IS HELL ETERNAL?

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 224, 20 March 1912, Page 6

IS HELL ETERNAL?

ALLEGED HETERODOXY. There was a large congregation at the Kent Terrace Presbyterian Church, Wellington, on Sunday night, when the Rev. J. K. Elliott replied to the theological views of the Rev. J. G. Chapman. These views were published in reply to a sermon by Mr. Elliott, which was reported in the Times. The preacher took for his text Matthew 25, the 40th verse: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." He disclaimed all bitterness of feeling, and said that he could not have preached on the subject originally without making reference to Mr. Chapman's utterances and the action of the Methodist Conference. He would not have referred again to the matter had not Mr. Chapman rendered such;reference necessary by his reply. MR. CHAPMAN'S OWN WORDS. He would quote Mr. Chapman's exact words : Some Christians would be miserable if they did not believe that millions of their fellow-creatures were in everlasting flames. Did Mr. Chapman think he was the only kind man; that he alone had any feel ing for the rest of the human race? This awful doctrine of eternal torments is the grossest libel on the character of God ever imagined. A man who would do to any one person what God would do to the majority of the human race would be an inhuman monster. Where did Mr. Chapman get the "majority" of the human race from? The most rigid Calvinist would not hold with such a statement. Would any mother consign her chili' to endless suffering? Is God worse than woman? Was God only ft mother or a father? Was He not a magistrate, a king? An/' who would respect a king that played fast and loose with Ms laws? Can you 'believe that He who ex* horts us to love our enemies, burns His own? We were not required to love our enemies until they repented. , We were to leave them alone, for God said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." Mr. Chapman said that it would be wrong to bring people into the world if they were exposed to such risks; but they must remember this was not a world for cowards; but for heroes—a world to make us brave and brace us. Mr. Chapman said that when he was a child he hated Lazarus and Abraham in the parable and pitied poor Dives in the flames. He wished he could have given him a whole bucketful of water. That was the way foolish children talked. Who was it told this parable? It was Jesus Christ. But Mr. Chapman could have told it better; Mr. Chapman it was who dared to travesty the words of "Gentle Jesus." THE ROOT QUESTIONS.

He (Mr. Elliott) would deal with his subject under two heads: (1) Did the Scriptures, and particularly our Lord Himself, teach that the punishment of the wicked was endless? .(2) Was the endless punishment of the wicked consistent with what was known of the character of God? Mr. Chapman had endeavore'd to turn the point of Mr. Elliott's former text by an ingenious exegesis which was of no value to the man who had not a wide geographical and historical knowledge. Let them look, therefore, to the comment of John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, upon this text. Wesley in his "Notes on the New Testament" made the statement, "And the fire, either material or infinitely worse, that burnetii the body is not quenched for ever." ' FROM THE MOUTH OF JOHN WESLEY. To determine whether punishment were endless they must, of course, turn to the Bible; but it was well to be reminded that the Methodist Churck hitherto had maintained this doctrine, and not so long ago, in England, inhibited one of its college professors from teaching the contrary. Without citing the calm opinions of the best Methodist theologians and divines he would quote a remark of John Wesley's on Matthew 25-46: "Either therefore the punishment is strictly eternal or the reward is not." Eiidless was indicated in the Scriptures by the Greek terms "aion" or "aionios." It was not denied that these words were sometimes used in a limited or rhetorical sense. This was an idiom not unknown in the English and other languages, where a man might be spoken of as an everlasting fool or talking everlastingly. But in the Scriptures it must be carefully noted that the words "aion" and "aionios" expressed the longest possible duration of which the subject to which they were attributed was capable. There were no other words in the Greek language which would express the same meaning, and in the great majority of Scripture passages the terms had the unmistakable signification of everlasting, as in describing the duration of God or the future happiness of the righteous. THE DIVINE CHARACTER. Secondly, he wished to show that the doctrine was not inconsistent with the Divine character and God's justice. The

object of the penalty was neither reforn atory nor deterrent, but simply vindi eatory (not, of course, vindictive). It aimed, primarily, not at the good of the offender, nor at the welfare of society; but at the vindication of the law. Human punishment, unlike the Divine, was variable and inexact, and from the very circumstances of the case must be to a certain extent reformatory and protective. Divine justice was not a form of benevolence, but was the manifestation of God's holiness. Sin was reproductive and self-propagating. The Lord spoke of eternal sin,- and it was reasonable to suppose that endless sinning would be visited with endless punishment. The time occupied by a sinful act had nothing to do with the punishment. A man might forge a cheque in a few minutes and get long years of punishment for it. Sin was not an act but a condition, the character of which tended to final permanence. The failure to punish sin, not the punishment, would impugn the Divine justice. When they contemplated some dreadful crimes, such as those of Nana Sahib in the Indian Mutiny, they felt instinctively that there would be a hell. It was a delusion to suppose that the environment of the wicked hereafter would make for purification. Some people thought that benevolence required God not to inflict punishment upon His creatures, but holiness was the ruling attribute of God, and the vindication of His holiness was the primary and sufficient object of punishment. There were in this life penalties which did not reform, but hardened and embittered. Might it not be so hereafter? Archbishop Whately said: "I will undertake to explain to anyone the final condemnation of the wicked, if he will explain the existence of the wicked." By an a priori method of reasoning, some people came to the conclusion that there should be no sin in the world because God made it. JRK.LATIOX TO THE GOSiPEL.

Finally, the doctrine of cverlasthi" punishment was not incompatible with a full and free offer of the Gospel. The opposite doctrine lowered the holiness of Hod and degraded the work of Christ. Why did Christ die. if the wicked were to have another chance in another world?

Fear, though not the highest motive, was a proper one for the renunciation of sin and turning to Christ. In conclusion, Mr. Elliott referred briefly to Mr. Chapman's interpretation of the atonement: "Christ was not punished for our sins, except as a father suffers for the sins of his sons." Yet they were told in. Isaiah: "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisament of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed."