The New York herald., 1878-02-24
The Doctrine OF Eternal Punish-
ments

The new number of the North american
Revie,c, just published, contains joint dis
cussion, by several eminent clergymen of
different Christian denominations, OF the
doctrine Of the eternal punishment of the
wicked after the present life. Such dis
| cussion in the old, staid, cautious and emf
nently respectable Revie,r, which has for
more than sixty years stood at the head OF
our periodical literature, would be in itself
somewhat startling phenomenon if this
| vehicle of American thought and culture
had not changed hands. We do not intend
to imply that none of it's former editors has
disbelieved or doubted the eternity of hell
torments, for it is probable that ma
jority OF them tor the last forty years have
held what are called liberal views on that
subject. The most distinguished of them,
G. Palfrey and DR.. Peabody, were clergymen
or ex-clergymen of the Unitarian denom-
ination, and very few eminent Unitarians
have ever expressed belief in the eternal
punishment OF the wicked. But this article
of faith has been so generally and strongly
held by most other Christians that it would
have seemed an affronting audacity for
periodical devoted to general literature to
admit into it's columns anything that i'm
piled that this was an open question.
Doubts on the subject must be widely
diffused when it is thought fit topic of dis
cussion in the leading literary periodical of
the country.
The participants in the present discus
sion are the Rev. DR.. Porter, President of
Yale College; DR.. rockingham. DR.. Bel
lows, Father Preston, the Catholic Vicar
General; DR.. Williams, an eminent and
learned Baptist divine, and Dr. Sawyer, the
Universalist President Of Tufts College.
The discussion is opened by DR.. Porter,
whose article seems to have been submitted
to the other clergymen as defining the sub
ject in controversy, and their articles were
! in turn submitted to DR.. Porter in the re-
view or summing up which closes the
symposium" The series is not interest
ing for novelty or ingenuity in the argu-
ments on either side, but only as an indica-
ton of the present state and tendencies of
religious thought on this momentous, and,
it is no exaggeration to say, tremendous
subject.
All the contributors, except Father Pres
ton and DR.. Williams, incline to rest their
arguments on a philosophical basis rather
than on the express teachings of the Scrip
lures. The philosophical theologians do
not, indeed, with the exception of Dr.
rockingham, decline to recognize the au-
thority of the Scriptures as authoritative
and controlling; but they think that just
conceptions Of the divine attributes and Of
the nature of the human soul ought to have
much influence in the Interpretation of the
sacred writings. Nothing is more clearly
taught in the Scriptures than the infinite
goodness and mercy Of God, and it is as
sumed that no Interpretation of passages in
the Bible can be correct if they are irrecon-
| cilable with the character OF the Divine
Being. It is also assumed that we
know something Of the nature and fac
ulties of the human soul, and that
we may nationally distrust interpretations
of the Scriptures which are inconsistent
with the we'll known laws of mind. We do
not see how either Of these positions can be
successfully controverted, and we regret
that Father Preston and DR.. Williams keep
entirely aloof from this interesting branch
of the controversy. DR.. Williams rests his
argument entirely on what he regards as
the plain teaching of the Bible, and lays
peculiar stress on the meaning it conveys
to simple uncultured Christian minds.
Quoting the we'll known text, "And the poor
have the Gospel preached to Them" he
argues that writings given for the instruc-
ton Of honest common people must have
been intended to convey their most obvious
sense The Scriptures in their most OBJ
vious sense plainly teach the doctrine Of
eternal punishment, and if this sense is not
to be modified and limited by consider
ations drawn from the divine attributes or
from the nature of the human soul every
cept Dr. Williams and Father Preston is
irrelevant.
1t must be said, however, that Father
Preston is not a mere rigid textualist, like
DIR. Williams. The point on which Father
Preston insists is not that the Scriptures, as
naturally interpreted by simple, unlearned
minds, teach eternal punishment, but that
the Scriptures az always interpreted by the
Church teach that doctrine. There is really
wide difference between the position of
the Baptist and that Of the Catholic divine,
although they agree that certain texts of
the New Testament establish the doctrine of
eternal punishment, and both cite the same
texts The Catholic Church has always dis
allowed the claim that private in.erpreta-
ton of the Scriptures, whether by unlearned
or by learned minds, is q safe guide to their
true meaning, and in this view DIR. Williams
appeal to the belief of humble, unlearned
Christians separates him as widely from the
Catholic rs it does from the liberal Protes-
tant standpoint. The Catholic Church