Page images
PDF
EPUB

truth of any doctrine of revelation from facts and considerations which do not derive their force from express declaration, or which are altogether independent of the aid of scripture terms, why criticise upon them, and why endeavor to invalidate their testimony?

Is it said, "we ought to be reasonable men?" I answer, true; but then only are you reasonable men when you acknowledge that God's thoughts and ways are infinitely above ours, and that he must be true, though every man is thereby made a liar. The Bible is not contrary to right reason, which is nothing less than the will of God; but it is often contrary to the reason of man, who is a creature of yesterday and knows comparatively nothing. If not, then man's reason is infinite and infallible.

But if this rule of interpretation, plausible as it may appear, be admitted, it will go to subvert every principle of just reasoning. On this principle, you may disprove almost any thing that you please. Thus should one attempt to prove the divinity of Christ from his being called Jehovah, this mode of reasoning would render such evidence of no account; because the same appellation is sometimes given to temporal objects, as an altar, a mountain, or the Church of God, (Ex. xvii: 15-Gen. xxii : 14-Ezek. xlviii: 35)" and the meaning of the word can be determined only by the nature of the subject." Were Christ frequently called Jehovah, we could not on this principle believe him to be the true God, because the word is applied to other things which are known to be temporal. Again, should one attempt to prove the omniscience of God from its being said that his understanding is infinite; you might reply, that this word is sometimes used to express only a very great degree, as when the strength of Ethiopia and Egypt is said to have been infinite.—(Nahum iii: 9.) Once more; should one attempt to prove the endless existence of God from his being called the everlasting God; the endless dominion of Christ from its being said that he shall reign forever; and of the endless duration of the heavenly inheritance from its being called eternal life; these terms you might reply, are sometimes used to express only a limited duration;-and thus you might assert that the self-existent Jehovah may be struck

into non-existence; that the kingdom of Christ may be abolished; and that the happiness of the righteous may come to an end. Nothing will stand before such a rule of interpretation.

To object to the words "everlasting, &c." as being too weak and indeterminate in their application, for the purpose of conveying the idea of endless duration, is trifling, unless others could be named which are more conclusive. Now what terms could have been used that would have set the matter at rest? Perhaps it may be said that if the word endless had been used, you would believe that future punishment is unlimited in duration. But this word is liable to the same objections, and falls before the same criticisins. God said that there was no end of the store and glory of Egypt-(Nah.|| ii: 9)-the apostle counselled Timothy not to give heed to endless genealogies-(1 Timothy i : 4)—and it is common to speak of a loquacious person as being an endless talker. Hence it might be objected that the term endless is very indeterminate.

Suppose our English translation were the original scriptures, and the words everlasting, eternal, forever, and forever and ever, were used in them as they now are, who of common sense would in this case question whether they expressed the doctrine of endless punishment? And yet our words are used in the same metaphorical sense, while their literal and proper meaning is that of eternal duration. If these words are properly applied to limited punishments, why are they not currently used in application to such punishments? But should we call imprisonment for life an everlasting punishment, we should have at least the credit of originality.

Now the only true principle of interpretation, as we have already remarked,* is to understand words and phrases in their proper and primary meaning, unless there be something in the subject or connexion which requires them to be understood in a figurative sense. Hence we draw the conclusion, as there is nothing in the subject or connexion to limit the meaning of the terms under consideration, when used to denote the future punishment of the wicked, any more then when used to denote the endless existence of God; that they are to be taken * Lecture 1.

in their literal and primary sense, which is endless as we have already shown*; and that that principle of interpretation which would set aside the literal and primary meaning of terms at pleasure, or which would lead us to understand them according to our views of the fitness of things, is false and ought to be rejected.

In the same manner the objectors under consideration, evade the force of those passages in which the word HELL is used to denote a place of future punishment. Because the Greek and Hebrew words, translated hell, do not always denote a place of future punishment, 1 they at once assert that they never do. But should it be admitted that these words mean only the grave, or a place of punishment in this world, and have no reference to the future state of men, will it follow that all men will be saved? By no means. The doctrine of endless punishment rests on other testimony, which would not be in the least invalidated by this concession. If it were impossible to show that the Scriptures speak of a place in which the wicked are to be punished, the fact would not make it at all the less evident that they are to be punished. The fact, that the laws of the State do not designate the place where persons guilty of capital crimes shall be publicly executed, does not make it the less certain that they are to be executed in some place. God has said that the wicked shall "go away into everlasting punishment," and "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power." He who has denounced these threatnings, will be at no loss to find a place for their execution. But if we can show that the Bible not only declares the fact, but designates the place of endless punishment, that involves an additional proof of endless punishment; and shows that it is palpably false to assert, that the words in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, translated hell, do in no case denote the place and the state of future punishment. This, I trust, will be satisfactorily made to appear.

In doing this, I shall first inquire into the meaning of the Hebrew word sheol. This word though frequently used in the Old Testament, is seldom translated hell. It primarily signified the place or * Lecture 1.

K

[ocr errors]

state of the dead. Nor is it incredible, that this word having such a primary meaning, should come to be used in a secondary sense. Human language is formed by giving names to ideas that are conceived in the mind through the medium of the senses. But as spiritual objects are not received through that medium, but through faith, human language in its original formation had no names for these objects. Hence, in describing things spiritual and eternal, the mind gives to them the name of those objects of sense and time to which they seem analogous. From this source originated the secondary meaning of the word sheol. The same might be said of many other words used as names for spiritual and eternal things. Heaven originally meant the visible expanse or firmament alone. And for the want of a better word, was in the course of time adopted to express the unseen abode of the blessed. We cannot speak of the perfections of God without using words in a like secondary sense. By the same transfer of language the words life and death are frequently used in Scripture to express the rewards of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked. Owing to the poverty of human language, and the inequality in the number of words to the number of ideas in any language, words are often used in a figurative sense. This is a settled principle of language which no one disputes in form. Now the fact, that sheol did not primarily mean a place of punishment, does not weaken the proof that in some instances it has that meaning, any more than the fact, that heaven did not primarily mean a place of future happiness, proves that word to be never used in this sense. Having admitted that the primary and most general use of the word sheol was to designate the place and the state of the dead; I shall now notice some passages where I conceive the word is used in its secondary sense, to designate a place of punishment.

Psalm ix: 17.-"The wicked shall be turned into hell (sheol) with all the nations that forget God." If sheol in this passage means only the place of the dead, what more is threatened against the wicked who forget God, than what is endured by the righteous who serve and obey him? Both alike die and are turned into the grave,

and if this is all that is implied by the denunciation, I cannot see the propriety or even the justice of it. Is it said that it is one thing to die and another to be cut off by the judgments of God? True. But is it not death in both cases? Sheol in the passage before us obviously implies a pit of destruction in which the wicked and all their comforts and hopes shall perish forever; for their state is contrasted with that of the poor and needy who shall not always be for gotten, and whose expectation shall not perish forever.

Psalm xlix: 15.-" But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave (sheol)." The subject of this Psalm is the prosperity of the wicked in this life and their melancholy end, and the reverse which takes place in favor of the righteous at death. How will God redeem his people from the power of sheol, if it be not from suffering in sheol after death, while death is left to feed upon the wicked? How will death feed upon the wicked in a sense which it does not feed upon the righteous, if there be no distinction by rewards and punishments beyond this life?

Deut. xxxii: 22-"A fire is kindled in mine anger, and inshall burn to the lowest hell (sheol.)" The imagery of the text is that of fire which, kindled on the surface of the earth, should burn even to its centre, and according to the general notion of the ancients, quite through the place which was peopled with miserable departed spirits-sheol here seems to intimate that the wrath of God would pursue its objects after death even to the place where the fire is not quenched. By the lowest hell is implied that there will be different degrees of misery in the world of woe.

I might cite many other passages in which the term in question plainly designates the place of future punishment. But my limits will not allow me to be more particular. Nor is it necessary; for these specimens are sufficient to show the use of the word when employed in its secondary sense, and that those assert what is false when they say it does in no case denote the place of future punishment.

In proof of the same point, I pass second to consider the meaning of the Greek word Hades. This means literally a place devoid of

« PreviousContinue »