Images de page
PDF
ePub

as the coming of Christ and the completion of his glorious victory in the resurrection of his people from the dead,-"thereforebe ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor shall not be in vain in the Lord."

LECTURE CVII.

THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT DEFENDED AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF JOHN FOSTER.

It would be a very pleasing employment, to join with Howe and Watts, and other uninspired writers, and especially with those who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, in contemplating the happiness of the saints in glory. When the believer takes into view the holy employments and pleasures of the heavenly world, as made known by God's word and Spirit, he spontaneously exclaims, "This is all my salvation and all my desire." But I shall pass from this subject to one which is far less pleasing, but which, for obvious reasons, calls for a more particular consideration. The future punishment of the wicked has been made a subject of much controversy among those who profess to believe the Scriptures. And as the whole subject has a direct bearing upon our personal interests, and upon the interests of our friends and fellow creatures, and as it thus comes in contact with our selflove, and with all our benevolent and sympathetic affections, it is exceedingly difficult for us to pursue the consideration of it without some improper bias, and a consequent exposure to erroneous judgments. They therefore must be considered as very highly favored of God, who can proceed in the investigation of this subject from right motives, and on just and Scriptural principles. And one thing to be constantly kept in mind is, that it does not belong to us to contrive the plan of the universe, or to settle the principles of the divine government, but to learn from the word

and providence of God what those principles are; just as we study natural science, not to fix or improve the laws of nature, but to find out what those laws are.

The sacred writers generally set forth the future punishment of the wicked in figurative language. And they evidently do this, because such language is best adapted to express their own vivid conceptions of the evil to be endured, and to awaken just conceptions of it in the minds of others. It is nothing uncommon for guilty men to attempt to relieve themselves of the painful apprehension of future misery by the idea, that the terrific language of Scripture which describes it, is not to be understood literally. Whereas no words used in their literal sense, could do justice to the awful subject, or adequately make known the strong impressions of the writers. And it is apparent that no single metaphor could fully answer the purpose. The sacred pen-men therefore use a great variety of metaphorical language, derived from the most terrific objects in nature, for the purpose of teaching us that the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked is inexpressibly dreadful. Such is evidently their object; and such should be our object, whenever we quote their language.

But it is an obvious fact, that while the inspired writers present the subject before us as a reality of the gravest moment, they do not attempt, by a minute description, to give us any exact conceptions of the particular nature and mode of the penal inflictions which the enemies of God will hereafter endure. With that wisdom which is profitable to direct, they leave the subject wrapped up in an indefiniteness and awful mysteriousness, which is obviously adapted to guard our minds against an unbefitting familiarity, and to inspire us with an active and enduring dread of the threatened evil.

Many authors of eminent qualifications have successfully defended the common doctrine of the Christian church on the present subject, and have clearly shown the inconclusiveness of the arguments urged against it. It is not therefore necessary for me to bring forward in detail the evidence which Scripture affords in support of the doctrine of endless punishment. I shall here pursue the discus

sion with reference to a specific object. A letter was written by the celebrated John Foster in the year 1841, and afterwards published, on the subject now under consideration. In that letter the popular arguments against the common doctrine are exhibited in the most impressive and touching manner. The thoughts suggested in the letter, together with the influence of the author's name, are adapted to unsettle the faith of multitudes. At the present day, when there is in the public mind extensively so remarkable a proneness to question long-established truths, to undervalue the clearest evidence, and to look with favor upon opinions directly contrary to the teachings of revelation, a letter written by so gifted an author in so eloquent and attractive a manner, must be expected to produce a sensible effect upon the interests of religion. And there is another circumstance which increases the dangerous tendency of such a letter, namely, that, although the writer's disbelief of so important a doctrine was long known, it was treated not only with lenity and indulgence, but even with apparent indifference, by his Christian and ministerial brethren, and seemed not at all to affect his reputation or influence as an orthodox man. For the purpose of vindicating the cause of truth, I have therefore concluded to subject the leading points touched upon in this letter, to a careful but brief examination, and thus, as far as may be, to assist inquirers after the truth in rightly estimating the value of the considerations which the letter contains, -which are in fact the very considerations that have most weight in the minds of men against the common doctrine.

I shall set forth what I consider as mistakes of the author, under two general heads: first, mistakes as to the use of reason; second, mistakes as to feeling.

First, as to reason. Here it is evident, that our author commits a great mistake, in looking upon human reason, as a competent judge of the divine administration. He imposes upon reason a task which it is by no means able to perform. And after committing this primary mistake, he proceeds, in an incorrect use of his reason, to frame sophistical arguments, and to draw conclusions which are manifestly unwarrantable.

us.

The most plausible argument which human reason has ever framed against the doctrine of endless punishment, is derived from a consideration of the divine benevolence. And this is the argument which our author makes most prominent in the letter before As to the belief of the doctrine under consideration, he says, "I acknowledge my inability (I would say it reverently) to admit this belief together with a belief in the divine goodness - the belief that God is love, that his tender mercies are over all his works." The argument is, that the final happiness of all intelligent beings must, in the view of reason, follow from the benevolence of God; that his goodness will not admit of the endless misery of any of his creatures.

In the discussion of this subject, the following things may be laid aside as not belonging to the question at issue, because they are admitted by our author, and by others who reject the common doctrine, as well as by those who maintain it. 1. That God is infinitely benevolent. This, being held by both parties in the controversy, makes no part of the subject in debate. 2. It is admitted by both parties, that the Scriptures are divinely inspired. 3. It is agreed, that sin exists. Accordingly it does not belong to me, any more than to my opponents, to account for the introduction of sin, or to prove its existence to be consistent with the goodness. of God. 4. It is agreed, that man is a moral, accountable being, under law, and is blame-worthy when he transgresses. 5. It is agreed, that the penalty which God has affixed to the law, is just, and of course may be justly executed upon the transgressor. Our author frequently asserts, that sinners deserve to suffer a severe punishment and that for a long time, according to the penalty of the law. 6. It is agreed that all the sufferings which are actually endured by sinners are consistent with the divine perfections that whenever endured, they are in conformity with the justice and benevolence of the Supreme Being.

These things then, are not to be debated. So far we have common ground. What then is the point in controversy? It is

* See the Letter, in the Life and Correspondence of John Foster by J. E Ryland, London, 1846, vol. II., pp. 404-416. See also pp. 444-448.

« PrécédentContinuer »