangelical church, on one of the most important articles it has
so generally held. And I have no wish to disguise that, as this is the tendency
of these pages, so indeed it is solicitously my object. Well then may I deeply
feel the almost overwhelming responsibility of my position. If indeed my views
are in harmony with the mind of the Spirit, nothing but good can be the
ultimate result of my labours. But if otherwise,
then, alas! I shall have done precisely that which, above everything else, I
would the most sensitively shrink from. For my very highest ambition is, in
some humble measure, to serve the cause of truth.
Let me; therefore, calmly meet some of the
more important objections that have been advanced against the views stated in
this volume. Only premising, however, that Christians are professedly satisfied
to receive as truth whatever they find in the sacred scriptures, whether they
can silence the cavils, or meet the difficulties, that may be raised
thereagainst, or not. And so, on our great evangelical principles, if scripture
teach the ‘miserable destruction’ of the impenitent, it suffices us. ‘We walk
by faith.’ Idle as the dash of the waves against the rock-bound shore, are all
objections to any doctrine that really comes to ns with the authority of
revelation.
Nevertheless, while we admit no weight in
anything urged against the manifest testimony of scripture, yet if the
arguments advanced against what we believe to be the truth of God’s word can be
satisfactorily met, it may assist to guide into the more excellent way, some of
those who propose them with the same honest intentions that we desire ourselves
to cultivate.
It is urged that the cessation of existence is
not necessarily an evil;—that it may even be a
blessing indeed;— and, under some circumstances, the greatest of all possible
blessings.
In order however to do full justice to this
objection, it shall be stated as given by the writer of the most powerful paper
against our views that has yet appeared. Again I refer
to my unknown friend in the Eclectic, whose language is as follows.
To this it is obvious to object, that
cessation of being is not necessarily, or in all cases, an evil. If all
opportunity have been lost of rendering existence
happy, and more especially if a course has been pursued which insures
irrecoverable misery, the cessation of existence, so far from being a calamity,
is the greatest relief and benefit which, in the circumstances, is possible.
These, however, are precisely the circumstances of ungodly men. So that God is,
by our author’s opinion, brought forward in the majesty of his wrath, to
denounce against ungodly men as a terrific punishment whet actually
is, to them, the greatest possible good. Mr. Dobney
himself, indeed, must clearly regard the extinction of the wicked in the light
of a kindness, since he evidently looks upon it with complacency, as assigning
a limit to suffering otherwise without end, and as mitigating the too awful
doctrine of endless punishment” Now to this it may be replied, that all the
seeming force of it arises from unallowably confounding the present and future
states. It is here and now, that God threatens, as a fearful punishment, that
he will by a terrible act of his justice blot out of being the incorrigibly
impenitent. And he threatens in order to reclaim. And
most assuredly the prospect of a miserable destruction hereafter, is not
precisely the greatest possible good’ that the sinner can set before himself to
be attained to. But to be wholesomely alarmed by the threatening, and to flee
for refuge. to the cross, and, by patient continuance in well doing, to seek
for glory and honour and immortality,’ would be an
infinitely greater ‘possible good,’ than an awful destruction by a second
dying.
But if we may compare great things with small,
and spiritual realities with things of earth, we may adopt an illustration to
the point. A hardened criminal might possibly prefer hanging to transportation
for life, as putting him at once out of his wretchedness. But would it
therefore be just to say, when, though by way of deterring from crime, law
threatens death as the punishment for the highest crimes, that “it comes
forward in all its majesty, to denounce as a terrific punishment, what is actually,
to the criminal [in his own view at least, and this is the point] the greatest
possible good!” Here and now, the sinner hoes not, when he thinks, conceive of
a miserable dying out of existence, and a passing, by he knows not what horrid
process, into dark nothingness, as “the greatest possible good.” When he
thinks, he is appalled at the prospect; as well he may be. What is this second
death, which, unless I turn to God, I must undergo? How long shall I be
awaiting in shivering suspense the close of my guilty and miserable career—What
horrid sights and sounds will fill me with unutterable terror—In what ghastly
forms will the ministers of divine justice at last appear—And amid what
torments, becoming fiercer and yet more fierce, shall finally expire—Oh!
Wretched man that I am, what must I do to be saved from the wrath to come?
Why if I had represented the sinner as gently
breathing out his life, as the flowers close their petals at set of sun,
sinking deliciously into soft repose as on a bed of roses, one could not have
said more than that it was “the greatest possible good “he was
capable of receiving! Nor does it appear to me quite fair to say “Mr. Dobney himself indeed
must clearly regard the extinction of the wicked in the light of a kindness,”
This may answer a purpose, may assist to throw an air of improbability and
absurdity round the doctrine I think taught in scripture, but can scarcely
serve the cause of truth. For, further, it proceeds on an assumption which, as
it seems to me, has no foundation in any scripture assertion, and which is this
--That God might with perfect justice keep these wretched criminals in
existence forever on purpose to torment them and, indeed, that without his
interference they would naturally thus survive in misery, but that he in pity
puts an end to their woe by kindly destroying them; as we humanely crush the
wounded insect in order to put it out of its misery.
Will the reviewer, then, affirm that every
sinner deserves to suffer an infinite amount of punishment? Deserves, that is,
to be sustained in being through eternal ages, in order to
be permeated at every pore with as intensely exquisite anguish as he can
possibly endure. For unless he will affirm this, he may not affirm that to blot
him out of existence is a kindness, inasmuch as it
withdraws him from misery which else would justly continue. If the destruction
of the sinner may be represented “in the light of a kindness,” it can be so
exhibited only on the principle that justice might sternly exact the endless
prolonging of his torment.
But if my respected opponent will not affirm
this, he ought not to say that the punitive destruction of the wicked at some
future period is regarded as an act of kindness. And this naturally brings us
to another point of the present argument; which
however we may more advantageously consider under the head of a distinct
objection, so that a further reply to this will be found in the next section.
2. It is affirmed then, in opposition to the
doctrine of this work, that sin is so unutterably vile, that the sinner
deserves in consequence to suffer everlasting woe.
Of course if
scripture teach this, we will believe and affirm and defend it, and if need be,
die for it, as readily as any of our brethren. But we do not remember that
scripture has anywhere affirmed this. If it be alleged to be the doctrine of
scripture at all, it is only inferentially that it is derived there from. It
may seem indeed to many a fair and necessary deduction. But this is another
thing. Human deductions from the word of God, are not to be confounded with the
infallible testimony itself. Every word of God is true. But every deduction
there from by man’s reason is not necessarily true. It may be true, or it may
not. This reasoning process must be tested in the same way as any other. I have
said that my memory does not present me with any testimony of scripture to the
effect that every sinner deserves to suffer never-ending torment. But the
orthodox affirm that every sinner does thus deserve.
And so our present question is,—whether,
supposing scripture not to affirm this, an enlightened’ reason would adopt it
as a sound and necessary principle For many preachers and writers show
themselves solicitous, and very naturally and properly so, to demonstrate that
the infinite torment, which they consider to be threatened in scripture, is not
only necessarily just, because inflicted by a just God, so that it must be
equitable whether we can discern the justice thereof or not;—but that in itself
it is consonant with reason. They adduce, not merely supposed biblical
evidence, which is the very thing wanted, but, with a laudable anxiety to harmonise the alleged doctrine of revelation with reason,
they attempt to reason out the propriety of eternal sufferings on account of
sin. It is to this last endeavour that we now turn
our attention. And I hope to show, not that reason opposes revelation on this
subject, so that we must modify the language of scripture, but that, seeing as
we believe the language of scripture has been extensively misapprehended,
reason does moat rigidly approve of just that decision which lies in what we
deem the true sense of scripture. Or, at all events, that reason on this point
is not with our opponents.
I am exceedingly anxious, however, not to be
misunderstood here, and must beg the reader’s indulgence therefore if I should
be guilty of a little repetition, in order to prevent
misapprehension. The case then is this. There are two theories extant, both of them professing to be rigidly drawn from scripture
alone, and both of them, after presenting the alleged testimony of scripture,
fortifying their respective interpretations by endeavouring
to show that reason favours the conclusions they had
already biblically reached. So that both parties quitting the field of
revelation, triumphant in their own estimation, meet again on other ground, and
resume the conflict with other weapons. And thus it
would be grossly unfair to charge either with disparaging or superseding the
testimony of scripture, much less with opposing it; seeing that each supposes
scripture to teach the view which reason also favours.
And now, the ground being clear, let the case be fairly stated. And let reason
give her best attention, and her most transparently impartial verdict, assured
that her decision will undergo a severe revision, and that the case will be
again moved into a higher court.
That case then is this. There is abroad a
dogma which makes the Creator keep in the dungeons of the tormentor, forever
and ever; countless multitudes of his creatures; who, according to the almost
universal belief, were brought into being with a fearfully deteriorated nature,
depravity somehow inhering in them from their very birth. From the earliest
dawn of reason, and while not yet accountable beings, or such only in the
faintest degree, they were at every moment surrounded by powerful and too well
adapted temptations to ‘evil. So that long before their minds could fairly open
to the force of the motives to good, wrong tastes and habits were formed, and
has gathered strength; and thus their original bias to
evil became terribly confirmed. Moreover, being corrupt even by nature, they
were formed so utterly averse from God and holiness—not to advert to the
strength which, evil had silently acquired during their earlier years, when it
besieged the more sedulously than good--that it was absolutely certain they
never would turn to God (and some allege that they even could not) unless their
minds were graciously disposed to do so, by a direct influence specially
exerted on them by the Holy Spirit. But this essential and indispensable
influence, which alone draws any heart to God, was not vouchsafed to them. So
that, as a matter of course, they remained unaffected by all the threatening and
invitations of the gospel, and died in their sins, with their guilt fearfully
aggravated by the rejection of the glad tidings of salvation.
I think it must be allowed that so far from
having exaggerated the Calvinistic view, it is somewhat mildly stated, for many
who hold it present it more repulsively under the idea of exalting the
sovereignty of God. Nor can the admirer of Arminian theology exult over his
Calvinistic brethren, as though he really avoided the doctrine which he deems
so obnoxious. He does no more than remove the difficulty one’ step farther off, and has not dispelled but only slightly concealed it.
We will not, however, press the case in this form, though we might fairly
insist on it; we will waive the right, which with many of our opponents, we
should undoubtedly possess.
Let them have every advantage, for our object
is not victory but truth. Let the case then be modified as each reader pleases,
and let it stand briefly thus;—A host of sinners are
charged with a whole life of sin, and are utterly without one extenuating
circumstance that they can plead; conscious-stricken they are speechless.
Now the popular doctrine is, that these
multitudes of God’s creatures exist as long as God himself exists, throughout
ages that when they have outnumbered all the atoms of all worlds are, as
compared with eternity, less than nothing and vanity; and that their existence
is thus protracted by God (for it is granted that creatures exist only by his
upholding power) drawn out, on and on—forever and ever, in order that they may
suffer, as the due reward of their deeds, an eternity of torment. And it is
said this is taught in scripture.
I reply that I do not find this statement in
THE BOOK; but that its universal testimony is that the wicked—those who persist
in counteracting the very design of their creation, and who will not be
reclaimed to God and holiness and happiness—shall be destroyed; they are
“vessels of -wrath fitted for destruction.” Thus they lose a whole eternity of well being, which they might have secured; their whole
intellectual and moral being is filled with the terrible consciousness that
they have made themselves obnoxious to the displeasure of the ever blessed God,
their Creator and Benefactor, who would have all men to be saved; while they
cannot relieve their burdened conscience by throwing the blame on their first
progenitor, nor by impeaching the justice or even the benevolence of the
arrangements amid which they had passed their probation. They might have been
saved, and SQ might have exulted throughout the ages of eternity in their
relation to the Most High, in their ever growing
faculties, their glorious companions, their sublime employments, and their
overflowing cup of bliss. But now they have received from the All-merciful Judge,
who had so loved a guilty race as to die for them, the awful sentence of
condemnation to the SECOND DEATH; and in unutterable anguish of mind, amid
weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, await the execution of the penalty
in all the terrible fullness of its meaning.
And so believing this
to be the doctrine of scripture, my respected reviewer deems himself at liberty
to represent me as “regarding it in the light of a kindness!” They shall
receive, scripture says, according to their deeds, Justice shall preside over
the place of punishment. But because, so far as mere power goes, God could—has
the power—to make their doom still more terrible, by prolonging it to all
eternity, is it therefore “an act of kindness” not to inflict what, so far
indeed as the mere possession of power is concerned, he could -inflict of the
more dreadful, but what is not taught in scripture, nor can be independently
thereof shown by reason, to be justly due to sin, however aggravated, and
although sin is unutterably evil?
Will my reviewer affirm that God does
absolutely inflict on every sinner as much misery as he possibly can heap upon
his devoted head? Because if not, by how much God withholds of what he could
do, by so much is even this withholding an act of kindness,’ on the principle
which the critic recognises; and unless it be
conceded that justice itself does not require omnipotence eternally to operate
to make the sinner, as wretched as he can possibly be made. For if justice
requires that every sinner shall forever and ever be made as intensely
miserable, as full of torment and anguish, as it is possible for the Almighty
to make him, I say if justice demands this, then must the reviewer affirm that
this is done, or else even he also must admit “an act of kindness.” Supposing
him then to reject the idea of kindness, he casts himself on the justice of the
proceeding, affirming that there is no mercy, and that equity alone upon the
judgment seat rules the Dour. And thus we come to the
point proposed above—Does reason, since it is agreed at all events to hear her
verdict, does reason decide that endless misery is the due reward of sin
committed upon earth? for the believers in endless, torment affirm that it is.
I deeply regret that the present line of argument, forced upon me by the
popular belief, compels me even to seem to represent sin as less awful. But
this is one of the evil consequences which grow out of the exaggerations of the
orthodox; and in repelling their assertions one is unable to avid laying one’s self open to a charge— though not just —of seeming to
diminish the real evil of sin. But the candid will not mistake me, and it is to
them that I submit my remarks.
§ The once favourite
common-place argument—that sin is an infinite evil, because committed against
an infinite being, is now nearly exploded, as indeed it ought to be. For if an
act contrary to God’s will have infinite demerit, deriving its quality of
infinite, not from the agent who does it, but from the being against whom it is
done, there would of course be infinite vierit in an
act performed in harmony with his will; this action also deriving its quality
of infinite from the being for whom it was done. But as the idea of any
creature meriting an infinite reward from God would be absurd, the idea of
infinite demerit in an act that was contrary to him must be abandoned too;
seeing that by whatever standard we judge the Acts of one man, we must have the
same standard for the actions of all men. And unless therefore infinite merit
be allowed on the one hand, infinite demerit must be disallowed on the other.” I
conclude, then, that to say sin is an infinite evil, and therefore deserving of
infinite punishment, because committed against an infinite being, is false; for
this reason among several, that to attribute infinity of value to the act of a
finite agent, is 1 an outrage on all reason.
Further. It is scriptural as well as
reasonable to affirm that there are degrees of guilt. All wrong actions are not
equally vile, and all sinners are not equally wicked. Which common sense view
revelation authenticates by teaching degrees of punishment. The guilt of an
agent is in proportion to his amount of knowledge, etc., and does not derive
its degree simply from the being against whom committed. Or else, every sin would
he infinitely heinous, because committed against an infinite being, and
every-sinner infinitely wicked. In which case there could be no degrees of
demerit, since it would be absurd to predicate degrees of what is infinite. But
there are degrees of wickedness; and therefore sin is
not an infinite evil; and consequently not deserving of infinite punishment, on
that account at all events.
Again, since it must be conceded there are
degrees of wickedness, no one can truly say that a single sin—say the smallest
one conceivable—deserves infinite suffering. But if one sin do
not merit infinite suffering, no number of sins can be affirmed to merit
infinite suffering; because no number of finites—and each sin taken separately
is of finite demerit—can make an infinite. So that an opponent ought to affirm
that one sin deserves infinite punishment; which
contradicts scripture as well as reason, both affirming degrees, whereas
degrees are inadmissible where infinity is predicable. As an infinitely wise
being cannot become wiser, or an infinitely holy Wise become holier, so an
infinitely guilty creature cannot become guiltier. The admission, therefore, of
degrees of criminality, is fatal to the assertion of desert of infinite misery;
and the denial of degrees of guilt, not only contradicts scripture, but is a
palpable absurdity.
§ And the assertion that is commonly made when
the popular advocates try to gain the verdict of reason, namely, that though
sin is not an infinite evil, and not deserving of infinite punishment, and
therefore no number of sins—yet that so long as the sinner continues to sin, so
long justice may righteously continue to punish, is in
reality an evasion of the whole difficulty. For the orthodox doctrine
represents a man condemned on the judgment day to everlasting misery for the
deeds already done in the body. The sentence is not passed prospectively, in
anticipation of sins to be committed perpetually hereafter. But when the sinner
stands at the judgment seat, to be dealt with according to what he has been, he
is then and there doomed for his past misdeeds. This is the testimony of
scripture, and I do earnestly beseech my brethren to ponder it well.
But to pass on. The plea, that in the future
world men will be punished for sin then sure to be eternally persisted in, is
in reality an abandonment of the whole case; which is
shown in two ways. For, first, it is a concession that the sins of earth and
time do not, in the .eye of reason, merit endless
misery, which is precisely what I affirm, and so the advocate, who makes it,
surrenders his case. And secondly, this necessary persistence in sin is itself
represented as part of the penal consequences of having sinned on earth. And
so, being itself penal, a part of the punishment absolutely threatened to the
sinner, (for orthodoxy makes perpetual sinfulness to constitute one element in
the death threatened to the sinner) it must, after all, since the sinner is
everlastingly shut up to it in consequence of his sins in time, be resolved
into punishment for the deeds done in the body; which, by the very adoption of
this line of defence are admitted not to deserve, so
far as reason can see, infinite misery. And thus
before the bar of reason the case utterly breaks down.
§ It is alleged that the view suggested in
this work diminishes the value of the soul, and consequently of salvation. And
in order that fall justice may be done to this objection, I again quote from
the Eclectic.
If, however, it is conceived by any persons
that the notion of a limited, though prolonged, infliction of suffering on the
ungodly does materially diminish the awfulness of their doom, as represented by
the doctrine of eternal punishment, it should be observed that the value of the
soul and of salvation must be diminished in an equal degree. Eternity is the
source from which some of the most solemn and weighty considerations are drawn
in relation to religious concerns. Attend to the interests of the soul, for it
will live forever; prepare for the life to come, for it will be everlasting;
flee from the wrath of God, for it will never end—these are instances of the manner in which the element of eternity mingles itself with
religious thoughts and exhortations. If its withdrawing from them is conceived
so greatly to lessen that awfulness of an impenitent sinner’s doom that it may
be contemplated calmly by a good man, is it not manifest that the same process
may justify the apathy of a bad one? If its power to harrow up the soul of the
former be lost, how is it to retain its adaptation to awaken the conscience of
the latter?” To which several answers may be given. And it is obvious to
remark, 1. That, however the reviewer may represent the value of the soul and
of salvation as diminished, the value of both, even on our view, surpasses our
highest comprehension. The preceding pages have necessarily shown how terrific
is the prospect of the second death; while the glory, honour,
and immortality to all the saved, are precisely the same in each theory, with this
additional weight in our scale,—that we represent
Christ as the bestower of that immortality, which the orthodox believe the
saint has independently of the Saviour. But to
exhibit the Prince of Life as constituting a great multitude which no man can number,’
the heirs of an eternal existence, which he also fills with joy unspeakable and
full of glory,’ is, it is submitted, quite sufficient to restore the balance,
and to magnify the salvation of the gospel as thoroughly as the popular scheme
does. Or if not, it exalts the redemption that is in Christ as highly as the
scriptures do; which is quite as much as the writer of
these pages cares to accomplish. To conceive of Christ as bestowing immortality
on those who had it not, and then filling that eternity with lofty gladness, is
surely to conceive as highly of him as to deem that he delivers from an
eternity of wretchedness, and converts that misery
into joy. And the objection looks as though it were M reality intended to serve
as an outwork of defence to another doctrine, namely,
that of the atonement, and were chiefly valuable as such. In relation to which
we will presently consider it.
But, 2.—As
to the most ‘weighty considerations,’ etc. when the reviewer says, “attend to
the interests of the soul, for it will live forever; prepare for the life to
come, for it will be everlasting,” he adopts a strain which, though. very
common, is utterly unlike any that the inspired teachers of Christianity adopt,
and one which he has learnt not from heaven but of men. For, to the best of my
remembrance, there is not one such exhortation in all the new
testament. And had there been, he would have quoted it just there. But
on the contrary the strain is this, What shall it profit a man if he gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul or life.—[See page
234.]
But, 2.—As to the
most ‘weighty considerations,’ etc. when the reviewer says, “attend to the
interests of the soul, for it will live forever; prepare for the life to come,
for it will be everlasting,” he adopts a strain which, though. very common, is
utterly unlike any that the inspired teachers of Christianity adopt, and one
which he has learnt not from heaven but of men. For, to the best of my
remembrance, there is not one such exhortation in all the new
testament. And had there been, he would have quoted it just there. But
on the contrary the strain is this, What shall it profit a man if he gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul or life.—[See page
234.] And 3.—As to our view being such as to be
“contemplated calmly by a good- man,” and therefore “justifying the apathy of a
bad one;” I know not, nor can I picture to myself, the good man who can
contemplate it calmly, if by calmness is meant, as it would seem, indifference,
something analogous to the apathy of the bad man. The thought of it thrills my
own soul with terror. And what impartial reader of the present work, or even of
the former which the reviewer was examining, will deem my Eclectic friend to
act with fairness in representing the miserable destruction of the wicked as
something which if true would “justify their apathy!” Let me be pardoned if I
express the hope that the common arts of controversy will not be brought into
the discussion of so rave a question. But because this objection is one of the
most frequent, I shall examine it separately.
§ It is objected, then, that to do away with
the doctrine of endless torment, by substituting that presented in these pages,
would be to weaken most alarmingly the power of the gospel over men’s
consciences;—that it, would fearfully diminish the wholesome fear which chiefly
restrains men from wickedness, and urges them to embrace a Saviour;—and
that it would thus promote irreligion, and throw open the flood-gates of
licentiousness.
How the doctrine here advocated would in the nature of things accomplish all this mischief, has
not been argumentatively shown. Those who have urged it have seemed to think it
self-evident, or that their assertion is decisive. We may be allowed to remind
them however of the distinction between declamation and argument. And assuredly
we feel no very deep mortification when we observe that on this point, at all
events, the former is commonly selected by our opponents, and the latter
quietly abandoned to us. And we very cheerfully meet this objection by a
reference to philosophy and fact,—the philosophy, that
is, of human nature, and the facts wherewith Christendom abounds.
Let us first, however, look at their case as
stripped of its disguise. They who affirm that it is dangerous to the interests
of religion, to deny the eternity of hell torment, and is calculated to confirm
men in their neglect of God, and to encourage them to persist in sin—are bound
in all consistency to consent to the following exposition of their views. Their
objection really amounts to this—” Less than a whole eternity of misery in
prospect, is not sufficient to alarm the sinner. Religion can make no way
without this. Christ can never win all hearts, unless
his frown can make a night of infinite horror. Hell is nothing terrible to the
guilty, however long its anguish may continue, unless that anguish is to be
ETERNAL. Make it only a thousand years, for instance, and people will despise
it as a matter of course. For what man would ever draw back from a momentary
gratification, if there were nothing more to deter him than the certainty of a
hundred years of torment for each transgression? As to destruction—the closing
the eye forever on this fair universe—what reasonable being would ever feel
this as a dissuasive from sin, or a motive to flee to Christ? No, we must
adhere to the scheme of infinite terror, or there is no hope-for the spread of
the gospel—absolutely none!
“Vain, comparatively, will be the beauty of a Saviour’s character, the touching condescension of his loving
heart, the tears he wept over the impenitent, the anguish of his soul, and the
precious blood he so cheerfully shed on their behalf. Vain, comparatively, all
the meekness and gentleness of Christ, all the merciful invitations he gave,
all the prospects of heavenly happiness wherewith he endeavours
to allure. And vain all the declarations of God’s displeasure, all the
solemnities of judgment, all the horrors of the sentence of condemnation and
the second death. Religion will decrease in our land, and in the world. Men
will grow hardened in sin, despite all other motives, if we do not assert that
their future torment will be eternally prolonged. The idea of their miserable
destruction merely, is therefore subversive of religion, and fatal to men’s interests.
It will be comparatively useless to besiege them on the side of their hopes, or
to address their affections, or enlist their judgment, or even to arouse their
fears, unless a whole infinity of horror be brought to bear upon them.” This in reality is the sum and substance of one of the commonest
objections to our views. And our opponents who avail themselves of it, must in
fairness utter themselves thus. But will they do this? Will they do it, when
their sentiment is stripped of its disguise, and presented in a common sense form? If they will, whence did they derive
their knowledge of human nature, I ask; and with what eyes have they looked on
the world around them?
But we spoke just now of facts. Let us glance
at our native land. England is, or ought to be, the most religious country
under heaven. We say, then, to the objector,—Look
around.—In our little island, more than twenty thousand preachers constantly
proclaim the doctrine of never ending torment. It is the creed of the Church of
England, the Church of Rome, the Church of Scotland, and the Free Church, the
large Wesleyan body, with all the numerous offshoots there from, the
Congregational body, including its two sections of Baptists and Paedo-Baptists,
and all the minor sects, with the exception of a handful of men holding the
doctrine of restoration, who, being so very few, are scarcely to be accounted
of in speaking of the country at large. See that England is emphatically filled
with the doctrine of eternal misery.
It has reigned and triumphed here. None have
called it in question. It has had a free course and been glorified. All that
learning, eloquence, and imagination, sanctified by genuine piety and deep
devotion, could do to set forth this doctrine, has been done, and done for
centuries. Divines more learned and profound, preachers more earnest and
powerful and sincere, no country ever produced. And every pulpit has been a
stronghold for the doctrine of never ending torment,
every church and chapel its sanctuary, and every congregation its devoted and
zealous body-guard. Yet at this very moment all the religious bodies are
deploring, in their periodicals, the fact that not only they do not gain upon
the population, but that relatively to the increase of the population they are
declining.
But it is not to the condition of the
religious bodies themselves that I refer so much. It is to the state of the
masses. On these the religious bodies can make little or no impression. There
are preachers in every parish and hamlet of our land, and bibles in every
house, and tracts circulated by tens of thousands in all directions, and yet
vice and irreligion confessedly abound among all classes. How is this?
Evidently not for want of a sufficient amount of terror. Our Edwardses among divines, and Polloks
among poets, and Melvilles among fashionable
declaimers, have almost revelled (if one may be
excused the expression, not using it in any offensive sense) in descriptions of
never-ending torment. And it is not that, from the crowded church to the
Methodist preaching room, there has been any lack of unquenchable fire, and
undying worms, and lakes of brimstone, that the mass of the people are careless
about their souls.
From their childhood, in our Sunday schools,
and upward, they have heard about “forever dying, and yet never dead.” The
‘wrath of God’ and ‘eternal damnation’ have been profusely dispensed. And yet
after an uninterrupted reign for centuries of this doctrine of never ending misery, vice, to use the every
day expression, rams down our streets like water, And everybody sees
that it is so. Let every reader only reflect on the state of his own neighbourhood for one serious hour, and he may be appalled.
Yet that Christianity teaches the eternity of
hell torments, the irreligious never question. They know full well that all the
preachers and religious people say so. Put the question where you will,—What does Christianity teach of the future condition
of the wicked and from every park bench, and every brothel, and every gaol, you will have the reply wherewith orthodoxy has
indoctrinated the country. So that I am abundantly entitled to affirm, that the
popular belief is comparatively impotent to restrain from sin, and allure to
Christ and holiness. To all who. reiterate that the idea of unending torment is
essential to restrain the sinner, I say—Look around! Where are the masses whom
it does restrain? Will the metropolis of “Christian England” be adduced? Or, if
vice must be expected to stalk in the city, will our rural districts answer the
purpose of our objectors Alas! Facts are against them,—all
the facts.
We may advance a step. Not only does the
scheme of infinite terror fail to impress the popular mind; but what if it
should be, that this very dogma has done more to alienate the people from the
religion that was affirmed to teach it, than anything else? Look ye, my reader.
A man who is quite conscious that he has declined grievously from the right
path is told that unless he repent, etc., he will
forever and forever lie sweltering in the fire of God’s wrath. Pains are taken
to make the future as dreadful as words and imagery can make it. Eternity is
attempted to be realised. He is assured that when he
has existed in torment as many centuries as there are leaves in the forest, or
sand grains on the shore, or atoms in the world, he will even then have only
entered on his punishment; and that forever and forever more he will writhe in
anguish, “ forever dying, and yet never dead!” Now
what is the result? Suppose the listener to be a common sense
shrewd sort of man. He instinctively feels and he perhaps expresses his
feeling, that this threatened infinity of torment for the careless sinfulness
(for he acknowledges thus much) of a few years, is out of all proportion;—the infinite for the finite! Ho deems it not
merely unjust, but the bare enunciation of it an outrage on his understanding.
And he says so. The speaker departs confirmed in hit crude notions of the
malignant depravity that inheres in human nature, and
satisfied with his own pious but impotent attempt to reclaim him. The sinner
also goes his way, irritated and uneasy. He recalls the conversation; sees
again that it cannot be proved to be just to punish him infinitely; and
concludes either that this cannot be the doctrine of scripture, or else that
the bible cannot be true. Either way he is harmed; and in a moody state of mind he joins his companions, who in loud tones agree that
there is injustice in the dogma that “the serious” preach, and that they are
not to be listened to.
Now, if Christianity do not contain this
doctrine, as we affirm it does not, with what a fearful curse has orthodoxy
blighted that man’s soul I God appeals to the people themselves whether his
ways are not just and equal; and an apostle by manifestation of the truth, commended
himself to every man’s conscience:* But the pious and devoted friend I have
supposed, instead of this, does the very reverse; and having alienated the
sinner still further from God, endeavours to relieve
his pious and praiseworthy solicitude by pillowing his head on some .other
doctrine of his faith; and original sin, or human depravity, or the sovereignty
of grace and the inscrutable mysteries of providence, or election, will come to
his aid. Whereas that man had a heart, if the speaker had only known the secret
way to it. It was not barred at every portal. And he had a conscience too,
slumbering it may be, but able to be awakened, if only he had known how to lay
a kindly hand upon it. Oh yes.
“The darkest night that shrouds the sky, Of beauty hath a share; The blackest heart hath signs to
tell That God still lingers there.” Speaking in the belief that the popular
doctrine is not taught in scripture, I do not hesitate to affirm that anything
more perfectly adapted to harden men’s hearts against God,
and hinder them from beginning to think aright of him, could not have
-been contrived. Its legitimate effects have been most disastrou2: Would we
seek for the rationale of infidelity, it might to a considerable extent be
found in this, —that religious men, having for, the most part Misapprehended
the truth of scripture on this point, have unconsciously and with the best
intentions, presented the God of revelation in such a light that his creatures,
whom he would fain have addressed through them and won to himself, have been
scared at the terrific aspect. “The God whom we are required to love, is a God
who, if I continue in sin, will keep me alive forever and ever in torment, by
way of punishment; and this, they say, is the declaration of the bible; then
either the bible is not really his word, or else he is fearfully unjust,”—have
ejaculated thousands.
And after referring to the very vilest, to men
filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil
things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers,
without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful, (Romans 1:29-31) he says,
even of these, that they knew themselves to be worthy of death. The death he
threatened to sinners was a death which even their own consciences confessed
them to deserve. Now since glitch malignant sinners were about the worst
possible ones, quite as bad as those of our own day, the popular idea of the
threatened death, not commending itself to the conscience, can scarcely be the
same.
By all means proclaim
the terrors of the Lord, we say. He would be a traitor to humanity who should
refrain. But take heed and not exaggerate the words of truth and soberness.
Remember the God you speak of is a righteous God; and while he will not shrink
from executing the sentence which calm and unimpassioned justice pronounces,
yet never will he exceed this. Human passions belong not to him, nor will his
righteous displeasure ever degenerate into revenge.
But it is time we touched on another point of
our reply. We referred to the philosophy of human nature, and affirmed that it
lent no countenance to the objection of our friends, that the doctrine of
infinite terror was indispensable to the maintenance of religion—that if it
were abandoned for the theory of ultimate destruction, men would thereby be
encouraged to persist in sin;—and that nothing less
than the fear of infinite misery would suffice as an adequate motive.
Now, not to press the fact that human
governments have uniformly found crime ,to rise in amount and aggravation in
proportion to the severity of the punishment, and to diminish in proportion as
the penalty has accorded with the universal sense of justice; I content myself
with asking, on what known principle of our nature a man will be more
thoroughly and beneficially affected by an indefinite amount of punishment,
which he therefore cannot realise, if that which is
more level to his apprehension, and more consonant with his sense of justice,
is utterly powerless. On what principle would a man be deterred from any course
by the threat of a million years of misery, if he laughed to scorn the threat
of a thousand years of punishment? In reference to the hitherto untried, we
must be affected to a great extent through the imagination. And that which can
be somewhat comprehended and realised, will inevitably
be more powerful than that which no effort can avail to grasp. The definite
will prevail more than the indefinite.
And if we dared to imagine such a thing, as
that it were left to us to represent such future punishment for the impenitent
as we deemed most likely to affect them beneficially, I, for one, should
represent the sinner who would not return to God, and who therefore could
answer no end by his continued existence, as blotted out of being by a solemn
and judicial act, in sight of numberless spectators, who would thereby learn
what an evil and bitter thing is sin, and how God will by no means clear the
guilty. And this, if I mistake not, would prevail more than the scheme of
never-ending misery, for these two reasons already suggested; namely,
First—that it could be more thoroughly realised, and
so would more powerfully affect the mind; and Secondly, and chiefly, inasmuch
as the sinner would in the deep recesses of his conscience feel it to be just;
and so, instead of being additionally hardened against God, would be the more
ready to embrace his message, and seek to love him with all his heart.
On this part of our subject, the reader
perhaps may be pleased with In extract from the Valuable work of the late
Abraham Tucker.— “Let us suppose then we could know
for certain that the duration of future punishment were precisely one thousand
years: what encouragement could this give to the sinner? Is not this length far
greater than that of any enjoyment he can expect to get by sinning? Let him consider
what it is to pass a day, a week, a month, in exquisite tortures, and he will
soon find a less time than that we have specified sufficient to discourage him
effectually from running the hazard. Suppose a wicked man talked to by the
parson of the parish, who terrifies him with the dread of everlasting flames,
into the resolution of amendment. You come in afterwards and bid him not mind
the parson, for you know better than all of them put together,
and can assure him there is no such thing as everlasting flames. Ay!
Says the man, I am heartily glad of that, for then I may take my pleasure
without fear of an after-reckoning. No, no, you say, I cannot engage for so
much neither; you must expect to smart, but it will be but for a while, only a
thousand years, and all will be well again. What comfort could this give him?
Must it not rather damp his spirits, and the naming so vast a length increase his terrors more than the limitation to that term
abate them.
“For both choice and evidence have their
certain weight to render them complete: while below this pitch, you may
increase them by adding to the weights; but when once arrived at it, all
further addition is superfluous. For in moral arithmetic, as observed before
under the article of pleasure, the same rules do not hold, good as in the
common; nor does two and two always make four. If I hear an unlikely fact
related by somebody I know little of, I shall not heed him much: if another
confirms what he said, I may begin to doubt: two or three more agreeing in the
same story may make me think it probable: but if twenty persons of approved honour and veracity set it upon their own knowledge, I
should give an unreserved assent: nor could I do more though a hundred of the
same character were to come in. So were a man offered a long life of pleasure
for a month’s future sufferings, perhaps he might be stout enough to accept the
condition: were they increased to a year, he might
hesitate: but were they multiplied to a thousand years, he could not delay his
choice a moment, if he had any consideration at all. Where demonstration will
not convince, nor things beyond all comparison determine the choice, it proves
an insensibility in the mind which no further outward application can cure. If
those who - hear not Moses and the prophets would not believe though one rose
from the dead; neither would he that is hot touched with a thousand years of
severest punishment, be moved with an eternity. For it is plain the present
wholly engrosses his imagination: he has no regard for the future: and you may
as well make a blind man see by lighting up more candles, or a mortified limb,
that has utterly lost its sensation feel by laying on more stripes, as affect
him by any future sufferings whatsoever.
“Therefore since a mind that has any feeling
of futurity will be Ailed with as much terror by the length above specified as
it is capable of receiving, you cannot lesson the discouragement by paring off
what lies beyond: and one that has no sense of anything further than this
present life, will not be affected by all you can say concerning a Hereafter;
so you cannot lesson the discouragement where there was none. Besides, for a
man to pretend he should have paid a due regard to his future state if I had
not persuaded him it was finite, would be
contradicting himself in the same breath: for-why does he make nothing of a
limited term, unless because he conceives it fifty or threescore years distant?
How absurd then is it to tell me he sets no value upon a reversion after
threescore years, yet should value one extremely after a thousand years? He
that makes this excuse either is not in earnest or deceives himself
egregiously, and only catches hold of a specious argument to cover his thorough
attachment to present pleasures.
“After all that has been suggested, if any
considerate person should happen to come into my notion upon this article, I
think he could not be induced thereby to become a whit the less careful of his
future concerns: and for the inconsiderate, they are not likely to meddle with
my speculations. But if any of them should be hurt, it may be attributed to the
common practice of expatiating with all the powers of oratory upon the word eternal; which carries a tacit implication, that if
punishment were not eternal, it would not be worth minding. This seems to be
inuring men never to stir unless upon the strongest inducement: perhaps it
might be more expedient to bring them into a habit of answering the gentlest
call of judgment. It has been remarked that a trader never grows rich who
despises little gains: and it might as justly be said,
that a man never grows happy or prudent who despises little advantages,
although large enough to be visible. The mind has been often compared to a fine
balance, and we know the excellence of a balance lies in its turning with a
hair: so the excellence of judgment lies in discerning
the minute difference; and the excellence of disposition, in pursuing measures
readily upon view of the slightest preference.” The Light of Nature pursued,
Volume 1, p. 653-654.
But it is time we passed on to consider
another objection already hinted at, namely,— § That
the idea of a literal destruction being the doom of the impenitent, has an
untoward aspect on the doctrine of the atonement. Thus writes the Eclectic Reviewer.— “The salvation of the soul is the object and
result of the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. The expiatory offering of
the Son of God is a mystery at least as great as any involved in the doctrine
of eternal punishment; and the awe which a serious contemplation of it is
adapted to produce passes into actual pain, unless we
take some grand and awful view of the object which was to be affected by it. To
think of the eternal Father slaying his well
beloved Son for any purpose is amazing; but to think of his doing
so for a slight one is altogether appalling and impossible. The immortality of
the soul stands in the fullest harmony with the vastness of the price that was
paid for its redemption, and the eternity of future punishment with the
infinite costliness of the ransom. It would afford a devout heart little
satisfaction to adopt a view which would represent the Most Blessed as tender
to his rebellious creatures, at the cost of representing him as cruel to his Son.” Let me be pardoned by the writer if I say that I read
this with deep and painful regret. The unutterably glorious fact of an adequate
expiation for human guilt, by the mysterious sacrifice of our adorable
Redeemer, is ever to be spoken of with reverent lips. And the idea of God’s
being represented as “cruel to his Son,” unless all sinners are kept alive
through eternity to be tormented, does strike me as unutterably painful. Will
my esteemed friend then peril the precious doctrine of atonement, by resting it
on the everlasting misery of the sinner, as its only secure and solid basis? Is
the atonement of Christ a fiction, unless the eternity
of hell torment be a truth?
And is the voluntary death of Christ, which is
somewhat unhappily designated God’s ‘slaying his beloved Son’ an act of cruelty,
if the incorrigible are destroyed, notwithstanding a
great multitude which no man can number ‘having washed their robes and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb,’ spend a joyous eternity in heaven as the
glorious reward of his mediation undertaking? Must the ears of the
compassionate Redeemer drink in, not merely the songs of the saved, but also
the groans of the impenitent through eternal ages, in order that he may not
resent his former ignominy as an act of cruelty on the part of the Father? I tremble
at the thought.
For if I must express my regret at the strain,
which, though I am sure it was well intended, will be-acknowledged to be most
unhappy, I may also deplore that the writer should have allowed himself to
build the fortification of his own position with what, in any less honourable opponent, one would have called the wood, hay,
and stubble of misrepresentation. I allude to his exhibiting “the Almighty
Father as slaying his beloved Son” for “a slight” purpose, if our view be
correct; that is, if it were only to save innumerable millions of sinners from
destruction, and endow them, with immortality, and raise them to heaven, and
make them in some bright and glorious spheres of action, kings and priests unto
God, rendering them growingly happy as the ages of eternity roll on, so that
Christ is everlastingly glorified in them, and the eye of paternal Deity rests
on them with ineffable complacency and love.
All this is accomplished by our blessed Saviour “ whom having not seen we
love, in whom though now we see him not, yet believing we rejoice with joy
unspeakable and full of glory.” But unless it were unending misery that was
originally threatened to man, and unless this be the portion of the lost
still—it was “a slight purpose,” says the reviewer, for which the Mediator
died!
Let me remind the reader that, when we believe
the fact of an atonement for sin, we believe it, not because we have first of all reasoned out the propriety of such an amazing
procedure in the government of God, but because it is revealed. The scriptures,
which we know to be from God, affirm it, to our apprehension, with unmistakable
plainness. And as nothing can ever set aside a fact, all reasoning against
facts being absurd, nothing else that we find in scripture will shake our
confidence in this. And as all facts lie quietly side by side with one another,
so, whatever be the fact touching the final destiny of the incorrigible, it
cannot in the faintest degree affect the previously ascertained fact of an
atonement. And as a guilty sinner, humbly basing my hopes of heaven on the
merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I grieve
at such a dangerous doctrine as that which I regret being thus compelled to
notice. And I beseech my beloved brethren to beware how they snatch up weapons
against me, which, a common enemy would easily wrench from their hands, and
employ exultingly against us both. Let us keep close to a sound philosophy, and
hold fast all facts, whether at present we can harmonise
them or not. And let us not forget, as child-like disciples, that ours is
emphatically “the obedience of faith.” There is one other objection, which I do
not remember to have seen urged, and yet to my own apprehension it is by no
means the least important. It is this.— § That, if
final destruction be the doom of all the wicked, this sameness of end,
involving all alike in one undistinguishable ruin, seems to do away with the
scripture doctrine of degrees of punishment. If all are destroyed, all are
involved in the same doom.
To my own mind this appears one of the very strongest
of all objections to the views suggested in this work. And it is incumbent on
me therefore to consider it, although I am not aware that it has been brought
forward by any opponent. But our aim is truth.
Let it be admitted as indisputable that there
are, as we easily perceive there ought to be, degrees of punishment. How does
the theory I suggest provide for this?
Now suppose I answer frankly that I feel some
little difficulty here. What then? Are there no difficulties impede with almost
everything we believe? We believe on evidence. And evidence may be sufficient
to compel belief, even though there may remain some difficulties unexplained.
Why do I reject the popular doctrine? Not because of the difficulties in which
it is involved. But because, first, I do not find it taught in scripture; and
secondly, I think I do find something else taught there very distinctly.
It will be admitted by all who have
attentively studied the scriptures, that we often have their grand outlines of
truth, the details of which are reserved. Or, we have vast masses of truth,
whose reality is apparent, but the twilight hour of this incipient stage of our
existence does not permit us to discern clearly the
outlines thereof. “Now we see as through a glass darkly.” One thing however
will suggest itself to the reader, on this point, as very
obvious. Namely, that it is quite conceivable that the length of time
which shall elapse ere the wicked utterly cease to be, and the degree of
suffering by which their final dissolution shall be preceded and accompanied,
may be exactly proportioned to their various deserts. This idea cannot, at all
events, be designated as incomprehensible. Nor is it absurd. And it would meet
the case. It would also be in harmony with the universal order of things. There
may be latent laws in existence and operation, the natural effect of which
would be perfectly to proportion suffering to crime. Many things consonant with
this will immediately occur to the mind of the intelligent reader. ‘Whatsoever
a man sows, that shall he also reap.’ I cannot undertake to affirm that this,
to us obvious proceeding, will be the precise mode in which the exceedingly
various degrees of criminality will meet their just desert. To the fact of
degrees of guilt, we must adhere. And then the consequence is inevitable. The
suggestion already made may prove correct. If so, it would perfectly meet the
objection.
But now would it not be well just to consider
for a moment how the supposed objection affects the popular view? Is it an
objection which any advocate of orthodoxy can safely urge against me? Assuredly
not. It is a dangerous weapon for orthodoxy to touch. If any of the believers
in eternal torment attempt to employ it against me, their brethren may well say,—Save us from our friends. And if I have not hesitated
to admit something of difficulty involved in the scripture doctrine of the less
guilty being beaten with few, and the more guilty with many stripes, how
intensely ought the holders of the current doctrine to feel themselves pressed
with the same difficulty.
It is now my turn to object. And the objection
is incomparably more weighty as against orthodoxy. Let
us see. You believe that every individual of the human race,
who is not born again of the spirit, no matter for age or other circumstances,
‘shall be cast into outer darkness, with weeping, wailing and gnashing of
teeth,’—shall receive ‘indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish,’—and
shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.’ You also believe in degrees
of guilt. That is, you believe there is the first faint dawn of responsibility—
that as people die at all ages, and under all circumstances, may die very soon
after becoming responsible agents, and while yet their responsibility, owing
either to age, intelligence, education, or other circumstances, infinitely
small. Yet the least vicious of the heathen, and the least guilty of the
unregenerate in England, they whose advantages were the most
scanty, while their disadvantages were the most enormous, are, on the
popular theory, all handed over to eternal torment. For them as hell as for the
vilest is there never ending suffering.
I know very well that many intelligent and
pious persons, on whom the almost universal doctrine has taken too deep it hold
to permit them altogether to abandon it in words, are in the habit of consoling
their minds with the reflection that—as there are these manifestly innumerable
gradations of guilt, from the faintest rudimental form thereof up to its
fearful maturity,—so the future punishment of multitudes who will fail of
heaven shall be so light in comparison, as scarcely to deserve the name, In
this way, to my knowledge do some, who are not willing to deny the common
doctrine altogether, try to relieve their own minds when they contemplate the
futurity of the unsaved. Then why preach an indiscriminate allotment to one
common hell I If some of the lost, the least guilty of all, will suffer but
little, why does the common doctrine, as taught from our pulpits, keep this out
of sight, and reiterate the assertion that for all who are not fit for heaven
there is eternal weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.’ But alas! this
view—which seems to make some approach to equity, to pay some tribute of
respect to the strong instinctive sense of justice and righteousness which man,
the product of An all-wise Creator’s hand, can never
quite lose—will not bear the light. It yields no solid relief to the distracted
mind. Only let it be examined, and the objection continues in nearly its original
force.
For, First,—This very
light punishment—of the more thoughtful of the orthodox,—is to be ETERNAL!
Nothing can disguise that. Let it be granted that in the case of multitudes the
positive inflictions shall be comparatively light. Give to orthodoxy every
advantage. Let it soften and modify at pleasure. Still there is this element of
ETERNITY! And to think of even a light punishment lasting forever, in a world
where there is no alleviation— no hope; and this the portion of the least
guilty;—eternally shut out of heaven—eternally lost—to live forever, conscious
of being forever doomed to ‘despair—denied all pleasant employment—nothing honourable, nothing good, to engage the conscious powers—no
possibility of personal improvement, or elevation of character,—all the
happiness of the saved eternally beyond their reach—and dark, dark despair
their everlasting portion?
To think of the punishment of those whose
guilt is of .the faintest shade, as mere privation,
loss of all happiness, forfeiture of all good, and this felt and groaned under
forever by spirits that necessarily pine for good, certainly does not bring the
lowest degree of punishment down to the first point of criminality in the moral
scale. Still it is an infinite punishment for a finite
demerit. And thus assuredly the orthodox are not in a
condition to object that our theory scarcely consists with degrees of
punishment. Their objection however has been replied to; and in addition I have undertaken to show how, while on the views
of this volume the difficulty can be met, it remains is all its force against
the very parties who would fain urge it.
And, Secondly,—While
orthodoxy in its mildest form would exhibit the punishment of some as
consisting in privation merely—losing sight of all that this privation
necessarily involves,—it may be fairly submitted to them ‘that even this poor
solace fails them.
For let the least guilty, those who had fewest
religious advantages, or who died shortly after their responsibility had
commenced, be shut up in hell, in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and
his angels. Let them become conscious of all that they have lost Let them recognise that the vilest wretches that ever disgraced
humanity, and the fiends that murderously though invisibly tempted them to
evil, are to be their associates forever; that through eternal ages the wrath
of God is to rest upon them; and that there is no hope, no not the faintest;
and how long will their original disparity in wickedness.
Or does orthodoxy dream that there will be no
fearful growth of character in hell? We are often hearing how matured the devil
has become in the hellish arts of temptation, by the practice of ages. The
faculties of the saints also will expand in heaven. They shall rise front one
degree of moral elevation to another. They shall become equal to their present
conceptions of what the loftiest angels are. They shall become unutterably more
than even this. And this by the laws of their intellectual and moral nature,
—not by miracle.
Will not then the lost—if immortality be
inalienably inwrought into the very essence of their being, as some affirm,
continue of necessity in like manner to attain to one enormous growth in
wickedness after another; just as here on earth, wicked men and seducers wax
worse and worse? Will the child in wickedness, by some strange process of
mental and moral fixation, continue a child forever? How long will they who, on
their entrance within the adamantine gates of hell, were the least depraved,
and were therefore subjected to the lesser torment, remain thus comparatively
unhardened in sin when they find themselves in a world where there is no chance
of struggling back into virtue, no opportunity afforded; but where all their
associates are unutterably vile, and many of them even demons, whose rage and
cruelty and abhorrence of God and holiness are beyond the power of tongue to
describe? Will they not, themselves, must they not, by dire necessity of
nature, become fearfully confirmed in wickedness? Finding themselves irretrievably
doomed to woe, for the evil they had done during their brief abode on earth,
while their responsibility was but commencing, will they not hate with ever
growing intensity of hatred the God who has thus plunged them into hopeless
misery?
But I cannot pursue the thought. The mind
turns away unable to bear the ideal scene. In another sense than the prophet’s,
the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint.’ And yet is it almost
necessary that we should gird up our loins for the fearful task.
Let the reader however admit, what indeed he
ought not for a moment to question, that there will be expansion, development,
growth of intellectual power and moral character, in the next state. And this
as a matter of course; by virtue of the very laws which the Creator hath
stamped upon our being. And then, in one indiscriminate hell, will not all
degrees of guilt, all shade s of character, be soon confounded? And under the
influence of despair, under the promptings of hatred to him who hath thus
plunged them into one abyss, and wrought on by the conduct of their fellow
sufferers, and goaded by their torments, and maddened by the hot tumult and
hellish strife of those doleful regions, which they are consciously to endure
forever and ever,—will not, must not, all the doomed inhabitants of the pit
soon attain to a giant growth in wickedness? This, as it appears to us, is the
inevitable tendency of the sense of eternal despair.
And if the friends of this tremendous
orthodoxy shall object to the representation we have given, it is submitted
that, however they may shrink there from, it is nevertheless perfectly fair.
Fair, do I say! It is a most subdued and faint and feeble intimation of one
legitimate consequence of their cherished faith. Exaggeration is utterly
impossible. And let them never close their eyes to anything they really
believe. There is no merit in refusing to see. Voluntary blindness is no
virtue. To acquiesce implicitly in everything the righteous judge really
determines, is indeed the pleasant duty of a child of God, as pleasant to our
own minds as it is filially becoming. But unquestionably to acquiesce in a
human and therefore possibly mistaken interpretation of his counsels, is quite
another thing. The former is a virtue, the latter a fault. Rather indeed than I
should write or speak a word of irreverent reflection on any of the divine
proceedings, let my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the
roof of my mouth. I would cheerfully die a thousand deaths, rather than allow
the faintest shadow of an unworthy thought of the Most High
God my Creator, and Redeemer, and Father, to harbor in my mind. Let my heart be
torn quivering from my wretched bosom ere it become the allowed lurking place,
of one traitorous suspicion of the rectitude of his decisions, “whose work is
perfect; for all his ways are judgment; a God of truth and without iniquity,
just and right is he.” And I pray the orthodox, in their fairness and kindness,
not to mistake my remarks on their interpretation of scripture, for reflections
on the divine testimony itself. I trust to be found to “tremble at God’s words”
as reverently as themselves. But I deem them wrong, fearfully wrong in their
interpretation of “the lively oracles.” And it is their (to my mind) utterly mistaken
and terribly injurious doctrine that I speak of thus freely; and not any
doctrine of that blessed book which is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my
path;’ the joy and rejoicing of my heart,’ better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.’ But to return to our point, after this
brief digression, prompted by a natural solicitude to prevent misapprehension.
It was objected that our theory is incompatible with the scripture doctrine of
degrees of punishment. To this it was replied, First, that there was one very obvious method by which, though all that were unfit for
existence should be finally destroyed, the sufferings to be endured might yet
be proportioned to their guilt. An exact providence might perfectly serve that
retributive justice which the scriptures intimate;—or,
the silent but sure operation of latent laws might accomplish the result, And,
Secondly, it was submitted that whatever weight there may be in the objection,
it lies properly and with tremendously accumulated force against the popular
doctrine itself; rather than against our own. For that the orthodox belief,
while it holds to degrees of punishment in words, in reality
confounds all variety of crime and award, by dooming even the least
guilty to endless punishment, and that under circumstances which must
inevitably obliterate all traces of original disparity of guilt. And thus the best artillery of our opponents seems to us no
longer to play upon our ranks, but, inevitably abandoned by those who brought
it into the field, to be successfully turned against them, and to become a
frowning rampart to defend the position which it was planted to assail.
We have now adverted. to the chief objections
brought against our views. There are others, it is true, still unnoticed. But
these are, so far as I know them, very subordinate ones, which will be easily
disposed of by the thoughtful reader, if the general
principles of this volume meet with his approval. I refer to such as the
following, for example,—which are all urged by the
Eclectic:
§ That the view given of immortality, as the
gift of Christ, represents a physical rather than a moral result as
accomplished by the Saviour’s mediation work.
To which it is obvious to reply, First,—That we admit of just as much of a moral result as do
the orthodox themselves. And not merely as much, but the very same precisely.
Whatever they affirm respecting the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, the
force of motive, the power of truth and example, etc. etc. that we affirm also.
And, Secondly.—They
cannot make it an objection that we represent some of the results of a Saviour’s mediation to be of a physical kind, unless they
are prepared to deny that any physical blessings whatever are bestowed by and
through Christ. But how stands the case? Do they not themselves gratefully
acknowledge and admire results of this very character? Do they not believe in
the resurrection of the dead?’ Are they not looking for the Lord Jesus from
heaven, who shall change our vile body, and fashion it like unto his glorious
body? And is this a purely moral good I Does it not come under the head of the
strictly physical? And then, are they not indebted for this to our adorable
Redeemer? So that they also, as thoroughly as ourselves,
believe in an emphatically physical effect accomplished by Christ on those who
believe, as the result of his mediation on their behalf And thus there is no
force in this objection. But another is— § That if a vast multitude of
irreclaimable sinners were really to be destroyed, such a fearful catastrophe
would surely have been more explicitly announced in the scriptures. To which
also two replies instantly suggest themselves.
First,—that this
awful consummation is affirmed as plainly as words can teach it, if only we
take the language of scripture in its plain and obvious sense. We need not here
repeat the texts so often quoted in the course of this
discussion; but what words or figures would convey the idea, if those employed
throughout the New Testament on this subject are not allowed to teach it? The
wicked are stubble, chaff, tares, that are to burned up; ‘they are faithless
servants, or rebellious subjects, that are to be cut asunder, slain; ‘they are
to be punished with everlasting destruction [proceeding] from the presence of
the Lord, even from the glory of his power;’ to be cast into a lake of fire,’
and to be destroyed both body and soul in hell.
Really the objection seems to me utterly
destitute of force. But if the friends who differ think otherwise, let them, Secondly,—consider how the principle, on which their
objection is founded, will bear on the popular creed, on behalf of which it is
urged against us. Is not the objection much more becoming and reasonable as
proposed by us against the common belief? May we not, with incomparably more
propriety; urge that if the orthodox doctrine were the true one, it would most
assuredly have been set forth in a far different manner than that in which
inspired writers have expressed themselves on the subject? If for myriads of
God’s intelligent, though, alas! rebellious creatures, there were a whole
eternity of torment, would the teachers of this appalling doctrine have
contented themselves with the few and simple expressions which are usually
quoted in its support? Read our popular hymns on the subject,
and see how Watts and Others have set forth the future. Or, if it please
better, read Pollok’s description of the torments of hell.
But no, my brethren will properly refuse to
ask the poet’s aid. And yet the popular doctrine cannot be exaggerated. Come
however to cool and prosaic divines. Take that mighty and excellent man,
Jonathan Edwards. Read his sermons on the subject, and
see the manner in which it is natural for the soberest men to express
themselves, who really believe the doctrine. But we need not prolong our
remarks. If there be any force at all in the objection, it lies really against
the popular doctrine, and not against our own. Let us turn to another-
§ It is alleged that if our view were correct, the destruction of the wicked
would naturally take place at the judgment day itself.
But it does not appear to me that we know
enough about the judgment day, to be able to lay down, with anything like
probability even, what may or may not be considered an obvious and natural
portion of the proceedings of that sublimely awful event. We, none of us,
however, expect the judgment day to be a day of precisely four and twenty hours
in length. What then do we expect? It is not for me to answer; but most
probably a fair reply would show how little force there is in the present
objection.
Over how long a period the judicial
proceedings may be extended, we cannot say. Nor whether the figurative language
of scripture on the subject is intended to do more than powerfully impress the
mind, through the medium of the imagination, with the certainty and precision
of those results, which in human governments can only be accomplished by means
of careful investigation in open court; but which the unlimited wisdom of the
appointed judge can perfectly secure without any such scrutiny; while his
irresistible power, informed by omniscience, can, in the twinkling of an eye,
place each individual in precisely his proper position.
For my own part, I agree with what I take to
be the view of the most intelligent Christians, that the vivid descriptions of
the grand final assize are chiefly intended to assure us of results, rather
than to convey any idea of the process by which those results shall be
accomplished. In which case the objection, not possessed of much weight on any
view, altogether falls.
And indeed, were it not for the fact of
degrees of punishment, I would cheerfully accept the sentiment of the objector,
which some passages of scripture would seem to favour.
I allude to such as 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. When the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not
God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ—who shall be punished
with everlasting destruction, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints,
etc.
But we must close this chapter, already too
protracted. And I am not conscious of having omitted any objection that
appeared to possess any weight entitling it to attention. Whether indeed the
brief replies suggested to those that have been adduced will commend themselves
to the judgment of the reader, I cannot tell. But he will remember that the
demand to dissipate, to every one’s satisfaction, all objections whatever that
can be raised to any doctrine, is a demand which all parties will refuse.
Nor will the candid reader fail to perceive
that by placing myself in the position of a respondent, I place myself on the
least advantageous ground. How would the advocates of the popular doctrine meet
the assault to which that may be exposed? Cannot fearfully formidable
objections be advanced against it to nearly all of which their one reply would
be, “If it be taught in scripture, all carnal reasoning must give way; there
can be no valid objection against anything that the mouth of the Lord hath
spoken.” A sound and sufficient reply, when we have indeed ascertained from
scripture that such or such a view is really the doctrine of inspiration.
And perhaps the writer may be pardoned if he
flatters himself to have shown sufficient cause for believing the views
suggested in this volume to be the sentiment of the New Testament. In which
case, all objections, were they a thousand times more numerous and formidable
than they really are, are at once disposed of to the perfect satisfaction of
every reverent and docile disciple, who has learnt that secret of acquiring
heavenly knowledge— If any man will be wise, let him become a fool, that he may
be wise.’
CONCLUDING Fears of the
pious—needless— Legitimate advantages of proposed doctrine— The one question—
Truth powerful for good— Infidelity disarmed— Increased boldness of preachers—
Diminished confidence of the sinner— More attractive exhibitions of religion—
Conclusion.
There are many very estimable Christians,
whose pious anxieties and scruples, arising out of
their intense solicitude for the honour of God and
the welfare of men, deserve the most respectful and tender consideration, who
have expressed considerable regret that the present subject should have been
mooted. They have asked, in affectingly regretful and dissuasive tones, what
good can possibly result from the agitation of the question while they have
sorrowfully forebodings many sad and melancholy consequences, as the necessary
result of bringing the established doctrine into suspicion. I wish it were
possible fully to meet their sad anticipations; but in the limits I have
allotted to myself it is to be feared this is impossible. Let them accept my
acknowledgments of their worth. I do ready homage to their sensitive piety.
Though my judgment is not with them, my heart is one with theirs. And it is
matter of grief to me that my endeavours to serve the
cause of evangelical truth wear, to their apprehension, quite another aspect. I
almost seem an enemy, where my highest ambition is to prove myself a friend.
Many considerations however come instantly crowding in upon the mind,
calculated I think to mitigate their fear, to banish it altogether, and even to
convert it into bright and confident hope. And to their.
pious candour and devout consideration, I
affectionately commend a few of those humorous thoughts.
§ 1. Our one grand inquiry must ever be, What is truth?
No matter how contrary it may be to our
cherished belief, to our settled judgment, to all our habits of thought, or our
ideas of the useful. Truth is from God. Error is from man. There is no room for
hesitation then. The true is the good, the fair, the beautiful. Truth is
powerful for good. Truth alone is powerful for real and ultimate good: All
error is injurious. Even if an error have seemed in
any case beneficial, mischief has lurked under the fair exterior. Protestants
must not, cannot, consent to pious frauds. We may not do evil that good may
come. We may not therefore tolerate or wink at evil, that supposed
, good may continue. Let the fair temple of our faith be built of the
gold and silver and precious stones which the all-wise builder hath provided;
and let us eschew the wood, hay, and stubble, that cannot stand the most
searching and fiery tests. Surely we can trust God for
the consequences which grow out of his own truth. He speaks; let us listen heedfully, and repeat faithfully what the oracle declares.
We are of yesterday, and know nothing; He is from
everlasting to everlasting, and his wisdom is unsearchable. Fellow Christian,
let our one question be, on this and every other subject of revelation, whether
doctrinal or ecclesiastical,— § 2. What is truth If
the view taken in these pages of the ultimate doom of the totally impenitent,
be the true one, as, after years of intensely anxious thought and prayer, we
firmly believe,—it must be useful. It must be every
way useful. It must be the most useful. It must, on the whole,
be the exclusively useful one. And this whether we can see it or not. We can
however perceive many important advantages, and will
presently advert to a few. But on the other hand, if, after all, the current
doctrine be not the true one, if it be not a fair echo of the divine
utterances, as we submit it is not, then its injuriousness must be
incalculable, terrific. If it be not a truth, what a portentous error must it
be! Its seeming good has in that ease concealed a most enormous amount of evil.
Let my reader only allow himself to suppose that the common doctrine is not
true; and let him contemplate it for a few moments from that standing point,
and how fearfully in that case has it misrepresented the character of God;
exhibiting him, as we have before had occasion to remark, as purposely
sustaining the guilty in existence, that he might inflict on them never-ending
punishment.
I say, if this be not true, what a frightful
idea of the Divine Being it presents. Evil then is never, never to cease. There
will be sin and wretchedness forever. And the holy will be assured of the fact.
And while they will be mercifully exempt from all pain and fear themselves, and will be in a bright and happy world where
everything invites to joy and gladness, they will know that there are vast
multitudes of their fellows passing the livelong night of eternity in weeping
and wailing and gnashing of teeth. How will this knowledge affect them I
President Edwards says, that by contrast it will greatly heighten their own
enjoyment, and that saints will be intensely glad to see how the wicked writhe
in anguish. Tremendous orthodoxy this, my brethren. What! Will insensibility to
the woes of the wretched ever become a virtue, lending new beauty to the
countenances of the holy? On earth it would be rightly deemed a mark of fearful
debasement, to be able to look with a cold unpitying eye, and a callous heart,
on the miseries of even the most abandoned.
Will that which is a vice on earth be a grace
in heaven. Then will it really be a more exalted state than the present one, or
will there be a true elevation of character, if sin and wretchedness affect us
not? Is the standard of virtue thus mutable, that what is wrong to-day is right
tomorrow; what is vicious here is gracious elsewhere? I must confess that I for
one have no wish over to cease to sympathise with
sorrow, however guilty the wretched victim thereof may be; nor shall I deem
myself improved in character, if ever I find myself indifferent to the woes of
the miserable. Nor can I conceive that the complete confidence in the rectitude
of the divine proceedings will ever banish all concern from celestial minds, and make them perfectly indifferent to the fact that
wickedness and wretchedness triumph in some parts of God’s fair universe.
I have always thought it the part of a demon
rather than a saint to rejoice over the sufferings of the lost. But if we are
to credit some of the most honoured defenders of the
popular doctrine, we must believe that— But I must check my hand. The field is
too large to enter on in the present volume. If orthodoxy be wrong on this
point, how fearfully wrong is it. If the light that is in it be darkness, how
great is that darkness!
§ 3. If the views suggested in this work are
true, are they not admirably adapted to wrest from the hand of the infidel or
the sceptic one of his most favourite weapons?
We know very well the proper ground to take if
we were sure that the popular dogma were really
contained in scripture. Were it there we would hold to it, though the world
were as full of infidels as there are leaves in the forest, and though every
man we met wore the uninviting aspect of the sceptic. We have no sympathy with
any who would denude our holy religion of mystery. A religion without its
mystery is no fitting religion for man. But it is not for us to invent
mysteries. We think that on a proper occasion we could rebuke irreverent
impugners of the divine rectitude as promptly and earnestly as our brethren.
Nor would we hesitate to refuse all discussion, with the apostle’s righteous retort,— ‘ Nay, but O man, who art thou that replies against
God But when the sceptic urges objections against infinite misery for finite
misdeeds, we deem that he is not so much replying against God, as against men
that have mistaken the words of God. And right joyous are we to throw down this
buttress of infidelity, which orthodoxy has assisted to build, and to compel
the unhappy opponents of Christianity to an unwonted silence, while the
majestic voice is heard from the everlasting throne, ‘Are not my ways just and
equal, said the Lord’ By manifestation of the truth we shall commend ourselves
to every man’s conscience; and every mouth shall be stopped; and every enemy to
God and holiness be struck dumb, as though the great white throne were already
set, and he standing pale and speechless and affrighted at the bar of judgment.
Brethren, the sinner will be speechless then, why not make him speechless now?
Truth lends you her radiant mirror, to flash
its resistless, rays on the misty eyeballs of the guilty, and dazzle and
confound him; and thus holding him at advantage, enter
in and debate with him touching the glorious things which make for his
everlasting peace. But it seems- to me as though some malignant spirit of error
had breathed on the heavenly gift and dimmed its brightness; so that instead of
flashing the concentrated rays of the noon-day sun, we have rather the pale and
broken moon-beam faintly reflected from the mist
covered surface of a sluggish stream.
§ 3. If bur views be found to be correct, it
may be expected that those who become convinced thereof will be much more bold to preach even the terrors of the Lord.’ Perfectly
convinced of the righteousness of God, and confident that the threatened
punishment commends itself even to the consciences of the guilty themselves,
they will speak the word with all boldness, as they ought to speak. They will
not have to pause in the midst of earnest appeals, as
they often feel prompted at present, to try to justify what they are conscious
looks like undue severity. An idea which they only stifle in their own minds by
their filial confidence in the character of God, and their pious habit of
taking refuge in his necessary rectitude. But many things induce us to believe
that if once convinced of the correctness of the doctrine, they will urge it
home upon the sinner with all the greater confidence of truth, with all the
transparently obvious sincerity of men who firmly believe and even approve it.
But the reader asks whether the preachers of the popular doctrine are not fully
convinced of the truth of their assertions. Would they preach what they
disbelieved? No never. Neither could I by any possibility be more painfully
misapprehended, than to be understood as hinting at the bare possibility of
such a thing.
But everyone knows the mighty difference which
there is, between firmly believing a truth after protracted and painful examination, and holding an article of a creed which at
first was adopted perhaps as a matter of course, and because everyone else
professed to believe it, and which we have by long habit grown accustomed to,
without ever dreaming of calling its truth in question. The one, however
tenaciously adhered to, floats in reality on the surface of the mind; the other sinks into the deepest recesses of the
heart. “I hold,” and “I believe,” are words which represent two very different
states of mind, and two very different degrees of power.
Now two often our belief was in reality formed
for us by others, at a time when the mind was more plastic, and the affections more lively, than the judgment was sound.
And while yet in early life, we became
attached to someone or other religious party, with all possible influences
bearing us in one direction. How many, in after years, do we suppose ever go
through all the points of their habitual belief, rigidly and independently and
impartially examining its claims t is this the general habit Or, even if it
were as common as circumstances would seem to indicate it is rare, is the
position in which a man finds himself, after many years of °lode connection
with a party, during which he has been identified with their views, favourable for the detection of error, and the acquisition
of corrector sentiments? Besides, if men desire to serve God as minters of
Christ, an honourable wish which is generally formed
in youth, are they not expected to conform to the opinions of the body which
they belong to. What is then their course I In order to enter the ministry of
the Church of England, for instance, they must while mere youths swear their
assent and consent to articles of faith, many of which demand the best exercise
of the mature judgment. And a candidate for admission into a dissenting college
mast be strictly orthodox, according to the acceptation of the term in the
denomination he belongs to. During the term of his-studentship his orthodoxy is
jealously guarded.
Then as a candidate for pastoral labour he must, almost above all things, be orthodo10: And
once settled in the pastorate, he is generally surrounded by watchful guardians
of his orthodoxy again. While most of the religious periodicals seem
systematically to discountenance everything like freedom of theological
inquiry. We all seem afraid to trust the human mind out of leading strings. And
this even when religion is evidently enthroned in the affections of the devout
inquirer, and notwithstanding we profess to believe in a Holy Spirit, whose
peculiar and gracious office it is to ‘guide into all truth.’ But the Holy
Spirit must guide in what we deem the right way, or else woe to the man who has
been guided. Each religions party appears to have its own infallible
interpretations of inspired truth.
It will be remembered that,
a year or two since, nine or ten young men were expelled from one of the
Independent Colleges in Scotland, whose sole offence, as I understood, was
doubting of certain Calvinistic peculiarities. Their piety, I believe, was
unquestioned, and their sentiments would have secured them admission into the
contemplated “Evangelical Alliance.” They professed an unhesitating belief in
the doctrine of “the Trinity;” they held fast to the Divinity and Atonement of
Christ, and maintained the personality of the Holy Spirit, and his agency in
conversion. What then was their offence? They doubted the doctrine of election,
as generally held by Calvinists; and, so far as I could understand, seemed
inclined on that subject, and the kindred one of the operations of the Spirit,
to the views of the Wesleyan body. Their punishment was expulsion. And certain
of the English religious periodicals called loudly for their excommunication
from the churches to which they belonged, and
denounced beforehand any churches that should permit them to minister among
them.
But not to pursue a train of thought which is
almost painful,—What is the bearing of all this? It is
adduced, merely to show the reader how the views of many, perhaps the majority,
were easily adopted in, early life, and have been as easily retained, in many
cases without much deep personal or independent investigation; while the
scriptures being constantly read from that one standing point, certain texts have
been from the beginning, almost as a matter of ,course, assumed to teach such
and, such a view; and thus the mind has become fixed, confirmed, rather by the
force of habit, than by the force of thought.
It, is true that
there are very many honourable exceptions, men of
vigorous minds and independent spirits, who are ever watchful over themselves
with a godly jealousy, lest illegitimate influences should insensibly bias
their judgments, and impede them in their search for truth. To such none of my
remarks apply.
There are others, again, of similar mental
habits, who, feeling the awfulness of the subject, and secretly misgiving the
popular notion, more even than they acknowledge to themselves, have in their
public appeals studiously restricted themselves to the, very language of
scripture itself, and used even this but sparingly. This is the case with some
of the best and holiest and truthful men I know. They have their very grave
doubts on the subject.
If I am not greatly misinformed, it is
annually inquired concerning each minister of the Wesleyan body, whether he has
in any respect departed from the views of their founder. All honour to his memory; but alas, for truth! When any man is
thus called “master.” They have had these doubts for years. Meanwhile they have
trusted to be quite safe in using the exact words of scripture: But if these
are popularly taken in a certain definite sense, the preacher who, under such
circumstances, confines himself to them, sanctions that definite construction
of passages which to his own mind are indefinite.
Now whether we regard the larger or the
smaller class referred to, I think we shall find enough in the facts adduced,
to convince us that the real ‘terrors of the Lord’ will scarcely be presented
with becoming force. The comparatively easy belief of the one class, with the
secret consciousness that their doctrine needs to be justified to the sinner,
whom they wish for his own sake healthfully to alarm, will rob their customary
appeals of much of the power they might otherwise possess;
while the thoughtful perplexity of the other class conduces to the same result.
And thus I trust it
will not be- deemed presumptuous to anticipate much greater boldness than
before, in proclaiming the only and terrible alternative of repentance and
faith in Christ, from those who shall intelligently believe and heartily adopt
the views of this work. It appears to me that their faith will be more hearty, their personal misgivings fewer, their
consciousness of having even the sinner’s own conscience with them greater and
that all this must clothe them with new power. While also they will experience
a satisfaction which will still further conduce to the same result, in using
the scripture terms on the subject in their obvious sense. They will not have
to expound death as meaning life-never-ending life—never-ending life in
torment; nor destruction as meaning contained preservation, in order to suffer,
etc. ; nor to use such contradictory expressions as
“forever dying, and yet never dead.” But if I may judge from experience, there
will be to their apprehension a straightforwardness, a directness, and an
obviousness about the language of scripture, and it will all so thoroughly harmonise, one part with another, that they will feel their
feet planted upon a rock.
Of course the reader
will not understand me to imply that all preachers necessarily belong to one or
other of the classes mentioned. But to none of those who, after due personal
investigation, really and fully believe the popular doctrine, do my remarks” at
all refer. Men who really believe, and deeply feel, and earnestly preach, will
always be powerful.
I wish propriety would allow me to quote from
communications received on this very subject. One minister, who expresses his
thankfulness for the “spiritual results” in his own congregation, which have
followed the preaching of these sentiments, says, “They are life from the dead
to the church, and hell at the door to the wicked.” They shall more consciously
take up the prophet’s mantle, and feel that they have drunk more deeply of the
true prophetic spirit,—’ We believe, and THEREFORE
SPEAK..’ Having waited upon God and gained clearer views of his counsel and
design, they shall find that they have renewed their strength. Their eye shall
glance with new confidence and heroic delight on the armour
wherewith God’s own hand hath girded them. More consciously, we think, will
their loins be girt about with truth; while with a
giant’s grasp they hold the anointed shield of heavenly workmanship, and the
sword of celestial temper, whose edge nothing earthly can ever blunt—the sword,
that is, of the Spirit, and the shield of FAITH, which can so easily quench all
the fiery darts of the wicked.
5. And in addition to this increased
confidence in the tone of preachers, they will indisputably have a-far greater
hold on the sinners’ own conscience. The sinner who—while the speaker
threatened him with an eternal torment —had without much difficulty kept
himself on guard, and been repelled and hardened by
exhibitions which seemed to him an outrage on all justice, will much more
readily recognise that they who rebel against the
government of God, and trample his law under foot, deserve to “perish.” The
remembrances of earlier years, considerable personal intercourse with the
irreligious and the sceptical, together with several
years of ministerial labour, all force me to the
conclusion that the preaching of everlasting torment affects chiefly, and
almost exclusively, that very portion of our hearers who would be quite as
beneficially influenced, or even more so, by a lower exhibition of the
terrific; while the effect on those to whom one would naturally be the most
disposed to threaten it, is for the most part opposite to desirable. For even
where they are not repelled and hardened, as suggested above, an equally
injurious effect of another kind is produced. For the sinner, utterly
disbelieving the assertion that his Creator will keep him alive forever in
misery, for the sins, however aggravated, of a few years—an assertion which
does not commend itself to his conscience—is left to form his own opinion of
the kind of treatment he may expect. And then of course self-love will prompt
to the most favourable conclusions.
One thing is plain. The ungodly do not credit
the preachers of eternal woe. Does any one
imagine that the mass of our population believe anything like it?
Then let us recognise
how fearfully we have contributed to bring about the ruinous indifference to
religion which we lament. For having, by our terrible exaggerations of the
future, weakened and utterly lost the confidence of the irreligious in our
statements, we have unintentionally set them loose to think almost how they
will in regard to their state after death; and have
thus absolutely prepared the soil for the reception of those very seeds of
error, the growth of which, and their legitimate and now ripening fruits, fill
us with dismay.
It is appallingly dangerous, my brethren, to
weaken and destroy in the masses their belief of the preachers of Christianity.
But this is done, and now almost everybody sees it. Of course
it would be absurd to attribute the sad effect to any one cause alone. But
melancholy personal reminiscences, observation, and the testimony of many of
the very class referred to, convince me, as does all reasoning on the subject,
that to the cause now indicated must we attribute very much of that almost
systematic and confirmed irreligion which we deplore.
Many Christians are fearfully alarmed at the
doctrine of universal restoration, and shrink from the view suggested in this
work, chiefly, as tending to promote it. Strange notion this. Do they not
perceive that the doctrine of universal restitution (quite as scriptural as
that of infinite misery) derives one of its strongest recommendations from the
incredible ‘horror of the prevailing belief? Does not exaggeration of one kind
beget exaggeration of just the opposite kind? Repelled by perceived error in one
direction, do not most men unwisely fly as far in the contrary direction? Let
one class exaggerate the justice of God, and what more natural than that others
should equally exaggerate his love and mercy? Let the orthodox distort the one
attribute into injustice, and many who are shocked thereat will as unwisely
distort the other into weakness.
I beg then to submit to the thoughtful, that
to threaten the rebellious and impenitent with destruction,—with
a miserable destruction will be to secure the verdict of their own consciences.
For why should the All-sustaining One, in whom alone we live and move and have
our being, keep in existence those wretched creatures who, while they never can
be happy in themselves, by reason of their confirmed opposition to God, can
never be of any service to others, but the melancholy reverse;—blighting some
part of God’s fair universe with their presence and incorrigible viciousness,
and distressing the holy and the compassionate by the knowledge of their
sinfulness and misery? Let us scripturally present to them the incurred “wrath”
of heaven, and then when we demand with the apostle. Is God unrighteous, who
takes vengeance?’ they shall be self condemned and
speechless.
Thus then it is believed that our doctrine
will strengthen the preacher, and weaken the sinner—greatly increase the moving
power, and diminish the repelling,—and so, in a
twofold manner, secure a holier result.
§ 6. And this will be additionally soured by
another thing. If preachers, when the future condition of the wicked is their
theme, find themselves deprived of their common topic of declamation—the
eternal duration of the suffering—they will turn the same amount of energy of
appeal into another and more efficient direction. They will dwell on the certainty
of it—on the nearness of it—on the justice, propriety, and necessity of it.
It has often appeared to me that very much of
the endeavour to impress the sinner’s mind, by
heaping up illustration after illustration of a whole eternity spent in woe,
has been thrown away. Nearer, and director, and more forcible considerations
have meanwhile been forgotten or overlooked. And by dwelling chiefly on the
element of eternity, the sinner has been almost taught that it would not be so
very terrible if it were not everlasting. But those other considerations, it is
submitted, are in the very nature of things greatly more adapted to convince
and to affect.
7. Again, if the ministers of religion become
convinced that they are not justified by scripture in threatening the sinner
with an eternity of woe, that same holy anxiety—which has prompted them, though
thus disproportionately, to make the chief appeal to his fears, which it was
hoped (but in most instances in vain) terribly to arouse—will now prompt them
to besiege men the more assiduously and variously on the side of their hopes
and affections. Preachers must arm themselves with motives.
The Leader will allow me to commend to his
notice a tract by Reverend E. White, entitled “The Terrors of the Lord: an Argument with the Fearless.” It is published by Jackson
and Walford, and is admirably adapted for circulation
among the class specified.
They have nothing else to work with. And if
one kind be somewhat lessened, they will pay so much the more attention to, and
use so much the more powerfully, those which legitimately remain. And thus it may be expected that, while there is abundantly
sufficient of the terrors of the Lord,’ religion will become in their hands
much more generous and elevating and joyous and attractive than it has
heretofore been.
And as those who are most under the influence
of noble and elevated considerations moat thoroughly take on true nobleness of
character, the whole effect must be in every way beneficial.
Will the pious reader, whose praiseworthy
solicitude made him deprecate the discussion which has been raised on this
solemn subject, kindly accept and candidly consider
the few suggestions that have been briefly submitted to him. It is hoped that
he will see some reason for believing that his previous fears were groundless,
and that, at all events, it is not in the nature of things that injury should
result from the views submitted in these pages. Possibly he may come at length
to agree with the writer, that, so far as short-sighted mortals can judge, they
seem every way more adapted for various good, than those which have so long
held almost universal and unquestioned sway. Still the one question must be, What is Truth?’ And we can at least agree in this, that we
will seek anew that light which cometh from above; for if any man lack wisdom,
let him ask of God, who gives liberally to all men. He is ‘the Father of
lights.’ The spirit which he breathes into his children, is the spirit of
truth. Lead us, O Lord, and guide us! To whom should we go but unto thee? Thou has the words of Eternal Life.