In refutation of the for mer of these theories, which has been rendered respectable chiefly by the adventitious circumstance that it is countenanced by Archbishop Whately, " View of Sc. Kev. Concerning a Future State," we argue, 1st, the Scriptures never express the idea contended for, but consistently use language which has naturally and almost universally conveyed an opposite idea. 2d. The Scriptures plainly assert (1.) that the future state is one of conscious suffering, (2.) that this conscious suffering is to continue for ever — " worm dieth not," " everlasting fire," u un- quenchable fire," " weeping and gnashing of teeth," " the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night." See above, question 9.
In refutation of the latter opinion, that the lost will be re- stored after an indefinite period of suffering, we argue, 1st, it has no foundation in Scripture. 2d. It is directly refuted by all the positive evidence we have above presented in establishing the orthodox doctrine. 3d. The atonement of Christ and the sancti- fying work of the Holy Ghost are the exclusive means of salva- tion. (1.) These have been finally rejected by the lost. (2.) They are never applied in hell. 4th. The essential nature of sin determines it when left to itself to multiply itself and its conse- quent miseries at a fearful ratio. 5th. Suffering per se has no cleansing power ; penal evils, when sufficient, may satisfy justice for past sin, but they can not cleanse the heart, nor prevent re- newed transgressions. 6th. This essential insalvability of the lost sinner will be in the highest degree aggravated by his circum- stances ; banished from G-od, subject to his curse, in unutterable torments, without grace and without hope, and surrounded with the society of all the workers of abomination gathered from the whole universe.
466 HELL.
11. What objection is urged against this doctrine derived from the justice of God ?
The justice of God demands that the punishment should be exactly proportioned to the guilt of the subject. But it is ob- jected, 1st. No sin of any finite creature can deserve an infinite punishment. 2d. All everlasting punishment is infinite, but the infinite does noi admit of degrees, yet the guilt of different sin- ners is various. 3d. The moral difference between the lowest saint saved, and the most amiable sinner lost, is imperceptible, yet their fate differs infinitely.
To the first objection we answer. The human mind not being able to conceive of the infinite, only confuses itself when it at- tempts to deal with its negative conception of the indefinite as a reality. Every sin of man against the infinite God is declared by Scripture, and is felt by every enlightened conscience to be, worthy of instant and final expulsion from the divine presence, which necessarily leads to an absolutely endless increase both of sin and misery, Gal. iii., 10 ; James ii., 10. The same is proved by the infinite sacrifice justice demanded for the propitiation of sin. " If they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry ?" Luke xxiii., 31.
The second objection is a dishonest cavil. It is very plain that sufferings may be at once infinite in duration, and various as to degree.
To the third objection we answer. That although there may be little difference as to their respective personal demerits between the feeblest saint and the most moral reprobate, yet there is rightly made an infinite difference in their treatment, because of their essentially different relations to Christ. The feeblest and the loftiest saint are alike justified upon an equal foundation ; each has the whole of Christ, and nothing more.
12. What objection drawn from the benevolence of God has been urged against this doctrine ?
It has been objected that God is essentially benevolent, and that it is inconsistent with his nature to inflict any suffering upon his creatures which is not necessary as a means to the end of their attaining some higher good. We answer : 1st, God is just as
ETERNITY OF SUFFERING. 467
well as benevolent, and one of the elements of his infinite perfec- tion can not be inconsistent with another. 2d. We have con- stant experience that God does in principle involve his creatures in sufferings which are not to the individual subjects thereof the means of any conceivable advantage. 3d. It would follow that Christ was sacrificed in vain if those who reject him, and who fail of all share in his grace, are not eternally punished. 4th. The very benevolence of God, as concerned for the general good of the universe, concurs with his justice in demanding the execu- tion of the full penalty of the law upon all unbelievers.
13. What argument for the future restoration of all rational creatures to holiness and happiness is founded upon Eom. v., 18, 19 ; 1 Cor. xv., 22-28 ; Eph. i., 10 ; Col. i., 19, 20 ?