By William Glen Moncrieff, Musselburgh.
" I believed, therefore have I spoken."-2 Cor. 4. 13.
Edinburgh: Printed And Sold By W. & R. Tofts.
London: Ward & Company; Aylesbury: W. Walker.
Price Sixpence.
1848.
In presenting the following Dialogues to the public, I may be allowed to state, that I am conscious of no motive except a sincere desire to extend what appears to me the Scriptural view of the punishment to be inflicted on those of the human family who shall be condemned at the Great Day of Judgment.
As far as I can judge, the prevailing doctrine on this subject is erroneous, and calculated deeply to injure the character of my Heavenly Father; and I have done what was in my power, in a calm spirit, to show that the popular notion is perfectly unscriptural. Believing it wrong to conceal truth or what appears to my mind to be truth-having a tendency to benefit my fellowmen, and especially my fellow Christians, with all humility I lay this treatise before them, hoping that, perhaps, some will condescend to read it. What is evolved in the Dialogues is either truth or error; if it is truth, it will live-if it is error, it must die.
To those of my Christian friends who may deem me unwise in bringing forward this matter, I have to declare, that while I assure them of my undiminished affection for them, my honest conviction is, that the sooner public errors are openly assailed the better. Not a few of them are valiant antagonists of other anti- scriptural errors, and I only presume to treat the common doctrine of future punishment, as belonging to the same class.
We live in an age of searching inquiry, and the human mind will not be chained; and I am more and more persuaded, that if there is to be any lasting union among Christian brethren, whatever situation they occupy in the Church of Christ, it can now be preserved only by an enlarged charity and forbearance.
In this place it is my duty to record my best thanks to the Rev. H. Dobney, of Maidstone, to whose able work "On Future Punishments" I am chiefly indebted for sound views on this subject.
In a great measure, his book has been the quarry whence the following argumentation has been derived, and I am fully assured he approves of the liberty I have taken with his pages. Here also let me mention, as defending the same views, the volume entitled " Life in Christ," by the Rev. Edward White, minister of the Congregational Church, Hereford: this volume is published by " Jackson and Wolford, " London, and sells for Seven Shillings. Judging from what I have read of it, this treatise is admirable; but time has prevented me from giving it, as yet, so thorough a perusal as the one already mentioned.
Since it is quite possible some person may deem it proper to favour the public with refuting remarks on the succeeding pages, I would suggest to such a friend, that he will find a far better field for the exercise of his abilities, in the works of the gentlemen I have named, than in a pamphlet which assumes no higher character than that of a plain and familiar exhibition of thoughts common to them both. However, should observations of the kind I have specified come forth, let them be temperate and searching; and the candid will be our judges. One thing the author must do, and that is what the late Dr Winter Hamilton is, in a note at the bottom of page 21, affirmed not to have done; and till this is effectually performed, all argumentation in favour of the popular view of Future Punishment, is, in my humble opinion, like building a castle before laying its foundation. Permit me also to add, that ridicule, and scorn, and spiritual anathematizing, and the ascription of bad motives, have too often passed for arguments in religious, as in other discussions; but the time has come, if I am not greatly mistaken, when this dishonourable method of assailing a writer has passed away, and when sound reasoning is better understood.
Having penned what seems to me the truth of God, I pray Him condescendingly to own my imperfect labours, for the better exhibition of his Infinitely Glorious Name.
MUSSELBURGH, DECEMBER 23, 1848.
THE AUTHOR.
DIALOGUES ON FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
Persis.
I am delighted to see my beloved Rufus.
Rufus.
Yesterday was a time of much joy to me; I hope your own soul was blessed in the
sanctuary?
Persis.
Peculiarly so; and I am glad to learn you had similar enjoyment. The discourse
to which we listened, in the afternoon, was such a magnificent exhibition of
God's love for sinners, that I was almost overpowered with the purest delight. It
was heaven below, I assure you. Who could listen to such a display of the
triune Jehovah's compassion for rebels, and not be subdued, disarmed, and
blessed? Alas! that it was possible for one to leave the sanctuary unreconciled
to his Creator.
Rufus.
His name is "Love" infinite and endless love. While I gaze on his
glory as it is reflected on the countenance of Jesus, I am lost in thrilling,
adoring admiration.
Persis.
All creation speaks him to be Love. We are encompassed with love, as the globe
is enveloped in the atmosphere.
Voices come from every region proclaiming "God is love," though the grandest announcement sounds from Calvary, and is heard with amazement through the bounds of infinite space. Yes, "God is love," and even the miseries that are inflicted on those that violate the physical, organic, and moral laws of the universe, are, when rightly understood, exhibitions of the same character; the hoarser notes, as it were, of the grand ceaseless anthem that swells through all creation.
Rufus.
Especially since I came to the knowledge of the truth, I have often had my mind
turned towards the future condition of the finally impenitent among our
fellow-men; and I must own that I cannot reconcile their ceaseless torture with
the infinitely compassionate and merciful character of Jehovah. I do not assert
that they are irreconcilable; nevertheless, it would be contrary to my present
convictions, were Ito affirm that no difficulty is perceived by me in establishing
a harmony between them. Nothing would comfort me more than to have light on
this painful subject, for, to tell you the truth, 'tis a view of God's
character which I would be quite unable to defend, were anyone requiring me to
do so.
Persis.
On the same subject, I have had for many years a full measure of perplexity,
and I know others who are anxious for some beams of light to be thrown on
Jehovah's character, when, as is generally supposed, he represents himself as
determined to inflict suffering on the damned through unceasing ages. To
reconcile this with the statement "God is love," is to me, I
acknowledge, an utter impossibility. Not merely is it, as far as I can judge,
beyond possibility to harmonize these two views of the Divine character; but
the perfectly unceasing misery of the condemned appears of itself fitted to
quench, at least powerfully to modify, the future happiness of the saved. It is
a problem, Rufus, which I cannot solve, how the redeemed could be so blessed
through eternity, as the Bible teaches us they shall be, if, at the same time,
they know that countless myriads are enduring the most exquisite, unending
pain.
Rufus.
Neither can I unravel that difficult question. I believe that the supposition
you have mentioned, of what must take place in heaven, is capable of vivid
analogical proof and illustration from what occurs in the present state of
being. Already, I must candidly acknowledge, that my own happiness as a
Christian (and I could name others who have had the same experience,) has been
imbittered by the thought, that some of my friends are, as far as I can
conclude, in the abode of wretchedness; and when I think of their enduring,
unending woe, I am at times nearly landed in distraction. The happier, on any
particular occasion, I am rendered by contemplating the divine compassion
toward my own soul, the more intensely do I feel for them in their deplorable
condition.
Often, I assure you, when awake during the watches of the night, my mind has been led to consider their suffering, woe that is never, no, never to terminate to last as long as the Eternal himself-I have literally shuddered and shrieked out in agony of soul. Hence, I fully coincide in your remark, that the unceasing misery of the wicked appears, of itself, fitted to extinguish, at any rate powerfully to modify, the felicity of heaven itself. Will we not retain the memory of them through eternity, though they may be confined in some distant corner of space? Will we not be more competent, as ages roll on, to judge of their loss and their agony? Will our sympathies not grow more tender and perfect?
I might further inquire, if it will not tend to mar the joy of the forgiven murderer, when he thinks of his victim in perpetual woe? -Of the warrior, who found mercy, when he reflects on the thousands in quenchless suffering through his frenzied ambition?
Of the minister, who was delivered from death, when he recollects the members of his flock, who were blinded by his ignorance, now in ceaseless despair? Of the parent, who has been washed in Jesus' blood, as he thinks that his offspring lived and died unwarned and unenlightened, now bound on the wheel of agony, chiefly through his unconcern for their souls? Of the friend, when he calls to mind that his companion, whom he neglected to admonish, is in eternal misery? It seems to me as if the smoke of the bottomless pit were destined to cast its awful and unfading shadow along the very plains of heaven. Ah, Persis, the ceaseless woe of the lost, be they known to us or not, is like a consignment of the intelligent created universe to suffering; the guilty part to agony from crime; the holy part to the agony of intense, overwhelming sympathy!
Persis.
Not unfrequently has it been declared that the righteous will be so satisfied
with the justice of the sentence inflicted on the unsaved, that their suffering
will not interfere with the heavenly joy. But satisfaction with a sentence
inflicted on a criminal will never destroy, in a holy mind, sympathy for him in
his woe.
It never did, and never ought to produce this effect. Even the Almighty himself deplores the doom of the finally impenitent, and He must understand in the most perfect manner the justice of his own sentence; though, of course, being infinitely and necessarily happy, his contemplation of the suffering endured in hell, cannot lessen his own felicity. But with creatures the case is very different. Our happiness comes from without; and while from Himself there will be obtained perennial streams of joy, there will, at least so I judge, be an influx of sympathetic pain from the protracted agonies of the condemned.
Rufus.
The more I reflect on the subject of future punishment, in the aspect in which
we are now contemplating it, the more do I see the desirableness of increased
information on the point. O for one bright ray to scatter the darkness!
Persis.
My opinion is, that there is no lack of most satisfactory information in Holy
Scripture bearing on the subject; what we need is, to re-examine the Volume in
a more humble, prayerful, and independent spirit.
Rufus.
You startle me somewhat, Persis. I hope you have not cast aside the teaching of
inspiration; for the terms it employs seem so explicit, that another view than
that the wicked must be in endless suffering, cannot, in my judgment, be
derived from its pages. Could anything be plainer than this language, "These
shall go away into everlasting punishment"- "Whose end is
destruction"? Still I shall be glad to hear your mind, and am quite
prepared to examine the foundations of my faith on this topic.
Persis.
Do not imagine that I have any wish to lead my Rufus into error, even were it
in my power to do so; your reverence for God, and your intellectual acuteness,
are a sufficient pledge, that unless I could present you with Scriptural
arguments, I need not dream of producing any alteration in your sentiments. But
I know you are too much a friend of truth to reject her oracles through
whatever medium they may be spoken in your hearing.
Rufus.
Imagine not that I meant to express the least suspicion that you could have a
wish to lead me into error. If any language employed by me seemed to utter such
a suspicion, excuse me, I entreat you, for I designed it not; 'twas the thought
you presented to me, that another view could be taken of the subject, that led
me to answer as I did.
Persis.
Without any hesitation, I frankly acknowledge to you that I believe in the
Scriptural doctrine, that future punishment is, in the exactness sense of the
word, everlasting. Not because it is said to be " everlasting" or
" for ever;" for there are many things denominated everlasting in
Scripture, which have long since come to an end. For instance, the gates of the
ancient Tabernacle or Temple, are thus addressed- " Ye everlasting doors:"
again, the statutes and institutions, like the Passover, which were delivered
to the Jews to be peculiarly theirs, are pronounced ordinances " for ever;"
meaning they were to last, not literally for ever, but till the conclusion of
the Mosaic dispensation: again, the leprosy of Naaman was judicially appointed
to cleave to the covetous Gehazi and his seed " for ever;" that is,
so long as he and his seed existed. The duration of himself and his descendants
would thus determine the continuance of the leprosy, and the length of time
imported by the phrase " for ever," employed in the original
prophetic denunciation. (See, Exod. 12. 14; 32. 13; Lev. 25.46. Num. 10. 8; 15.
15; 18. 8; Deut. 28. 46; Josh. 4. 7; 2 Kings 5. 27; 1 Chron. 23. 13; 2 Chron.
30. 8; Job. 19.24; Isa. 47. 7.)
Not merely are many things denominated "everlasting," as the specified instances establish, which have long since terminated, but there are other things so styled, that we know from philosophical observation, as well as from Divine testimony, will come to an end-as, for example, the "everlasting mountains" and the "perpetual hills. "Hence, the terms "everlasting," "perpetual," and "for ever," do not of themselves warrant us to believe that the thing to which they are applied has a duration, strictly speaking, unending; and no one who examines the question for an hour would maintain that whatever the nature of future punishment may be, it will continue through literally everlasting ages, merely because it is pronounced an "everlasting punishment," or one to endure "for ever." Speaking of aion, the Greek word, rendered "everlasting" and "eternal" in the New Testament, Moses Stewart justly observes, in his Exegetical Essays "The different shades by which the word is rendered, depend on THE OBJECT with which aion is associated, or to which it has a relation, rather than any difference in the real meaning of aion itself."
Though, in these circumstances, the adjective "everlasting" applied to the future punishment of the wicked, could never warrant us to infer that it was, strictly speaking, endless; you have mentioned what, to my mind, is a most conclusive argument, bearing on the absolutely everlasting duration of the punishment, "Their END IS destruction." Were they ordained at some far distant age to recovery, as many conjecture, restoration would be their end, and the intervening period would be one infinitely short compared with the peaceful ages remaining for their enjoyment.
Rufus.
Then you believe that the punishment of the lost is literally unending misery?
Persis.
I believe that the wicked will depart " into (or to) everlasting punishment;"
but the question now arises, WHAT IS THIS PUNISHMENT? The popular notion is,
that it will be misery; to my mind this is exceedingly questionable. Aman may
hold that sinners are converted only by the Holy Spirit's influence; and yet,
he may differ from others as to the kind of influence that is exercised.
He may believe it direct; whereas I maintain it is indirect or through gospel truth; still, though he did thus differ from you and me as to the mode, it would be far wrong to assert that he denied altogether the doctrine of conversion by the Holy Spirit's agency?
Rufus.
It would.
Persis.
Well here I take the liberty of determining for myself out of God's word, not
merely how long the future punishment shall last, but what kind of "
everlasting punishment" it is to be.
Rufus.
But is not punishment and suffering the same thing?
Persis.
Many run into the great mistake that they are; but, let my Rufus reflect one
moment. Dr Johnson defines punishment to be "any infliction imposed in
vengeance of a crime." Punishment is a genus, and it has many species. A
fine is a punishment, so is banishment so is imprisonment, and so is death,
judicially inflicted. In Scripture there are various kinds of punishment spoken
of. We shall quote a few passages where the inflictions threatened and imposed
are expressly called punishments; there are, however, many other judicial
visitations, or punishments, mentioned, though they are not called punishments.
Consider these verses:--- " And when the morning arose, then the angels
hastened Lot, saying, arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are
here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity, [margin, "punishment,"]
of the city. " Gen. 19. 15. " Wrath bringeth the punishments of the
sword" (the "sword" puts out of existence). Job, 19. 29.
" For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment. " Lam., 4. 6. " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment (it was church discipline), which was inflicted of many." 2 Cor. 2. 6. Fining, as a punishment, is mentioned in Exodus, 21. 22.
When a traitor is beheaded, is he not punished? Instead of his body continuing to suffer torture, why, then it ceases to be capable of pain? Extinction of his life is his punishment. You will admit at once, that by the death threatened to Adam, was meant the destruction of his body?
Rufus.
That at least.
Persis.
And was it not threatened as a punishment?
Rufus.
Yes.
Persis.
Then God has threatened a punishment, which, so far from signifying continued
pain was the destruction of all physical capacity for pain, as well as
pleasure. In a word, punishment may be a painful existence, or the destruction
of existence, or a painful departure out of being. So that, so far from a man
needing to live to be punished, he may be punished in ceasing to live in being
put out of existence.
Rufus.
But does not the fact that man is naturally immortal, whether he is a saint or
a sinner, determine that the punishment of the wicked must be everlasting
misery?
Persis.
Yes, if man is naturally an immortal being, that is, if he is immortal,
irrespective of character, his punishment hereafter, will be everlasting misery;
though, as already stated, I would not rest its literally unending duration on
the qualifying term "everlasting." But did you ever question whether
the natural, and therefore unconditional, immortality of man was a doctrine of
inspiration, or merely a splendid fancy of the human brain?
Rufus.
Question it! no. It is a doctrine of Scripture.
Persis.
Then I doubt not, if such is the case, it can be easily established by many
passages from the Bible of an unequivocal order. I doubt not you could, in a
moment, give texts expressly declaring other doctrines which you have received
from Scripture:
for instance that there is a coming day of judgment that there is a hell for the wicked that Jesus died for every human being and that Jesus is divine;-now please to repeat to me some explicit proofs of man's immortality, be he a sinner or a saint, in Christ or out of Christ?
Rufus.
"This strange that I cannot recollect one.
Persis.
Are you as certain there is one, though you cannot remember it, as you are that
Jesus is divine?
Rufus.
No, Persis, I am not. How singular! Have I all along been taking it for granted
that the Bible affirms man is naturally an immortal being?
Persis.
You are not singular in this, for 'tis only of late that I discovered I was in
the same error. There is no passage in all the Bible where man, as man, is
pronounced an immortal creature, and the longer I reflect on my unwisdom in
assuming this as a revealed fact, the more I am ashamed and confounded.
Rufus.
And is there not one passage in which man is declared to be unconditionally
immortal?
Persis.
Not one, I assure you; and you may challenge all Christendom to find you one
within the boards of the Sacred Volume: and yet, from the frequency with which
such expressions as " my fellow-immortal "-"your immortal soul
"-" your deathless spirit" "the immortal soul," occur
in religious addresses to men in general, one would suppose they were to be
found on every page of Holy Writ.
Rufus.
Believe me, I never was more amazed. Have I been living in the faith of a
doctrine which is not asserted in one small text!
Persis.
I fear you have.
Rufus.
But somehow I cannot escape the thought that the very fact of future punishment
being called " everlasting," proves man to be immortal.
Persis.
My dear friend, do you not see, in the first place, that the words you have
uttered, take for granted that punishment and suffering are the same thing,
which we have discovered is not the case. A man may be punished by being kept
alive in suffering, or by being put out of existence. But, again, were it even
granted to you that the words punishment and misery signified the same thing,
the "everlasting punishment" or misery (as the term would then be
understood) could surely, at most, be a misery to continue only so long as the
man himself. If the man should not be immortal, his misery would close when the
term of existence God saw fit to grant him ended.
Rufus.
Certainly, the misery must end, like the penal leprosy of Gehazi, when the man
ends.
Persis.
How then could the fact of his punishment or misery being called
"everlasting" prove him immortal?
Rufus.
I see now, it could at most only prove he was to suffer so long as he existed;
it could establish nothing as to the duration of his existence. His immortality
must be demonstrated from Scripture in some other way. He can only suffer
literally for ever, if he is to exist literally for ever.
Persis.
You are correct. But now you will please to remember, I did not admit that
punishment and misery were synonymous; I merely allowed they were so for the
sake of argument. My old ground must be resumed. I maintain punishment and
misery are not one; that a literal destruction can be denominated punishment,
as correctly, and as we will yet see, as Scripturally, as the intense agony.
Rufus.
And is it really true that man, as man, is not even once styled an immortal
being in all the Bible?
Persis.
Again, I assure you, not once. It may help you to come to a correct conclusion
on this point, if, for a moment, we look at the only texts in which the words
" immortal " or " immortality" occur. There is but one in
which the word " immortal " stands; it is 1 Tim. 1. 17, " The
King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God. " In six texts, the
term " immortality" is found. One of them, 1 Tim. 6. 16., speaks of
God as the being "who only (ALONE) hath immortality. " The rest are
as follows: ---Romans, 2.7
" To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, (he will render) eternal life. " Now, if these men were seeking immortality, it is quite plain that by nature they were not immortal. Surely, if they were immortal already, they did not require to seek for immortality.
But they were seeking it-the acquisition of it was conditional; it was obtained " by patient continuance in well doing." Another passage is 2 Tim. 1. 10, " Our Saviour Jesus Christ who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality, (or, if you please, immortal life,) to light through the gospel."
Allow me to ask what death did our Lord abolish? Not corporeal death, or the necessity of undergoing it; for still "it is appointed unto all men once to die. " Not the second death, whatever it be, since the abolition of the second death, would be equivalent to universal salvation-a notion palpably contradicted by Holy Scripture. I humbly suggest the text declares our Lord abolished the necessity for guilty men dying the second death.
They can now be saved from it-from future punishment, whatever it is, by believing that Christ, as a sacrifice, bore their sins in his own body on the tree. Hence to every sinner God is saying--- "Why will ye die?" I am the more inclined to adopt this view, because the verse under examination speaks by way of contrast to the death (the necessity of undergoing which is abolished,) of the "life and immortality," or the immortal life, which is attainable, as being now fully disclosed in the gospel. Did Jesus ever affirm that all men are immortal? Never uttered he the least hint in any of his discourses that such is the case; he brought immortal life, however, to light; he rendered it attainable, and he showed how it was to be possessed. Jesus is God's gift of eternal life to every man. He affirmed that he gave his flesh " for the life of the world;" hence he that hath the Son hath life. Observe, it is declared, Jesus brought immortal life to light BY THE GOSPEL: it would seem to be a gospel-blessing then, to be enjoyed, of course, only on gospel terms.
The other two instances in which the term immortality occurs, are 1 Cor. 15. 53, 54. " 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." By universal consent, as far as I know, these verses are allowed to refer exclusively to the resurrection of the just, and I desire to turn your attention to the fact, that while the Bible assures us that the wicked shall be raised from the dead, it never declares that they are to come forth from the grave in immortality. None, save the bodies of the faithful, have such a resurrection conferred on them; and yet if the bodies of the wicked also were to be awakened from the sleep of death to immortality, there was no need always to specify this as something peculiar to the righteous. Invariably to represent the one class alone as rising to immortality, is nearly equal to an assertion that immortality is not the portion of impenitent men, so far, at least, as their bodies are concerned.
Rufus.
In the passage you have quoted from the Romans- "Who by patient
continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, (he will
render 5. 6.) eternal life"-may not the word " immortality" mean
a happy immortality?
Persis.
Had the Bible explicitly declared men to be immortal creatures, then the
language, " seek for immortality," would require to be explained in
the sense of seeking a happy immortality; but since men whether they are
regenerate or unregenerate, are never pronounced immortal, the word "
immortal" must receive from us its natural and obvious sense, viz.,
immortal existence.
Moreover, it appears to me, there is every reason to believe, that had the natural immortality of every human person been a doctrine of Scripture, the writer of the verse under consideration, would himself have qualified the term " immortality" by some such word as " happy," or " blessed," and not left us the necessity of adding to the Bible, as, in prefixing to " immortality" either of these adjectives, we would have done. Adding to the Bible, you know, is a sin from which we are warned in another part of the volume, and it is one of a highly aggravated character, since it opens the door for every perversion that a wild fancy can suggest, or a wicked heart desire.
Rufus.
After hearing what you have to deliver regarding the texts which have passed
under review, I am more than ever astonished at my ignorance of their meaning
up to this hour, though I have read them a thousand times. Already do I feel a
debt of thankfulness to you for suggesting this most interesting subject to my
inquiry, and I trust you will give me all the information in your power, so
that I may be led to an accurate understanding of it?
Persis.
You need not propose such a question, my brother; it delights me to impart to
you all the knowledge I possess, and to receive the communications of your
wisdom and love.
Rufus.
Would it be agreeable to you that our conversation on this theme should close
for the present-say till to-morrow evening?
Persis.
Most cheerfully do I acquiesce in your proposal.
Rufus.
Since I had the happiness of conversing with you, I have been searching for
Scriptural proofs that man is immortal irrespective of character, but no
explicit statements that such is the fact can be discovered by me. In the
remarkable and correct language of Archbishop Whately of Dublin, " It is
certain that the words life, eternal life, immortality, 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." But do you not think that an argument in favour of man's
unconditional immortality can be drawn from the fact that he is said to have
been originally created in the image of God? Gen. 1. 26, " And God said,
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. "
Persis.
None, unless the Bible has explained the phrase " image of God " to mean immortality. 'Tis mere assumption that it designates man as an immortal being; for where, in all the volume, is it so interpreted? There can be no doubt that God is immortal- He "ALONE hath immortality "- and there can be as little that a creature, endowed with immortality, would so far have been made in his image; but what authority has any person to assert that this is the particular feature of resemblance between man and his Creator marked out by the language in question? Since God is a pure spirit-independent-self-existent- omnipotent-omniscient-infallible- irresponsible-unchangeable, another person may select one or all of the other features in the divine nature, and maintain that man was produced with one or all of them, because he is declared to have been at first formed in the " image of God. " Now, why select immortality in preference to any of the rest?
But, again, it is worthy of observation, that even if we were to admit " the image of God," in which man was created, to be immortality, a question arises, did he not lose this image through rebellion? does he not now need to be created afresh in the image of his Maker? Speaking of the Colossian Christians, Paul affirms they had " Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him. "-Col. 3. 10. If by man's creation in " the image of God " we are to understand his being made immortal, from the text we learn that the Colossians had, through faith in Jesus, re-acquired immortality, which had B been forfeited by our first parents in Eden; so that to explain the words " image of God " to represent man as an immortal creature; is just to grant that immortality is conditional, not natural, to our race.
Rufus.
What do you think the most natural meaning of the phrase " image of God?
"
Persis.
I would suggest that the proper answer is holiness; of course involving the
creation and possession of the faculties necessary to a rational, accountable,
agent. Such, as far as I am able to determine, is the sense in which the
Almighty used the words at first, "Let us make man in our image." Of
course, it is not necessary to create faculties to men now, since they already
are endowed with them-they only need to have them repaired and re-balanced; in
other words, men need to be restored to holiness through the faith of the
gospel. This is the image of God, according to Paul, in the verse quoted from
his epistle to the Colossians, "Put on the new man which is renewed by
knowledge after the image of him that created him; "to which we may add
his words to the Ephesians, chap. 4. 24, " Put on the new man, which after
God is created in righteousness and true holiness." To sum up the
argument, 'tis plain that if the expression " image of God "
originally intimated that man was immortal, the Holy Spirit, in the passages
just quoted, assures us that immortality must be re-obtained by us, or else the
phrase itself does not prove men to have been created immortal.
Rufus.
In reading the beginning of Genesis, when reflecting on the passage you have
just explained, I had my attention called to another verse. " 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. " Gen. 2. 7. May I ask you if any
dependence could be placed on this declaration, in support of the popular
doctrine of man's absolute immortality?
Persis.
No, my Rufus, for the all-important word, " immortal," is not found
in the verse. Had it read, " man became a living (immortal) soul,"
the question would not have admitted debate.
Should anyone lay down the principle that whatever anything becomes, it eternally remains so, I doubt not he might reason logically from this verse in favour of man's unconditional immortality; but I may leave you to judge if his reasoning would be solid and true.
Rufus.
Forbid that I should build my hope of immortality on such a foundation!
Persis.
While we are lingering a while at the commencement of the revelation, will you
go with me and contemplate for a few moments longer the extraordinary
arrangements and events of Eden?
Rufus.
With pleasure, I shall attend you in all your movements.
Persis.
Listen, then, to these words:-"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of 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. " Gen. 2. 16. 17. " And when the woman saw that the tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise. she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. " Gen. 3. 6. " And the Lord God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden, Cherubims, and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Gen. 3. 22, 23, 24.
A much longer examination than we can at present make of these verses, and of the whole record about the fall, would be necessary to clear up some points which are generally obscured; still a few observations of a plain character may not be altogether useless. And first, then, my Rufus will observe what man in Eden was a candidate for-It was IMMORTALITY; and I found this on the reason given by Jehovah, why a man, after sinning, was debarred from the tree of life, lest he should eat of it and LIVE FOR EVER. He was not immortal by creation, therefore. On no account would I assert that the living for ever of his soul was connected with the eating of the tree of life, though the fruit of it was likely intended to exert a greater preserving influence on his animal frame than is commonly supposed. "That man," says Archbishop Whately, "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 for ever. " But while it appears to have been designed to preserve his body, it seems also to have been a kind of pledge of that immortality which God held out to him as the splendid reward of continued holiness. To my mind, the following words of Richard Watson are, upon the whole, well based. " The tree of life was a kind of sacrament. As the promise of immortality was given to Adam every time he ate of this tree by God's appointment, he expressed his faith in God's promise; and God, as often as he ate of it, sealed the promise of immortality to man. In this view, sin excluded from the tree of life, as he lost his title to immortality."
Second, you will also be led to understand the death threatened against disobedience; it was the opposite of living for ever, that is, ceasing for ever to exist, total extinction of being. This is the only natural meaning that the words " in the day thou eats thereof, thou shalt surely die" will bear, and hence it receives from me an unhesitating reception. Unquestionably, the threatening of death was directed against the whole man, and not a part man of him merely as a being he was to die-to become extinct-just as he saw the inferior animals around him expire in death; and there is no reason to believe otherwise, than that all his ideas of dying were drawn from these spectacles occurring in the region where he was placed. " When Adam," says Jortin, " was told that if he offended he should die, he could not then understand by death a future punishment after death; but rather an annihilation of his soul, and a dissolution of his body, and a returning to the same insensibility from which he had been called into being." To interpret the words " thou shalt surely die," as equivalent to this, ' thy body shall return to the dust whence it was taken, and thy soul shall continue to live in endless agony,' appears to me, on mature reflection, exceedingly arbitrary and indefensible. 'Tis a question forced on my judgment, how could Adam understand continued and intensified existence to be signified by the word death, which expresses total cessation of existence? If death signifies life, then life may signify death; in a word, language might, on the same principle, mean anything, everything, or nothing, just as its user or expositor pleases. Tell me, does God speak in riddles to men? Does God choose language fitted only to mislead his creatures? What! do we not expect human laws and threatening to be clearly expressed and easily understood; and how much more reasonable to expect, that those which issue from the throne of infinite intelligence and love, should possess these vital characteristics?
Rufus.
So that you would always interpret Scripture language literally, unless there
is good reason to follow a different course?
Persis.
By all means. Assigning metaphorical and allegorical meanings to the plain
terms of revelation has done immense damage to the souls of men and to the
cause of God; it is high time such a pernicious system of interpretation were
exploded for ever. Mr Dobney gives the following canon of interpretation, and I
believe it is valid and rational, " 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." Apply this rule to the words " thou shalt surely
die," and the meaning will soon present itself to your mind. 'Thou shalt
cease to be,' is obviously its simple and grammatical sense; and there can be
no doubt that it was only the merciful interposition of the mediatorial
dispensation that shielded Adam from the execution of the sentence.
Rufus.
Truly, the idea of the complete extinction of his being is a melancholy thought;
but it appears to me a much more natural meaning of the threatening than the
one I have been accustomed to put upon it. Moreover, 'tis infinitely more like
a Being whose name is " love," than to suppose, had mercy not
prevented the infliction of the sentence, that he would have sent his erring
child to interminable misery.
Persis.
The words of Theophilus of Antioch are striking, and, as they corroborate the
view evolved, I shall read them-" But someone may say, Was not man created
mortal? By no means!
Immortal? Nor say we this. But my opinion is that he was neither mortal nor immortal by nature; for if he had been from the beginning immortal, he had made him a God. Again, on the other hand, if he had made him mortal, God would have seemed to be the author of his death. Therefore, he made him neither mortal nor immortal, as I said before, but capable of both, that he might advance to immortality, and by keeping divine commandments, receive immortality as a reward and become divine; but if, by disobedience to God, he should turn to the works of the flesh, he would become unto himself the author of his own death." –
Rufus.
The nature of man's soul, being spiritual, could not militate against the idea
of its literal destruction or death?
Persis.
By no means; for though we are entirely ignorant of the essence of spirit, as
we are, in fact, also of the essence of matter, it would be far wrong to
imagine that God could not put it out of being. Whatever exists in the wide
universe, has no claim for continued existence on its Creator beyond his
pleasure; and it is a dictate of sound reason, that he can destroy as easily as
he can summon into being. If he cannot destroy a grain of sand or an archangel,
he is able to create neither. Had it not pleased him, in adorable compassion,
to provide a Saviour for man, the second best thing which God could have done,
and he always acts according to the dictates of infinite love, guided by
infinite wisdom, was to consign him to the non-existence from which he had
sprung. "His tender mercies are over all his works;" and, I doubt
not, that saying will be illustrated by his deeds of judgment, as well as by
those actions which are of a more pleasing character.
Rufus.
At this moment it occurs to me there is a verse in the 15th chapter of 1st
Corinthians, to which you will permit me to request your attention. It is verse
32.- " If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantages it me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink; for
to-morrow we die. "
Persis.
Had I not given this passage a careful examination before now, I should have
preferred making it the subject of remark on some future occasion; but as I am
not unprepared to deliver my mind regarding it, you will please to consider a
few remarks: "What advantages it me," or what reward can I expect for
preaching the gospel and suffering in the cause of Jesus, "if the dead
rise not?" as some of the Corinthian church were maintaining (verse 12);
" let us eat and drink," let us indulge in any kind of pleasure we
choose, "for to-morrow we die:" that is, as I humbly suggest the
words mean, all is done with us, we cease to exist in the universe of God, we
are as if we had never been. This appears to me the natural meaning of the
terms. They bring before us in a vivid manner the idea, that in Paul's
estimation, no resurrection implied not merely no immortality but no future
existence for any extent of duration. In this verse, the word "die"
is parallel with the term " perish " in verse 18. "They also
which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” that is, are now totally
extinct. Even Dr M'Knight, who was a minister of the Scotch Established Church,
makes the honest acknowledgment that this exposition is at least as probable as
the one which supposes the writer to assert that they had gone down to
quenchless misery. He says, in paraphrasing verse 18, " Certainly, also
they who have suffered death for believing the resurrection of Christ are
perished; they have lost their existence here for a known falsehood, and shall
either have no existence, or a miserable existence hereafter."
Rufus.
Might not the apostle mean this:-Since no resurrection would necessarily prove
that Jesus had not risen, and that therefore there was no hope of salvation for
Paul, he might live in sin as he pleased, since his final ruin was thus
inevitable? This view, permit me to say, deserves consideration.
Persis.
Perhaps the wisest method is to try the two theories extinction of being, and
endless life in suffering-and see which of them harmonizes best with the words
of Paul, considering him merely as a sincere, wise, and upright man. On the
supposition that he believed in the future literally everlasting misery of the
unsaved, would he have used the expression thus- " Let us eat and drink
(sin as we please), for to-morrow we die,"-earlier or later we must plunge
into ceaseless woe. Considering the fact, with which he had every opportunity
of being well acquainted, that there are degrees in the suffering, was it not
of consequence for him to refrain from sin, so as, at least, to modify the
coming judicial agony? His known sense and wisdom forbid the supposition that
he could approve the maxim which he uttered. Was it consistent with the
uprightness and benevolence of his heart, that he should, by uttering it,
encourage others to become more guilty, and thereby to augment their own and
his coming wretchedness?
In his situation, even selfishness itself would have hindered him from following such a course of behaviour, as the one which he asserts it would be most natural to pursue were inevitable and eternal misery approaching. The second theory is, that Paul believed that if there was no resurrection, there would be no future state, and hence he said, " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die, " -we shall in a little cease to exist. If he was certainly to become extinct, it was of no consequence how he lived; he knew the doom that was advancing, and in it his conduct could produce no change.
This, to my mind, is the only theory which makes his language consistent; and therefore I understand him unequivocally to declare that, had there been no resurrection of the dead, his end, and the end of all human beings, was speedy, total, and everlasting cessation of being.
Rufus
Then assuredly, the apostle of the Gentiles did not believe in the natural or unconditional immortality of the human soul?
Persis.
He did not; and ' tis well, you will readily grant, for us to be of the same
mind.
Rufus.
May I call your notice to the language in Ecclesiastes, 12. 7. "The spirit
shall return unto God who gave it."
Persis.
It contains no proof of the soul's immortality. Certainly it establishes the
doctrine, to which I fully subscribe, that the human spirit survives the stroke
of death, as you see illustrated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus;
but whether it is absolutely immortal, the verse by no means affirms.
Rufus.
Let us pause again, if you object not, for another evening, and I shall visit
you to-morrow, that I may obtain more instruction.
Persis.
To-morrow evening, I shall be glad to see my Rufus.
Oh, may the Divine Spirit of truth guide us into a full understanding of this solemn matter!
Persis.
Since we last met, I doubt not you have been meditating on the points then
under examination?
Rufus.
They have been constantly engaging my thoughts, and I acknowledge that the
conviction of the non-immortality of the incorrigibly wicked is well settled in
my mind. That men may become immortal, is matter of plain revelation; but that
they are so already, irrespective of character, is taught nowhere, as far as my
knowledge extends, in the Sacred Volume. In fact, the very opposite seems to be
unequivocally asserted. Much stress, you are aware, has often been laid on what
are denominated arguments from reason in support of the soul's immortality;
would you oblige me by reviewing some of them in the briefest manner you please?
Persis.
I have no objection to do so. However, let me make one remark regarding all
such arguments, that the most of reasoners are beginning to confess their
worthlessness, and, I doubt not, they will soon be universally discarded.
Mention one of these arguments.
Rufus.
Immortality has been deduced from the immateriality of the soul.
Persis.
My brother, it is a valueless argument, for more reasons than one. In the first
place, it takes for granted that man has a soul, which, I am disposed to
contend, reason of itself cannot demonstrate.
I believe we are indebted to revelation exclusively for the knowledge that man has a soul. So far from reason being able to discover this fact, it seems furnished with many facts which would warrant an opposite conclusion, and hence the necessity in this, and in some other cases, of rectifying our deductions by the unerring statements of revelation. Men think, reason, and feel, just as they see, hear, and taste, only and universally by means of organs; and judging apart from Scripture, I see no ground to conclude that thought, reasoning, and feeling, are not performed by organization alone. In a word, it is the brain that executes these functions, and not a soul, or spirit, by means of the brain. 'Tis no answer to assert that organized matter cannot think or perform any other mental function, for this is just assuming the point in debate; the pretended answer is a simple assertion, and any man is quite at liberty to make an opposite one if he should feel inclined.
For aught that I know, organized matter can think, reason, and will; and, of course setting Scripture aside, I see no ground to infer but it does; hence, if it be possible for organized matter to accomplish these results, (and none except the Almighty Creator himself can declare it an impossibility,) no man has reason to conclude that spirit is necessary to their production. Again, the argument assumes another point, viz., the immateriality of the soul. Now, if we cannot prove man has a soul, it is in vain to speak about its immateriality. But suppose we could prove man had a soul, and an immaterial soul too, its immortality could never follow from its immateriality. How could it? Is it an axiom-a statement bearing its own evidence-that an immaterial being is necessarily immortal? I believe no such thing, and demand proof of it from anyone who would deliver it to my conviction.
Though immaterial, may not causes exist having a tendency to quench its being? Could God not extinguish it, should he think proper? May not the sinfulness of an immaterial spirit be a reason why God will terminate its existence sooner or later? So you see, even granting the assumption that man has an immaterial soul, no valid agreement can be built on it for his immortality.
Rufus.
Your reasoning shows me more clearly the value of the revelation with which God
has favoured us. But what have you to say of the argument founded on the
general belief in, and a desire for, immortality?
Persis.
To begin, I question the assertion on which the argument stands. As far as my
knowledge reaches there never was, in the absence of revelation, a general
belief in, much less a desire for, immortality. In ancient classic lands, no
such belief existed.
In a dialogue on the immortality of the soul, Plato makes Socrates say, " Shall a soul of this nature, and created with all these advantages, be dissipated and annihilated as soon as it parts from the body, as most men believe? " Here you observe that there was no general belief, in the time of Socrates, regarding the soul's immortality.
This wise and excellent man believed in the immortality of the souls of the good; but it seems to have been rather a strong hope in his mind than a conviction established by substantial arguments.
Let me read you some passages from Archbishop Whately's Essay on a Future State:-" 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 con verts."-"It maybe 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 by 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 passed 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 termination, 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 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 uncontradicted belief of the rest of the world." In his work on the Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation, Leland observes, "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 doctrines in contempt."
Rufus.
Thank you for these facts, my Persis; I shall believe no longer, that men,
without revelation, desire immortality.
Persis.
And even though they did universally wish immortality, what could it avail as
proof that they would be immortal? How many, may we not say all men, desire to
be happy? and yet myriads are not, and never shall be so. A mere desire, then,
for im-, mortality proves nothing, unless it is a truth that whatever men
desire they are sure of possessing. Parallel to this argument is one employed
by the late Dr Hamilton: he says, ["The Doctrine of Rewards and
Punishments," p. 72. Dr Hamilton argues at great length in favour of
eternal torments; and assumes the immortality of the soul! He does not prove
it. The work in general is brilliant, but exceedingly declamatory.] " We
argue now with equal confidence, that as man can meditate his immortality, he
cannot be less than immortal." Dr Hamilton here assumes, that whatever a
man can meditate himself, or is inclined to meditate himself, such he will
certainly become. Well, let us try. A young man can meditate himself an old
man, therefore he will yet be an old man! a man can meditate himself in endless
glory, therefore he will surely inherit that felicity! There is no other way of
answering such a mode of argumentation, than by showing it to be absurd.
Rufus.
There is another argument from reason, perhaps the strongest, in support of the
soul's immortality; it is the imperfect rewards of virtue and the imperfect
punishment of sin in this present state.
Persis.
That these are perplexing anomalies in this world, no one can deny; still, I
see no proof of immortality that can be deduced from this fact. Let me urge you
to consider, first, that though these difficulties might perhaps show that a
future state was probable, this is far from proof that the future state must be
endless.
Surely all the perplexities and inequalities of eighty or ninety years could be removed and adjusted in less than eternity-infinite duration? But, second, it cannot be proved that the virtuous among men deserve more happiness from God than they enjoy in this world; the wonder is, when sin is taken into account, that they should receive any favours at all. Moreover, it cannot be proved that God is bound to inflict on wicked men all the punishment (meaning here by punishment suffering) which they deserve, even when, in our view, they have richly merited more wrath than is ever inflicted on them in time. And, finally, though it could be proved that there must be an after state that the vicious may be visited with severe retribution for their crimes, how could we demonstrate that the vengeance must have no termination; that the wretched beings must be kept eternally in existence for the simple object of enduring the most exquisite tortures? You see, then, that the argument drawn from the anomalies of this life, like all the rest from the fountain of reason, completely fails to establish the immortality of the soul.
Rufus.
By the way, did not some of the greatest and best men of antiquity maintain
that virtue was its own reward and vice its own punishment?
Persis.
They did; and, of course, with such men the argument we have just been
considering would have had no weight at all.
They would have denied the necessity of a future state for any such design.
Rufus.
Some other arguments from reason have been frequently employed to prove the
soul immortal; but from what you have now delivered, I am convinced they will
not stand examination. Singly and unitedly they appear utterly to fail in
rendering a future state, not to speak of an immortal future state, even
probable.
When the strongest are so powerless as you have shown them to be, how very feeble and attenuated must be the weakest!
Persis.
And now, my Rufus, when we are beside the oracle of reason, let us hear what
she has to say regarding the prevailing doctrine of eternal torments? The
author of revelation not unfrequently appeals to our reason, as when he says,
" Oh! inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you,
betwixt me and my vineyard;" and " Oh! house of Israel, are not my
ways equal? " and it is our duty to inquire, in a humble spirit, after a
proper answer to his demands. It is also worthy of consideration, that the
apostles themselves made it a matter of holy exultation that in their doctrines
they commended themselves to every man's conscience; they preached nothing that
revolted their own natural sense of justice, or that of their neighbours.
Rufus.
But in judging of the equity of absolutely eternal suffering for sins done in
this world, is this not making the Bible bend to our views of what is right? Is
this not making God stand at our bar?
Persis.
When, be it reverently spoken, God comes to our bar, is it improper, think you,
to pronounce, at his own most condescending request, a judgment on his dealings?
He fears no decision.
But, Rufus, in this case we are not to decide whether an established doctrine of Scripture be just, but if a doctrine proclaimed as Scriptural appears as just as Scriptural doctrines must be. Does the doctrine, said to be a Bible one, of eternal existence in torment appear like a Scriptural truth? Is it stamped with the impress of eternal justice? Does it commend itself to our conscience?
Rufus.
I now distinctly apprehend what you mean, and am fully satisfied that the
inquiry is legitimate. It is like an a priori determination of the question
about eternal suffering as the punishment of sin.
Persis.
Is that just then? Let us for a moment look at the supposed continuance of the
agony-it is to be eternal. Eternity! How shall we approach even the most
imperfect apprehension of it? The mind, in looking forward on interminable
duration, is quickly bewildered and exhausted; the effort is too great for the
mightiest intellect, upheld by the wings of the most vigorous imagination.
Eternity! it comes lightly from the tongue; but its depths are the infinite and
the incomprehensible. And then to contemplate an eternity of writhing woe! 'Tis
enough to unhinge the sanest mind; to convert the church of God, if its members
would only think for an hour, into a scene of frenzied lamentation.
An eternity of woe! Suppose an angel were to come at the close of every thousand years, and remove one grain of sand from this globe, what ages would need to revolve ere its last particle was reached; and even then the eternity of torment would only be commencing! Imagine our whole planetary system treated in the same manner; what ages on ages would transpire ere the final grain was lifted by the angel's hand: and yet, then, the ceaseless agony would only have begun its fearful progress. Nay, conceive that at the winding up of every thousandth year, Almighty God were to annihilate one atom of all the matter composing the crowds of stars that roll in the infinity of space, what unnumbered millions on millions of ages would elapse before he spoke the last atom back to non- existence; and yet that far, far distant hour would arrive: but even then, the pangs of the wretched prisoners in hellfire would only, as it were, be starting into life, an inexhaustible eternity is still remaining. Again, I ask, in a humble spirit, would such a dire visitation be just? As far as I can settle the point for myself, it would not. My sense of equity rejects it as an unequal infliction. I see no proper connection between the sin of a moment, or of forty, or of eighty years, and such an uninterruptedness of pain. My perception of what is right says, sin ought to be punished under a righteous government; but I must be dumb if required to approve a sentence to an eternity of suffering.
My soul instinctively recoils from the thought; it outrages my whole moral sentiments. By no effort can I imagine how the subjects of such measureless-ceaseless woe, could be impressed with the thought, that the inflictor of it was a ruler both just and good. But " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? "
That a being, however, who proves himself unfit for holy blessedness- one who, were he to continue in existence, could only be hopelessly wretched, and increasingly so, for such a creature to be cut off from among the living in the great universe, appears to me most righteous, most rational, and most merciful. In this manner, I believe, the Almighty declares he will treat the finally godless; and we shall yet behold it more amply confirmed as we proceed with our investigation.
Rufus.
Though, of course, it is as valid argument of no weight against the doctrine of
endless torments, it is a fact that both good men and great men have given vent
to their feelings against it, either publicly or privately.
Persis.
You are aware that the late John Foster, that man of holy name and stupendous
intellect, totally rejected the popular doctrine. Nay, more, in a letter which
Mr White received from him in 1841, and partly given in the preface to his
work, Foster writes thus- " A number of ministers, not large, but of great
piety and intelligence, within his acquaintance, had been di believers in the
doctrine in question" (the eternal existence of the wicked in misery).
Rufus.
But I must depart, as my time is exhausted; and I hope you will allow me to
return to-morrow evening?
Persis.
Allow you! use not that language, my Rufus; it gives me pleasure to have the
prospect of meeting you again.
Rufus.
What aspect of the great subject of future punishment am I to hear unfolded
this evening?
Persis.
Let us turn our attention to some of those passages of Holy Scripture in which
the words " life," " everlasting life,"
and " eternal life " occur, and it is my opinion we will find stronger reason to believe that the unregenerate sons of men are not to be immortal. But before selecting any of them, let me repeat the principle stated in a former conversation:-" 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! "
Assuming that men are naturally immortal, it is common to interpret the expressions "life," "everlasting life," and "eternal life,"
when used to designate the blessings conferred by our Saviour on those who believe on him, as meaning happiness, everlasting, and eternal happiness; but against this mode of procedure there is, in my judgment, the strongest grounds for a protest. Why should such expressions not be understood literally? Is there any valid cause for adopting a figurative meaning?
Rufus.
Are there not some such passages in which scarcely anyone will deny that the
literal sense of the term " life," namely, existence, is the correct
one, or, at all events, the chief part of the meaning?
Persis. There are such passages, and I will mention a few of them-" 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 came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna (in the wilderness), and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever." John 6.57-58. Now I grant it would give a true sense were we to read the verse in the following manner, As the happy Father hath sent me, and I am happy by the Father; so he that eats me, even he shall be happy by me; and yet I cannot believe that any interpreter would so explain the words.
He who reads the whole discourse will perceive, without any difficulty, that the subject in hand was not happiness, but a bread that would save from death, which the manna given in the wilderness could not do. Who would wish to cast away the literal sense from the first and second clauses-"as the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father?" and why ought any one arbitrarily to expel it from the third- " He that eats me, shall live by me "?
Rufus-None, I apprehend, save those who have taken for granted the immortality of the soul.
Persis-Another verse is John 14. 19. "Because I live, ye shall live also." Though it is undoubtedly true that because Jesus is happy, believers will be happy also, yet who would affirm this was all that the Redeemer expressed? Understand his words in their obvious and literal sense-" Because I exist (cannot cease to be), ye shall live or exist also, " and the verse is at once simple and sublime. It suspends the very existence of the holy on the existence of their Lord. What a glorious Being our Saviour is! How transcendently superior the doctrine which represents him as giving us immortality, including of necessity the idea of happiness, to that which exhibits him as bringing merely blessedness to creatures already immortal!
Another very plain and important passage, bearing upon the point in hand, is Rom. 8.10. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
A contrast is here obviously established between the state of a true Christian's body and that of his soul. The body is dead, sentenced to die, and die it will, in consequence of sin: the spirit is life, has ceased to be under the sentence to die-that is, it lives, and will continue to live, on account of righteousness-on account of its justification through faith in Jesus, and its restoration to holiness (verse 5). To maintain that " life," in this verse, means happiness, is to destroy the contrast entirely: Happiness and death are not antithetical terms. And to say that it signifies spiritual life, using that phrase as equivalent with holiness, is to render the sentence quite tautological; it is to make the inspired penman assert, the spirit is holy because it is holiness! It is not to be denied, however, that the " life " is the effect, or gracious accompaniment, of the righteousness, and not identical with it. " He that hath the Son hath life."
Rufus.
Along with you, I believe, that the life is as unfigurative as the death. When
a body dies, it passes from existence; and when a soul dies-is punished with
death-it must be understood to expire in a similar sense.
Persis.
Though it has already been under our notice, let us again, for a moment,
consider the verse," Christ who hath abolished death, and hath brought
life and immortality (or immortal life)
to light through the Gospel. "-2 Tim., 1. 10. Now, it is universally allowed by the advocates for our natural immortality, that this verse asserts our Lord clearly revealed the doctrine, that all men are unconditionally immortal; though, where he does so, I have yet to learn. One thing I should like to understand is, how it happens that the " life " here is interpreted existence and not happiness merely, according to the course followed in almost every other case.
The interpretation seems to shift to meet the necessities of a theory; and is guided by no intelligible, common-sense law of exposition.
Here, the word " life " is most judiciously assigned its radical meaning, existence-immortal existence; and all that I contend for is, that a different signification ought never to be adopted unless there is a clear necessity for a change.
Rufus.
But you surely admit that Jesus put more than merely immortal existence within
our reach.
Persis.
He did. But I am quite content to learn of the mere existence from verses that
speak of mere existence; and of the accompanying happiness from other texts
where that fact is amply disclosed. There is no need to drag out of any passage
more than we have reason to believe the author designed it to express, and
hence it seems to be the most judicious and reverential plan, to take simple
existence out of the texts that speak of " life," and happiness out
of those that speak expressly of happiness.
Rufus.
Let us now consider some of those passages where the words "life,"
"everlasting life," and "eternal life" occur, that have
generally been interpreted as figurative; that is, as expressing not existence,
but simply happiness.
Persis.
Mention one if you please.
Rufus.
Take that beautiful one in the third chapter of John's Gospel, verse 16.-"
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Persis.
Now, it does not contradict any part of Scripture that the words "
everlasting life " should here express everlasting existence, because it
is never asserted in the Inspired Volume, that men are sure of everlasting
being, whether they come to Christ or no. Does it involve an absurdity to
suppose that immortal existence comes through Jesus? Is it derogatory to the
Divine character to imagine that such is the case? How grand, how cheering the
thought, that since we have lost the prize of immortality by sinning, Jesus has
been sent to bring it again easily within our reach. Yes, in the language of
Robert Hall, when discoursing on the text, " He that hath the son, hath
life "-he confers on his people " no less a gift than the making them
partakers of his own eternity. "
Rufus.
The thought is truly grand; and your interpretation cannot be objected to on
any of the grounds you have hinted.
Persis.
For the reasons assigned, I therefore understand the text to declare that
everlasting existence is obtained only through faith in Jesus Christ.
Rufus.
Were the prevailing interpretation of the terms " life," "eternal," and " everlasting life," the correct one, it is remarkable, as you observed on a former occasion, regarding the term " immortality," that they are never qualified by such adjectives, as happy, blessed, or joyful. Since the wicked, if all men are absolutely immortal, have " life" and " everlasting " and " eternal life," in the literal and natural sense of the terms, as certainly as the righteous, it does appear to me reasonable to expect that the Bible would, at least have qualified language which is as applicable to the one party as to the other. But a happy or a miserable eternal life, are forms of speech unknown in Scripture. Had we found one expression like this, " I give unto my sheep a happy eternal life, or one parallel to it, even once in the volume, it would have compelled us to suppose there was such a thing as a wretched eternal life; and since this mode of expression is never used by the inspired, we conclude it is not used by them because there was no occasion for its employment. Therefore, since the terms "life," "eternal," and "everlasting life," naturally signify existence and endless existence, and since we are never Divinely authorised to understand them otherwise, I conclude this is the sense in which we are bound to take them. To affirm that they, and their opposites, ought to be understood metaphorically, is MERE ASSERTION, and can be of no value in the eyes of a reflecting man.
Persis.
In your deductions I cordially acquiesce. Had unconditional immortality been a doctrine
of Jesus, his hearers would have esteemed it no high attraction that he
promised them, should they become his friends, what he taught them at other
times, (as the view we are opposing assumes he did,) was their natural and
inalienable possession. He could only have avoided such an interpretation of
his words, if he used them figuratively, by qualifying them, at least on some
occasions, as you have suggested. Even in our day, when the natural immortality
of the soul is a widely received doctrine, how few are content to employ the
phraseology we are speaking of without some qualifying term or other?
This betrays a suspicion that the words of inspiration do not naturally express the idea which the preacher wishes to convey by them, and hence he must have them guarded by some unauthorised addition lest the creed should suffer. And, further, not merely does the Saviour leave the words " life" and " everlasting life" unqualified, but they are never used with reference to the wicked at all, to whom, as already noticed, they are as applicable as to the righteous, if men are absolutely immortal.
Rufus.
Oh! how vast must be the love of God for us, when it constrained him to deliver up his only begotten son for our salvation!
Persis.
" God so loved the world;" but who shall fathom that -" so?
" As of the great universe itself, we catch only a glimpse of his
boundless pity; and ages, and improved spiritual vision and intelligence, will
alone fit us to penetrate its excessive glory. To think of his compassionating
sinners like us! To think of his exhausting, as far as we can judge, his
resources to accomplish our weal! O for a voice of thunder to send up to his
throne a sinner's hymn of thanksgiving for the gift and sacrificial agony of
his Son; a hymn which, as it entered the golden gates of Heaven, would strike
every angel with silence, till its pealing, heart born notes were done. Praise
God, praise God, ye shining intelligences.
Praise God, O, my soul!
Rufus.
Amen, and amen.
Persis.
But let us advance in our discussion.
Rufus.
Of course, the antithetical phrase in the 16th verse of John's third chapter,
" Should not perish," must be understood literally also?
Persis.
If everlasting life-everlasting existence, is the portion only of believers;
everlasting non- existence must be the doom of all who expire in unbelief.
Rufus.
Literal destruction is not impossible, for he that created can destroy; nor is
it absurd to imagine it will take place; and it appears quite in accordance
with the infinitely merciful and holy character of God. To keep men eternally
alive in circumstances where they can only become more fiendishly impious, as
well as more unutterably wretched, is not like the doings of one in whom fury
cannot dwell.
Persis.
In the same way let us interpret all such passages as the following, and the
glory of the Saviour will be the more transcendently evolved. It is enough
merely to quote them, after what has already been remarked:-" The
righteous (shall go away into life eternal." Matthew, 25. 46. " He
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the
Son shall not see life." John, 3. 36. " Verily, verily, I say unto
you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from
death unto life." John, 5. 24. " Ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life." John 5. 40. " The bread of God is he which cometh
down from Heaven, and giveth life unto the world. "-John, 6. 33. " I
am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any man eat of this bread,
he shall live for ever." John, 6. 51. "Jesus said unto her, I am the
resurrection, and the life, he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet
shall he live: And whosoever lived and believeth in me shall never die. "-
John 11. 25, 26. " I give unto thein eternal life; and they (my sheep)
shall never perish."-John, 10. 28. "This is life eternal, that they
might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
John, 17. 3. "The Prince of life." Acts, 3. 15. " It was
necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (Jews): but
seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life,
lo, we turn to the Gentiles."-Acts, 13. 46. " That as sin had reigned
unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life
by Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans, 5. 21. "The wages of sin is death;
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans,
6. 23. " The world passes away, and the lust thereof, but he that doeth
the will of God abides for ever."-1 John, 2. 17. " God hath given to
us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life.
"- 1 John, 5. 11, 12. " This (Jesus) is the true God, and eternal
life." 1 John, 5. 20.
Rufus.
My soul is inspired with intense gratitude to Jesus than ever I experienced.
What a thought, my very future being hangs on him! Alas! that I should have for
such a length of time been regarding him merely as a fountain of immortal
joy-transcendent as that blessing assuredly is.
" Could I, Lord, pour my soul out, In thanks, even as a river rolling ever, It would be too scant for what I owe to thee."
To his many crowns I see a new one added-and oh! how brilliant it is. I discover, likewise, that the relationship between him and his people is of a more intimate character than I had imagined.
" I am the vine, ye are the branches." What a force in these words, when they are rightly understood!
Persis.
What a loss they sustain who will not believe in the love and atoning agony of
the Redeemer; they are heirs of destruction, a doom inexpressibly mournful. And
yet if they will not be cleansed from sin, if they count themselves unworthy of
eternal life, what else can they expect to receive? How God-like the thought,
that none save the holy shall inherit immortal existence!
Rufus.
How the character of the Blessed Jehovah has been misunderstood! Limited
atonement, limited love, limited influence, unconditional reprobation, and
eternal penal sufferings, have all tended to obscure his name.
Persis.
Fearfully so, my Rufus! I trust, however, the dark clouds are being chased
away. Thousands of his saints will leap for joy when the subject we are
discussing is presented to their minds. It exhibits God in a resplendent aspect
indeed. As if heaven were opened to my entranced vision, I am filled with
adoring admiration. Oh, there is nothing in all his dealings with his creatures
that does not harmonize with the sublime declaration he applies to himself-LOVE!
" I know him and believe in him as love."
God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. We have beheld a few feeble rays of his glory, and oh! how ravished we shall be when we contemplate the unclouded orb itself. In his presence there is fulness of joy. In the upper sanctuary we shall be entranced and permeated with the most exquisite bliss, as we celebrate the never-ending evolving of his infinite perfections.
Persis.
What think you of the assertion made by Dr Hamilton, that an " eternal
redemption is to be regarded as involving an equally eternal enslavement?
Heaven is only heaven while there exists a hell! "
Rufus.
O horrible! most horrible! But again I must leave my Persis, and shall, if God
permit, return on the evening of tomorrow, to increase my happiness along with
him at the fountain of inspiration and joy.
Persis.
Adieu! and may the Eternal God be your shield.
Rufus.
I wearied till the hour came for renewing our discussion.
Persis.
It cheers me to find you are so interested in the great question in hand; I
believe that the development of the doctrine that the wicked are not to exist
in unending misery, will contribute mightily to the promotion of the Divine
honour, and the restoration of numbers of our fellow-men to obedience.
Rufus.
Judging from the effects of it on my own soul, I doubt not that those by whom
it may be received will be exceedingly thankful that their attention had been
called to it. To represent God as an inflictor of absolutely interminable and
exquisite and ever-augmenting agony, is very like giving him the character of
an omnipotent merciless tormentor, instead of an infinitely amiable and
righteous Lord.
Persis.
Were your truly excellent father made the subject of malignant aspersions, or
of unintentional misrepresentation, what would you be prompted to do?
Rufus
Everything in my power to wipe away the reproach; were I not to act in this manner, I would reckon myself a paragon of meanness and ingratitude.
Persis.
So, my Rufus, let us act at all times towards our Heavenly Parent; and, in
proportion as we endeavour to remove the stains which ignorance, and sometimes
recklessness, have put upon his spotless character, we shall manifest the
sincerity of our affection for him, and increase the attractions which centre
in his name. In one sense, we can add nothing to his infinite perfection; but
in another, by destroying the hurtful human representations of his revealed
intentions and conduct, we can render him, in the eyes of his intelligent
offspring around us, more worthy of admiration and confidence.
Rufus.
In proportion as God's actual character is understood by men, so will the
amount of his moral influence over them be regulated.
Hence the necessity of striving to reach a knowledge of the exact representation he gives of himself in the Inspired Volume, and of holding it up prominently before the eyes of our fellowmen.
Persis.
At our last meeting we were engaged in reviewing those verses of Scripture
where "life," "eternal life," and "everlasting
life" are said to be brought to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. We found that
this language is most correctly interpreted when it is understood to mean
unending future being, in opposition to the unauthorized figurative sense of
everlasting happiness. Now, since these terms are to be thus explained, it
follows of necessity that the opposite terms must bear a literal meaning also,
namely, eternal cessation of existence. Let us proceed briefly to contemplate
the Bible language with regard to the future state of the wicked, and we shall
discover that it not merely harmonizes with what has already been observed, but
that it mightily confirms the inference to which we have been advanced.
Rufus.
Along this new field I shall accompany you with pleasure, aud, I doubt not,
with profit.
Persis.
Let us begin with the appalling language; "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," (or Gehenna).-Matthew, 10. 28.
Observe here, 1st-The killing of the body means putting it out of existence.
2nd-The same is the meaning of the word " kill," in the negative
assertion, they " are not able to kill the soul " ---that is, to do
to it what they can do to the animal frame. 3rd-God can destroy both of
them---that is, put both out of existence in Gehenna. Do I need to prove to you
that " kill " and destroy " are exchangeable terms?
Rufus.
No, my Persis; any person will admit that. In Matthew 12. 14 I read, "
Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might
destroy him;" and the word here rendered "destroy," is the same
word employed in the part of the text you are explaining " Fear him who is
able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. "
Persis.
Well then, I submit that the following is the meaning of the verse, and I shall
endeavour to express it very plainly; " Fear not the persecutors who can
merely put the body out of existence, but cannot do this to the soul; but fear
Him who is able to extinguish in Gehenna, the existence of both body and soul.
" It is certainly not declared here, that though God can do this, he
actually will carry it into execution; yet, indeed, it amounts to an assertion
that all who act as our Lord forbids in this address, shall be visited with a
no less tremendous doom. Let me, in this connection, read to you a few
sentences from Dr M'Knight. He says, " So that our Lord's sentence (Depart
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels, ) 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." The doctor was an avowed believer in the natural
immortality of the soul, hence the caution in his expository observations. However,
he goes as far as he can, asserting the literal destruction of the bodies of
the wicked, and hinting the probable destruction, in the same sense, of their
souls likewise.
Observe his words about the spirits a second time disembodied, they shall survive that event in their history, " so long as it shall please God." His exhibition of the sense of Scripture would have been at once fully and accurately given, had he not assumed the immortality of the soul. When we admit the Bible doctrine of the conditional immortality of men, nothing can be more intelligible, definite, and terribly alarming, than the admonition, " Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell-fire."
Rufus.
Sometimes it has struck me that there is, in our day, a growing shyness on the
part of some religious teachers, to make allusion to the after state of the
impenitent. They seem to feel that the less said about perdition to saints and
sinners the better; and in doing so, in my opinion, they act most unscriptural.
Were they believers in the doctrine we are disclosing in our conversations, and not in the dogma of unending misery, they would, I am persuaded, not merely say more about the coming retribution, but they would discourse with increasing power and success whenever they presented the subject to the mind of their auditors.
Persis.
The same fact has more or less struck my own mind, and I cannot refrain from
indulging in the conjecture, that had they not some secret misgivings as to the
popular view, they would have less reluctance to make it the subject of
frequent presentation.
Whoever spoke so freely about hell-and he gave it no gentle name-as Jesus himself? And if ministers cannot as frankly and fully preach what he delivered, they have reason to suspect that they are not understanding the doctrine which he unfolded with his lips of love. None need have the shadow of hesitation, in delivering the true doctrine about the punishment of the wicked for it exhibits God as doing the best thing with his rebellions subjects; since they would not be saved, and exalted to immortality, he quenches their being with an irreparable destruction.
Rufus.
We have another illustration of the pointed, and unreserved manner in which our
Lord discoursed about the future state of the godless, recorded in Mark 9.43,
44. " 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 the fire
that never shall be quenched. Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not
quenched. "
Persis.
Not merely does the passage just repeated, confirm your remark, but it also
establishes the doctrine of the literal destruction of the wicked in a very
satisfactory manner. Rightly to understand the force of this language, it is
necessary to recollect that it is borrowed by our Lord from the conclusion of
Isaiah's prophecy: " 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, saith 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." Isaiah, 66. 23, 24.
Isaiah is speaking of the final triumph of true religion, and the utter overthrow of all its enemies. He represents the enemies of God as slain, and cast into a funereal valley, where unquenchable flames consume their carcases, and what of them is not burned, the vile worm riots upon with unbounded freedom. Could any imagery better express the total destruction of any enemy? Their worm shall not die while there is any prey; their fire shall not cease while there is anything left to consume.
But to go a little further back, we may observe that Isaiah's imagery, in the verse we have quoted, is undoubtedly borrowed from what was exhibited to the eye in the valley of Hinnom or Tophet, which was situated near Jerusalem, toward the south east.
Into it all the filth of the city was thrown, " The carcases of malefactors, " says Mr Dobney, were cast there. And to consume the putrefying 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 worms rioting on corruption, would well supply the most terrific imagery." Employing this imagery, which was perfectly familiar to the Jews, our Lord declared, and terrific were his words, that in hell " Their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched." That is to say, hell is a scene where perfect destruction advances and preys upon the enemies of God. Destruction devours them, as the worm and the fire devoured the carcases in the valley of Hinnom. The flames of hell, like the slow fires in Tophet, are unquenchable only in the sense that they will burn on until there is nothing more for them to destroy. In a word, by an undying worm and an unquenchable fire devouring the wicked, our Lord expresses their complete and painful destruction in Gehenna; soul and body shall there be literally extinguished in that burning realm.
Rufus.
Then the Great Teacher uses the words, " The fire is not quenched,"
just as we do ourselves, when we say of a building enveloped in flames, that it
is unquenchable; not intimating by any means that the fire will continue in
existence for ever, but that it will burn till the structure is totally
consumed and ruined.
Persis.
That is exactly the sense in which we ought to understand the Redeemer; and it
entirely coincides with what we have found him delivering on other occasions.
How expressive these words-" The chaff "-the finally godless-"
He will burn (Matthew says ' burn up,') with fire unquenchable. "-Luke, 3.
17.
Fire has various properties, but the one most familiar, alike to the savage and civilized mind, is its consuming, destroying power.
Who would ever express continued existence by the figure of casting a man into a raging fire? Could any imagery better convey the idea of his total destruction? And then, moreover, what so combustible as chaff? Thus we have the inspired preacher exhibiting the wicked under the emblem of a most consumable material "chaff;" and that cast into the most destructive element in nature -"fire unquenchable;" and to interpret such imagery as conveying the doctrine of unending life in agony, I must regard as a grievous mistake. I could appeal to any candid mind if such is not the case?
Rufus.
Again you must excuse me, and permit your friend to return, if convenient for
you, at the same hour to-morrow?
Persis.
I shall expect the return of my Rufus with undiminished pleasure.
Rufus.
It strikes me that the verses we were engaged with, at the conclusion of our
last interview " their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched
"-" he shall burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire"-contain a
most explicit testimony against the doctrine of the ultimate restoration of the
lost. Many have defended the view, and it has recently been developed to the
utmost extent, in the splendid poem called-Festus; in my opinion, however, it
is equally erroneous, though assuredly much more amiable in its aspect than
that of interminable misery.
Persis.
Both, I agree with you, are alike unsupported by the inspired teaching. The
doctrine of restoration, has, in many instances at least, been an envied
retreat from the horrors of immortal pain; and I do not wonder that, in
ignorance of the actual truth on the subject of future punishment, men should
shelter their spirits in some such pleasing fancy as restoration, for it is
nothing more than a fancy. Could anything be plainer than-" He shall burn
up the chaff with unquenchable fire," especially when viewed side by side
with the statement, " their end is destruction? "
Rufus.
How long the fire may burn, or how long it may be ere the lost are completely
destroyed, is not revealed; it is obvious, however, that the penal agonies
before consciousness shall terminate, (and that event is to be preceded by
" weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth,") in the case of one who
has rejected mercy, and impiously contemned the Son of God, must, in justice,
be very different, in degree and continuance, from those of a sinner, who left
the world, after having committed only a few offences in the midst of midnight
darkness. " That servant which knew his lord's will, and prepared not
himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
" Be the continuation of the suffering longer or shorter, there is no
prospect of deliverance held out, to which the condemned may cling. Once in
Gehenna, and hope is gone. It is the place of punishment, of destruction-not of
chastisement and purification.
Persis.
One of the texts we have been considering, brings to my recollection a
remarkable letter by Robert Hall, on the subject of future punishment; and as
it is well worthy of notice, I shall read it.
Rufus.
By all means; the sentiments of such a man are deserving of attention.
Persis.
Thus he writes:- " TO A GENTLEMAN AT TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
" LEICESTER, April 30th, 1821.
" DEAR SIR, I am considerably at a loss how to answer your letter. I sincerely sympathize with you in the perplexity you experience on a very high and awful subject. For my own part, I acquiesce in the usual and popular interpretation of the passages which treat on the future doom of the finally impenitent. My reasons, in brief, are as follows: -I assume it as a maxim, that we are utterly incompetent to determine, à priori, what is the amount of guilt incurred by such as reject the overtures of the gospel, any further than God has been pleased to make it the subject of express revelation; that the terms expressive of the duration of future misery are as forcible as the Greek language supplies; that the same term is applied to the duration of misery, as to the duration of happiness, or even the eternity of God himself (Matt., 25. 46- Rev., 19. 3); that the exclusion of the impenitent from happiness is asserted in the most positive terms " they shall not see life, " etc. etc., that " their worm dies not, and their fire is not extinguished;" that positive terms may be understood in different degrees of latitude, but this is impossible respecting negative terms, since a negation admits of no degree.
" If the eternal misery of a certain number can be rendered conducive to a greater amount of good, in relation to the universe at large, than any other plan of action, then the attribute of goodness requires it; for I take it for granted, that the Supreme Being will adopt that scheme, whatever it be, which produces the greatest quantity of happiness on the whole. But our faculties are too limited, and our knowledge of the moral world and of the relation which one part of the universe bears to another too imperfect, to enable us to say that this is impossible. For aught we know, therefore, the existence of eternal misery may not only consist with, but be the necessary effect of, supreme goodness. At all events, it is a subject of pure revelation, on the interpretation of which everyone must be left to form his own judgment. If the milder interpretation can be sustained by a preponderating evidence, I shall not sincerely rejoice; but I have yet seen nothing to satisfy me that this is the case.
" I would only add, that, in my humble opinion, the doctrine of the eternal duration of future misery, metaphysically considered, is not an essential article of faith, nor is the belief of it ever proposed as a term of salvation; that if we really flee from the wrath to come, by truly repenting of our sins, and laying hold of the mercy of God through Christ, by a lively faith, our salvation is perfectly secure, whichsoever hypothesis we embrace on this most mysterious subject. THE EVIDENCE ACCOMPANYING THE POPULAR INTERPRETATION IS BY NO MEANS TO BE COMPARED TO THAT WHICH ESTABLISHES OUR COMMON CHRISTIANITY; and, therefore, the fate of the Christian religion is not to be considered as implicated in the belief or disbelief of the popular doctrine.
" Earnestly wishing you may be relieved from all painful solicitude on the question, and be guided by the spirit of God into the paths of truth and holiness. I remain, your obedient humble servant, " ROBERT HALL. "
By the " milder interpretation," Mr Hall means the ultimate restoration of the lost to happiness; a doctrine which is contradicted by inspiration. Had he not assumed the soul's immortality, he would have felt none, at least fewer, of the difficulties, which he obviously laboured under in regard to future punishment; he would have been able to dictate a reply which would better have satisfied his own sense of justice, as well as that of his young correspondent, who seems to have been sceptical about the popular idea of God's avowed determination in reference to those who persist in rebellion. You will also observe Mr Hall's candid acknowledgment, that " the evidence accompanying the popular interpretation is by no means to be compared to that which establishes our common Christianity," or the other acknowledged doctrines of the New Testament. No wonder, therefore, that it has often been suspected; and on such a subject, it seems, to my mind, utterly impossible that the everlasting Ruler can have expressed himself in obscure terms. Obscure his language is not; may he help us to understand it better.
Rufus.
Though it is unnecessary to examine minutely every passage bearing on the
subject, there are a few more on which I shall feel grateful for your remarks.
One of them is, " 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: Who shall be punished with
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of
his power."-2 Thess. 1. 7-9.
Persis.
The verse is most expressive of the doctrine we are gathering from the Inspired
Volume. Observe 1st, The doom of the persecutors-they are to be destroyed. 2d,
This destruction is to be everlasting it is never to be repaired. 3d, This
destruction is -punishment. And what is to be destroyed? One may say their
happiness; but this is not asserted, and such an interpretation of the text is
utterly unsanctioned. They themselves are to be consumed; and what term could
be found more expressive of the perfect cessation of their consciousness, than
the one employed-destruction? We are just to understand the word in its primary
and plain meaning, since we are not informed that it is used by the Apostle in
any new sense; and since, in this natural sense, it contradicts no other part
of Scripture, and involves no absurdity. It does not contradict any part of
Scripture, for the volume of inspiration has not asserted that men are
immortal, be they good or bad, the only circumstance in which a contradiction
could exist; and it is not absurd, on the contrary, it is most rational and
intelligibly just.
But, O, Rufus, while it is just, is it not a tremendous doom? While contemplating it, my soul is filled with powerful conceptions of the evil nature of sin: 'tis so vile that they who pollute themselves with it are unfitted to exist in the realms of space. Quenched they must be, so loathsome are they in the Holy Creator's sight!
Rufus.
Let me call your attention to the peculiar mode of expression in the verse: it
speaks not of a destruction simply, but of a destruction "from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. " Does not this
seem to suggest that they may continue to exist though they are destroyed from
God's presence meaning his gracious presence?
Persis.
To a Jew the language would be quite intelligible, for he was accustomed to
hear of blessings and calamities issuing forth from the presence of the Lord,
who had dwelt in the cloud when the Israelites journeyed in the wilderness, and
in the temple at Jerusalem, by the symbol of his glory. We discover the same
mode of expression in Acts, 3. 19. " Times of refreshing shall come from
the presence of the Lord "; on which Albert Barnes has this judicious
note. "From the presence of the Lord"-Greek, “from the face of the
Lord." The expression means that God WAS ITS AUTHOR. " From the face
of the Lord, means from the Lord himself."
When it is affirmed wicked men " are to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," it is the same as if the inspired penman had said, this everlasting destruction is to be inflicted by the glorious power of the eternal God.
Rufus.
That renders the verse exceedingly plain, and even more terrific.
Persis.
Please to mention another passage.
Rufus.
Do not such expressions as these in the Book of Revelation, " He that overcomes
shall not be hurt of the second death"- 2.11; and " blessed and holy
is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath
no power," (20. 6,) amply confirm the view that the godless are to be
literally destroyed?
Persis.
Who can reasonably doubt it? To be hurt of the second death, and to be under
the power of the second death, just means to die the second death in hell-fire.
This phraseology is intended to be easily understood by those who are
acquainted with the phenomena of the first death. When a fellow -creature dies
in our sight, does he continue to live? No. Vitality expires-his sensations
end, and the process of decomposition proceeds from that moment till every
particle that formed his body is separated from its companions. So, when a
being dies the second death, we must conclude that he loses all sensibility,
becomes totally obliterated as if he had never been. Verily, the first death is
not metaphorical, and why ought the second to be so represented? Perhaps, in
all the history of interpretation, there never was a more objectionable
instance than that which represents the second death, not as an extinction of
being like the first, but a prolongation of it through ceaseless ages of
suffering. Is that a death? When did Almighty God inform us that by dying he
meant its opposite? Of all language this would be the worst-may we not say the
most deceptive- that could be employed to convey a judicial threatening of
continuous misery? Think of a human government issuing a decree that every
murderer shall surely be put to death, and all the while secretly meaning
thereby, not what every reader of the statute would understand it to
mean-judicial extinction of life, but that he would be preserved in existence
with the utmost care that science could exercise, and subjected to bodily
torment from year to year! Who would affirm that a man so treated was fairly
dealt with? Who would not execrate that government in the loudest tones? Let me
also state in this connection that it is this illegitimate mode of interpreting
the word " death" that has given rise to such expressions as, that in
hell the condemned " are ever dying, and never dead"; that they
endure " a living death"; modes of speech so perfectly unscriptural,
absurd, and self-contradictory, that I can imagine no one, after a moment's
reflection, employing them again.
Rufus.
One other passage, and I will tax your patience no longer; it is that
expression in the Revelations-" The smoke of their torment ascended up for
ever and ever. "- 14. 11.
Persis.
Let us read the passage in which it occurs, and the whole will become very
plain. Verse 8.-" And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is
fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the
wine of the wrath of her fornication." Verse 9.-" 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;" verse
10-" 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." Verse 11-" And the smoke of their torment ascended up
for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast
and his image, and whosoever received the mark of his name." Now the first
question is, Where is the scene of this torment? Is it inflicted on this or
yonder side the grave? In this world assuredly; as may easily be deduced from
the verses themselves. For to overlook the statements that they are tormented
" in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the
Lamb," the meaning of which might be debated, you observe it is clearly
asserted that the agony is endured by those " who worship the beast and
his image, and whosoever received the mark of his name." Had it run "
who WORSHIPPED the beast" and " RECEIVED the mark of his name,"
we might naturally have concluded that this vengeance was sustained in the
future world; but the torments are endured by men while they are worshipping
and receiving the mark of the beast.
Rufus.
Thank you my Persis; the beast will have no worshippers in the after state, so
that the scene of the torments which ascend up for ever and ever must be earth.
Persis.
The whole passage describes bitter and unquenchable judgments that are, at some
future period, to be poured upon the deluded worshippers of the beast-the
citizens of mystical Babylon which is generally, and as far as I can determine,
correctly, understood to be emblematical of the Church of Rome. Before leaving
this passage, it seems proper to remark that we have here an instructive
illustration of the little dependence that can be placed on the terms, "
for ever," and " for ever and ever," as indicative of duration
that is never to close. What apparently could be stronger than the words,
" The smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever," and yet
it is to be sustained in this world, and during a brief period of its history!
Rufus.
And how would you prove that the bliss of Heaven is to be really endless, since
the words, " for ever," and " for ever and ever, " and
" eternal," and " everlasting," are often, in Scripture,
used in a limited, often a very limited sense?
Persis.
I would place very small dependence, indeed, on these expressions regarding the
duration of the future being and bliss of the righteous: I regard the negative
declarations such as "they shall never perish "-" over such the
second death hath no power "-coupled with the records about the
irreparable destruction of the wicked, as quite satisfactory; though I would
crown the evidence with the sublime announcement of our Lord to his
followers-"
Because I live, ye shall live also." Such an expression hinders all doubt and debate-it teaches us the duration of the blessed is commensurate with the existence of the absolutely deathless Immanuel. " Death hath no more dominion over him. "-Rom. 6. 9.
Rufus.
In the interpretations you have given, I have a key to all similar verses, both
in the Old and in the New Testament; believe me, O my Persis, I feel under a
load of gratitude for your instructions.
Persis.
Though time will not permit us to examine any more passages at length, and
perhaps there is no necessity for it, let me just quote a few that might have
been surveyed, and I think you will still more clearly observe how invariably
the literal destruction of the godless is asserted in the Inspired Volume.
" Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Psalms, 2.
9. " Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall
dwell with everlasting burnings?" Isaiah 33. 14. The question is equal to
an assertion that none can dwell with the devouring fire of judgment; it will
totally destroy its victims. " As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no
pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and
live. "-Ezek. 33.11.
" Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."-Daniel, 12. 2. The prophet affirms that the wicked are to rise to shame; and that they are to be held in everlasting contempt by the pious, for having rejected God and salvation.
" 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, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Malachi, 4. 1. How improper it would be to say it is anything else than themselves that are to be consumed? And oh, how entire the destruction-"root and branch"! " And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit (every perseveringly unrighteous man) is hewn down, and cast into the fire. "-Matthew, 3. 10. That is-destroyed, as fire consumes the wood which is thrown into it " Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction. "-Matt. 7. 13.
" As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."- Matt. 13. 40-42. " If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. "-John, 15. 6. That is, apostates are to be treated in the judgment as men use withered vine branches; they are to be consumed with flames. Such branches are fit for nothing else. " Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish! " Acts 13. 41. Contrast this with the words in the same address- " Ye judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life," and the meaning is even more apparent. Does the word " perish " favour the idea of eternal existence in torments? " If ye live after the flesh ye shall die.” —Rom. 8. 13. "Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."-Rom. 9. 22. " If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy. "-1 Cor., 3. 17. " For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savour of death unto death, and to the other the savour of life unto life. "- 2 Cor. 2. 15-16. " He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption (not immortality); but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting. "-Gal., 6. 8. " Whose end is destruction. "-Phil., 3.19. " For when they shall say, peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape." 1 Thess. 5. 3. " Hurtful lusts which drown men in perdition and destruction. "-1 Tim., 6. 9. " That which bears thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned."-Heb., 6. 8. " We are not of them who draw back unto perdition." 10.39. "These, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption. "-2 Pet. 2. 12. Does destroying a " brute beast," mean keeping it alive in agony? Sinners are to perish like brute-beasts when they are destroyed they are to pass out of being. And now, O, Rufus, tell me if the sacred writers intended to teach us that the wicked would be kept in existence and torture absolutely for ever, could they have used language less capable of expressing their doctrine?
Rufus.
No.
Persis.
Tell me, once more, if the same writers designed to teach us that the
irreclaimably unrighteous should actually be put out of existence at some
future time, sooner or later, after the day of judgment, as the Almighty shall
see fit, could they have selected more accurate and expressive terms.
Rufus.
They could not; and every tyro in the original languages knows they are amply
capable of exhibiting most perspicuously the doctrine that wicked men are to
exist in literally unceasing torment. Hence there was no need to use language
naturally quite incapable of conveying such an idea; nay, language that
expresses the very opposite.
Persis.
In a word, if the terms and phrases, death-broken in pieces-everlasting
destruction-perdition-corruption-burned up with unquenchable fire-and the like,
do not convey the doctrine that the very being of the finally wicked shall be
literally and for ever quenched, it is not, I conceive, in the power of
language to express that doctrine; and, since we are not Divinely guarded
against so interpreting the plain phraseology of the record, we are bound to
conclude that this is the very sense in which it is to be understood.
Rufus.
Till an early evening, I must again say good-bye.
Persis.
Good-bye, my friend; search for truth as the miser yearns for gold; search
especially for the truth which unveils the character of the Immortal King.
Persis.
Welcome again, my Rufus.
Rufus.
It is a privilege, on which I set a high value, to have a friend who can impart
light to my understanding, and thereby advance my whole moral and religious
being nearer to perfection.
Persis.
Like the moon, I have only reflected upon you some rays borrowed from the
dazzling sun of inspiration.
Rufus.
Oh! light is sweet and vivifying; and every one ought to have the gates of his mind wide open to its entrance.
Persis.
Every one ought; but, alas! there are many who seem to think that their amount
of knowledge embraces the whole circle of truth. Speak of a new thought, or a
new view of a Bible doctrine, and instantly, in how many cases will you be
regarded with a feeling stronger than indifference?
Rufus.
From what I know of the history of truth, I am well aware, that what you have
now observed has been too often illustrated; and that it should have been
exemplified among those who profess to be searchers after divine knowledge, and
lovers of the same Saviour, is only the more deplorable. The cry that has come
from many a page, pulpit, and platform, " think for yourselves,"
very frequently may be thus translated- " you may think for yourselves, as long as you think with me."
Persis.
Though he should make the loudest protestations to the contrary, the man who condemn
us his neighbour for thinking for himself, and for revealing his convictions,
is, I am sure, not doing to others as he would have others do to him.
Rufus.
There is a tendency in our nature, to persecute those who differ from us; but
we ought to pray it out of our hearts with careful perseverance. It is
fleshly-it is un-Jesus like. From it sprung the very murder of our Lord
himself-the flames of martyrdom- the tortures of the Inquisition and all that
up to this moment has cruelly wounded the hearts of those who were
conscientiously bent on the advocacy of truth, in opposition to popular,
power-girt error.
Persis.
God grant that such scenes may speedily terminate. If a man is wrong in his
conclusions, let us not take the place of Him who is to occupy the judgment
seat, and dispense its vengeance.
Rufus
And now, my Persis, let me suggest for your consideration, that to the doctrine you have evolved, some may object, that it will rejoice the wicked that it is just what they desire and that it will encourage them to run to every conceivable length in sin.
Persis.
In the most solemn manner, I declare that I have no wish to diminish " The
terrors of the Lord;" but, O, my Rufus, is it not enough to represent
them, as he exhibits them himself.
The history of the Inquisition shows us that the mind of man is most fertile in devising exquisite and diversified tortures; and that we need to be on our guard against the temptation to make God's threatening worse than they are. He is the best judge of what sin deserves. He is not bound to inflict all the torments upon a criminal that the human imagination can conceive. Unfailingly will he visit the despisers of his mercy, and the breakers of his law, with the vengeance he has announced; and if we expound to them what really is approaching, nothing more can be required. Sinners, it is said, will grow worse; indeed, to deliver what seems to me to be the truth, I know not how much worse they could become.
In spite of the doctrine of eternal torments, they are awfully indifferent, thoroughly godless, and haste with eager steps into scenes of giddy and polluting dissipation. Wickedness runs down our streets like a river; and the noise of the pestilential waters goes up incessantly to heaven. But granting men should make the truth of God an excuse for more abundant iniquity, what of that? Because men abuse a doctrine, does it therefore cease to be divine?
Rufus.
By no means.
Persis.
None but the thoroughly impious, and, humanly speaking, the very hopeless
members of society, would ever take encouragement to go on in sin, from such a
terrific prospect as that of literal destruction;-none, we say, but those most
unhappy creatures, who apparently can be alarmed by no terrors, and allured by
no attractions. 'Tis quite possible some may so regard the doctrine in the
extremity of their infatuation; but there is surely a counterbalancing hope,
that, in the language of Mr White, "Some of a large class who are not
scoffers, but who stand aloof from the gospel in intelligent amazement at its
popular representations, may be brought, through conviction, repentance, and
faith, to adore and confess a religion which has been for them, hitherto, but
as a firmament of black clouds or of flame."
Rufus.
A most desirable result; and I earnestly hope it may be largely realised.
Persis.
If ultimate destruction, as many may affirm, is just what the wicked desire, we
behold more clearly than ever the weakness of the argument for the soul's
immortality, drawn from the pretended desire for universal immortality. Who
have ever constituted a very large portion of the earth's inhabitants.
Rufus.
The incorrigibly wicked.
Persis.
If so, non- immortality, or literal destruction, it seems, must have been the
very prevalent wish of our rebel race. What men wish is not a bare immortality,
but one in bliss of some order; and hence the argument from reason, formerly
considered, is now seen to be more feeble than it was even then discovered to
be.
Rufus.
It occurs to me, at this moment, that the doctrine of final destruction is much
more likely to influence men for good than the popular one of eternal torture,
because there is very often a hope that the agony will draw to a close; and the
mode in which some excellent men have expressed themselves is far from being
calculated to discourage such an anticipation. We had an instance of this in
the letter by Robert Hall, and the deep revolting which our nature feels to the
doctrine, leads men to grasp at the feeblest hope-yea, the very semblance of
it. Even the smallest shadow of a hope that the inmates of hell may finally
merge into bliss, is enough to defeat all the ends of the threatening. Men will
sin on, and trample the son of God beneath their feet, dreaming that the future
agonies will terminate, and that beyond these there remains an infinite
duration of rest, it may be of joy. But tell them plainly that there is no such
prospect; assure them that the end of the wicked is destruction, a destruction
never to be repaired; and they may continue to sin on, should they be so
dreadfully infatuated-but sin they must with a distinct understanding of the
coming, unerring, hopeless doom.
Persis.
Let me read you a few sentences of a nature such as you describe, sentences
only fitted, in my judgment, to injure souls, if the doctrine of immortal life
in suffering is revealed in the book of inspiration. Thus writes Dr Watts in
his preface to his World to Come, about the condemned: "I must confess
here if it were possible for the great and blessed God any other way to
vindicate his own eternal and unchangeable hatred of sin, the inflexible
justice of his government, the wisdom of his severe threatening, and the verity
of his predictions; if it were also possible for him, without this terrible
execution, to vindicate the veracity, sincerity, and wisdom of the prophets and
apostles, and Jesus Christ his Son, the greatest and chief of his divine
messengers; and then 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"- "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."
Now, whether is it better to have a doctrine holding out agleam of hope in its excessive terribleness, a doctrine which a man like Watts can hardly deliver without hinting that such a prospect may exist, than one which utterly precludes the least hope, and which, moreover, appears to be at once reasonable and just? A threatening from which there is any hope of escape is, virtually, no threatening at all. Such a mode of speaking breaks its power, and gives the sinner immense freedom, by teaching him all is more or less uncertain.
Rufus.
You would observe that Dr Watts did not think the final annihilation, as he
calls it, of the wicked impossible.
Persis.
No man of sense could assert it to be impossible with God, more particularly
after he has declared that he "can destroy both soul and body in
hell-fire. " There is a singular notion afloat in the world, that a soul,
whatever its essence be, is as incapable of destruction as God himself; and the
sooner such a fancy is chased into obscurity, the better.
Rufus.
It is a "fancy;" it never rose out of the volume of truth. Perhaps it
would be more correct to affirm its origin is the heart of Satan, who deluded
our first parents with the assertion- "YE SHALL NOT SURELY DIE."
Persis.
Though the doctrine of literal destruction is every way much more calculated
than that of eternal tortures to impress and awaken the careless sons of men,
it must be acknowledged, after all, that the mighty constraining motive to a
life of holiness is not terror, but the Divine and immeasurable love of Jesus
Christ.
Rufus.
So says the great Apostle-" The love of Christ constrained us; because we
thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for
all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto
him which died for them and rose again:" and parallel to this is the
confession "We love him because he first loved us." I could appeal to
any man who has known the Saviour's love, if it was not the first thing that
led him to hate sin, because it was sin, and to depart from it because it was
offensive in the sight of God. All other restraining influences occasion at
best only external alterations in conduct: this sanctifies the heart itself. It
acts on the streams through the fountain. Under the heavenly influence of
Jesus' love, the man becomes a new creature; and henceforth obeys, with the
glad feelings of a son, and not with those of a criminal or a slave.
Persis.
It has been objected to final destruction, that an event such as the doctrine
supposes is unknown in creation.
Rufus.
Though we had not beheld an instance of it, that could not prove it had never
been, or would never be.
Persis.
But is there no illustration of what God threatens to inflict on rebel men? Do
we not see animals around us daily departing into non-existence? Do we not
witness our fellow-men ceasing to be? Something, no doubt, remains after death,
but the animal life is gone-and for aught that I know, something may remain
even after the threatened future perdition has been inflicted on the soul and
body of the wicked. As a being, each guilty sinner will then be
extinguished-consciousness, sensation, life, will be obliterated for ever. This
is what God threatens in his word, and there are copious analogies on earth to
show us that it will be no unexampled event in his universe.
Rufus.
Sadly mournful is the thought, and it unfolds to us the terrible character of
sin, in the most vivid colours.
Persis.
I can imagine, that after the unhappy beings have ceased to exist, after their
last groan has been uttered, and their last pang endured, the holy in the
universe will ponder their doom with a calm and a salutary reflection. So far
from the impressions of sin's most heinous nature being diminished by their
ceasing to exist, my mind conceives that it will be best understood when the
agonies are done; and there will be an eternity, subsequent to that period, to
gather lessons from their terrible end. Were they living in torture, the
thought of their pangs would swallow up, in a great measure, reflection on the
nature of their deeds; just as when criminals are enduring penal agonies, the
spectators dwell far less on their guilt, than on the suffering to which they
are subjected. But after the condemned have expired in the burning retribution
that has been poured upon them; then, as we now reflect composedly and
instructed on the enormities of Sodom, and of the ancient world, as disclosed
by their respective judicial visitations-then shall the lessons of the foul and
impious character of rebellion gradually be collected from the memory of the
doom that was laid on the destroyed. Looking back on their fate will be a
peculiarly melancholy spectacle; and it has the most impressive admonitions to
deliver by its awful silence. The black veil of oblivion has been drawn across
their being; they sleep in the tombs that have no resurrection!
Rufus.
You will have heard other objections to the doctrine of literal destruction?
Persis.
More might be adverted to; but it is well-nigh a useless task giving them a
reply. What doctrine has not been objected to? To what doctrine may not
ingenuity devise a number more? If the doctrine of literal destruction is
upheld by a " Thus saith the Lord," it will triumph in spite of a
host of objections, numerous as the stars. Does it stand on the page of
inspiration? is the first and last inquiry. Objections in such a case, are like
the winds beating around the everlasting Alpine pinnacles, or the waves lashing
the adamantine shore.
Rufus.
Having found a truth which casts such light on the character of God, I am resolved to give it the widest publicity in my power.
Persis.
Who could blame you? The miser of religious truth is, in the sight of God, I
believe, a more detestable character than the avaricious of gold.
Rufus.
You confirm me in my resolution to speak the truth.
Persis.
May you be upheld in your laudable determination: even unto death, I beseech
you, prove faithful.
Rufus.
Remember me when you plead for your brethren in Christ, and for a dying world.
Persis.
Trust me, I shall.
Rufus
Farewell my Persis; farewell.
Persis.
Farewell. Deal kindly with those who may differ from you on the point we have
been privileged to examine together. Calmly exhibit to them the truth and its
evidence; and if they are convinced, you will have joy; if not, this
consolation remains for you, that you have performed your duty. All who love
our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity are brethren, however widely they may differ
on such questions as the one that has engaged our notice. Like ourselves, the
other members of the great family are weak and erring; and we must extend to
them, unhesitatingly, that charity which we so much require. And, O my Brother,
let me give you this advice: Keep the Cross of Christ ever uppermost in your
mind, and in all your addresses to your fellow-men, remember that however
important it is for them to know that the Blessed God does not reveal himself
as one determined ceaselessly to torture the finally godless in our race, it is
unspeakably more so, that they understand the gospel message which alone can
save them from destruction. Be it your grand aim to point the guilty to the
bleeding Lamb, propitiating offended justice for their sins. While ignorant of
the gospel, they are heirs of perdition, whatever else they may clearly
apprehend. Still hide not the truth we have evolved in our conversations. It is
infinitely less luminous than Calvary, yet it is a heavenly light, and you do
well to avoid the sin of placing it under a bushel. Let the Cross, however,
like a rainbow, span the whole firmament of your spirit; and beneath its
splendid arch, study and proclaim the transcendent character of the Eternal GOD!
THE END.
"WATCHTOWER."
In answer to many inquiries, I may state that the articles headed " Watch-Tower," that have appeared in the " Christian News," will likely soon be re- issued in a small volume, with a few unpublished numbers.
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE UNSPEAKABLE GIFT; OR, ETERNAL LIFE A GIFT FROM GOD TO EVERY SINNER.
THE VOICE OF THE SHEPHERD; OR, MESSIAH ACCOUNTING FOR JEWISH UNBELIEF.
CHURCH OF ROME.
A BRIEF EXPOSURE OF ITS IDOLATROUS WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN MARY.
THE SINNER AND THE SAVIOUR; A WORK MORE ESPECIALLY INTENDED FOR ANXIOUS INQUIRERS.
THE MIRROR OF WARNING.