ETERNAL PUNISHMENTS.
TO THE EDITOR, OF THE " SPECTATOR."
SIR,-I do not wish to trouble you at any length in answer to your remarks upon my letter; but there are a few [points I should be glad to notice.
Doubtless you are right in saying that we of the country clergy are very much exposed to the danger of having tour intellects 4‘ rusted." Whether the dangers to which metropolitan and learned writers are liable,—as, for instance, that of acquiring a habit of interpreting common words in abstruse and recondite senses, strange to the minds of ordinary men,—are not at least an equal impediment to the right understanding of that Gospel which was to be " preached to the poor;' is very doubtful.
Of one thing I am certain—that is, that whatever may be the effect upon a few philosophical, and, perhaps, somewhat peculiarly constituted minds, of the attempt to prove that the adjective aluSylog, and its substantive, alevy, can have nothing to do with time, because cuij celuilao;, when so mentioned in Scripture, is yet generally only treated of with reference to what are commonly considered its other and moral characteristics (which it is, of course, far more important for us to dwell upon than its duration), the effect of that argument upon mo=t minds will only be to prejudice the cause in defence of which it is urged, because it seems to us ordinary, and rustic, and perhaps somewhat "feeble" and "feminine-minded" persons, very forced and incredible.
Will you allow m3 also to make a remark or two with regard to some other statements of yours ?
One ground upon which you defend the publication of Lord Westbury's " Epitaph " is, that it was " already circulating every- where" (?), and that to publish it was therefore an act of the same kind as publishing " any other evil fact."
But this defence is insufficient. At least I do not believe that you yourself would justify the publication of all " evil facts" in the Spectator. There are many blasphemies which, unless I am much mistaken, you would decline to publish, however prevalent they might be in some quarters. If so, on what ground would you do so ? Would it be simply because such blasphemy offends your own sense of reverence ? Would not the fact weigh at all with you that it would offend others whose feelings you wish to respect ? Or would any one seriously maintain that the fact that an opinion is held by large numbers of persons to whom, because of their being distinguished by the greatest qualities both of head and heart, we attribute high authority, is no reason for respectfulness of manner in treating that opinion ? Would it be decent in a mathethatician who had arrived at an absolute conviction of the falsehood of the Newtonian astronomy to attack it with the weapons of ridicule and scorn ? Would it not imply a most absurd and contemptible arrogance of confidence in his own judgment were he to do so ?—simply because of the weight of authority on its side. But the common belief as to the eternity of future punishment is not supported only by the great majority of the present clergy, but was solemnly believed, as I have already urged, by such narrow brains and cold hearts as those of Leibnitz, Pascal, Hooker, Bishop Butler, and a thousand others of similar authority. Does this prove that the doctrine must be true ? Doubtless not, though it is (who shall deny it?) a weighty argu- ment in its favour. Your interpretation of our Lord's words, and that other interpretation of them, also, to which I incline myself, and which I hope is justifiable, is undeniably at variance with the deliberate belief of the vast majority of Christians of every kind. This is, to me, I confess, a most solemn and a very painful fact. That such a belief on a fundamental point of theology so maintained can be really " monstrous " and "horrible," and deserved to be treated with the loftiest scorn and attacked with light weapons of conversational ridicule, is a startling assertion. I am no believer in any "magic power of interpretation," such as you think that Dr. Pusey and others hold is given to the clergy (by the bye, Dr. Pusey would be greatly surprised to hear that he believes that " the clergy are the Church," or that " priests" are not " men "), but one thing I cannot but believe, that is, that any doctrine which has been solemnly believed by the larger part of Christendom—lay quite as much as clerical—during many ages, and in many countries, must have something of divine in it. Does God "teach the hearts of faithful men" in the Chris- tian Church by-the light of His Spirit, or does He not? If He does not, cadit qunstio—I will argue no more. If you believe that He does, I will ask you to treat with some approach. to reverence the general belief of a vast body of Christians upon the most tremendous of subjects.
As to the possibility of the hopelessness of the state of men hardened in sin the experience of reformatories is very awful. Even the most loving, the most hopeful of men have been driven, after the most passionate resistance to it, to accept the belief that some criminals do belong to a class of incurables. Can they be cured in any other state ? You think so ; I, and others, cannot but hope so ; but have you any right, in the face of these facts, and of the beliefs of Christendom, to hold up to ridicule those who believe the opposite ? At any rate, these are serious questions. To call such preaching " the preaching of a Gospel of Hell," in place of the " Kingdom of Heaven," seems to me simply losing one's temper. It is not instead of the Kingdom of Heaven that this doctrine is preached ; surely to say so is wanton unfairness:— I am, Sir, yours faithfully, IV. H. LYTTELTON. Hagley Rectory, March 14, 1881.
[*** We think in our turn that Mr. Lyttelton is not quite fair. We have expressly said that we do not give any " abstruse " sense different from his own to the word alc:nao; in the synoptic gospels, and though a different, certainly not an abstruse one, in the Gospel and Epistle of John, because it is forced upon us by the natural con- text throughout those writings. Let him consider the passage we quoted last week at the beginning of the Burial Service, " He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live, and he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die." If the latter half of the sentence prohibits, as it does, the interpretation that our Lord was speaking of physical death, how can any one deny that "though he were dead, yet should he live," is intended to express the only condition of return from spiritual death to spiritual life? As to the "Gospel of Hell," the phrase was forced upon us by Dr. Pusey's own language to the Record, in which he spoke of the fear, of Hell being the true source of repentance in vast numbers, and,' as we understood him, the majority of human cases. Dr. Pusey himself called it the " revelation " of Bell. We have also explained that it is not in any way the doctrine of incurability, or making penalty co-existent with sin, that we object to, as almost impious, but the doctrine that it is Gods will that punishment for past sin shall last for ever.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
