THE

Bible Christian Magazine,

AUGUST, 1871.

FOR EVER.*

THE recent fierce controversies on the subject of the Everlasting Punishment of the wicked have agitated men's minds to an unusual degree. The present slight lull in the storm must not be regarded as an indication that it has nearly spent itself. We have therefore peculiar satisfaction in calling the attention of our readers to a work of great argumentative power in favour of what hitherto has been generally regarded the Scriptural view of this question. The work is divided into eight chapters, severally entitled the "Importance of the Subject, Sources of Knowledge, Direct Testimony of Scripture, The Subject Viewed in the Light of God's Character, of Christ's Mediation, in Relation to Human Sympathy, Further Examination of the Alternative Theories, and Practical Conclusions. There is also an Appendix devoted to the examination of the strange notions propounded by Mr. Birks in his remarkable book on "The Victory of Divine Goodness." Our intention is to let Mr. Randles speak for himself on two or three points which have been raised in this controversy, not doubting that many of our readers will thereby be induced to consult his work for further and fuller information.

One of the most common objections against the doctrine is, that it precludes degrees of suffering. Mr. Randles describes this as, of all shallow objections, one of the shallowest.

"It were as reason

able to say there was no difference between twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, and twelve months' imprisonment without it. If eternal punishment did not admit of degrees, neither would eternal rewards; and yet the parable of the talents makes it clear that future blessedness, though eternal, will nevertheless be of different grades. Any given number in perdition may * For Ever: an Essay on Eternal Punishment. By the Rev. M. Randles. London: Wesleyan Conference Office.

have gradations in the intensity of suffering as numerous as their persons, and exactly corresponding to their grades of guilt, without any difference in the duration. If a comparatively small offender deserve a lighter penalty for ever, and a greater offender a 'sorer punishment' equally endless, sameness of duration will not in the least prevent their different deserts from being equitably meted out. Equality of continuance admits easily of degrees of misery as fine and as manifold as are the deserts of the condemned. One might have thought this distinction too obvious to need statement; yet we frequently meet with language like the following gross misrepresentation: The popular doctrine of eternal punishment is unjust, because it overlooks the difference in the sins of men, launching on all whom it embraces one infinite penalty of undiscriminating damnation.' The authors of such sentences inexcusably overlook the difference between intensity and duration of punishment, (though it has been repeatedly pointed out by previous writers,) and launch ' undiscriminating damnation' on those who hold the doctrine intelligently, and those who incorporate with it their own absurdities." While we quote this argument with approval, we venture to suggest that Mr. Randles has overlooked the point of the objection as it is sometimes urged. That point is, that eternal punishment cannot, in any case, be a light punishment, because it is eternal. Even toothache for ever would not be a small calamity. The objection really is, that whatever the degree of intensity the punishment cannot be a "few stripes," if the duration be eternal.

*

More conclusive, in our opinion, is our Author's reply to the reiterated declaration, that eternal punishment is "a moral impossibility," as transubstantiation is "a physical impossibility." "If this mean impossible because contrary to the moral attributes of God and the moral nature of man, (as transubstantiation is to the essential attributes of matter,) it amounts to a mere assertion, which these pages are designed to disprove. One writer † endeavours to demonstrate the opposition of the doctrine to God's love by a comparison, thus: Two and two make four.' 'If all the arithmeticians in the world assured you that two and two made five, you would not believe them.' To the compatibility of eternal evil in hell with the existence of a perfectly loving and blessed God, he simply replies that you might as well try to persuade me that two and two make five, or that the three angles of a triangle are equal to four right angles.' How strange that the fallacy of this attempted parallel could escape its author's attention, who evidently dwells on it with special complacency, as if it had the double virtue of illustration and proof, whereas it has neither! To suit his purpose, the impossibility of eternal evil ought to force itself on all minds to which the thought is presented; just as all minds understanding the meaning of the terms reject the proposition that two and two are five. Let the meaning of the words 'two and two are four' be clearly apprehended by any mind, and it has no power to resist their truth. But the idea that God's love renders endless suffering impossible has been clearly apprehended by tens of thousands of

*Alger's Future Life, p. 530. † Rev. S. MINTON, M.A., "Glory of Christ," etc.

minds which nevertheless could and did reject it altogether. When such pretended impossibility is as certain as that two and two are four, all minds once perceiving it will have no choice but to accept its truth. That period, judging from the evidence hitherto produced, seems to be very far distant. All the sophistry in the world could not induce even a considerable minority of civilized men to think two and two are five. But a vast proportion do believe in the truth of eternal punishment. We know that belief in it is intellectually possible, because it is so extensively actual; and that the thing believed is morally possible, because it is no way discordant with the known perfections of the Supreme Governor.

"The dogma of transubstantiation requires us to believe the same portion of matter is in two places at the same time, which is repugnant to its ascertained essential properties. It tells us the whole body of Christ is in heaven, and at the same instant is wholly present in each mass on earth, which may be celebrated in ten thousand places at once. If we think of matter as matter, transubstantiation requires us to believe a certain portion is in a certain place, and not there, at the same time; which is a contradiction, and which the intellect rejects with a promptitude proportionate to the perspicuity with which it looks at the proposition. Transubstantiation, again, supposes one portion of matter to become another portion; that is, to exchange its identity, and yet to retain it; that it (bread and wine) is itself, and not itself, at the same time; which is another contradiction. Let those who ring forth their declamatory charge of 'moral impossibility,' show such contradictions as these in the doctrine of eternal punishment. Until they do so, their proclaiming it on a level with transubstantiation is the mere flourish of trumpets before the battle, and, in theological discussion, is a common symptom of weakness."

To the argument, that endless suffering is measureless suffering, and therefore disproportionate to the guilt of the offender, however great that guilt may be, our author replies: "Much might be said in reply, on 'constructive guilt,' to trace the sufferings of the future state as well to the guilt incurred after death as to that incurred before; showing how sin and punishment run on as seed and fruit for ever. We confess that this, though well to be borne in mind, has always seemed to us an inadequate answer to the objection. The sentence of endless death pronounced in the great day would seem to be for guilt already incurred. And if then, or at death, sin has been so far indulged as to insure irreversible eternal sinfulness, the whole issue still turns on the behaviour of the present life. And this solution leaves unsolved the query: Is it just to hinge eternal misery on man's conduct during this short existence? It may, however, be well doubted whether the indulgence of a sin against God ceases with the act. Does not the disposition or principle which prompted the act continue until repented of? And if so, the present life does not measure its endurance; for in an impenitent soul it may endure for ever, and thus be co-eternal with its penalty.

"But waiving the consideration of constantly increasing guilt, the objection, we note, assumes that the length of punishment must always be in a fixed proportion to the time through which the act of