IS HELL LOSS OF BEING P [TO THE EDITOR OP
Till "SPECTATOR."] Six,—Permit me a reply to Mr. Alfred J. Allen's letter in the Spectator of May 25th. His argument that loss of being
would only be a stimulant and not a wholesome deterrent to sinners is quite beside the question. The mere fact that mankind in general feels that there ought to be retributive reward and punishment hereafter by no means proves that there will be. For every case that we may quote where apparent divine retribution has overtaken the evil doer in this world, it would be easy to point to a dozen in which wrong permanently triumphed and flourished, and virtue was hounded to destruction. So glaring is this fact that from earliest times man has had to frame laws for himself, to meet the requiremants of justice, mercy, reward, and punishment. A sorry mess he has often made of it, but the point is that he has always recognised the necessity of introducing order into chaos. Terrestrial experience, then, affords scant proof, if any, of adequate providential judgment here. And if not here, why hereafter? Some of us, believing in the inspired veracity of Scripture, select one or more out of many contradictory texts, and on it build our speculation of hell. What matters it if other texts lead other believers to entirely different conceptions! Others deny the validity of these texts at all as premises in a logical argument, and prefer to regard the hereafter as unknowable, and speculation regard- ing it as vain. All sincerely good men must long and hope for a day when reward and punishment shall be just, without either favouritism or vindictiveness; but, alas! hope is not proof. Rather is it allied to that credulity which accepts without scrutiny just what it wishes to a,ccept.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
