The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-10-13
Dr. Witherspoon's Paper Before
the Council.
philadelphia Press.)
A DocTR1NA1 DISCOURSE UPON FUTURE
RETRIBUTIOl

A DOCTRINAL DISCOURSE UPON FUTURE
RETRIBUTIoN.
In approaching the subject of future
retribution we find ourselves confronted
with certain facts which seem worthy of
a preliminary consideration. In favor of
what is commonly known as the orthodox
doctrine, which postulates the absolute
endlessness of the state of the lost, stands
the almost unbroken testimony of the
Church of God for eighteen centuries
testimony borne with singular unanim-
ity by the witnessing Church, which is
the "pillar and ground of the truth, +"
through all its successive stages, Apostol-
ic, Primitive, Catholic, and Reformed, a
testimony expressed through official sym
bols, through versions Of the sacred Scrip
lures, both ancient and modern, through
commentaries, homilies and didactic trea-
tises-in a word, through the whole cur
rent of literature, exegetical, dogmatic.
homiletic and DEVOTIONAL testimony at
once so voluminous and so explicit that.
if it were. now proposed to abandon the
orthodox view and give unambiguous ex-
preston to any other that has been sug-
gested, every creed of christendom would
need to be altered, every version Of the
Scriptures amended, every commentary
and treatise in theology in part rewritten
every lexicon which treats of the original
words under which the doctrine of future
punishment is inculcated would REQUIRE
to be revised, and the great mass of Chris
tan poetry, oratory, history and philoso-
ply expurgated. While such has been
the attitude of Christs witnessing Church
IN the past toward this doctrine, it is evil
dent that at present a strong popular cur
rent is setting against it. The orthodox
doctrine is caricatured in prose and ira
vested in verse. Its advocates are stip-
matized as Pharisees," dogmatists,
friends of everlasting punishment" etc.
And yet the very violence of defamation
to which the opponents Of orthodox doc
trines resort, their substitution, in such
large measure, of mere invective for ar
gument, and of passionate appeals to hui
man sympathy for critical and patient in
quiry, leave it at least questionable if
their opposition be not the offspring OF
passion rather than of reason, the out
growth Of a sentiment rather than of a
conviction based on exhaustive and inn
partial research.
The moral weight of the opposition is
greatly lessened by certain facts which
cannot be designated, namely, that the
few authorities in the early Church to
which it appeals, including Ofigen and
some Of his disciples, were not only un-
sound upon many points Of Christian dog
ma, but were confessedly Neo-P latonists.
seduced into a remuneration of the Chris
tan doctrine Of final retribution bv the
charms Of the Pagan doctrine of metemp-
sychosis that the present leaders of the
opposition are, almost without exception.
lahtudinarian in doctrine lax in their
views Of inspiration, and rationalistic in
tnelr theories Of Interpretation, and that
the influence Of their writings has been
due, IN a great measure, to their appeal
to the maudlin sentimentalism Of the dav
which revolts at the thought of capital
punishment, and, in great measure. at
penal suffering Of every kind which looks
upon SIN rather as misfortune to be pit