|
|
It will avail us nothing, at the judgment, to plead that our teachers taught us so, - or, that ecclesiastical bodies decreed or established such a belief, or articles of faith. It will roll back in thunder tones in our ears - "Every one must give account of himself to God." "You had the Scriptures, and the injunction to search them - and if you have erred to your ruin through false teaching, you have done it with the words of eternal life in your hands; but which you have trusted others to interpret for you, without giving that application of your own minds to the subject which it was your duty to do, instead of being absorbed by the things of time."
Would not such words be dreadful words in our ears at the great judgment day? Should we not then fully realize the truth of that Scripture which saith, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man?"
Teachers may be helps to understand the Scriptures, but should never be trusted as infallible guides; nor should they ever be allowed to decide authoritatively for us, what the true meaning of God's word is. Any such attempt on the part of teachers, is a manifest usurpation of the prerogative of Jehovah, and should always be resisted. Let teachers in religion keep to their appropriate work; which is not to be "lords over God's heritage," but to be "helpers" and "ensamples to the flock." They are not to decide who are heretics and who are orthodox, but to show men their sins –their perishing, dying condition, and point them to Christ, the Great Physician, that they may "have life."
The expression of our Lord - "Ye will not come unto me that you might have life," shows that men are exposed to death. The question, with us, in these discourses, is, to determine what that death is: - whether it is eternal life in sin and suffering, or destruction of being. My position is, that it is the latter; and I have endeavored to establish that point from the standard version of the Scriptures; that version has its imperfections, but is as safe to follow as any of the improved versions, that have been, or may be gotten up in these times of strife among the multitude of sects that are in existence. How far I have been successful in my attempt, others will judge for themselves. No man can believe without evidence. Some, it is true, will not believe whatever the evidence may be, unless they could find the thing proposed for belief was likely to be popular. But no one need calculate on popularity who sets himself to follow truth wherever it may lead him. Our Lord himself was despised and rejected of men.
In my last discourse, I had brought down my examination of objections nearly to the close of the Bible. What remains for us to do, is, in the first place, to finish that examination; then, I shall take up objections from other sources; after which, I shall sustain my position by a mass of Scripture testimony not yet introduced but in part.
Would not such words be dreadful words in our ears at the great judgment day? Should we not then fully realize the truth of that Scripture which saith, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man?"
Teachers may be helps to understand the Scriptures, but should never be trusted as infallible guides; nor should they ever be allowed to decide authoritatively for us, what the true meaning of God's word is. Any such attempt on the part of teachers, is a manifest usurpation of the prerogative of Jehovah, and should always be resisted. Let teachers in religion keep to their appropriate work; which is not to be "lords over God's heritage," but to be "helpers" and "ensamples to the flock." They are not to decide who are heretics and who are orthodox, but to show men their sins –their perishing, dying condition, and point them to Christ, the Great Physician, that they may "have life."
The expression of our Lord - "Ye will not come unto me that you might have life," shows that men are exposed to death. The question, with us, in these discourses, is, to determine what that death is: - whether it is eternal life in sin and suffering, or destruction of being. My position is, that it is the latter; and I have endeavored to establish that point from the standard version of the Scriptures; that version has its imperfections, but is as safe to follow as any of the improved versions, that have been, or may be gotten up in these times of strife among the multitude of sects that are in existence. How far I have been successful in my attempt, others will judge for themselves. No man can believe without evidence. Some, it is true, will not believe whatever the evidence may be, unless they could find the thing proposed for belief was likely to be popular. But no one need calculate on popularity who sets himself to follow truth wherever it may lead him. Our Lord himself was despised and rejected of men.
In my last discourse, I had brought down my examination of objections nearly to the close of the Bible. What remains for us to do, is, in the first place, to finish that examination; then, I shall take up objections from other sources; after which, I shall sustain my position by a mass of Scripture testimony not yet introduced but in part.
AN EXAMINATION OF REV. 14:9-14
"If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
It is maintained, with great assurance, that this text teaches, that "eternity of eternities" is the period of the torments of all wicked men: and, therefore, proves them immortal.
In order to make this text available to our opponents, they must prove three things. First - That it is spoken of ALL wicked men. Second - That it relates to their punishment beyond this life. And, Third - That the term "for ever and ever" is used in its primary and absolute sense of endless. Neither of these points have they ever proved, and I am persuaded they never can. It is not enough for a man to affirm all these points; let them be proved. I say again, it never has been done and never can be.
Is this language used in reference to all wicked men?
I answer, no. It is a specified class, viz: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand." This is the class spoken of and threatened; and it comes almost infinitely short of embracing all the wicked.
Let us examine the connection and see when the "beast and his image" arose. The previous chapter shows that they did not come into existence till after the Christian era; nor indeed till the old Roman empire was in its divided state - as the ten horns clearly show - which could not have been earlier than the fourth or fifth century after Christ. Hence, the wicked spoken of in the text under consideration, did not embrace any that lived before the Christian era, nor any that lived for three or four hundred years after. Here, then, is a large exception of the wicked. But we shall probably find a still larger exception, by an inquiry as to which beast is spoken of; for two are mentioned, viz: a ten horned beast, and a two horned one: and nearly all commentators are agreed that the two horned one came up at a much later period than the other; and some doubt if it has ever appeared yet. If the two horned beast is the one spoken of in the text under consideration, then an exception must be made of the wicked during the centuries that elapsed from the rise of the first to that of the second beast. Hence here is another large number of the wicked who are not embraced in the threatening. That it is the worshippers of the two horned beast, who are threatened, seems likely from the fact, that it is that beast that causes the image to the first to be made. Thus another period must elapse, after the second beast arose, before men could "worship his image;" and hence many other wicked would not be embraced in the judgment denounced in the text we are examining. Then we must inquire who or what power this "beast and his image" represent. Protestants, quite generally, say, it symbolizes Papacy. If that be so, then no Protestant sinners are included in the text; so that none of them need fear the threatening, whatever it embraces, unless they turn Papists. Possibly the Papist might say, the beast, &c., is Protestantism. If so, then all Catholic sinners escape. Thus, we see, it is a mere assumption to say, "This punishment foreshown, Rev.14:9 to 11" is "precisely" that to which "all the wicked will be subjected," as D. N. Lord said, in his review of Dobney on Future Punishment, Theological Journal for 1850, p. 416.
The dynasty of rulers symbolized by this beast and his image are of late origin, if yet in existence; hence it is impossible that more than a small portion of the race of Adam can come under the threatening of chapter 14. This fact alone shows the absurdity of our opposers quoting it in support of their theory, which is, that all wicked men will be involved in endless torment.
Does the judgment threatened in this text relate to wicked men beyond this life?
Can our opposers prove that it does? They can assume it; but assumptions do not pass for evidence in these days of investigation. Have they any evidence of their position? If so, what is it? and where is it found? But as they have none, I proceed to affirm, that those inflictions, on the worshippers of the beast and his image, relate to judgments inthis life, "on the earth," and not in some fancy hell in another world.
The previous chapter gave us an account not only of the beast and his image, but the threatening of the beast, "that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed;" verse 15. To counteract this, God caused an angel to make the terrible threatening in the text; and its appropriateness to deter men from obeying the beast is apparent.
The chapter following the text opens thus - "I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; and in them is filled up the wrath of God." The original is "In them was completed the wrath of God.
Mark well, these plagues are the last on some body; and they are to have a completion; hence it is impossible that they can be eternal, or endless. Now observe, verses 7 and 8, it is said, "One of the four vital beings gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God," &c. "And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled," or completed.
Let it be distinctly noted, these plagues are THE LAST, and that they COMPLETE the wrath of God on the power to be visited; and also that no MAN can enter into the temple of God till they are COMPLETED. Now what follows – If these plagues, or any part of them, fall on the wicked spoken of in chap.14:9-11, then either no man ever can enter the temple of God, or the wrath spoken of will have been completed, or finished. Now listen - "I heard a great voice out of the temple, saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God [where?] UPON THE EARTH:" not in hell, nor the moon, nor any other fancy location. "And the first went and poured out his vial upon the earth." Well, what happened? "And there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had THE MARK OF THE BEAST, and upon them which WORSHIPPED HIS IMAGE."
Here is the commencement of the exact fulfillment of the threatening in chap. 14. There we find the threatening; here the wrath in a course of accomplishment, and it has not missed the persons threatened. These plagues are all to fall on men upon the earth; chap.16:1; they are the "filling up of the wrath of God," and they are the "the last:" and till they are filled up and completed, no man can enter the temple of God: then what becomes of "the eternity of eternities" of their torment? It has passed away, like other fancies of mere theorists.
The judgments embraced in these seven last plagues are fully developed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters, and result in the entire destruction of "Babylon the great" - which seems to be only another symbol of the beast. Babylon is judged, condemned, thrown down, burned with fire, and to "be found no more at all," chap. 18:21. The terrible torments inflicted on her, and her devotees, as set forth in the chapters named, is a full and perfect fulfillment of chap. 14:9 to 11; and it is seen to be "on the earth;" and no support or countenance is given to the assumption of endless sin and suffering by it.
As I have shown that the threatened wrath is to be "upon the earth," and that it must have a completion, or no man can ever enter the "temple in heaven," it is unnecessary to spend time to prove that the term, forever and ever, in the text, is used, as often elsewhere, to signify no more than an undefined period. I might greatly extend remarks on this subject; but trust enough has been said to convince all candid inquirers, and more would not avail with bigots, and dealers in mere assumptions.
The last resort of the advocates of the eternal sin and suffering theory is Rev.20:10, "The devil was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone - and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." In reply, - to say nothing of the fact that it is evidently a symbolical power that is here spoken of, I remark:
Some of the most learned men, and men, too, who believe in the common theory of unending sin and misery, have admitted that the "terms `everlasting,' `forever,' and the like, are uniformly used in the Scriptures to denote the longest possible duration of which the subject to which they are applied is capable." If this view is correct, and I see no reason to dissent from it, then the text under consideration proves that the devil and his associates in misery, are to be tormented during the whole period of their being: and of course cuts off restorationism; but does by no means prove that Satan, or wicked men, are immortal; on the contrary, we are expressly taught, Heb.2:14, that Christ shall "destroy the devil." Not destroy the "happiness" of the devil - that is done already; but his person, his being. Any other construction of the words, I conceive, is uncalled for and unnatural, unless it can first be shown that he is immortal, and that immortality can suffer.
It is further evident that the devils themselves expect to be destroyed. "Hast thou come to destroy us," said they to him who will finally do that work.
Whatever may be the views of the devil in the matter, the blessed God has said of the seed of the woman, that "It shall bruise thy head:" Gen.3:15. The work for which Christ was "manifested" will never be complete till the "old serpent's" head is bruised: which expression denotes the entire destruction of the life principle. Bruise a serpent anywhere, except his head, and he may live; but crush that, and he dies. The devil then is to die. Whoever he is, or whatever he is, the finale is total destruction, however hard the death may be, or long in being accomplished.
The argument used by my opponents to prove the immortality of the wicked, is drawn from the language which speaks of their punishment, or torments. And why do they infer, that this language proves the eternal conscious being of the wicked? Because, say they, the soul is immortal! That is the very point to be proved. Their argument runs thus:
First proposition: - The soul is immortal.
Inference: - The wicked will eternally sin and suffer.
Second proposition: - The wicked will eternally sin and suffer.
Inference: - Therefore they are immortal.
Here an attempt is made to establish the truth of the first proposition by an inference drawn from that proposition; when the truth of that inference, itself, depends upon the truth of the first proposition. Nothing can be proved in this way to sustain the doctrine of the immortality of the wicked. It is reasoning in a circle, and assuming the whole question at issue, instead of proving it.
Here, again, I refer to the language of Richard Watson, in his "Institutes." Though he believed in the eternal being of all souls, yet he says, vol.ii. [1st Am. Edition] page 250, the notion "that the soul is naturally immortal is contradicted by Scripture, which makes our immortality a gift, dependent on the will of the giver." And again, page 167 and 168, 2d volume, he calls the doctrine of the "natural immortality of the soul" an "absurdity." The question then is, does God "give" immortality to any but the "holy?"
My opponents say, "Yes;" and I answer No. "Blessed and holy is he who hath part in the first resurrection on such the SECOND DEATH hath no power." All others will forever be cut off from life and immortality.
It is maintained, with great assurance, that this text teaches, that "eternity of eternities" is the period of the torments of all wicked men: and, therefore, proves them immortal.
In order to make this text available to our opponents, they must prove three things. First - That it is spoken of ALL wicked men. Second - That it relates to their punishment beyond this life. And, Third - That the term "for ever and ever" is used in its primary and absolute sense of endless. Neither of these points have they ever proved, and I am persuaded they never can. It is not enough for a man to affirm all these points; let them be proved. I say again, it never has been done and never can be.
Is this language used in reference to all wicked men?
I answer, no. It is a specified class, viz: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand." This is the class spoken of and threatened; and it comes almost infinitely short of embracing all the wicked.
Let us examine the connection and see when the "beast and his image" arose. The previous chapter shows that they did not come into existence till after the Christian era; nor indeed till the old Roman empire was in its divided state - as the ten horns clearly show - which could not have been earlier than the fourth or fifth century after Christ. Hence, the wicked spoken of in the text under consideration, did not embrace any that lived before the Christian era, nor any that lived for three or four hundred years after. Here, then, is a large exception of the wicked. But we shall probably find a still larger exception, by an inquiry as to which beast is spoken of; for two are mentioned, viz: a ten horned beast, and a two horned one: and nearly all commentators are agreed that the two horned one came up at a much later period than the other; and some doubt if it has ever appeared yet. If the two horned beast is the one spoken of in the text under consideration, then an exception must be made of the wicked during the centuries that elapsed from the rise of the first to that of the second beast. Hence here is another large number of the wicked who are not embraced in the threatening. That it is the worshippers of the two horned beast, who are threatened, seems likely from the fact, that it is that beast that causes the image to the first to be made. Thus another period must elapse, after the second beast arose, before men could "worship his image;" and hence many other wicked would not be embraced in the judgment denounced in the text we are examining. Then we must inquire who or what power this "beast and his image" represent. Protestants, quite generally, say, it symbolizes Papacy. If that be so, then no Protestant sinners are included in the text; so that none of them need fear the threatening, whatever it embraces, unless they turn Papists. Possibly the Papist might say, the beast, &c., is Protestantism. If so, then all Catholic sinners escape. Thus, we see, it is a mere assumption to say, "This punishment foreshown, Rev.14:9 to 11" is "precisely" that to which "all the wicked will be subjected," as D. N. Lord said, in his review of Dobney on Future Punishment, Theological Journal for 1850, p. 416.
The dynasty of rulers symbolized by this beast and his image are of late origin, if yet in existence; hence it is impossible that more than a small portion of the race of Adam can come under the threatening of chapter 14. This fact alone shows the absurdity of our opposers quoting it in support of their theory, which is, that all wicked men will be involved in endless torment.
Does the judgment threatened in this text relate to wicked men beyond this life?
Can our opposers prove that it does? They can assume it; but assumptions do not pass for evidence in these days of investigation. Have they any evidence of their position? If so, what is it? and where is it found? But as they have none, I proceed to affirm, that those inflictions, on the worshippers of the beast and his image, relate to judgments inthis life, "on the earth," and not in some fancy hell in another world.
The previous chapter gave us an account not only of the beast and his image, but the threatening of the beast, "that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed;" verse 15. To counteract this, God caused an angel to make the terrible threatening in the text; and its appropriateness to deter men from obeying the beast is apparent.
The chapter following the text opens thus - "I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; and in them is filled up the wrath of God." The original is "In them was completed the wrath of God.
Mark well, these plagues are the last on some body; and they are to have a completion; hence it is impossible that they can be eternal, or endless. Now observe, verses 7 and 8, it is said, "One of the four vital beings gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God," &c. "And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled," or completed.
Let it be distinctly noted, these plagues are THE LAST, and that they COMPLETE the wrath of God on the power to be visited; and also that no MAN can enter into the temple of God till they are COMPLETED. Now what follows – If these plagues, or any part of them, fall on the wicked spoken of in chap.14:9-11, then either no man ever can enter the temple of God, or the wrath spoken of will have been completed, or finished. Now listen - "I heard a great voice out of the temple, saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God [where?] UPON THE EARTH:" not in hell, nor the moon, nor any other fancy location. "And the first went and poured out his vial upon the earth." Well, what happened? "And there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had THE MARK OF THE BEAST, and upon them which WORSHIPPED HIS IMAGE."
Here is the commencement of the exact fulfillment of the threatening in chap. 14. There we find the threatening; here the wrath in a course of accomplishment, and it has not missed the persons threatened. These plagues are all to fall on men upon the earth; chap.16:1; they are the "filling up of the wrath of God," and they are the "the last:" and till they are filled up and completed, no man can enter the temple of God: then what becomes of "the eternity of eternities" of their torment? It has passed away, like other fancies of mere theorists.
The judgments embraced in these seven last plagues are fully developed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters, and result in the entire destruction of "Babylon the great" - which seems to be only another symbol of the beast. Babylon is judged, condemned, thrown down, burned with fire, and to "be found no more at all," chap. 18:21. The terrible torments inflicted on her, and her devotees, as set forth in the chapters named, is a full and perfect fulfillment of chap. 14:9 to 11; and it is seen to be "on the earth;" and no support or countenance is given to the assumption of endless sin and suffering by it.
As I have shown that the threatened wrath is to be "upon the earth," and that it must have a completion, or no man can ever enter the "temple in heaven," it is unnecessary to spend time to prove that the term, forever and ever, in the text, is used, as often elsewhere, to signify no more than an undefined period. I might greatly extend remarks on this subject; but trust enough has been said to convince all candid inquirers, and more would not avail with bigots, and dealers in mere assumptions.
The last resort of the advocates of the eternal sin and suffering theory is Rev.20:10, "The devil was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone - and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." In reply, - to say nothing of the fact that it is evidently a symbolical power that is here spoken of, I remark:
Some of the most learned men, and men, too, who believe in the common theory of unending sin and misery, have admitted that the "terms `everlasting,' `forever,' and the like, are uniformly used in the Scriptures to denote the longest possible duration of which the subject to which they are applied is capable." If this view is correct, and I see no reason to dissent from it, then the text under consideration proves that the devil and his associates in misery, are to be tormented during the whole period of their being: and of course cuts off restorationism; but does by no means prove that Satan, or wicked men, are immortal; on the contrary, we are expressly taught, Heb.2:14, that Christ shall "destroy the devil." Not destroy the "happiness" of the devil - that is done already; but his person, his being. Any other construction of the words, I conceive, is uncalled for and unnatural, unless it can first be shown that he is immortal, and that immortality can suffer.
It is further evident that the devils themselves expect to be destroyed. "Hast thou come to destroy us," said they to him who will finally do that work.
Whatever may be the views of the devil in the matter, the blessed God has said of the seed of the woman, that "It shall bruise thy head:" Gen.3:15. The work for which Christ was "manifested" will never be complete till the "old serpent's" head is bruised: which expression denotes the entire destruction of the life principle. Bruise a serpent anywhere, except his head, and he may live; but crush that, and he dies. The devil then is to die. Whoever he is, or whatever he is, the finale is total destruction, however hard the death may be, or long in being accomplished.
The argument used by my opponents to prove the immortality of the wicked, is drawn from the language which speaks of their punishment, or torments. And why do they infer, that this language proves the eternal conscious being of the wicked? Because, say they, the soul is immortal! That is the very point to be proved. Their argument runs thus:
First proposition: - The soul is immortal.
Inference: - The wicked will eternally sin and suffer.
Second proposition: - The wicked will eternally sin and suffer.
Inference: - Therefore they are immortal.
Here an attempt is made to establish the truth of the first proposition by an inference drawn from that proposition; when the truth of that inference, itself, depends upon the truth of the first proposition. Nothing can be proved in this way to sustain the doctrine of the immortality of the wicked. It is reasoning in a circle, and assuming the whole question at issue, instead of proving it.
Here, again, I refer to the language of Richard Watson, in his "Institutes." Though he believed in the eternal being of all souls, yet he says, vol.ii. [1st Am. Edition] page 250, the notion "that the soul is naturally immortal is contradicted by Scripture, which makes our immortality a gift, dependent on the will of the giver." And again, page 167 and 168, 2d volume, he calls the doctrine of the "natural immortality of the soul" an "absurdity." The question then is, does God "give" immortality to any but the "holy?"
My opponents say, "Yes;" and I answer No. "Blessed and holy is he who hath part in the first resurrection on such the SECOND DEATH hath no power." All others will forever be cut off from life and immortality.
OTHER OBJECTIONS
Having examined every important text that I know of, relied upon in the Bible to establish the common theory, I do not consider that my opponents have any claim upon me to answer other objections, not having their foundation in the Scriptures; as the book of God is the only infallible rule of faith. I have no fear, however, to meet and examine objections from other sources, and shall notice such as have come to my knowledge.
First, then, it is said, "The benevolence of God obliges him to inflict the greatest possible punishment, in order to deter men from sin."
To say nothing of the absurdity of such a proposition, it is enough to reply, that the common sense of every enlightened and Christianized people, as well as their practice, condemns such a view of benevolence.
The Legislature of this State have enacted a law condemning the murderer to death. Suppose the judge, on the conviction of the criminal, should proceed to pronounce sentence, by saying - "You, the prisoner, are clearly convicted of the crime specified in the law; you are, therefore, to suffer the penalty, which is, that you be tortured over a slow fire - and to prevent your dying, an able and skillful physician will stand by you, with powerful remedies, to prevent the fire from causing death; but said fire is to be as terrible as it can possibly be made, and without intermission. In this manner you are to be tormented till death shall come upon you from some other cause; which, however, should never take place if we possessed power to prevent it!" And then suppose the judge should add: - "That is the penalty of the law under which you are now to suffer!"
I ask if all New York, yea, all the nation, and the civilized world would not be horror-struck by such a decision? Would not all conclude the judge was insane, and ought to be immediately removed from office? If he should attempt to justify himself, by showing that he had given a constitutional construction of the law of the State, would it not be thought that he was stark mad? And if he should succeed in establishing his position of the correctness of his decision, would not the whole State be in arms to alter or abolish such laws? and if they found that such a state of things was fastened upon them by some unalterable necessity, would not the State itself, with all its rich lands, be abandoned by its inhabitants, as some Sodom and Gomorrah that was nigh unto destruction?
If the case I have supposed differs from that attributed to God's law, and the administration under it - upon the common theory of death signifying eternal sinning and suffering - then I confess myself incapable of seeing the difference, except it be in one point, viz: the judge spoken of has not power to protract the sufferings of the condemned person beyond a limited period; God has almighty and irresistible power in punishing.
If, as is contended, the greatest possible punishment is required by benevolence, to deter men from sin, why do we not see civilized nations adopting that principle in enacting their laws? The fact is, the legislation of all nations who acknowledge the Bible, gives the lie to such a theory. And how is it accounted for, I ask, that those nations, that are called "Christian nations," have so far modified their laws as to be at an almost infinite remove from those called savage? Is it not because, though men have not in reality become Christians, yet the Bible has had such an influence on the mass of mind, that the conviction is almost universal among them, that no "cruel or unusual punishments" shall be "inflicted?" to use the language of the Constitution of the United States. I ask again, if this fact does not prove that the influence of the gospel is against the common theory of eternal misery? Or in other words, do not the principles of the gospel, carried out in practical life, give the lie to the theory I oppose?
Punishment in some form, to transgressors, all admit is requisite to maintain government. But let us inquire what is the design of punishment? It may be said to consist mainly in two particulars, viz: 1st. To prevent the recurrence of crime on the part of the transgressor; and 2d. To deter others from the commission of crime.
Let me now ask, It is necessary that the impenitent sinner should live in a state of eternal sin and suffering to prevent the recurrence of sin on his part? This will not be pretended by any sane man. So far from it, the advocates of the theory I oppose, maintain, that the sinner will be eternally sinning, and eternally being punished for those sins; which, however, neither does nor can produce reformation; nor, in fact, is it designed to. Upon the common theory, then, sin and the works of the devil never will be destroyed, and the punishment does not answer the end of punishment, in preventing the recurrence of crime; for it will be eternally recurring. But if the sinner is actually destroyed, and ceases to be, there is an effectual prevention of the recurrence of sin, on the part of the transgressor.
If, then, the end of punishment is answered, so far as the sinner is concerned, by his utter destruction, and cannot be by the opposite theory, let us now inquire whether the eternal conscious existence of the sinner in torments, is necessary to deter others from sin? To suppose that it is, is to suppose that the inhabitants of heaven are kept in subjection to God, on the same principle that slave-drivers keep their slaves to their toil, i.e., by the terror of the lash, or some other fearful torture. No such principle, I apprehend, will be needed in the presence of God and the Lamb - and that, too, after our state of trial is over for ever, and the righteous are crowned with eternal life, and made kings and priests unto God, to reign for ever and ever, filled with unmeasured consolation, and surrounded by immeasurable glory.
Besides, if the wicked are all destroyed, and mingle no more with the righteous for ever, the greatest temptation to sin is removed. The past recollection of evil will be all-sufficient to prevent sin, even on the supposition that it were possible for temptation to arise, which is not likely when the righteous dwell in the immediate presence of God and the Lamb, where there is fullness of joy and pleasures for ever more. Surely there can be no need, to persons thus situated, to listen to the groans of the damned, and gaze on their torments to keep them in obedience. The thought to me, is little short of blasphemy.
But, the notion that benevolence requires the greatest possible punishment to be inflicted, is expressly contradicted by the Bible. Our Lord Jesus Christ informs us that some "shall be beaten with few stripes." Of course the greatest possible punishment is not inflicted, but only such as is necessary to secure the honor of a violated law, and answer the end of government.
It is said, "sin is an infinite evil, and therefore the sinner must have an infinite punishment." And I ask, if it may not be said, in an important sense, that punishment, from which a sinner never recovers, is infinite? But how is it proved that sin is an infinite evil, which is committed by a finite being in time? The answer is, it is committed against an infinite God. I reply, that, upon the same principle, a punishment inflicted upon a finite being, in a limited time, is an infinite punishment, because inflicted by an infinite Being.
Again, it is objected to my views, that "it is no punishment at all." "If," continues the objector, "the wicked are to be struck out of being, it is quick over, and that is the end of it."
The man who can make such an objection as this, gives sad evidence that he is sinking below the brute creation, in his sensibilities; for a brute makes every effort to live, or protract its life as long as possible. Besides, he manifests that he has no clear conception of the value of life: he, in fact, tells his Maker that he does not thank Him for life. But does the objector really feel that what he says is true? Is it nothing to die - to be cut off from life - to perish "like a beast" – to lose that which may be filled up with unmeasured and unending enjoyment? Is all this nothing? Is it no punishment? If so, in the objector's mind, I repeat it, he is already too degraded in the scale of being to be expected ever to rise above a mere animal. His case is exceedingly hopeless. He may count himself a Christian, but I fear he is ignorant of the grand principle which characterizes such, viz: love to God. If be possessed that, death - to cease eternally from conscious being - would be to his mind the most tremendous punishment. The advantage of teaching this punishment, is, it is something definite to the mind; and therefore more likely to influence a rational being, than a punishment of which he can have no clear conception, and the justice of which does not commend itself to the human understanding.
Henry, in his Commentary, says - "By the damnation of the wicked the justice of God will be eternally satisfying, but never satisfied.
This doctrine is undoubtedly correct, on the supposition that the common theory is true; but it represents God as incapable of satisfying his justice, or as wanting in a disposition to do so. Either of these positions, one would suppose, are sufficiently absurd to be rejected by a reflecting mind.
The penalty of God's law is something to be inflicted, or it is not; if it is not to be inflicted, then men may not be punished at all for their sins; but if it is to be inflicted on the impenitent, then it cannot be eternal sin and suffering; for in that case, it would only be inflicting but never inflicted; indeed, in that way justice could not be said to be even satisfying; for that cannot be said to be satisfying that is never to be satisfied; that is a plain contradiction. Could a man be said to be satisfying his hunger if it was impossible ever to satisfy it? Or again, is the "grave" satisfying, of which the wise man says, that it is "never satisfied?"
Benson, the Methodist commentator, outstrips Henry. So far from the justice of God making any approach towards satisfying itself, according to Benson, the sinner outstrips justice in the race. Speaking of the damned, he says: - "They must be perpetually swelling their enormous sum of guilt, and still running deeper, immensely deeper, in debt to divine and infinite justice. Hence, after the longest imaginable period, they will be so far from having discharged their debt –that they will find more due than when they first began to suffer."
How much glory such a theory reflects upon the infinite God, I leave others to judge. The same Benson says in another place - "Infinite justice arrests their guilty souls, and confines them in the dark prison of hell, till they have satisfied all its demands by their personal sufferings, which, alas! they can never do."
So, it seems, the Great and Infinite Being is perfectly incapable of obtaining satisfaction to his justice! But I will not dwell upon this point.
I will call your attention to one thought more before I close this discourse. Are we to suppose that the Creator of all men will inflict a punishment on men of which he has given them no intimation? For example - wicked men who have not revelation to unfold the unseen world. Are we to believe that they are to be punished by being plunged into a state of necessary sin and eternal suffering? a state of which they had never heard?
They have had no intimation of eternal conscious being in misery. They know there is misery, for they experience it, but they have always seen misery terminate in death. Of misery followed by death, they have something more than intimation; but of eternal suffering they can have no idea. No - nor can we, who have that doctrine taught us by ministers. We can have no idea of a life of misery that never results in death. We may have illustrations given us, but they cannot touch it, and no finite mind can have any conception of it; this is evident from the illustrations used to attempt to describe it; for example - Benson after painting the unutterable miseries of the damned, till his own soul chills with horror, and his "heart bleeds," thus attempts to describe the duration of that misery:
"Number the stars in the firmament, the drops of rain, sand on the sea shore; and when thou hast finished the calculation, sit down and number up the ages of woe. Let every star, every drop, every grain of sand, represent one million of tormenting ages. And know that as many more millions still remain behind, and yet as many more behind these, and so on without end."
Now I ask if any definite idea is conveyed to the mind by such an illustration? And if not, what influence can it have upon men? If it produces any action, it must be as lacking in definiteness as the ideas that possess the mind.
Tell a man of something concerning which he can form a definite idea, and it must have more influence upon him. Tell him he is dying, perishing - really, actually, literally, not figuratively perishing: of that he can form some idea, and hence, it will be more likely to move him to right action, than that of which he can have no such definite knowledge.
First, then, it is said, "The benevolence of God obliges him to inflict the greatest possible punishment, in order to deter men from sin."
To say nothing of the absurdity of such a proposition, it is enough to reply, that the common sense of every enlightened and Christianized people, as well as their practice, condemns such a view of benevolence.
The Legislature of this State have enacted a law condemning the murderer to death. Suppose the judge, on the conviction of the criminal, should proceed to pronounce sentence, by saying - "You, the prisoner, are clearly convicted of the crime specified in the law; you are, therefore, to suffer the penalty, which is, that you be tortured over a slow fire - and to prevent your dying, an able and skillful physician will stand by you, with powerful remedies, to prevent the fire from causing death; but said fire is to be as terrible as it can possibly be made, and without intermission. In this manner you are to be tormented till death shall come upon you from some other cause; which, however, should never take place if we possessed power to prevent it!" And then suppose the judge should add: - "That is the penalty of the law under which you are now to suffer!"
I ask if all New York, yea, all the nation, and the civilized world would not be horror-struck by such a decision? Would not all conclude the judge was insane, and ought to be immediately removed from office? If he should attempt to justify himself, by showing that he had given a constitutional construction of the law of the State, would it not be thought that he was stark mad? And if he should succeed in establishing his position of the correctness of his decision, would not the whole State be in arms to alter or abolish such laws? and if they found that such a state of things was fastened upon them by some unalterable necessity, would not the State itself, with all its rich lands, be abandoned by its inhabitants, as some Sodom and Gomorrah that was nigh unto destruction?
If the case I have supposed differs from that attributed to God's law, and the administration under it - upon the common theory of death signifying eternal sinning and suffering - then I confess myself incapable of seeing the difference, except it be in one point, viz: the judge spoken of has not power to protract the sufferings of the condemned person beyond a limited period; God has almighty and irresistible power in punishing.
If, as is contended, the greatest possible punishment is required by benevolence, to deter men from sin, why do we not see civilized nations adopting that principle in enacting their laws? The fact is, the legislation of all nations who acknowledge the Bible, gives the lie to such a theory. And how is it accounted for, I ask, that those nations, that are called "Christian nations," have so far modified their laws as to be at an almost infinite remove from those called savage? Is it not because, though men have not in reality become Christians, yet the Bible has had such an influence on the mass of mind, that the conviction is almost universal among them, that no "cruel or unusual punishments" shall be "inflicted?" to use the language of the Constitution of the United States. I ask again, if this fact does not prove that the influence of the gospel is against the common theory of eternal misery? Or in other words, do not the principles of the gospel, carried out in practical life, give the lie to the theory I oppose?
Punishment in some form, to transgressors, all admit is requisite to maintain government. But let us inquire what is the design of punishment? It may be said to consist mainly in two particulars, viz: 1st. To prevent the recurrence of crime on the part of the transgressor; and 2d. To deter others from the commission of crime.
Let me now ask, It is necessary that the impenitent sinner should live in a state of eternal sin and suffering to prevent the recurrence of sin on his part? This will not be pretended by any sane man. So far from it, the advocates of the theory I oppose, maintain, that the sinner will be eternally sinning, and eternally being punished for those sins; which, however, neither does nor can produce reformation; nor, in fact, is it designed to. Upon the common theory, then, sin and the works of the devil never will be destroyed, and the punishment does not answer the end of punishment, in preventing the recurrence of crime; for it will be eternally recurring. But if the sinner is actually destroyed, and ceases to be, there is an effectual prevention of the recurrence of sin, on the part of the transgressor.
If, then, the end of punishment is answered, so far as the sinner is concerned, by his utter destruction, and cannot be by the opposite theory, let us now inquire whether the eternal conscious existence of the sinner in torments, is necessary to deter others from sin? To suppose that it is, is to suppose that the inhabitants of heaven are kept in subjection to God, on the same principle that slave-drivers keep their slaves to their toil, i.e., by the terror of the lash, or some other fearful torture. No such principle, I apprehend, will be needed in the presence of God and the Lamb - and that, too, after our state of trial is over for ever, and the righteous are crowned with eternal life, and made kings and priests unto God, to reign for ever and ever, filled with unmeasured consolation, and surrounded by immeasurable glory.
Besides, if the wicked are all destroyed, and mingle no more with the righteous for ever, the greatest temptation to sin is removed. The past recollection of evil will be all-sufficient to prevent sin, even on the supposition that it were possible for temptation to arise, which is not likely when the righteous dwell in the immediate presence of God and the Lamb, where there is fullness of joy and pleasures for ever more. Surely there can be no need, to persons thus situated, to listen to the groans of the damned, and gaze on their torments to keep them in obedience. The thought to me, is little short of blasphemy.
But, the notion that benevolence requires the greatest possible punishment to be inflicted, is expressly contradicted by the Bible. Our Lord Jesus Christ informs us that some "shall be beaten with few stripes." Of course the greatest possible punishment is not inflicted, but only such as is necessary to secure the honor of a violated law, and answer the end of government.
It is said, "sin is an infinite evil, and therefore the sinner must have an infinite punishment." And I ask, if it may not be said, in an important sense, that punishment, from which a sinner never recovers, is infinite? But how is it proved that sin is an infinite evil, which is committed by a finite being in time? The answer is, it is committed against an infinite God. I reply, that, upon the same principle, a punishment inflicted upon a finite being, in a limited time, is an infinite punishment, because inflicted by an infinite Being.
Again, it is objected to my views, that "it is no punishment at all." "If," continues the objector, "the wicked are to be struck out of being, it is quick over, and that is the end of it."
The man who can make such an objection as this, gives sad evidence that he is sinking below the brute creation, in his sensibilities; for a brute makes every effort to live, or protract its life as long as possible. Besides, he manifests that he has no clear conception of the value of life: he, in fact, tells his Maker that he does not thank Him for life. But does the objector really feel that what he says is true? Is it nothing to die - to be cut off from life - to perish "like a beast" – to lose that which may be filled up with unmeasured and unending enjoyment? Is all this nothing? Is it no punishment? If so, in the objector's mind, I repeat it, he is already too degraded in the scale of being to be expected ever to rise above a mere animal. His case is exceedingly hopeless. He may count himself a Christian, but I fear he is ignorant of the grand principle which characterizes such, viz: love to God. If be possessed that, death - to cease eternally from conscious being - would be to his mind the most tremendous punishment. The advantage of teaching this punishment, is, it is something definite to the mind; and therefore more likely to influence a rational being, than a punishment of which he can have no clear conception, and the justice of which does not commend itself to the human understanding.
Henry, in his Commentary, says - "By the damnation of the wicked the justice of God will be eternally satisfying, but never satisfied.
This doctrine is undoubtedly correct, on the supposition that the common theory is true; but it represents God as incapable of satisfying his justice, or as wanting in a disposition to do so. Either of these positions, one would suppose, are sufficiently absurd to be rejected by a reflecting mind.
The penalty of God's law is something to be inflicted, or it is not; if it is not to be inflicted, then men may not be punished at all for their sins; but if it is to be inflicted on the impenitent, then it cannot be eternal sin and suffering; for in that case, it would only be inflicting but never inflicted; indeed, in that way justice could not be said to be even satisfying; for that cannot be said to be satisfying that is never to be satisfied; that is a plain contradiction. Could a man be said to be satisfying his hunger if it was impossible ever to satisfy it? Or again, is the "grave" satisfying, of which the wise man says, that it is "never satisfied?"
Benson, the Methodist commentator, outstrips Henry. So far from the justice of God making any approach towards satisfying itself, according to Benson, the sinner outstrips justice in the race. Speaking of the damned, he says: - "They must be perpetually swelling their enormous sum of guilt, and still running deeper, immensely deeper, in debt to divine and infinite justice. Hence, after the longest imaginable period, they will be so far from having discharged their debt –that they will find more due than when they first began to suffer."
How much glory such a theory reflects upon the infinite God, I leave others to judge. The same Benson says in another place - "Infinite justice arrests their guilty souls, and confines them in the dark prison of hell, till they have satisfied all its demands by their personal sufferings, which, alas! they can never do."
So, it seems, the Great and Infinite Being is perfectly incapable of obtaining satisfaction to his justice! But I will not dwell upon this point.
I will call your attention to one thought more before I close this discourse. Are we to suppose that the Creator of all men will inflict a punishment on men of which he has given them no intimation? For example - wicked men who have not revelation to unfold the unseen world. Are we to believe that they are to be punished by being plunged into a state of necessary sin and eternal suffering? a state of which they had never heard?
They have had no intimation of eternal conscious being in misery. They know there is misery, for they experience it, but they have always seen misery terminate in death. Of misery followed by death, they have something more than intimation; but of eternal suffering they can have no idea. No - nor can we, who have that doctrine taught us by ministers. We can have no idea of a life of misery that never results in death. We may have illustrations given us, but they cannot touch it, and no finite mind can have any conception of it; this is evident from the illustrations used to attempt to describe it; for example - Benson after painting the unutterable miseries of the damned, till his own soul chills with horror, and his "heart bleeds," thus attempts to describe the duration of that misery:
"Number the stars in the firmament, the drops of rain, sand on the sea shore; and when thou hast finished the calculation, sit down and number up the ages of woe. Let every star, every drop, every grain of sand, represent one million of tormenting ages. And know that as many more millions still remain behind, and yet as many more behind these, and so on without end."
Now I ask if any definite idea is conveyed to the mind by such an illustration? And if not, what influence can it have upon men? If it produces any action, it must be as lacking in definiteness as the ideas that possess the mind.
Tell a man of something concerning which he can form a definite idea, and it must have more influence upon him. Tell him he is dying, perishing - really, actually, literally, not figuratively perishing: of that he can form some idea, and hence, it will be more likely to move him to right action, than that of which he can have no such definite knowledge.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I have endeavored to establish the position, that men are perishing; in other words, that they are laboring under a fatal disease, that will result in death, or in utter extinction of conscious being, unless it is removed. All men are dying. The death to which they are hastening is the effect of sin, and sin is the transgression of the law of their moral nature, which will as certainly result in the entire dissolution of the man, so that he will cease to be man, as the violation of the law of our physical nature will result in the death of the body, unless that order can be restored which has been interrupted by these violations.
In this view of the subject, we have a beautiful and forcible parallel between the disorders of the body and those of the mind - and between the attempts to heal the body, and the attempts to heal our moral diseases, or to save us alive. There are, it is true, quacks in both. I will not stop now to determine who they are in either case; my business is to show unto men their disease and danger, or their sins, and the consequences to which they lead; and then point them to the sure the faithful, the kind and glorious Physician, the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He came down from heaven, and entered our moral graveyard, where souls are dying, and proclaimed Life - ETERNAL LIFE.
He calls us to believe in him. And what does this faith imply? It implies, of course, that we feel we are morally diseased and dying. No man would ask, or receive the aid of a physician who felt himself whole; for "the whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."
Again, faith in Christ, the great Physician, implies confidence in his ability to heal, or save us alive. No man employs a physician in whose skill he has no confidence. When a sick man finds one in whom he has perfect confidence, he shows his faith in him something like this: "Doctor," he says, "I know you are a skilful practitioner, and I believe you perfectly understand my disorder, and I wish you to undertake for me - I wish to put myself entirely under your care." "But," the doctor replies, "I cannot heal you, unless you will strictly follow my directions; no medicine, however valuable, and no physician, however skillful, can restore health, and prolong life, if you persist in the violation of the laws of your physical nature; you must therefore determine to give yourself entirely up to follow my directions, or you must die; you can have your choice."
Now, if the man consents to do this, he acts faith in that physician; and when he gets well, he will doubtless give the doctor all the credit of his cure, and be very likely to recommend him to others. Now, my hearers, that is faith, active faith. Go to Christ the great Physician, in the same way, and your sins, which are a moral disease, will be removed, and you, who are perishing, dying, will be made alive - yes, have life, and live eternally: but if you refuse the great Physician, you must die - die past hope, past recovery - die under an awful weight of guilt - die eternally. But you do not die without a mighty effort on the part of Christ and his followers to save you. Jesus wept over dying men when here on earth; and with all the compassion of the Son of God, in the most tender pity he said, in the language of my text: "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." - Shall the Saviour make this lamentation over any of us? O, come to Christ and live.
In this view of the subject, we have a beautiful and forcible parallel between the disorders of the body and those of the mind - and between the attempts to heal the body, and the attempts to heal our moral diseases, or to save us alive. There are, it is true, quacks in both. I will not stop now to determine who they are in either case; my business is to show unto men their disease and danger, or their sins, and the consequences to which they lead; and then point them to the sure the faithful, the kind and glorious Physician, the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He came down from heaven, and entered our moral graveyard, where souls are dying, and proclaimed Life - ETERNAL LIFE.
He calls us to believe in him. And what does this faith imply? It implies, of course, that we feel we are morally diseased and dying. No man would ask, or receive the aid of a physician who felt himself whole; for "the whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."
Again, faith in Christ, the great Physician, implies confidence in his ability to heal, or save us alive. No man employs a physician in whose skill he has no confidence. When a sick man finds one in whom he has perfect confidence, he shows his faith in him something like this: "Doctor," he says, "I know you are a skilful practitioner, and I believe you perfectly understand my disorder, and I wish you to undertake for me - I wish to put myself entirely under your care." "But," the doctor replies, "I cannot heal you, unless you will strictly follow my directions; no medicine, however valuable, and no physician, however skillful, can restore health, and prolong life, if you persist in the violation of the laws of your physical nature; you must therefore determine to give yourself entirely up to follow my directions, or you must die; you can have your choice."
Now, if the man consents to do this, he acts faith in that physician; and when he gets well, he will doubtless give the doctor all the credit of his cure, and be very likely to recommend him to others. Now, my hearers, that is faith, active faith. Go to Christ the great Physician, in the same way, and your sins, which are a moral disease, will be removed, and you, who are perishing, dying, will be made alive - yes, have life, and live eternally: but if you refuse the great Physician, you must die - die past hope, past recovery - die under an awful weight of guilt - die eternally. But you do not die without a mighty effort on the part of Christ and his followers to save you. Jesus wept over dying men when here on earth; and with all the compassion of the Son of God, in the most tender pity he said, in the language of my text: "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." - Shall the Saviour make this lamentation over any of us? O, come to Christ and live.
