In
human ethics, or if you like in human police regulations--that which is
called penal law and is anything but law[52] eternal punishment is a
meaningless phrase.
"God is just and punishes us; that is all we need to know; as far as we
are concerned the rest is merely curiosity." Such was the conclusion of
Lamennais (_Essai_, etc., iv^e partie, chap, vii.), an opinion shared by
many others. Calvin also held the same view. But is there anyone who is
content with this? Pure curiosity!--to call this load that wellnigh
crushes our heart pure curiosity!
May we not say, perhaps, that the evil man is annihilated because he
wished to be annihilated, or that he did not wish strongly enough to
eternalize himself because he was evil? May we not say that it is not
believing in the other life that makes a man good, but rather that being
good makes him believe in it? And what is being good and being evil?
These states pertain to the sphere of ethics, not of religion: or,
rather, does not the doing good though being evil pertain to ethics, and
the being good though doing evil to religion?
Shall we not perhaps be told, on the other hand, that if the sinner
suffers an eternal punishment, it is because he does not cease to
sin?--for the damned sin without ceasing. This, however, is no solution
of the problem, which derives all its absurdity from the fact that
punishment has been conceived as vindictiveness or vengeance, not as
correction, has been conceived after the fashion of barbarous peoples.
Pages:
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354