Page images
PDF
EPUB

cious," it is certainly their duty, unless they "boast of a false gift," to instruct the ignorant and uninformed-not natural fools, wild enthusiasts or blind bigots, two of which classes cannot be helped in any case; though perchance something may be done, at lucid intervals, with the intermediate oue; but those who are deficient in human learning and science, to whom the gospel was originally and emphatically preached, and who, if of sound understandings, can disceru a plain argument, and the force of an infallible consequence, as well as the most expert casuist, or the profoundest divine. It may be observed also, by the way, that what appears to be regarded by your Correspondent, [XIII. 618,] supposing the truth of final restitution, as a defect in the preaching of our Lord and his apostles, is somewhere adverted to by Dr. Paley, as a mark of their wisdom. "The wisdom of our Saviour is manifest, in his not having entered too minutely into the circumstances of a future state. He exhibits to our view the sublime event of a general judgment, and acquaints us with the ensuing states of the righteous and the wicked, and there he leaves us."

But, if these queries must be answered more particularly, we cannot do it better than in the language of Dr. Hartley: "The Gospels are short memoirs; and we may be as yet but novices in Scripture language. Per haps the writers, like the prophets of old, did not see the full meaning of the glorious declarations which the Holy Spirit hath delivered to us, through them; or perhaps they did, bat thought it expedient, or were commanded, not to be more explicit. The superstitious fear of God, one of the grand corruptions of the gospel, may have been necessary hitherto; but now, these corruptions begin to be discovered and removed, by the earnest endeavours of good men of all nations and sects, by comparing spiritual things with spiritual.'

<

Besides, there are many philosophical, moral and religious truths, which, supposing the proper use of our faculties, may be called intuitive propositions; and which we firmly believe, though they are by no means in Scripture particularly laid down and inculcated. We may instance in

two particulars; the scale of intellectual nature above us, so admirably illustrated by Mr. Locke and other eminent writers, and the plurality of worlds. Yet the former is portrayed in Scripture, only in dark and distant adumbrations; and as to the latter, there does not appear, throughout the Bible, a single reference to the subject: the passage in the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews is mistranslated, and relates to the headship of Christ over the "Aions," the ages or dispensations, the new moral creation, which he has formed and appointed; which sense, Calvin himself allows of. There was a time when the notion of a plurality of worlds would have brought down upon its professors the thunders of the Vatican; yet now, the Pope himself, together with the whole college of cardinals, as well as every tyro in the principles of natural philosophy, will readily embrace it. These principles, therefore, have been gradually established by their own weight, and by the absurdity of the contrary opinions. If, therefore, instead of supposing that our Lord and his apostles never contemplated Final Restitution as an infallible consequence of the principles of the new dispensation, we suppose, on the contrary, what is simply possible, that they never contemplated strictly eternal torments, or absolute annihilation in the same view, where was the necessity of their being more explicit? Mr. Fox, with many others, appears to be satisfied upon this point.

But, Sir, it appears to me, that this amicable controversy, (and all religious controversies should be amicable,) may be much narrowed. Whatever we may think of the duration of future punishment, the notion of the indiscriminate sufferings of the finally impenitent, is not a doctrine of Scripture. Indeed, it would be very strange if it should. Here, we have the most positive evidence to the contrary. "It shall be more tolerable for the sinners of the old world, than for the sinners of Jerusalem. The ignorant transgressor shall be beaten with few stripes; but the transgressor against knowledge with many. Some shall be consigned to the judgment, some to the council, and others to hell-fire." To contend, therefore, against this

[ocr errors]

opinion, is to engage a phantom; and to preach or inculcate the Christian doctrine of future punishment, without attending to these distinctions, is to preach the doctrine by halves; or rather, not to preach it at all. I have, in a former letter, endeavoured to shew the inconsistencies and contradictions in the writings of some eminent men in this view of the subject; and as to the very few modern preachers who would be thought to teach it, we may apply the language of Archbishop Tillotson upon another occasion, which, though not very courtly, is certainly very expressive: They slabber it over, and huddle it up in great haste and confusion." They never condescend to reason upon it, but instead of an argument, put us off with a sentiment from some celebrated poet or orator. But poetry and eloquence, like the element of fire, are good servants, but bad masters. Now and then, indeed, even in the present day, we meet with a self-idolizing poet, or a flaming orator, who may, with Drexelius or Dr. Young, "heap Ossa upon Olympus, and Pelion upon Ossa; traverse in his own imagination the utmost limits of the unseen world; be lost in the mazes of his own eloquence, and entrance or distract his hearers but one saying of the prophet of Nazareth, duly apprehended and applied, shall instantly bring him down from his towering height, and like the touch of Ithuriel's spear, convince them that they have hitherto mistaken acquiescence for belief, and, under the leadings of their spiritual guide, have been wandering, not indeed into the paradise," but into the labyrinth "of fools."

The doctrine of future punishment, therefore, is only treatable or capable of being argued upon, as it merges into the second, namely a state of punishment, strictly eternal in duration, but limited and differing in de gree according to the nature of things, and the unequivocal language of the New Testament, and this may be styled the modern orthodox notion.

But before we proceed upon this part of our subject, we shall briefly advert to what is termed "a middle scheme" the doctrine of annihilation.

I shall not enter into the arguments

* Sermon on the Redemption of Time.

of your ingenious correspondent in favour of this notion, to which he seems to incline, as I confess I do not comprehend them. The arguments of Mr. Bourn have always appeared to me little to the purpose, and utterly unworthy of so excellent a divine; nor can I by any means conceive, that, with regard to final restoration in any view," the reasoning is as good in the case of a fly, as of a man"!

Although the scheme of annihilation is a far more merciful one than the old Calvinistic notion which leaves millions of intellectual beings "to dwell immortal in the arms of fire!" for the glory of God, (and, what is equally wonderful, for the solace and edification of the blessed, by way of contrast and comparison!) it nevertheless presents many insuperable objections to the reflecting mind. It represents the Deity as ultimately disappointed in his expectations from his creatures, and in a fatal moment destroying the work of his own hands! Though we have reason to believe from the principles of natural philosophy, that not a single atom of dead matter is annihilated, but is on the contrary, continually assuming new forms and combinations; and, from the testimony of Revelation, that this world originally sprang from a chaos, or the exuvia of a former one, and, after its final disorganization, shall probably again arise from its ashes, in bright and astonishing splendour; yet here we view millions of immortal spirits, that is, of rational beings originally designed for immortality, and impressed with restless and insatiable desires for its enjoyment; after a few short years of vanity and delusion, which, at best, is the present state of man, separate from the consideration of futurity, and therefore, upon the footing of reason alone, impossible to be regarded as his final state: we view these last, best works of the Almighty in this sublunary world, whom he “created in his own image," and whom the Great Messen ger of the new covenant lived and died to redeem; after a public and

[blocks in formation]

general resurrection, in which, according to some, the several particles of their natural bodies, which have been dispersed by the four winds of heaven, shall each resume their proper functions, but certainly, in which each individual shall be fully sensible of his own proper identity; and, after a solemn and impartial judgment, in which every one shall receive the due reward of his iniquity; at length, both soul and body, cast out as "unprofitable branches," not indeed to eternal torments, or an eternal prison, but to eternal darkness and annihilation!

Many of the arguments commonly urged against the old orthodox doctrine, are applicable here. Mr. Bouru, an advocate for this system, says, "Can you call eternal punishment by the soft name of a few stripes?" And, may we not retort, Can you call eternal annihilation by the soft name of a few stripes? Or, shall those who are to be essentially distinguished in their prior punishment, remain undistin

sued at last, in the ruins of interminable ages? Shall this be the cure of the moral disorders of the present imperfect state, that vast numbers of its chief inhabitants, the once-adopted children of God, shall be no more?

--Sad cure! for who would lose
Though full of pain, this intellectual being;
These thoughts that wander through eter-
nity;

To perish rather; swallow'd up and lost,
In the wide womb of uncreated night,
Devoid of sense and motion!"

It is a certain truth, but a bald and meagre argument commonly urged here, that the Almighty hath no need of his creatures, and can easily supply the loss of myriads by new creations of happy beings: for they have infinite need of him, and when their minds are in a right frame, their desires and aspirations towards him are next to infinite! Now, would a provident husbandman destroy a sickly tree, originally of a good stock, or, transplant it into another soil? But, say you, trees, absolutely dead, he will "pluck up by the roots," and branches entirely perished, he will burn up "with fire unquenchable:" that is, according to your interpretation, destroy them: but let us pause here a moment. We must not strain parables and similes too far. In theology it is

[blocks in formation]

a received principle, "Scriptura parabolica, non est argumentiva"-that is, we are not to reason from them absolutely, or from every circumstance, but from their general scope and import. The righteous are represented as "wheat laid up in a garber," but surely, not for similar purposes: we are not to compare a man to a tree, in all respects; a ray of the divinity, a spark of ethereal fire, an intellectual being, to an unconscious organization of matter! Even those "unprofitable branches" of the natural tree, are not so dead as they appear to the superficial observer; they yet contain principles of utility, they are converted by the purifying element into fructifying materials, and shall revivify in bright and radiant forms: and may we not suppose this at least equally possible, of those intellectual organizations, which, however they may now appear sickly and diseased, are never totally bereft of the principles of spiritual life, and were originally intended to be "the trees of the Lord, and the plants of righteousness"?

As to those very few texts of Scripture, which seem to look this way, they will probably appear upon an impartial examination to be only different modes of expression, relating to the same subject: for though "the wages of sin is death," according to the original sentence, and yet, this general sentence is so far already reversed, that the nature of death is changed, and all shall be raised from the dead, after the example, and by the power of Christ; when, as to the righteous, it shall be for ever done away; so, it is not probable, that after the awards of a future judgment, this sentence as to the wicked, will be repeated, and executed finally and irreversibly. In interpreting these passages, therefore, we must take reason, and the connected sense of Scripture for our guides, and regard not so much the present sin and imperfection of the creature, as the original design of his creation, and the transcendent excellencies and glories of the great Creator!

Dr. Doddridge, in his Lectures, before quoted, vacillating between the jargon of systems and the suggestions of his own capacious mind, says, " "Our natural apprehensions would rather lead us to hope, that the Deity would

leave room for amendment and recovery of happiness in a future state; or by annihilation put an end to men's misery, when they appeared bumbled by their punishment!" But it is not the usual course of Divine Providence to destroy, or inflict sufferings judicially, when the delinquents are humbled, and "accept," with proper dispositions, "the punishment of their iniquity." Mr. Wesley thought differently, and erred on the other extreme, when alluding to a line of Dr. Young's, implying the possibility of penitence in the state of future suffering:

"Calling Thee Father! in a sea of fire!" Struck with the supposed heterodoxy of the sentiment, he exclaims, "Would not the victim in such a case be instantly transported into Abraham's

bosom?"

If the present attempt meet with your acceptance, some further remarks on what I have styled the modern orthodox doctrine, shall be the subject of a future letter.

AN OCCASIONAL READER.

SIR,

YOUR

January 8, 1819. OUR intelligent correspondent, Mr. Madge, in his last letter, inserted in the Repository for December, [XIII. pp. 739-743,] disclaims, I observe, the idea of entering into controversy on the subject of Universal Restoration. A writer, however, who sends a paper on a controverted topic to a publication, whose professed object it is to promote discussion, must expect to have his opinions canvassed, and if he be, as I believe Mr. Madge to be, a well-wisher to the cause of truth, he will not be displeased, but rather rejoice in finding them the subjects of controversy. I make no apology therefore for trou bling you with a remark or two upon a passage in his last letter.

That God is good-that his benevolence is unbounded-that he is "long-suffering and ready to forgive," I, equally with Mr. Madge, believe, and that not on the evidence of reason merely, but of revelation. The testimony of the latter on this head, is indeed so clear and decisive, that it is, I think, placed beyond the reach of controversy. However, I must conceive that Mr. Madge goes much

too far in pronouncing that this established fact is sufficient to refute the idea that God can destroy the creatures he has called into being if it seem to him fit. To conceive of the conduct of the Deity in the manner which to us appears most consonant to benevolence, is an amiable and I should think must always be a harmless mistake, (if mistake indeed it should ultimately prove,) did not the advocates of the doctrine in question employ language respecting the views of their opponents wholly unjustified by the evidence they bring in support of their own. Let a candid, impartial man, without even looking into the pages of revelation, conceive of a prize like that of happiness, eternal, pure and unmixed, held out to the grasp of all men: let him know the simple condition upon which it is offered: I might almost say that the love of God, the love of the Being who offers this blessed boon to our acceptance, is the only stipulation; for a heart filled with that divine affection, assuredly, can never widely err from the path of duty. Let him see next what is in the mind of man, his large capacities for virtue, his high aspirings after immortality; let him know that over all his affections and desires there is placed in his bosom a guard and a monitor-the preserving and restraining power of conscience; and let him next view man, this favoured man, this largely-endowed being, turning away from these lights, rejecting infinite, immortal happiness, putting aside the offered boon, and preferring the brief pleasures and lingering sorrows of sin to the glories of a pure eternity,-will he say then of the God who withholds the rejected gift, and finally refuses to make the happiness of this man commensurate with his own, "that He is not good, neither can any sophistry prove him to be so"? *

It is obvious that I have not put this question on Necessarian principles; nor does it appear to me that Mr. Madge has treated the subject as a Necessarian. If such be his opinions, however, it must be discussed on other grounds; but speaking of man as an accountable being, and supposing the

[blocks in formation]

Deity to punish him for disobedience strictly and purely voluntary, I think the "ways of God" may be very well vindicated "to man" on the system of annihilation; nor do I even allow the inference of man, namely, "that God is cruel if he punish everlastingly," to be by any means of sufficient weight to overturn the plain testimony of Scripture to the goodness of the Deity, because this latter testimony we know to be unquestionably correct, but we do not know that our inference is so,

SIR,

Clapham,

Z.

inflict punishment on a creature, unless that punishment is to end in the final happiness of that creature: that the punishments of mankind must therefore end in their final and universal happiness. Now certainly we know from Scripture that the Lord does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. It is for the good of his family at large that the Father of the universe wields the rod of punishment. But from such general views it is impossible to decide how far every individual will be reformed by his punishment. Punishment has two intentions, to reform the sufferer is one, but another is to warn others by his fate. On this latter principle our

sure inflicted; and how can we pretend to know that the same principle may not exist in the economy of the Divine government? How ridiculous is the clown when he pretends to be wise about the politics of the country! how much more so are we men, when we think we understand the counsels of God! Argument on such a subject in good for nothing. In philosophy, being disciples of Bacon and Newton, we despise all pretensions to any knowledge which is not founded either on testimony or experience. In this case testimony is confessedly silent: and what experience have we about the things of the unseen world and the future life? Very loose analogy is all that can be pretended. But to estimate the value of this analogy, let us consider a parallel case, though one far more within the sphere of lawful conjecture. How little weight have the surmises which we form about the inhabitants of the celestial bodies? No intelligent philosopher thinks of confounding these with the things which we know. Far more presumptuous, as it appears to me, is it to unite such a speculation as that in question, with the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. It is an offence against philosophy, as much as against piety.

January 4, 1819. to offer reflectious on a subject about which Unitarians are a good deal engaged, although it forms no essential part of Unitarianism. The doctrine which is called that of Universal Restitution, is one which I believe you regard as a fair subject of discussion in the pages of your magazine. In opposing that doctrine, I will allow that which its advocates maintain as the basis of their system, namely, that it is not unequivocally taught in Scripture that any of the human race shall live for ever in misery: that those expressions concerning "everlasting punishment," and "everlasting torment,” may possibly find their accomplishment either in annihilation or a long, long endurance of suffering. It is certain that the immortality of the soul, in a general abstract sense, though a common-place in philosophical religion, is not a doctrine of the Bible. Thus much then, I allow: only let it be remembered that it is a mere possibility; that the Scriptures do not give a hint of direct evidence in its favour, but that on the contrary their language is such as tends to exclude the idea from the mind. Now here it is that the advocates of this doctrine take their stand: they say, that while its possibility is not disproved by Scripture, they have positive evidence in its favour, derived from other sources; and that therefore they are justified in believing and preach ing it. Now to this I make a double objection. In the first place, the evidence on which they rely is feeble and unsound in its nature. They contend that the Divine Goodness cannot

I am here led to my second objection; and it is one which I think ought to be well weighed, for it is of an awful kind. Let us then allow as much weight to the arguments in favour of this doctrine as the nature of the subject admits. It can be but a probable opinion at best. But if this

« PreviousContinue »