The Doctrine of Future Punishment
[We give the following article from the Independent of Sept. 22, 1859, merely to show how the minds of the people are being stirred up upon the subject of the destiny of the wicked. They can no longer tolerate the old idea of eternal misery, and are bound to exchange it for something else, as the many theories prove, which are springing up to take its place. Hence now is the time to urge upon the attention of the people, the true Bible doctrine.—Ed.] THE doctrine of future punishment has always been assailed or questioned by a class of professed believers in the Bible. Of course, all who reject the Biblical scheme of redemption, reject the idea of a retribution by positive legal sanctions, to take effect in a future and eternal world. Some, indeed, by their dislike of this doctrine, are led to reject the Bible, because it seems too plainly to teach eternal punishment. But among professed believers in divine revelation, there are not a few who have serious questionings as to the fact, the degree, the nature, or the duration of future punishment. These questioners are not found alone in the ranks of avowed Universalists; nor are they all comprised in the larger body of Spiritualists, whose theories of the future state appear to recognize no retributive dispensation. Dobney, the ablest advocate of the doctrine of annihilation, we believe is a Baptist minister. Whately, in some recent essays and discourses, has leaned to the idea that future existence is for the righteous only, and that the wicked will be consigned to a state of non-existence. Maurice, as is well known, rejects the doctrine of eternal punishment. Even Tholuck is supposed to be a Restorationist, and there are not a few of that school among English divines. There are many indications that the popular mind in this country is agitated upon all questions pertaining to the future state, and that skepticism as to the punishment of the wicked in the hereafter is widely prevalent. There are frequent traces of this form of skepticism in popular literature. It takes especially the form of a sentimental regard for the honor of God as a Father, and argues that the character of paternal love in which he presents himself, is inconsistent with the infliction of legal or judicial punishment, and admits at most only of paternal discipline. This view is urged by Dr. Holmes, in the Atlantic Monthly, with all the sophistry and pathos of which he is capable. It is subtly introduced in Harper's Weekly, in a serial story from the pen of a distinguished writer of fiction. While it is not fair to charge upon Mrs. Stowe, before the completion of "The Minister's Wooing," any particular sentiment in Theology uttered by her characters, yet it is noticeable that in the chapters published in the September number of the Atlantic Monthly, she puts into the mouth of a mother lamenting the death of a son of whose conversion she was not well assured, the whole force of her logic kindled with all the earnestness of a mother's love, to urge objections to the doctrine of future retribution, while she meets these objections only by the unintelligent faith of the old negro Candace. The strength of Mrs. Marvyn's argument is, that the idea of eternal punishment is irreconcilable with the paternal character of God. Mr. Theodore Parker, Gerrit Smith, Esq., and Rev. Mr. Frothingham of this city, have recently published letters or discourses in which they urge the same plea—that because God is a Father he will not inflict upon his children retributive punishment in the future state. Indeed, some of these writers seem to regard the statement that God is a Father, as conclusive against the doctrine of eternal punishment. This view, proceeding from persons of large intelligence and influence, and urged in the name of a humane and philanthropic sentiment, has an effect upon the popular mind which cannot be disregarded by those who believe that the doctrine of eternal retribution is taught in the Scriptures, and has a vital place in the moral government of God. The people must be instructed in the character of God as the righteous Governor of the world, as well as the loving Father of his people. It is our firm conviction that the denial of eternal punishment leads to wavering and skepticism as to the exceeding demerit of sin, and the absolute necessity of sacrificial atonement; in a word, the denial of this doctrine argues the virtual rejection of the moral government of God, and of the whole system of redemption. No subject can be more important for pulpit instruction than this. We are glad to learn that some pastors in this city and elsewhere, are taking up the doctrine of retribution with earnest and thorough discussion. We need to hear again the voice and argument of an Edwards, a Bellamy, a Taylor, upon the law and government of God.