The Punishment of the Wicked—Is it Material or Mental?
By M. W. Howard
A QUIET derisive smile, might perhaps be deemed by two classes a fitting answer to such an inquiry. The one class—those who take the Bible as it reads, believing that God has said what he means, and means what he says. To these the asking of such a question may well be regarded as superfluous. The other, those who choose to clothe the language of the Bible in such symbolic metaphors, that one may form one opinion, another, another, and so on without limit; but would allow none to take it, in its plain literal sense. To these also, it might seem superfluous; for such would have all believe, "that the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched," is remorse. But if the word of God is to be our criterion, then can we bring proof that cannot be put aside by incredulous sneers; for it must make men think, and thinking, they will no longer be mental automatons, swayed just as the pressure is brought to bear upon them; no longer held by their greatest danger, servility to superiors in matters of faith. And yet a proper deference to the opinions of others is commendable; and because of this tendency in mankind to lean upon the opinions of contemporaries, we will cite a few who are acknowledged standards, as we refer to the word of God, which shall decide the matter. Spurgeon and Ryle, each eminent living teachers, hold the materiality of future punishment; and a quotation from Chalmers shall speak for him. In his sermon on Rom. v, 10, he says, "Willing to escape the pain of hell—this you are now, but not willing to be Christians,—willing that the fire and your bodily sensations be kept at a distance from each other—this you are now, for who among you at present would thrust his head among the flames? Willing that the frame of your animal sensibilities shall meet with nothing to torture it. You will be as willing then to be delivered from material torments as you can be now." This is strong language: strong as any modern fanatic might use, yet the name of Thomas Chalmers stands enshrined in the heart of many a sober Christian of sound doctrine. We are aware there is a class, to whom this doctrine is an offense, its preaching, foolishness to their ears, and its phraseology tires and disgusts. But is this a reason why the plain teachings of the Bible should be softened down, to pander to the demands of an age, degenerated into "torpid unconcern" or into active and haughty defiance, to a doctrine, distasteful to the carnal heart? a reason that the real significance of Scripture language should be set aside, and in its place be substituted the fanciful imaginings of men, which savor far more of the school of Dante, than of that of Christ? Hooker in his "Ecclesiastical Polity" lays down a rule, broad and explicit, which all fanciful expositors will do well to heed. "I hold it" he says "a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the greater the deviation from the letter it is the worse." And who does not find this true? for the literal significance set aside, all moorings are gone and one may drift hither and thither as he lists, without security. Some who object to the doctrine of future punishment, would have it believed that the theory of hell-fire is a peculiarity of the New Testament—thus broadly insinuating it as an innovation. We are glad that they concede that the teachings of one Testament is too explicit for equivocation. It is to be expected that "our Saviour Jesus Christ" through a dispensation "that brings life and immortality to light," 2 Tim. i, 10, would also disclose more fully the penalty of the ungodly. And so he does; for none need mistake when Christ says a class "shall be cast into a furnace of fire;" "Shall burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire;" "The withered branches are to be cast into the fire and burned." "These shall go away into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels;" "They shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone." See also the language of 2 Thess. i, 7-9. The import of these and many like passages none should mistake. With the last quoted passage in view, read Isa. lxvi, 15, and decide if they be not parallel passages, also compare Isa. lxvi, 24, with Mark ix, 43-47. Are any ready to object that the language of one, is borrowed from the other? Granted. More is now conceded than was expected, and yet common honesty demanded as much; for now it must be conceded from their own inferences, that the doctrine is not peculiar to one Testament. While in this mood let Isa. xxxiii, 12-14, be read. "The people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire . . . who shall dwell with devouring fire—who shall dwell with everlasting burnings? Also chapters ix, 18, 19; x, 16, 18; xxiv, 6. It is fully understood that these passages with the more explicit one in Mal. iv, 1, 3, is sought to be explained away as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem; but the contexts of each and all carry the scenes forward to the consummation of all things, of which the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, was but a type, the antitype yet being future. Defeated, "shut up to the faith," do any inquire as is often done as a subterfuge, what can be worse than mental sufferings? I answer in the language of Old Testament Scripture "The burnings of lime—devouring fire—everlasting burnings—a day that burneth as an oven, that shall burn up the wicked root [Satan] and branch (the wicked) the perishing of the wicked, the enemies of the Lord being as the fat of lambs consumed; into smoke, says the Psalmist shall they consume away; or, in the words of Chalmers: Your bodily sensations in contact with fire—the animal sensibilities wounded and tortured by material torments. This literal view conflicts, it is true with the received notions of most Christian theories of the present day; but not more than these notions conflict with the word of God. This is clearly shown by Isa. xxv, 8, 9, which plainly teaches that when death is swallowed up of victory, the resurrection, is as unmistakably stated in 1 Cor. xv, 54, is the salvation of the righteous. So too Isa. xxvi, 19, 20, illustrates as plainly "that when the dead men shall live together, when the dead body shall arise," shall the people of God be safe in heaven. As clearly too is this inculcated by the words of Christ, Matt. xvi, 27: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; then he shall reward every man according to his work." Also, Luke xiv, 14: "For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." See John v, 28, 29; Phil. iii, 20, 21; 1 Thess. iv, 14-17. To Origen is awarded the unenviable reputation of being the first allegorical expositor, as also the first who inaugurated preaching from detached verses of Scripture. And so well has he been patronized, that to this day, the habit of reading and understanding the Bible textually, instead of by the subjects as are other writings, binds most persons with almost Romish thrall. A few energetic minds break away, learning for themselves "to take heed to the doctrine," by doing which Timothy might "both save himself and those who heard him." 1 Tim. iv, 16. And would there were more such persons, since so much comes to us by tradition and since that cannot be "pure and undefiled" doctrine, which shrinks from having the light of God's word fall eagle-eyed upon it.