comes of it or not. Sin is intrinsically ill deserving. Impurity must be banished from God. God must vindicate himself or cease to be holy? (see art. on the Philosophy of Punishment, by F. L. Patton, in Brit. and For. Evang. Rev., Jan. 1878:126-139.)
Bowne, Principles of Ethics, 186, 274 ? Those who maintain punishment to be essentially deterrent and preventive ?ignore the metaphysics of responsibility and treat the problem ?positively and objectively? on the basis of physiology, sociology, etc., and in the interests of public safety. The question of guilt or innocence is as irrelevant as the question concerning the guilt or innocence of wasps and hornets. An ancient holder of this view set forth the opinion that ?it was expedient that one man should die for the people? ( <431814>John 18:14), and so Jesus was put to death. A mob in Eastern Europe might be persuaded that a Jew had slaughtered a Christian child as a sacrifice. The authorities might be perfectly sure of the man?s innocence, and yet proceed to punish him because of the mob?s clamor, and the danger of an outbreak.? Men high up in the French government thought it was better that Dreyfus should suffer for the sake of France than that a scandal affecting the honor of the French army should be made public. In perfect consistency with this principle, McKim, Heredity and Human Progress, 192, advocates infliction of painless death upon idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, habitual drunkards, insane criminals, murderers, nocturnal house breakers and all dangerous and incorrigible persons. He would change the place of slaughter from our streets and homes to our penal institutions. In other words, he would abandon punishment but protect society.
Failure to recognize holiness us the fundamental attribute of God and the affirmation of that holiness as conditioning the exercise of love, vitiates the discussion of penalty by A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 243-250 ? ?What is penal suffering designed to accomplish? Is it to manifest the holiness of God? Is it to express the sanctity of the moral law? Is it simply a natural consequence? Does it manifest the divine Fatherhood? God does not inflict penalty simply to satisfy himself or to manifest his holiness any more than an earthly father inflicts suffering on his child to show his wrath against the wrongdoer or to manifest his own goodness. The idea of punishment is essentially barbaric and foreign to all that is known of the Deity. Penalty that is not reformatory or protective is barbarism. In the home, punishment is always discipline. Its? object is the welfare of the child and the family. Punishment as an expression of wrath or enmity, with no remedial purpose beyond, is a relic of barbarism. It carries with it the content of vengeance. It is the expression of anger, of passion or at best, of cold justice. Penal suffering is undoubtedly the divine holiness
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?