GIFT OF 
 SEELEY W. MUDD 
 
 and 
 
 GEORGE I. COCHRAN MEYER ELSASSER 
 DR. JOHN R. HAYNES WILLIAM L. HONNOLD 
 JAMES R. MARTIN MRS. JOSEPH F. SARTORI 
 
 to the 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 SOUTHERN BRANCH 
 
 JOHN FISKE
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 
 4 
 
 2 1 i m 
 
 L JAN 20 1936 
 
 Southern Branch 
 of the 
 
 University of California 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 Form L I
 
 KOAA2I2 AJflNIOS 
 
 FUTURE RETRIBUTION 
 
 BY GEORGE W. KING 
 
 Pastor of the Broadway Methodist Episcopal Church^ Providence, R. I. 
 
 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." HKB. x, 31 
 
 NEW YORK: HUNT & EATON 
 
 CINC/NNA Tl: CRANSTON &> STOWE 
 
 1893 
 
 87S9t
 
 Copyright, 1891. by 
 
 HUNT & EATON, 
 
 NEW YORK.
 
 3T 
 83G 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 WE are persuaded that the a priori method 
 of argument is too much used on both 
 sides of this question. When used by the ortho- 
 dox writer it is a bad example to his opponent, 
 who finds an unlimited occasion for its lise. In 
 the present discussion, which we have under- 
 taken to make both thorough and brief, we have 
 appealed to fact, ignoring the a priori when in 
 conflict with this, and have thus sought to be 
 strictly scientific in our method. We have not 
 sought novelty for its own sake, but the truth ; 
 and where this could be served by the new or 
 the old, we have not hesitated to accept either. 
 Subservient to this aim, we think will be found in 
 treatment and in thought sufficient that is new 
 to justify publication, and make profitable the 
 perusal of the present pages. Definiteness of 
 thought and statement has also been an aim. 
 Vagueness is too much the bane of too much 
 theology, and the present doctrine has not es- 
 caped its influence. We have sought to be both
 
 4 PREFA CE. 
 
 specific and exact. There has been no particular 
 attempt at rhetorical effect. This may be legiti- 
 mate in the treatment of a subject that is well 
 accepted in the Church; but not, from our stand- 
 point, in the scientific investigation and expo- 
 sition of a doctrine so much in dispute as the 
 present one. It may, however, be proper else- 
 where, and we think the preacher will find in our 
 treatment facts and seed-thoughts that may be 
 properly elaborated in his public ministrations. 
 Courtesy has been our rule toward opponents; 
 but also loyalty to truth and fact. 
 
 Our line of treatment, without being distinctly 
 specified, has been Fact, Nature, and Reason ; the 
 first embracing chapters i-v ; the second, chap- 
 ters vi and vii ; the eighth chapter, in which we 
 occupy a quite independent position, compre- 
 hending our entire discussion of the Reason, 
 which might easily have been expanded into 
 several but for our law of brevity. 
 
 Among the works read and consulted in the 
 immediate preparation of this book are the fol- 
 lowing : Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the 
 New Testament ; Edersheim's Life and Times 
 of the Messiah (appendix xix) ; Vincent's Word 
 Studies in the Netv Testament ; Shedd's Dog- 
 matic Theology (vol. ii, pp. 667-754); Muller's
 
 r KEF ACE. 5 
 
 Christian Doctrine of Sin ; Dorner's System of 
 Christian Doctrine (vol. iv, pp. 127-132 and 373- 
 434. Also, Dorner on the Future State, Smyth) ; 
 Christian Dogmatics, Martensen ; Future Retri- 
 bution, C. A. Row ; Future Probation Examined, 
 William DeLoss Love ; Biblical Eschatology, 
 Hovey; Is there Sal-cation After Death? E. D. 
 Morris ; Spirits in Prison, Plumptre ; Salvator 
 Mundi, Cox ; Restitution of All Things, Jukes ; 
 Life in Christ, White ; Extinction of Evil, Peta- 
 vel ; What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punish- 
 ment ? Pusey ; Eternal Hope and Mercy and 
 Judgment, Farrar ; Is '"Eternal" Punishment 
 Endless ? Whiton ; etc. And while acknowl- 
 edging our indebtedness to all of these sources 
 for suggestion and facts, we have, for the most 
 part, pursued an independent course in that we 
 have at least sought to verify for ourselves. 
 
 Hoping the book may serve a useful purpose, 
 we commit it to the candid attention of those 
 to whom it shall come, and in the interest of the 
 truth we have sought to defend and expound. 
 
 G. W. K. 
 
 PROVIDENCE, R. I., March 25, 1891.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT 9 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF RESTORATION- 
 ISTS 53 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY RESPECTING 
 FUTURE RETRI BUTION 115 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GROUND OF FUTURE ENDLESS RETRIBU- 
 TION; OR, FOR WHAT THE WICKED ARE PUN- 
 ISHED ETERNALLY 141 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE NUMBER OF THE LOST 193 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 THE NATURE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT 209 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 THE DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION 217 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE REASON OR LAW OF NECESSITY IN FUTURE 
 PUNISHMENT 247
 
 " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not accord- 
 ing to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 
 
 viii, 20.
 
 AI6NIOS; 
 
 OR, 
 
 FUTURE RETRIBUTION 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Eternity of Punishment. 
 
 rriHE fact of future retribution simply and as 
 J_ such is not now to be considered, since all 
 writers who accept the Bible as a divine revela- 
 tion are agreed as to its reality.* The question 
 before us is the question of duration : Is there 
 endless future punishment of the wicked ? At 
 this point there is much dispute, and its answer 
 furnishes the chief ground of interest for the 
 
 * It is seldom in our day that we find a writer, as Dr. W. E. 
 Manley in the Arena for April, 1890, advocating the idea that 
 the punishment of men is limited to this life. We once heard a 
 Universalist minister, in the city of Baltimore, in a sermon in 
 response to a lecture by Joseph Cook, in which Mr. Cook spoke 
 of the eternal punishment of Aaron Burr and men like him, say : 
 " After Aaron Burr has been in hell ten thousand years, perhaps 
 he will be ready for heaven," or words to that effect. Practi- 
 cally, the opinion of writers on the subject is unanimous in 
 favor of some punishment after death.
 
 ]0 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 whole subject. We come, therefore, immediately 
 to it, and attempt its settlement. 
 
 Of course, the answer to our inquiry must be 
 scriptural.* No other answer is adequate or 
 proper. Philosophy cannot answer it, for it is 
 outside the realm of philosophy. It is a ques- 
 tion of fact, and one which, if it is to be known 
 at all, must be learned from the divine declara- 
 tions. We proceed, therefore, to the biblical or 
 exegetical consideration of the doctrine. Does 
 the Bible teach the endless future punishment 
 of the wicked? 
 
 Making our appeal alone to the Scriptures, we 
 believe one, and only one, answer is possible. It 
 is the affirmative. This we proceed to prove. 
 
 i. The most direct biblical support of the 
 doctrine is Matt, xxv, 46: " And these shall go 
 away into eternal punishment : but the righteous 
 into eternal life " (R. V.). 
 
 Except question were raised as to the natural 
 and obvious import of this text it might be left 
 
 * We say " of course," not because every writer follows this 
 plan properly or faithfully, but because however much some 
 ignore it in practice, all admit the validity of it as a principle of 
 procedure. An exception, however, to this statement is found 
 in the case of those who, with Dorner, appeal for doctrine to 
 the Scriptures and to "faith," or to the Scriptures and the so- 
 called " Christian Consciousness." But we have nothing to do 
 with this doctrine in this place.
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. \\ 
 
 to stand as it is, as God's warning against sin, 
 without comment ; but since it is declared in 
 certain quarters not to be so alarming as it ap- 
 pears to the reader of the common English Bible, 
 it becomes necessary to direct attention to what 
 the language involves. 
 
 Perhaps even the average layman has already 
 become familiar with the fact that the words "ever- 
 lasting " and " eternal " in the Authorized Version 
 are translations of the same word (aiumos) in the 
 original. This is made evident in the Revised Ver- 
 sion by the substitution of the word " eternal " for 
 " everlasting " in the first clause of the verse as 
 found in the Authorized. The important fact 
 learned here is that the duration expressed in the 
 one case must be expressed also in the other ; that 
 is, whatever the duration of the future life of the 
 righteous, that also, so far as this text is concerned 
 in its express teaching, must be the duration of the 
 punishment of the wicked. If the one is eternal 
 in the sense of endlessness, so also is the other.* 
 
 * Dr. Farrar tries to minify the force of this simple but im- 
 pregnable argument by stigmatizing it as " time-worn," as 
 though, other things being equal, this did not strengthen rather 
 than weaken it. Its manifest fairness will remain despite such 
 unscientific slurs. 
 
 On the other hand, Canon Row, in his Future Retribu- 
 tion, admits the force of the parallel, and limiting the sense of 
 in the one case, he limits it also in the other. According
 
 12 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 2. Matt, xii, 31, 32: "Therefore I say unto 
 you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven 
 
 to him, the future endless life of the righteous is not revealed, 
 but is derived from considerations of the divine love and mercy. 
 He says (pp. 266, 267): "I fully admit that the word aiuviof, 
 when united with Cw?, life, must have the same meaning as it 
 bears when it is in the same sentence united with the words 
 Kofaaif or irVp. But there is this difference between the two 
 cases. When the eeon, or aeons, denoted by the word aiwwof. 
 are coming to a close, all holy beings will still be able to look 
 up to Him who is, and who was, and who is to come, the 
 Almighty, as the unchangeable father of mercies and the God of 
 all comfort, and as in his essential being, love ; and their 
 ' abiding in love, ' causing them to abide in God and God in 
 them, affords the strongest ground for trust that their life with 
 God will never end. Full well, therefore, may they be satisfied 
 during the aeons of the future with living in that state of hope 
 and trust in God in which the saints of the Old Testament lived 
 and died, though its pages contain no express revelation of a 
 life to come. Yet, as we have seen, not a few of the most en- 
 lightened saints of that dispensation entertained the firmest 
 faith, notwithstanding the clouds and darkness with which God's 
 present providences were enshrouded, that it would be finally 
 well with those who loved God, and who lived in obedience to 
 his laws. Why, then, should not the inheritor of the perfected 
 kingdom of God be satisfied with the same assurance as sup- 
 ported his Jewish brother during the age in which he lived, that 
 God, who is unchangeable in his perfections, will never desert 
 them that love him throughout all the ages of the future, when, 
 to use the words of the apostle, ' God will be all in all ? ' This 
 is an assurance on which we may rely with far more fullness of 
 conviction than on a word which varies so greatly in meaning as 
 the word aiwwoc, ' eternal.' " 
 
 Such teaching, while that only which is logically tenable 
 from the denial that future endless punishment is taught in the 
 text, is an example of the straits to which those who deny this 
 doctrine are frequently driven.
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 13 
 
 unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Spirit 
 shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall 
 speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be 
 forgiven him ; but whosoever shall speak against 
 the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, 
 neither in this world [marg., " age "], nor in that 
 which is to come." 
 
 The parallel passage in Mark is as follows : 
 " Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be 
 forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blas- 
 phemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme : 
 but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy 
 Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an 
 eternal sin : because they said, He hath an un- 
 clean spirit" (chap, iii, 28-30. Compare I John 
 v, 1 6. I do not take it that Heb. vi, 4-8 ; x, 
 26-29, is the same sin.) 
 
 Evidently these two passages, being parallel 
 accounts of the same conversation of our Lord, 
 have the same meaning, and cast light upon 
 each other. We have in them two negative 
 statements of the most conclusive character. In 
 Mark the Greek is OVK K^EI dfaaiv elq rbv atoiva, dAAd 
 vo%6$ a~cu aid)viov d^aprr/fiarof. Says an able 
 writer in the Bibliothcca Sacra for January, 1889: 
 " However plausibly it may be urged that aluvux; 
 does not, in the Scripture references to a future
 
 14 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 life, mean ' everlasting,' and that el$ rouf al&va$ 
 does not really mean ' forever,' no scholar will 
 undertake to deny that ov dg rovg al&vag is 
 biblical Greek for an English emphatic, un- 
 qualified never. The phrase has various forms 
 (e/f TOV a/wva, elg rovg alcjvag, tug ai&vog, etc.), but 
 they are all combinations of the noun aluv with 
 some preposition and with a foregoing negative. 
 It always, so far as I have noted, both in the 
 Septuagint and in the .New Testament, answers 
 either to the English ' not forever,' or to ' never.' 
 In the former case it denies permanence or future 
 perpetuity to that which already exists or is con- 
 ceived as existing ; for example, Job vii, 16, ov 
 yap el$ TOV aiwva tyaoiiat, ' for I shall not live for- 
 ever;' Psa. ciii, 9, ovKEtg reXog opytadrjaeTai , ovde ei 
 rbv aitiva Hornet, ' He will not be always angry, 
 neither will he be wrathful forever.' But in the 
 majority of instances in biblical Greek it is 
 equivalent to never, when used not with reference 
 to the past (for example, John vii, 46, ovde-irore 
 tAaAT/oev OVTGJ? avdpuTrog, ' Never man so spake '), 
 nor to the present (for example, i Cor. xiii, 8, 
 77 dydnr) ovdenoTS 7mrr, ' Love never faileth'), but 
 to the future, as in John iv, 14, ' But whosoever 
 drinketh,' etc., ' shall never thirst ' (ov ^ diijrijoei elg 
 TOV aluva); i Cor. viii, 13, 'Wherefore if meat
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 15 
 
 maketh my brother to stumble, I will never eat 
 flesh' (R. V., ' eat no flesh for evermore;' A. V., 
 ' eat no flesh while the world standeth '). It is 
 further to be observed that while there are 
 various other Greek words and phrases which 
 answer to our emphatic future never, this of 
 which we are speaking is one of the most 
 frequent in the New Testament. In order to 
 ascertain its meaning in Hellenistic Greek it is 
 not necessary to fix the various significations of 
 the term aluv, considered simply as a substantive ; 
 the phrase is one concerning which no doubt, at 
 least in the majority of passages, can be raised. 
 Now this is the term which we find in that im- 
 pressive warning of our Saviour to his antago- 
 nists recorded in Mark iii, 29, ' But whosoever 
 shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath 
 never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal 
 sin ' (OVK e^ei atyeaiv elg rbv aiwi>a, aXXa Ivo^o^ lariv 
 ald)viov dfjuprijuaro^'). In this one passage, at least, 
 we are compelled to recognize an unequivocal, 
 emphatic, absolute never" 
 
 Likewise, whatever the phrase ovre KV TOUTGJ TGJ 
 aitivi ovrs tv TGJ fjieXXovTi ('' neither in this world, 
 nor in that which is to come ") in Matthew may 
 signify, in the way of inference, as to the possible 
 restoration in another life of those who do not
 
 16 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 commit this sin, clearly for it there will be no 
 forgiveness.* 
 
 3. Rev. xx, 10-15 : " And the devil that de- 
 ceived them was cast into the lake of fire and 
 brimstone, where are also the beast and the false 
 prophet ; and they shall be tormented day and 
 night for ever and ever. 
 
 " And I saw a great white throne, and him that 
 sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the 
 heaven fled away ; and there was found no place 
 for them. And I saw the dead, the great and 
 the small, standing before the throne ; and books 
 
 * Some (among them Dorner) try to evade the force of this 
 argument by suggesting that, while the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost hath never forgiveness, yet the penalty may come to an 
 end, and restoration even in this case take place. Well might it 
 be asked, in view of interpretations of this character frequently 
 found in the writings of Universalists, "whether there is any 
 way, in which Almighty God could have expressed it [the 
 eternity of punishment], which they would have accepted as 
 meaning it."' Besides, in this case some would be saved without 
 the atonement. Their salvation would be by paying the 
 penalty, not through Christ. Exegesis that is put to such shifts 
 may well be regarded unsound. 
 
 Dorner suggests, also, that " the passages concerning the sin 
 against the Holy Ghost say nothing of definite persons who have 
 committed this sin. Of themselves, therefore, they leave the 
 question unanswered, what men, and whether any men, reach 
 this final goal of criminality, which is set before the eyes as a 
 warning. Just so the Revelation of John does not say who, or 
 that a man will be cast into the lake of fire ; the hypothetical 
 form is rather chosen : ' If one is not inscribed in the book of
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 17 
 
 were opened : and another book was opened, 
 which is the book of life : and the dead were 
 judged out of the things which were written in 
 the books, according to their works. And the 
 sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and death 
 and Hades gave up the dead which were in them : 
 and they were judged every man according to 
 their works. And death and Hades were cast 
 into the lake of fire. This is the second death, 
 even the lake of fire. And if any was not found 
 written in the book of life, he was cast into the 
 lake of fire." (Compare Rev. xiv, 9-11; xix, 
 20; xxi, 8.) 
 
 Whatever there may be that is figurative in 
 
 life,' ' if one worships the beast, he shall drink the cup of wrath,' 
 all which affirms nothing of persons, but of the principle." But 
 this, likewise, is a pure evasion of the solemn teaching contained 
 in these passages of Scripture. 
 
 Since writing the last paragraph of this note we have met still 
 another device, equally untenable, by which the fearful import 
 of this passage is sought to be avoided. It seeks to show that 
 " deliverance " from this sin may possibly be had through repent- 
 ance (Unto the Uttermost, James M. Campbell, p. 125). We 
 would ask : (i) Is there deliverance from any sin except through 
 repentance ? And if not, wherein, on this supposition, lies the 
 difference between the sin against the Holy Ghost and the sin 
 against the "Son of man?" (2) Is this compatible with the 
 words " it shall not be forgiven him [not ' so long as he con- 
 tinues in an unyielding, unrepentant state,' but plainly], neither 
 in this world, nor in that which is to come?" (3) What is 
 "deliverance" from this sin without forgiveness, which shall 
 never be exercised ? 
 2
 
 IQ FUTURE RETRIBUTION 
 
 these verses, if they mean any thing the follow- 
 ing points are clear: (i) The devil is to be cast 
 into the lake of fire, and his punishment is to 
 last " for ever and ever." (2) After the resurrec- 
 tion the dead are to be judged " according to 
 their works." (3) Those whose names are not 
 found written in the book of life are to be cast 
 into the lake of fire. 
 
 Taken in connection with Matt, xxv, 31-46, the 
 evidence for the endlessness of the punishment 
 of the wicked furnished here becomes as convinc- 
 ing as language can very well make it.* 
 
 4. Mark ix, 43-48 : " And if thy hand cause 
 thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee 
 to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy 
 two hands to go into hell, into the unquencha- 
 ble fire. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, 
 cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life 
 
 * If the reader will carefully compare the two passages he 
 will be impressed with the following points of agreement and 
 parallel: i. Both concern the general judgment. 2. The res- 
 urrection is in both passages represented as having taken place. 
 3. Those whose names were not found written in the book of 
 life (the " goats " of Matthew) were cast into the lake of fire pre- 
 pared for the devil and his angels (Matt., verse 41 ; Rev., verses 10, 
 15). 4. The two phrases, paaavicftyaovTai . . . eif roif aluvaf 
 ruv aluvuv (Rev., verse 10) and xd^aatv aluviov (Matt., verse 46), 
 seem to be identical in signification. The force of this last parallel 
 will be felt in connection with the general parallel of the entire 
 passages.
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. ]p 
 
 halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast 
 into hell. And if thine eye cause thee to stum- 
 ble, cast it out : it is good for thee to enter into 
 the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than 
 having two eyes to be cast into hell ; where their 
 worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 
 (Compare Matt, iii, 12 ; v, 29, 30; xviii, 8, 9.) 
 
 In connection with this passage two points of 
 interest demand brief attention : (i) The first is 
 concerning the word " hell." The alternate 
 reading in the margin of the Revised Version is 
 " Gehenna." This word (yeevva) comes from the 
 Hebrew Din ^ (go hinnom), literally, " valley of 
 Hinnom." (Some would translate " valley of 
 lamentation.") The valley of Hinnom, also 
 called fish (" Topheth "), once a beautiful valley, 
 became the place of the worship of the fire-god 
 Molech, to whom human sacrifices were offered. 
 After Josiah " defiled " the place, " that no man 
 might make his son or his daughter to pass 
 through the fire to Molech," it became the place 
 where the bodies of criminals, the carcasses of 
 animals, and all manner of filth were cast. Here, 
 literally, the worm never died, and to prevent 
 pestilence a fire was kept burning perpetually. 
 From these facts the place became the symbol 
 of the place of future punishment, the latter
 
 20 FUTURE RETRIBUTION: 
 
 receiving the name of the former. And so in the 
 time of Christ Gehenna was every-where among 
 the Jews understood to signify the place of tor- 
 ment in Sheol, or Hades. (See Word Studies in 
 the New Testament, Marvin R. Vincent, vol. i, 
 page 40, and Greek-English Lexicon of the New 
 Testament, Thayer, page ill.) (2) In verse 43 is 
 the expression " unquenchable fire " (TO rrvp TO 
 ei(7/3eo-Tov) ; in verse 48, " and the fire is not 
 quenched " (KOI TO -rrvp ov a$6wv-ai). In the par- 
 allel account in Matt, xviii, 8, 9, the expression 
 is TO TTvp TO diuviov, " the eternal fire." These 
 expressions, remembered in connection with 
 other teachings of Christ, furnish terrible proof 
 of the reality of the doctrine we are considering. 
 
 It avails nothing to say that they do not 
 " necessarily " teach endless suffering. Alone 
 they may not be thought sufficient to prove the 
 doctrine, but in the light of other sayings of 
 Christ they have no doubtful meaning. 
 
 5. Matt, xxvi, 24: "The Son of man goeth, 
 even as it is written of him : but woe unto that 
 man through whom the Son of man is betrayed ! 
 good were it for that man if he had not been 
 born." 
 
 This passage never could have been uttered 
 by Christ with the knowledge in this case of
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 21 
 
 final restoration ; for if Judas is to be saved 
 some time in the future, no matter how far dis- 
 tant the day may be, he will still have an eter- 
 nity of blessedness reserved for him, and in view 
 of this, despite the long season of punishment, it 
 could only be said : " It was good for him that 
 he was born." No amount of temporal punish- 
 ment can outweigh the " good " of eternal life.* 
 6. Jude 5-16: " Now I desire to put you in 
 remembrance, though ye know all things once 
 for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people 
 out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed 
 them that believed not. And angels which kept 
 not their own principality, but left their proper 
 habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds 
 under darkness unto the judgment of the great 
 day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities 
 about them, having in like manner with these 
 given themselves over to fornication, and gone 
 after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, 
 suffering the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in 
 like manner these also in their dreamings defile 
 the flesh, and set at naught dominion, and rail 
 at dignities. But Michael the archangel, when 
 
 * The argument here is only an inference, we know, but it is 
 nevertheless very strong. Dorner calls it the " strongest " on 
 the orthodox side.
 
 22 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 contending with the devil he disputed about the 
 body of Moses, durst not bring against him a 
 railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke 
 thee. But these rail at whatsoever things they 
 know not : and what they understand natu- 
 rally, like the creatures without reason, in these 
 things are they destroyed. Woe unto them ! for 
 they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously 
 in the error of Baalam for hire, and perished in 
 the gainsaying of Korah. These are they who 
 are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they 
 feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed 
 themselves ; clouds without water, carried along 
 by winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice 
 dead, plucked up by the roots ; wild waves of 
 the sea, foaming out their own shame ; wander- 
 ing stars, for whom the blackness of darkness 
 hath been reserved forever. And to these also 
 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, say- 
 ing, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands 
 of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, 
 and to convict all the ungodly of all their works 
 of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, 
 and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners 
 have spoken against him. These are murmur- 
 ers, complainers, walking after their lusts (and 
 their mouth speaketh great swelling words),
 
 THE ETERNJTY OF PUNISHMENT. 23 
 
 showing respect of persons for the sake of ad- 
 vantage." (Compare 2 Pet. ii.) 
 
 In this passage several things are given : (i) 
 The Israelites who believed not, and the angels 
 "which kept not their own principality," and the 
 inhabitants of the cities of the plain are exhib- 
 ited as examples of suffering punishment for 
 those of whom Jude" is speaking. (2) Certain 
 persons in the early Church are threatened with 
 like punishment. (3) The Israelites were " de- 
 stroyed " (aTTuteaev) ; the angels " hath he kept 
 in everlasting (didioig} bonds under darkness unto 
 the judgment of the great day;" Sodom and the 
 neighboring cities " are set forth as an example, 
 suffering the punishment of eternal fire " (rrvpbs 
 afcovt'ou). The margin of the Revised Version 
 has for the last, " as an example of eternal fire 
 suffering punishment." For the wicked ones of 
 whom Jude writes has been reserved the " black- 
 ness of darkness " " forever " (eJ? atdiva). 
 
 Does Jude mean to teach the same punish- 
 ment in all these cases under different language? 
 Is the " destruction " of the Israelites, and the 
 " reservation " of the angels, and the " suffering " 
 of the Sodomites, and the " blackness of dark- 
 ness forever " reserved for those of whom he 
 \vrites, the same punishment in each case? Our
 
 24 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 answer to this cannot be dogmatic. The case of 
 the cities of the plain is made uncertain by the 
 alternate reading. Perhaps, following the mar- 
 ginal reading, the temporal destruction of these 
 cities is referred to as illustrative only of future 
 punishment. Following the text, it might seem 
 that their eternal punishment is involved. In 
 the case of the Israelites who believed not, we 
 suppose their temporal destruction (Num. xiv, 
 especially verses II, 29, 32) is referred to. 
 Whether or not more is involved in this case 
 also we do not undertake to say. As to the 
 angels, no doubt can be entertained as to the 
 reference. They are in some sense bound, and 
 in this condition await the judgment. As to 
 their fate at and after the judgment, other Script- 
 ures tell us (Rev. xx, 10; Matt, xxv, 41). The 
 fate of the last class can be no other than that 
 spoken of elsewhere concerning the wicked ; and 
 when it is thus associated with the end of the 
 lost angels, * the meaning can only be the same 
 as that taught elsewhere in the New Testament. 
 This we have seen, and will further see, is ever- 
 lasting punishment. 
 
 * We call attention again to the fact that the end of 
 devils and wicked men is the same in the New Testament. 
 (Compare Rev. xx, 10, 15, with Matt, xxv, 41. )
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 05 
 
 7. There is a passage that is frequently quoted 
 to prove the final restoration of the lost, but 
 that is so manifestly in favor of the doctrine of 
 eternal punishment that we place it here among 
 the proofs of the doctrine. It will be considered 
 more fully, however, when we come to notice 
 the arguments advanced in favor of Univer- 
 salism. The passage we refer to is i Cor. xv, 
 24-26 : 
 
 " Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver 
 up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when 
 he shall have abolished all rule and all authority 
 and power. For he must reign, till he hath put 
 all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy 
 that shall be abolished is death." 
 
 The points to be noted are : (i) The end of 
 the mediatorial reign of Christ follows the de- 
 struction of the " last enemy," and (2) the last 
 enemy to be abolished is physical death at and 
 by the resurrection. Now, remember in connec- 
 tion with this, that the coming (parousia) of 
 Christ and the resurrection are followed by the 
 judgment (Matt, xxv, 31 ; Rev. xx, 12-14; xx ii 
 10-12), and that, according to Matt, xxv, 31-46, 
 and other Scriptures, the " aeonian punishment " 
 is pronounced after the " last enemy," death, 
 has been abolished, and the passage furnishes
 
 26 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 an argument for eternal punishment that is un- 
 answerable. 
 
 We urge these facts as worthy all considera- 
 tion. If the " last enemy " to be abolished is 
 physical death, and the noAaatg aluviog of Matthew 
 follows this destruction, then the thought of the 
 " second death " being abolished is absolutely 
 excluded. The last enemy is abolished in the 
 resurrection, and before the KoXacnq atomof, or 6 
 ddvarog 6 devrepo^, is awarded. (Compare also 
 John v, 28, 29.) 
 
 8. Another proof of the endlessness of future 
 punishment is furnished in those passages of 
 Scripture which reveal what Dr. Tayler Lewis 
 appropriately calls the " aspect of finality." In 
 Lange's Commentary on Ecclesiastes he says : 
 " It may be thought that this view of D^>iy and 
 aiuv as having plurals, and therefore not in them- 
 selves denoting absolute endlessness, or infinity 
 of time, must weaken the force of certain pas- 
 sages in the New Testament, especially of that 
 most solemn sentence, Matt, xxv, 46. This, 
 however, comes from a wrong view of what con- 
 stitutes the real power of the impressive lan- 
 guage there employed. The preacher, in con- 
 tending with the Universalist, or Restorationist, 
 would commit an error, and, it may be, suffer a
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 27 
 
 failure in his argument should he lay the whole 
 stress of it on the etymological or historical sig- 
 nificance of the words, atwv, aluvtog, and attempt 
 to prove that, of themselves, they necessarily 
 carry the meaning of endless duration. There 
 is another method by which the conclusion is 
 reached in a much more impressive and cavil- 
 silencing manner. It is by insisting on that 
 dread aspect of finality . that appears not in 
 single words merely, but in the power and 
 vividness of the language taken as a whole " 
 (page 48). 
 
 Some of the passages that have this " dread 
 aspect " are the following : 
 
 '' Let both grow together until the harvest : 
 and in the time of the harvest I will say to the 
 reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them 
 in bundles to burn them : but gather the wheat 
 into my barn " (Matt, xiii, 30). 
 
 " Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto 
 a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered 
 of every kind : which, when it was filled, they 
 drew up on the beach ; and they sat down, and 
 gathered the good into vessels, but the bad they 
 cast away. So shall it be in the end of the 
 world : the angels shall come forth, and sever 
 the wicked from among the righteous, and shall
 
 28 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 cast them into the furnace of fire : there shall be 
 the weeping and gnashing of teeth " (Matt, xiii, 
 
 47-50). 
 
 " But when the king came in to behold the 
 guests, he saw there a man which had not on a 
 wedding-garment : and he saith unto him, Friend, 
 how earnest thou in hither not having a wedding- 
 garment ? And he was speechless. Then the 
 king said to the servants, Bind him hand and 
 foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness ; 
 there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth 
 (Matt, xxii, 11-13). 
 
 "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened 
 unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and 
 went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five 
 of them were foolish, and five were wise. For 
 the foolish, when they took their lamps, took 
 no oil with them : but the wise took oil in their 
 vessels with their lamps. Now while the bride- 
 groom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. But 
 at midnight there is a cry, Behold, the bride- 
 groom ! Come ye forth to meet him. Then 
 all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 
 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of 
 your oil; for our lamps are going out. But the 
 wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will 
 not be enough for us and you : go ye rather to
 
 7 HE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 29 
 
 them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And 
 while they went away to buy, the bridegroom 
 came ; and they that were ready went in with 
 him to the marriage feast: and the door was 
 shut. Afterward come also the other virgins, 
 saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered 
 and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 
 Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor 
 the hour " (Matt, xxv, 1-13).* 
 
 " For it is as when a man, going into another 
 country, called his own servants, and delivered 
 
 * An interesting piece of " wriggling," to use one of Mr. Dar- 
 win's terms, of the exegetical type, is given in remarks on this 
 parable by C. A. Row (Future Retribution). He comments 
 thus : " The virgins who came prepared with a sufficient supply 
 of oil for their lamps enter at once with the bridegroom into the 
 marriage feast, on which the door is shut. Afterward the five 
 foolish ones, having obtained the necessary supply of oil, pray 
 that the door might be opened to give them admittance, but the 
 bridegroom replies that he knows them not. The moral of the 
 parable is drawn by our Lord himself : ' Watch, therefore, for 
 ye know not the day nor the hour.' Nothing is said respecting 
 the subsequent fate of the foolish virgins, who are described as 
 returning after they had procured the necessary supply of oil, 
 except that, notwithstanding their earnest entreaties, they were 
 excluded from the marriage feast. The advice given them to 
 purchase the needful oil, and the fact that they succeeded in 
 doing so, proves that it is impossible to erect a dogma on the 
 mere imagery of a parable " (pages 260, 261). It might be per- 
 missible, following this eminent example, to suggest that per- 
 haps the virgins went into the marriage feast after it was over! 
 Exegesis of this type is no doubt edifying to a certain class of 
 writers.
 
 30 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 unto them his goods. And unto one he gave 
 five talents, to another two, to another one ; to 
 each according to his several ability ; and he 
 went on his journey. Straightway he that re- 
 ceived the five talents went and traded with 
 them, and made other five talents. In like man- 
 ner he also that received the two gained other two. 
 But he that received the one went away and 
 digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 
 Now after a long time the lord of those servants 
 cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them. 
 And he that received the five talents came and 
 brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou 
 deliveredst unto me five talents : lo, I have 
 gained other five talents. His lord said unto 
 him, Well done, good and faithful servant : 
 thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will 
 set thee over many things : enter thou into the 
 joy of thy lord. And he also that received the 
 two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst 
 unto me two talents : lo, I have gained other 
 two talents. His lord said unto him, Well done, 
 good and faithful servant ; thou hast been faith- 
 ful over a few things, I will set thee over many 
 things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And 
 he also that had received the one talent came 
 and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 31 
 
 man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and 
 gathering where thou didst not scatter: and I 
 was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in 
 the earth : lo, thou hast thine own. But his 
 lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked 
 and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap 
 where I sowed not, and gather where I did not 
 scatter; thou oughtest therefore to have put 
 my money to the bankers, and at my coming 
 I should have received back mine own with in- 
 terest. Take ye away therefore the talent from 
 him, and give it unto him that hath the ten tal- 
 ents. For unto every one that hath shall be 
 given, and he shall have abundance : but from 
 him that hath not, even that which he hath 
 shall be taken away. And cast ye out the un- 
 profitable servant into the outer darkness : there 
 shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth " 
 (Matt, xxv, 14-30). 
 
 " For what doth it profit a man, to gain the 
 whole world, and forfeit his life ? For what 
 should a man give in exchange for his life ? 
 (Mark viii, 36, 37). 
 
 " And beside all this, between us and, you there 
 is a great gulf fixed, that they which would pass 
 from hence to you may not be able, and that none 
 may cross over from thence to us " (Luke xvi, 26).
 
 32 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 "He said therefore again unto them, I go away, 
 and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin : 
 whither I go, ye cannot come " (John viii, 21). 
 
 And verse 24 : "I said therefore unto you, 
 that ye shall die in your sins : for except ye be- 
 lieve that 1 am he, ye shall die in your sins." 
 
 " For the land which hath drunk the rain that 
 cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet 
 for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiv- 
 eth blessing from God : but if it beareth thorns 
 and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse ; 
 whose end is to be burned " (Heb. vi, 7, 8). 
 
 " For if we sin willfully after that we have 
 received the knowledge of the truth, there 
 remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a 
 certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a 
 fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversa- 
 ries " (Heb. x, 26, 27). 
 
 In view of all such passages, is it not surprising 
 that some will persist in reading into the Script- 
 ures the delusive hope of final restoration?* 
 
 *This argument Whiton (Is Eternal Punishment Endless? 
 p. 33), thinks is the " strongest apparent implication of the end- 
 lessness of future punishment." He says further: "All such pas- 
 sages readily favor the doctrine of the endlessness of that state 
 to which they refer," and saves himself from the positive doc- 
 trine by concluding: " The endlessness of future punishment is 
 not the only theory that will agree with the language of despair 
 which the texts now before us employ " (p. 34).
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 33 
 
 9. The doctrine \ve are considering is still 
 further proved by those passages of Scripture 
 which promise certain final blessings to the 
 righteous only. For example, the " righteous " 
 are to go into " eternal life " (Matt, xxv, 46). 
 Now, if the wicked are to be finally restored, 
 after an indefinite aeonian punishment, they, too, 
 will at some time go into aeonian life. But is not 
 this excluded by the very designation of the 
 righteous as the inheritors of this privilege? 
 Again, he that " overcometh " is to " eat of the 
 tree of life " (Rev. ii, 7). Shall we contradict the 
 Scriptures and say whether or not men overcome 
 they shall finally have right to the tree of life? 
 Again, to the overcomer is the promise that his 
 name shall not be blotted "out of the book of 
 life " (Rev. iii, 5). Is it not a fair inference that 
 those who do not overcome shall have their 
 names blotted out ? Where is the right to 
 assert that they shall again be inserted after 
 ages of punishment? Once more, to the perse- 
 cuted followers of our Lord is the exhortation 
 with promise, " Be thou faithful unto death, and 
 I will give thee the crown of life " (Rev. ii, 10). 
 Are the unfaithful also, at some time, to wear the 
 " crown of life? " 
 
 Such passages of Scripture, with their exclu- 
 3
 
 34 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 sive nature, fully warrant the inference we draw 
 from them. They are clear cases of the law 
 in logic known as the " exclusive " proposition. 
 To say, " Some men are honest," involves 
 the inference that some are not honest. So 
 when the Scriptures designate a certain class 
 as subjects of the divine promises and rewards, 
 by necessary inference the opposite class is ex- 
 cluded from the same privileges. (Examine 
 also John iii, 15, 16; iv, 13, 14; vi, 47, 54-58, 
 etc.) 
 
 10. Another proof of the everlastingness of 
 the wicked's doom is furnished in those Script- 
 ures which are by some used to teach the doc- 
 trine of annihilation. Concerning this doctrine 
 we have something to say further on (chap. vii). 
 For the present we simply affirm that all such 
 passages preclude the idea of final restoration. 
 We give a few examples: 
 
 " For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die " 
 (^jvUere dnodvijoKeiv) (Rom. viii, 13). " The wages 
 of sin is death " (ddvaro^ (Rom. vi, 23). " But 
 rather fear him which is able to destroy (a-noteaai) 
 both soul and body in hell" [marg., " Gehenna "] 
 (Matt, x, 28). " For wide is the gate, and broad 
 is the way, that leadeth to destruction (els ryv 
 (Matt, vii, 13). " Who shall suffer pun-
 
 THE ETERKITY OF PUNISHMENT. 35 
 
 ishment, even eternal destruction (o/ieOpov 
 from the face of the Lord and from the glory of 
 his might " (2 Thess. i, 9). " For he that so\veth 
 unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap cor- 
 ruption (<t>6opdv) ; but he that soweth unto the 
 spirit shall of the spirit reap eternal life " (Gal. 
 vi, 8). 
 
 On this subject Edward White, who himself 
 teaches the doctrine of annihilation, says : 
 " Surely these are not the words (a7rwAa, 
 0dvarof, etc.) which would naturally occur to a 
 writer desiring to convey the idea of universal 
 salvation." Again : " As a theory to be estab- 
 lished by criticism, Universalism is based on 
 special pleading ; while as a delusive prospect to 
 be set before mankind it is likely, as recent 
 American experience has shown, to ruin innu- 
 merable souls, who will neglect the 'day ''of 
 salvation for the ' fool's to-morrow,' which never 
 arrives " (Life in Christ, pp. 446, 448). Also, 
 another writer, who teaches the doctrine of an- 
 nihilation, although from a different stand-point 
 from that of Mr. White, says : " The Universal- 
 ist endeavors to evade this [the writer's conclu- 
 sion of annihilation] by affirming that when the 
 Scriptures threaten the finally impenitent with 
 destruction, or some kindred term, the thiiw
 
 36 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 intended is the destruction of the sin, but the re- 
 covery of the sinner." He thinks the principle 
 of interpretation which assigns to such terms 
 this construction " non-natural," and says : 
 " Surely it is a mode of dealing with language 
 which no one would adopt, unless compelled by 
 the exigencies of a theory " (C. A. Row, ut 
 supra, pp. 386, 387). 
 
 We concur with these writers thus far, and 
 affirm that these passages utterly preclude the 
 idea of final universal restoration. 
 
 1 1. Again, we find proof of the doctrine in the 
 many passages which assert an unqualified nega- 
 tive in relation to the lot of the wicked. This 
 appears in several of the passages already given ; 
 but we repeat one or two here and add others in 
 order to give the proper emphasis to this im- 
 portant thought. " But whosoever shall speak 
 against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven 
 him " (Matt, xii, 32). " Ye shall seek me, and 
 shall die in your sin : whither I go, ye cannot 
 come " (John viii, 21). Other Scriptures that 
 have not been given are : " For I say unto you; 
 that none of those men which were bidden shall 
 taste of my supper" (Luke xiv, 24), and " He 
 that believeth on the Son hath eternal life ; but 
 he that obeyeth [marg., ' believeth '] not the Son
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 37 
 
 shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth 
 on him " (John iii, 36). 
 
 All such passages unqualifiedly preclude the 
 hope of life for those included in their intent. 
 
 12. Another proof is given in the fact that 
 the duration of the future punishment of the 
 wicked is expressed in the same terms as the 
 duration of the life of the righteous, and in the 
 same phrases as are used concerning the Al- 
 mighty. This is seen not only in the use of the 
 single adjective aluvtog as above given (Matt. 
 xxv, 46), but in such phrases as etg aiuva, dg roijg 
 aitivag rtiv aluvuv. Examples are as follows : 
 "He that eateth, this bread shall live forever" 
 (eig rbv aitiva) (John vi, 58). "To whom be the 
 glory for ever and ever " (etg roijg aitivag rw' 
 atwvwj/) (Gal. i, 5). " Now unto the king eternal 
 (rC)v ofGovwi/), incorruptible, invisible, the only 
 God, be honor and glory for ever and ever " (tig 
 rovg ai&vag TWV atwvwv) (i Tim. i, 17). " For 
 whom the blackness of darkness hath been re- 
 served forever " (slg cduva) (Jude 13). "To him 
 be the glory and the dominion for ever and 
 ever " (eig roijg ai&vag rwv alcjvcjv) (Rev. i, 6). 
 " And I was dead, and behold, I am alive for ever- 
 more " (sig rovg aiuvag rd>v atwvwv) (ibid., verse 1 8). 
 " Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto 
 
 S 7 y y D
 
 ;j 8 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and 
 the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever" 
 (tic, TOVS oi&vag TU>I> aiwvwv) (ibid., v, 13). "And 
 the devil that deceived them was cast into the 
 lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the 
 beast and the false prophet ; and they shall be 
 tormented day and night for ever and ever" (elg 
 TOV$ alwva$ TO>I> atwvwv) (ibid., xx, 10). Language 
 could not more plainly declare the doctrine we 
 teach. 
 
 13. The disproof of universal restoration, and 
 thus indirectly the proof of eternal punishment, 
 may be further shown by the disproof of the as- 
 sertion, so often made, that t]ie future punish- 
 ment of the New Testament is represented as 
 remedial. It is nowhere referred to as such, but 
 the reverse. 
 
 We mention this point simply in this place, 
 and reserve the refutation of the pleasing error 
 for a subsequent chapter. 
 
 14. Another argument in favor of the doctrine 
 of endless punishment is found in the fact that 
 the life of man is divided, according to the New 
 Testament, into but two "ages," or "aeons," 
 and that in connection with the " age to come " 
 (aiuv /iteAAwv) the forgiveness of sin is excluded. 
 This point was involved in another already given ;
 
 THE ETEX.M1 Y OF PUNJSHMENT. 39 
 
 but in order to give the greater force to it, we 
 present it here in a separate and explicit state- 
 ment. 
 
 That the fact is as stated the Scriptures 
 abundantly testify (Matt, xii, 32 ; xiii, 22 ; Mark 
 iv, 19; x, 30; Luke xx, 35; Gal. i, 4; Eph. i, 
 21 ; ii, 7; i Tim. vi, 17; Tit. 2, 12). If the 
 reader will examine these passages, he will find 
 several phrases, b a'tcjv ovroq, 6 alriv, 6 vvv aiuv, 6 
 ivearug aiuv, used to signify the present life, and 
 several others, aiuv /i^AAcjv, 6 aiuv f:Ktvo^, 6 aiuv 6 
 ip%6nevo$, ol aitiveg ol tTrep^ojuevot, to signify the 
 life to come ; and that the one set of phrases 
 refers to the time before the advent (parousia) 
 and the other to the time subsequent to that 
 event.* 
 
 *Dr. W. E. Manly, to whom reference has been made, in 
 his article in the Arena for April, 1890, seeks to prove that 
 aiuv fj.if.7juv in the New Testament, and the kindred phrases, re- 
 fer to the Christian age about to be inaugurated in contradis- 
 tinction to the Jewish age in which Christ and the apostles 
 labored before ihe overthrow of the Jewish nation (A. D. 70). It 
 is sufficient to say in response to this writer, and to all who 
 teach the same doctrine from whatever stand-point, (i) That 
 on this supposition one passage of Scripture, at least, is ren- 
 dered both false and absurd. " And Jesus said unto them, The 
 sons of this world (a'luvoq rai'-ov) many, and are given in mar- 
 riage : but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that 
 world (aiuvog EKSIVOV) and the resurrection from the dead, neither 
 marry, nor are given in marriage : for neither can they die any 
 more : for they are equal unto the angels ; and are sons of God.
 
 40 FUTURE KETR1BUTWN. 
 
 15. Lastly, the fact that future restoration is 
 not revealed in the Bible, and particularly in 
 view of the facts already given, is probable proof 
 of the endlessness of future punishment. This 
 we think important. Some of the chief \vriters 
 on the subject of restoration freely admit that 
 the dos[ma is not revealed. Thus Farrar, how- 
 
 O 
 
 ever much he may contradict himself elsewhere, 
 distinctly disavows being a Universalist : " But 
 however deep may be our desire that this [univer- 
 sal restoration] should be the will of God ; how- 
 ever beautifully it may seem to accord both 
 with his mercy and his justice, that sin, after 
 bringing its own punishment, should be turned 
 to holiness, and so forgiven ; however much we 
 may cling to the hope that some such meaning 
 may underlie the broad and boundless promises 
 of a future restitution, I dare not lay down any 
 dogma of Universalism ; partly because it is not 
 
 being sons of the resurrection " (Luke xx, 34-36). (2) That 
 " this age," in the language of Christ, did not refer to the Jew- 
 ish age, but to the Christian dispensation already begun. This 
 is shown by the use of the phrase in connection with several of 
 the parables. For example, in reference to the "good seed" 
 and the " tares" it is said, " Let both grow together until the 
 harvest," and " the harvest is the end of the world " (awrefaia 
 aluvof). Now this parable was spoken of " the kingdom of 
 heaven," which corresponds with the Christian age (Matt, xiii, 
 2 4. 30. 39- See also same chap., ver. 22.)
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 41 
 
 clearly revealed to us, and partly because it is 
 impossible for us to estimate the hardening ef- 
 fect of obstinate persistence in evil, and the 
 power of the human will to resist the law and 
 reject the love of God " (Preface to Eternal 
 Hope, p. xvi, ct passim, and in his later book, 
 Mercy and Judgment}. It is for him an " eter- 
 nal hope," whatever that expression may mean. 
 Whiton as distinctly disclaims any clear revela- 
 tion as to restoration. He says : " The conclu- 
 sion reached by this essay is, in general, that of 
 nescience, namely, that the Bible, while teaching 
 future punishment in terms sufficiently explicit 
 and severe for the purposes of moral govern- 
 ment, does not positively declare the duration 
 of that punishment. An unbiased criticism by 
 the best light that modern scholarship affords 
 does not accept the sense which tradition has 
 attached to some of the words of Scripture upon 
 this subject. The Bible, however, reveals no 
 restoration of ' the lost.' It casts no ray of 
 hope upon the future of him who has wasted the 
 present life " (Is Eternal Punishment Endless ? 
 p. xii of the Introduction). So, also, Martensen : 
 " We only maintain that this solution [of what 
 he calls an ' antinomy ' in the Scriptures, accord- 
 ing to which some passages seem to teach end-
 
 42 FUTUKE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 less punishment and others restoration] is no- 
 where expressly given ; and we ask whether we 
 may not recognize divine wisdom in the fact 
 that a final solution is not given us, while we 
 are still in the stream of time and in the course 
 of development ? " (Ckristian Dogmatics, p. 
 476.) Likewise Dorner : " Accordingly, this 
 hypothesis also [annihilationism] cannot lay 
 claim to unreserved acknowledgment and dog- 
 matic authority, and we must be content with 
 saying that the ultimate fate of individuals re- 
 mains veiled in mysteiy, as well as whether all 
 will attain the blessed goal or not " (System 
 of Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 427). 
 
 Now we maintain that this silence, in view of 
 the fact that the language of Scripture seems, to 
 say the least, to teach the endlessness of pun- 
 ishment, is probable proof of that doctrine. We 
 maintain this for the following reasons : 
 
 i. In view of the great amount and force of 
 the evidence apparently for the doctrine in the 
 Scriptures, if it is not true we are practically de- 
 ceived. Martensen, in the quotation above, in- 
 timates that God needed to let us remain in 
 doubt for our good. It amounts to saying that 
 God needed to so speak to us in his word as to 
 deceive us for our good, and is practically saying,
 
 THE ETER.V1TY OF PUNISHMENT. 43 
 
 "God does evil that good may come of it "- 
 Jesuit ethics hardly compatible with the divine 
 character ! 
 
 We readily grant that God can, consistently 
 with his character, and does, reserve many 
 things among the secrets of his counsel and 
 ways ; but this is very different from so reveal- 
 ing a doctrine as to cause it to deceive.* Shall 
 the truth of God abound through his lie ? " God 
 forbid." The thought is dishonoring to God, and 
 there is no alternative but to accept the doctrine 
 as it appears, and has always appeared, to those 
 who were willing to receive the manifest, and not 
 some forced, interpretation of the divine Word. 
 
 2. May it not be said that if it were not so 
 Christ would have told us, as he said concerning 
 another matter, on the eve of his departure ? 
 (John xiv, i.) This seems inevitable unless we 
 are ready to accept the conclusion above drawn. 
 
 3. Uncertainty is practical certainty of resto- 
 ration. This is so true that even those writers 
 
 * This is manifest, not only from what the above writers say, 
 but also from the almost universal belief of Christendom in all 
 the ages. Surely, if for eighteen centuries the Christian world 
 has been persuaded of this doctrine, and the doctrine is not 
 true, their deception is not surprising, and especially when the 
 best that negative scholarship can do to-day is to claim a posi- 
 tion of nescience or agnosticism.
 
 44 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 who claim to be agnostics on the subject cherish 
 such a large hope as to allay all alarm ; and the 
 hope they express is in many quarters proving 
 an effective anaesthetic to many willing souls. 
 The uncertainty of such writers is only verbal ; 
 the whole tenor and drift of their arguments is 
 toward certainty of restoration. While Farrar 
 disclaims Universalism, he nevertheless teaches 
 it. Dr. Pusey points out this inconsistency in 
 Farrar. He says: " It is difficult for another to 
 understand the difference between a ' dogma* 
 of Universalism' which the author 'dares not 
 lay down,' and ' a hope' which is also ' a doc- 
 trine ; ' ' a truth/ ' truths, which have been dis- 
 placed by groundless opinions, and which are 
 necessary for the purity, almost for the very ex- 
 istence, of that faith which is the one sole hope 
 of the suffering world ; ' ' a doctrine which alone 
 can stem the spread of infidelity ;' ^essential to 
 thinking 'noble thoughts of God'" (What is 
 of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment? p. 26). 
 
 * A favorite device with many in the Church who teach what 
 is contrary to the Scriptures is to shield themselves by claiming 
 not to teach "dogma," but to hold "opinion." Witness the 
 Andover heresy. It may be a legitimate thing to hold specula- 
 tive opinions about non-essentials not revealed ; but not so con- 
 cerning such facts as probation and punishment, so essential 
 and clearly revealed.
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 45 
 
 Thus, too, Whiton, whose positive assumptions 
 are so modest as almost to disarm opposition, 
 says: "But it any reader be inclined to com- 
 plain, after reading this essay, that it has added 
 nothing to things previously known, the writer 
 would remind him that it is often as serviceable 
 to the cause of truth to define the limits of our 
 knowledge as to extend them. To be assured 
 what one is not required to believe is often help- 
 ful to a doubt-encompassed soul, and vital to its 
 victory in the conflict between faith and unbe- 
 lief. Ignorant must he be of the phases of re- 
 ligious experience who does not know that in 
 this way many a struggling swimmer may be 
 lightened of a weight that threatens to engulf 
 him in the depths of infidelity" (Is "Eternal" 
 Punishment Endless ? p. xiii). Surely, if one is not 
 required to believe the doctrine, and the doubt 
 so necessary that " many a struggling swimmer 
 may be lightened of a weight that threatens to 
 engulf him in the depths of infidelity" may be 
 entertained, the result is, practically, restora- 
 tionism, so far as faith is concerned. Clearly, 
 the Bible cannot leave us in the doubt that be- 
 gets such inconsistency. The fact is, there is no 
 middle position, except in assertion, between 
 belief of the doctrine and unbelief. The con-
 
 46 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 elusion is inevitable ; the doctrine is a terrible 
 reality; and instead of in fact holding out a de- 
 lusive hope under the modest assumption of 
 "nescience," the doctrine should be proclaimed 
 (if ever so unpleasant, as it must be to all who 
 sincerely proclaim it), and all should take the 
 warning it involves. 
 
 We have now completed a survey of all the 
 leading evidence that we think can fairly be 
 urged as furnishing ground for the doctrine. We 
 might have given quotations from the Old Testa- 
 ment ; but have not done so for the reason that we 
 think Old Testament evidence is subsidiary and 
 of secondary importance, and we have been giv- 
 ing that which is primary and conclusive. We 
 must read the Old Testament teaching in the 
 light of the New. There are a few other points, 
 however, that may be briefly mentioned as furnish- 
 ing corroboration to the proof already adduced. 
 
 i. The first point is that the Jews in Christ's 
 day believed in the endlessness of the punish- 
 ment of the wicked, so that speaking to his dis- 
 ciples as Christ did they could not get any other 
 impression from the unqualified language that he 
 used. We do not mean to affirm that this was 
 the only doctrine held by the Jews of Christ's 
 time, but that it was held. Dr. Pusey says:
 
 THE ETERNITY OF . PUNISHMENT. 47 
 
 "Belief in the eternity of future punishment is 
 contained in the Book of Judith, in the fourth 
 Book of Maccabees, in the so-called Psalms of 
 Solomon : the second death is mentioned in the 
 Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan : Josephus at- 
 tests the belief of the Pharisees and the Essenes 
 in the eternity of punishment" (What is of 
 Faith, etc., p. 50). These books to which Dr. 
 Pusey refers were written before or soon after 
 the time of our Lord. So, also, Edersheim, who 
 is a master in this field of research, concerning 
 the teaching immediately before the time of 
 Christ of the schools of Shammai and Hillel, 
 says : " The former arranged all mankind into 
 three classes : the perfectly righteous, who are 
 ' immediately written and sealed to eternal life ; ' 
 the perfectly wicked, who are ' immediately writ- 
 ten and sealed to Gehenna; ' and an interme- 
 diate class, who ' go down to Gehinnom, and 
 moan, and come up again,' according to Zech. 
 xiii, 9, and which seemed also indicated in cer- 
 tain words in the song of Hannah (i Sam. ii, 6). 
 The careful reader will notice that this statement 
 implies belief in eternal punishment on the part 
 of the school of Shammai. For (i) the per- 
 fectly wicked are spoken of as ' written and 
 sealed unto Gehenna ; ' (2) the school of Sham-
 
 48 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 mai expressly quotes, in support of what it 
 teaches about these wicked, Dan. xii, 2, a pas- 
 sage which undoubtedly refers to the final judg- 
 ment after the resurrection ; (3) the perfectly 
 wicked, so punished, are expressly distinguished 
 from the third, or intermediate class, who merely 
 ' <zo down to Gehinnom ' but are not ' written and 
 
 o 
 
 sealed,' and 'come up again'" (Life and Tunes 
 of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix to vol. ii, p. 792). 
 Now, in view of this fact, how is it possible to un- 
 derstand Christ's language on the subject (Matt. 
 xxv, 46 ; Mark ix, 43-48, et a!.) with the hope of 
 final restoration of all men to life and happiness ? 
 His listeners could not mistake his meaning.* 
 
 2. The fact of endless punishment is con- 
 firmed by the fact of the atonement. We say 
 confirmed, not proved ; for conceivably Christ, 
 in mercy, might have suffered and died to de- 
 liver from the limited future punishment that is 
 said, even by Restorationists,f to await the im- 
 
 * If the reader desires further to examine the question pro 
 and contra concerning the belief of the Jews on this subject, let 
 him consult the recent works upon it, especially those of Pusey 
 and Farrar (ut supra}, and also the work of Dr. Love, Future 
 Probation Examined, chap. vii. Also, Schiirer's The Jewish 
 People in the Time of Jesus Christ, vol. ii, pp. 181-183. 
 
 f Many of these make the punishment of the wicked to last 
 for "ages upon ages." We here take no account of the logical 
 and theological inconsistency that attributes the salvation of 
 men to Christ after the penalty.
 
 THE ETERNITY OF PUN1SHME.\ ! 49 
 
 penitent in the other world. But the endless- 
 ness of future punishment more easily and fully 
 explains the infinite sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 3. So, also, the apparent need of the doctrine 
 confirms the other evidence of its reality. The 
 familiar saying that the " fear of hell peoples 
 heaven" has some force, if not as much as is 
 sometimes claimed for it. 
 
 Are there not already signs of religious decay as 
 a result of the decline of faith in this doctrine? 
 Besides, the fact is that a decline of evangelical 
 faith and religion has accompanied, and is to-day 
 accompanying, the dissemination of this error. 
 Universalism is of close kin to Unitarian ism 
 (History of Rationalism, by Bishop John F. 
 Hurst, pp. 560, 561). On the other hand, the 
 most aggressive Christian work has been, and is 
 to-day being, done by the Churches that accept 
 the doctrine, as, for example, witness our own 
 Church. 
 
 4. The last confirmatory argument that we 
 give is the belief of the Church. Our claim for 
 this is of the slightest character. Of itself it 
 would amount to nothing; but in connection 
 with the other facts given it is of some weight. 
 We are not ready to say the great mass of Chris- 
 tian believers, both before and since the Ref- 
 
 4
 
 50 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 ormation, have been deceived on this subject, 
 except in the light of the clearest proof. 
 
 In conclusion, let it be said that the arguments 
 presented corroborate and strengthen each oth- 
 er, and that the entire force of the proof of this 
 doctrine is not in the single points presented, 
 however strong these may be, but in the com- 
 bined strength of each and all together. When 
 thus considered we do not see how, from ex- 
 egetical considerations, the doctrine can be hon- 
 estly denied.
 
 " Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous 
 sad, whom I have not made sad ; and strengthened the hands 
 of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, 
 by promising him life." Ezek. xiii, 22. 
 
 "Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, 
 Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, 
 prophesy deceits." Isa. xxx, lo.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Objections and Arguments of Restorationists. 
 
 THE objections to the doctrine of future end- 
 less retribution are said to be both rational 
 and scriptural. We propose in the present place 
 to notice the most important of these in this 
 order, namely, (I) those that are urged from rea- 
 son and (II) those that are accounted scriptural. 
 
 I. OBJECTIONS FROM REASON. 
 
 I. First, under this category, is to be named 
 the objection from justice. The objection in 
 brief is as follows : God cannot be unjust, and 
 he, therefore, cannot punish the wicked forever. 
 It is seldom or never urged in this direct manner ; 
 but, disrobed of all its rhetorical dress and made 
 to stand clearly before the mind as it is, it is thus 
 properly expressed. It has two wholly different 
 propositions (with an enormous assumption for 
 a minor premise) that need to be kept thoroughly 
 apart in our thought or treatment of the subject. 
 The first proposition that God cannot be unjust 
 no one will dispute. We know this because
 
 54 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 of his character as revealed in his Word : " Right- 
 eousness and judgment are the foundation of thy 
 throne " (Psa. Ixxxix, 14). " Righteous and true 
 are thy ways, thou King of the ages " (Rev. xv, 3). 
 Nor is his justice based upon his might, but upon 
 his character. God has a right to do as he pleases ; 
 but, happily for us, he pleases to do the right. 
 "God is love." Upon his love is built his jus- 
 tice. Neither is his justice some abstract, met- 
 aphysical quality wholly unlike the same senti- 
 ment in ourselves.* We fully accept the fact that 
 God's sentiment of both justice and love is the 
 same in kind as ours. The difference is in degree 
 only. God is perfect and we imperfect. The 
 same is true of all the corresponding attributes 
 of each. 
 
 The second proposition would be true only on 
 the ground of the assumed truthfulness of the 
 suppressed minor premise in the argument, 
 namely, that it would be unjust in God to punish 
 sin in this life with endless suffering. But, clearly, 
 
 * Canon Row devotes much of his argument from reason against 
 future endless punishment to the refutation of this false con- 
 ception of the sentiimnt of justice in God, and to the refutation 
 of the same view of the love of God. It is safe to say that this 
 is the position of hut few Christian writers, and that the Chris- 
 tian Church has always accepted, with Dr. Row, the sameness 
 in kind of the divine attributes with those of all moral intel- 
 ligences. (See Row's Future Retribution, pp. 20-27.)
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 55 
 
 this is the thing to be proved. Nor has any one 
 done so, and for the manifest reason that it is 
 beyond the range of proof. We are not familiar 
 enough with the facts involved to be able ration- 
 ally to decide the matter ; and, in view of the 
 manifest teaching of the Scriptures as to the 
 endlessness of future punishment, it becomes us 
 to " Stand in awe, and sin not." The question 
 is not one of justice, but of knowledge ; and, 
 clearly, we are not in the position to know the 
 guilt and necessary punishment of sin. Omnis- 
 cience alone is equal to such knowledge, and the 
 knowledge can become ours not by insight, but 
 alone by revelation. What the revelation is we 
 have seen in the foregoing chapter. 
 
 We venture a few remarks that may throw 
 some light upon this subject : 
 
 (i) The guilt and necessary punishment of sin 
 are to be viewed in the light of man's greatness 
 and responsibility as revealed in the Bible. If 
 man is simply a highly developed animal, with no 
 more or little more freedom than the intelligent 
 brute, then the matter of eternal guilt and pun- 
 ishment is clearly untenable ; but if as to his 
 spirit man has the " image of God," as is taught 
 in the Scriptures, and is a free moral agent in 
 any proper sense of the phrase, then, clearly,
 
 5tf FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 eternal guilt and eternal punishment, in view of 
 the necessity of the latter, are not contradictory 
 or absurd. Man's greatness has something to do 
 with his eternal guilt in deliberate sin. 
 
 It is to be observed that all Restorationists 
 more or less excuse man's guilt. 
 
 (2) Further light is thrown upon this subject 
 in view of the fact that sin is committed against 
 God. We are not prepared to affirm, with Dr. 
 Shedd, that sin against an infinite being must 
 have infinite guilt. We have no knowledge of 
 the Infinite and of sin to justify us in such an 
 assumption. But \ve are prepared to say simply 
 that sinning against God adds culpability to our 
 sin. For the rest we can adopt the words of the 
 eminent author just referred to: "To torture a 
 dumb beast is a crime ; to torture a man is a 
 greater crime. To steal from one's own mother 
 is more heinous than to steal from a fellow-citizen. 
 The person who transgresses is the same in each 
 instance; but the different worth and dignity of 
 the objects upon whom his action terminates 
 makes the difference in the gravity of the two 
 offenses. David's adultery was a finite evil in 
 reference to Uriah, but an infinite evil [we prefer 
 to say, ' much greater evil.' not because we know 
 that it was not infinite, but because we do rot
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 57 
 
 know, from this stand-point, that it was] in refer- 
 ence to God. 'Against thee only have I sinned,' 
 was the feeling of the sinner in this case. Had 
 the patriarch Joseph yielded, he would have 
 sinned against Pharaoh. But the greatness of 
 the sin as related to the fellow-creature is lost in 
 its enormity as related to the Creator, and his 
 only question is : ' How can I do this great 
 wickedness and sin against God?' ' (Dogmatic 
 Theology, vol. ii, p. 740.) 
 
 (3) Another fact that throws light upon the 
 subject is that guilt must last forever. If a man 
 commits a crime he may pay the penalty that 
 human law has attached to it, and conceivably 
 that that divine law has attached to it,* and yet 
 the fact and guilt of sin remain. Even a sinner 
 forgiven is a forgiven sinner; the fact and guilt 
 of his sin can never be canceled. In all eternity 
 we believe the saved will be conscious that they 
 are sinners saved from uncanceled guilt. We 
 speak of sin and guilt as canceled or destroyed, 
 and in popular language it expresses a glorious 
 redemptive truth the truth of forgiveness but 
 in fact and from a metaphysical stand-point both 
 are never-ending. 
 
 * This is said with the momentary conjecture that the penalty 
 i^ limited in duration.
 
 58 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 2. The objection from the divine love. We 
 stop simply for a moment to consider the objec- 
 tion urged from this stand-point. It is said that 
 God cannot suffer a soul to perish forever; that 
 his infinite love will cause him to follow the last 
 lost sheep into the wilderness until he find it. 
 
 To this we reply that it is in God not a matter 
 of disposition, but a matter of ability. We have 
 no hesitancy in saying that if God could he 
 would save the last lost soul in the universe, and 
 that he would spare no cost to do so. But we 
 have all reason for believing that all his divine 
 resources for the salvation of men are exhausted 
 in the infinite sacrifice of the cross; that when 
 God gave his Son for the world's redemption he 
 exhausted the infinite treasury of grace and 
 power, and that no other terms of salvation could 
 be proposed than those given in the Scriptures. 
 
 The necessity of future punishment we reserve 
 for a separate treatment (chap. viii). 
 
 It may be further said in response to this 
 objection that it may be urged with equal plaus- 
 ibility, and in fact is so urged by the infidel, 
 against the divine providential ordering and gov- 
 erning of this world. Except in the face of facts 
 we would be equally inclined to object to many 
 things in this world as incompatible with the
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 59 
 
 character of a benevolent Creator. But facts are 
 stubborn things, and we have to reconcile them 
 as best we can. So, also, is this revealed fact of 
 endless retribution. Butler long ago pointed 
 out this analogy, and it is needless to dwell upon 
 it longer. 
 
 3. The objection from the divine omniscience. 
 It is sometimes urged that the foreknowledge of 
 God, in view of his love, is incompatible with the 
 fact of endless punishment ; that God, foreknow- 
 ing that some would be lost forever, would have 
 refrained from creating the human race. Some, 
 to evade this difficulty, as well as the difficulty 
 of evil in general in the universe, deny to God 
 the foreknowledge of contingent events. But 
 without denying this scriptural fact we may ad- 
 vance in mitigation of the difficulty the follo\v- 
 ing facts: (i) The creation of man was a benev- 
 olent act. (2) While man is not responsible for 
 the inclination to sin with which he is born, he, 
 nevertheless, having sufficient grace given him 
 whereby to overcome this and all actual sin if he 
 choose, is responsible for actual sin. Man is a 
 free being. (3) God, in creating the race of men, 
 intended all to be saved (2 Pet. iii,9). (4) None 
 will be lost but those who w ill not be saved (John 
 v, 40). Damnation is a thing of deliberate choice.
 
 6 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 (5) The race, as such, will in all probability be 
 saved. (This point will be dwelt upon in a sub- 
 sequent chapter, v.) 
 
 With these qualifications the objections from 
 this stand-point vanish. It is by forgetting or 
 ignoring them, especially man's freedom, that 
 the objections find place. 
 
 4. The objection from teleology. The objec- 
 tion from this stand-point asks, with Martensen, 
 the almost stunning question : " Must this world's 
 development, then, ertd in a dualism?" Will 
 evil continue forever in a benevolent universe 
 along with the good ? 
 
 It is one of the most serious difficulties with 
 which the doctrine of future retribution has to 
 contend ; but, however difficult and startling the 
 thought may be, it can weigh nothing against a 
 clearly revealed fact of the divine Word. Besides, 
 as Dorner, who certainly is not biased toward the 
 orthodox doctrine, says, " The objective reason 
 why no categorical affirmation [concerning apok- 
 atastasis] can be made on dogmatic grounds lies 
 in human freedom. It does not admit the asser- 
 tion of a universal process leading necessarily to 
 salvation, because such process is and remains 
 conditioned by non-rejection and free acceptance" 
 (System of Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 424; ;
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 61 
 
 only we would limit the influence of freedom to 
 this life in deciding destiny. The further reason 
 of this eternal dualism will be discussed in an- 
 other place (chap. viii). 
 
 Other objections of this class, more or less in- 
 volved in those already given, need not be con- 
 sidered. 
 
 II. OBJECTIONS FROM THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 All the objections from this stand-point are 
 urged chiefly with reference to the word aiuviog 
 in Matt, xxv, 46, and such phrases as " eternal 
 fire" (TO -rrvp TO aiuviov), "unquenchable fire" 
 (TO Trtyj TO aottecrrov), " unto ages " (el<; alu>va), 
 " unto the ages of ages " (ei$ rov<; aluvag r&v 
 aton'on'), etc. 
 
 I. As to the word a'uoviog in Matthew, it is as- 
 serted by some that it cannot mean eternal ; by 
 others, simply that it does not mean eternal. 
 Both assertions are made, so far as we have been 
 able to judge, principally on the ground that in 
 some cases, and etymologically, it does not mean 
 eternal. We know no writer who pretends to 
 assert in either case the contrary. On the other 
 hand, they all acknowledge that aiuv the sub- 
 stantive form of which aioinoc is a derivative 
 adjective etymologically means an " age," and
 
 62 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 that al&viot; itself is often used both in the Greek 
 writers, in the Septuagint (where it is used in the 
 translation of the Hebrew D?iy, a word that has 
 in the Old Testament an almost parallel signifi- 
 cation with the word aluv in its uses in the New 
 Testament ; due, no doubt, to the fact that the 
 New Testament writers used the Septuagint ver- 
 sion of the older Scriptures), and in the New 
 Testament in the sense of limited duration. But 
 the question to be considered is whether it ever 
 means " eternal." 
 
 Those who assert that the word never means 
 eternal do so in the face of many indubitable 
 facts to the contrary. From the Scriptures we 
 insist that it does so mean in reference to God 
 and the future life of the righteous. (Examine 
 Rom. xvi, 26; 2 Cor. iv, 17; v, I ; Heb. v, 9; 
 ix, 15.) Lexicographers also tell us that the 
 word has in some instances the same meaning in 
 the Greek classics. (See Thayer, Greek-English 
 Lexicon of the New Testament, in loco*'] 
 
 The particular question, then, for us to con- 
 
 * It will not detract from the argument to remind the reader 
 that the word " eternal " is not only a translation of the Greek 
 aluvcof, but that it is identical with it. " The Greek aluv (aeon) 
 is one and the same with the Latin avum, and from this we 
 get avitas and tzviternus, with their shortened forms, cetas and 
 telernvs."
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 63 
 
 sider is, Does the word mean eternal in this 
 place ? That it does may be inferred not only 
 from the fact that there is no reason for the 
 assertion to the contrary, but also from the 
 correlated facts adduced in the Scripture proofs 
 of the doctrine of punishment (chap. l). 
 
 2. As to the phrases " unto ages," " unto the 
 ages of ages," etc., it is sometimes said that they 
 cannot signify " eternal," for no amount of mul- 
 tiplication of " ages " can make an eternity. 
 
 Our response to this is that these plural forms 
 and phrases are rhetorical expressions intended 
 to emphasize and deepen the impression of eter- 
 nity, like our own " for ever and ever." And 
 that they signify absolute endlessness it is sur- 
 prising that any one can deny. That they do so 
 signify is manifest from the following Scriptures : 
 " If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for- 
 ever" (elg rbv aiuva) (John vi, 51). " He that eat- 
 eth this bread shall live forever " (John vi, 
 58). " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever " 
 (e/'f rbv aiuva rov atojvo^) (Heb. i, 8). "And they 
 shall reign for ever and ever " ($ rovg aitivag rCjv 
 atojvtov) (Rev. xxii, 5). 
 
 3. Concerning the phrase "eternal fire," it is 
 objected : Even if the word aluvtog here does 
 mean " eternal," still the phrase signifies nothing
 
 64 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 as to the eternity of punishment, for it is the 
 "fire" that is eternal and not the punishment, 
 the instrument of punishment and not the pun- 
 ishment itself. The same is said with reference 
 to the phrases " unquenchable fire," " the fire is 
 not quenched," etc. 
 
 It is sufficient to reply to this that such is not 
 the impression that one naturally gets from read- 
 ing this terrible language. The words have to 
 be explained to mean this. And again, unless 
 the " fire " of future punishment in the New Tes- 
 tament represents some external instrument of 
 torture (a thing that few Universalists will be 
 willing to admit), it cannot last forever. Other- 
 wise, it must in the nature of things cease to be 
 when the punishment ceases. Besides, if it be 
 even thought that the instrument is external, it 
 is inconceivable that it shall continue forever, its 
 function and use having come to an end. 
 
 " Eternal " and " unquenchable " fire can mean 
 nothing less, therefore, than eternal punishment. 
 
 4. It is asserted further by some that the word 
 aluviog in the New Testament connotates a qual- 
 itative and not a quantitative meaning ; that 
 " eternal life " signifies the kind of life those in 
 Christ enjoy, and has no reference to its duration ; 
 and that " eternal punishment " signifies the kind
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. Go 
 
 of punishment the wicked must endure, and has 
 no reference to its duration. For the Christian 
 not versed in Greek and not used to scientific 
 study it may be looked upon simply as " figu- 
 rative " (Whtton, Is " Eternal" Punishment End- 
 less ? p. xii). 
 
 We content ourselves in response with a single 
 remark, namely, that not only does the quanti- 
 tative sense of the word suit the connection in 
 all cases in which it is used in the New Testa- 
 ment (Biblical Eschatology, A. Hovey, p. 163) ; 
 and not only is the word "life" used by John 
 to signify the quality of our existence in Christ 
 without the word " eternal " (John iii, 36; v, 24; 
 vi, 33, etc.) ; but that in none of the instances of 
 its use is the impression naturally made that the 
 word has the qualitative signification. The word 
 that expresses quality of existence in Christ in 
 the phrase ''eternal life" is the word "life," 
 and the word " eternal " simply governs the life 
 as to its duration. When St. John speaks of 
 " eternal life " as a present possession, and St. 
 Paul speaks of it as a hope (Rom. ii, 7 ; Tit. 
 i, 2 ; iii, 7), the thought is in every case " the 
 life which is eternal," the first word signifying 
 the quality and the second the quantity or du- 
 ration of existence. 
 K
 
 66 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 Another form of this same objection is that 
 which asserts that the word aiuvtog signifies simply 
 " pertaining to eternity." This also, however, will 
 not bear the test of the laws of lexicography. 
 
 Still another form of the objection is that 
 which asserts that the word has an "absolute" 
 signification ; that in its use in the Scriptures it 
 denotes that which is above time. The objection 
 in this form is associated with the notion that 
 time and eternity are exclusive ideas, and that 
 with regard to God and eternal things it is not 
 proper to postulate succession or duration of 
 existence. On this ground it is asserted that 
 when the word aluvio<; is used with reference to 
 the life after death it signifies nothing as to du- 
 ration, and hence that it signifies nothing as to 
 the extent of future punishment. 
 
 In response to this k will be sufficient to quote 
 the following words of Plumptre, a well-known 
 scholar of the first rank, and one whose testi- 
 mony will not be thought to favor through tra- 
 ditional prejudice the common view. As to the 
 word aluvioc;, after referring to many instances of 
 its use in the New Testament, he says : " It 
 might seem as if this were a sufficient induction 
 to establish the conclusion that the word served 
 to express the fullest thought that man could
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 67 
 
 grasp of absolute limitless duration " (T lie Spirits 
 in Prison, p. 361). As to the thought of time 
 being eliminated from the thought of eternity in 
 the Scriptures, he says: "I find it impossible to 
 conceive of life, either human or divine, apart 
 from the idea of duration," and then shows from 
 such passages as Rev. i, 8; Psa. cxxxv, 13; 
 cxxxvi, 1-26, that, separate from the word ottovto^, 
 the idea of duration is expressly given in connec- 
 tion with the idea of the divine Being (ibid., p. 368. 
 The whole connection will repay examination). 
 
 III. ARGUMENTS OF UNIVERSALISTS. 
 
 We next turn to the most important argu- 
 ments of the Universalist, by which he seeks to 
 establish his pleasing claim. Many arguments 
 from this source are too artificial to deserve seri- 
 ous notice. Those which we propose to examine 
 are of two kinds : (I) Those urged from specific 
 passages of Scripture, and (II) those that claim 
 to be legitimate deductions from certain general 
 principles. 
 
 A preliminary word as to method. Few writers 
 of this class have any regard for sound laws of 
 exegesis. In the matter of specific texts, in nearly 
 all cases the context is wholly ignored. Few, 
 however, are so outspoken in their disregard for
 
 68 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 particular passages of Scripture as is Dr. Cox in 
 the following quotation : 
 
 " For myself I am glad that this necessary, yet 
 less welcome and less conclusive, part of our task 
 is over, and that we may pass on and up from 
 these minute critical investigations to breathe a 
 larger air and to move freely along a higher path. 
 For not only does it cramp and deaden the spirit 
 that is in man to tarry long in the low valley of 
 mere criticism, where the atmosphere is com- 
 monly charged with the elements of polemical 
 strife ; but it is also impossible for him, until he 
 climb up out of it, to gain any broad, decisive, 
 and inspiring view of the truth for which he con- 
 tends. For no conclusion can be safely based on 
 the study of scattered and isolated texts;" by 
 which he means particular passages of Scripture, 
 such as he has already examined (Salvaior 
 Mundi, p. 148). 
 
 Before passing to the more particular consid- 
 eration of our present topic, we beg leave to 
 remind the Universalist who claims so much for 
 principles, and who has so little regard for specific 
 texts, that all his so-called principles are but in- 
 ductions from particular statements of the divine 
 Word. What, for example, is the principle of 
 divine love but an induction from such passages
 
 OftJ/-:C7'JV.\'S .l.Y/) AKGUAfENTS. 69 
 
 of Scripture as " For God so loved the world, 
 that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso- 
 ever believeth on him should not perish, but 
 have eternal life," and "God is love?" Or, 
 again, what is the principle of the divine " un- 
 changeableness " but an induction from such 
 passages as these : " For I the Lord change not " 
 (Mai. iii, 6), " Every good gift and every perfect 
 boon is from above, coming down from the 
 Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, 
 neither shadow that is cast by turning" (Jas. 
 i, 17)? We would remind the Universalist still 
 further that these so-called principles of his are 
 not, properly speaking, principles at all, but re- 
 vealed facts; or, if he insists on saying they are 
 revealed principles, we reply that endless suffering 
 is as much a revealed principle, on this assump- 
 tion, as is the divine love or unchangeableness. 
 We prefer to say, however, that they are revealed 
 facts, all of them ; and whether we stand on the 
 summit or not from which we can see their har- 
 mony and reconciliation, as revealed they are to 
 be accepted in our thinking and life, and should 
 govern our teaching and conduct. 
 
 Furthermore, we can have no controversy upon 
 the subject with those whose method is to sub- 
 ordinate the teaching of Scripture to the so-called
 
 70 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 dictates of reason and the moral sense. We are 
 not rationalists, and are unwilling to apply in 
 practice a principle which we ignore in profession. 
 Our only contention, then, will be with those 
 who claim to get their specific teaching and 
 principles of reasoning from the divine Word. 
 
 I. Arguments from so-called principles, or de- 
 ductions from undisputed Scripture facts. 
 
 I. First among these we place that which is 
 urged on the ground of the divine unchange- 
 ableness. This argument has various forms and 
 illustrations, but in substance asserts that since 
 God is unchangeable, and has dealt with men in 
 the past, and deals with them in the present, on 
 certain principles of mercy and patience, he will 
 always so deal with them, and hence that the 
 door of grace will .never be closed upon their 
 return to life and happiness. 
 
 The insuperable difficulty with the argument, 
 however, is that it proves too much; for if the 
 final restoration of all men is a legitimate infer- 
 ence on the ground of the divine unchangeable- 
 ness from the principle and fact of past and pres- 
 ent dealings of mercy, then equally may eternal 
 wrath be deduced, on the same ground, from the 
 fact that in this life in certain instances the door 
 of repentance has been closed upon the persist-
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 71 
 
 ently wicked. Witness, for example, the ante- 
 diluvians who perished in the flood, and Esau 
 (Heb. xii, 17), besides the many cases in which 
 the door of return has been closed, and is being 
 closed to-day, upon those who have forfeited or 
 wasted their powers and opportunities, as seen 
 outside of the Scriptures. The fact is, the di- 
 vine unchangeableness proves no more than what 
 is revealed concerning it, and this is consistent 
 with the equally revealed fact of punishment. 
 Moreover, the divine unchangeableness, in view 
 of the Scriptures which affirm that sin persisted 
 in conducts to an irretrievable ruin, is to be 
 urged with all its force on the side of the teach- 
 ing of the orthodox Church. Because God who 
 changes not has declared, " The soul that sinneth, 
 it shall die," therefore we accept the plain and ter- 
 rible teaching of the divine Word, and urge men to 
 immediate repentance. Any other use of this fact, 
 in view of all that is revealed, is wresting the 
 Scriptures to one's own destruction (2 Pet. iii, 16). 
 2. The divine love. We have sufficiently 
 considered this in another place, and stop here 
 to add a word only. There can be no conten- 
 tion between the Universalist and the orthodox 
 believer at this point.* The love of God is as 
 
 *\\~e mean, of course, the Trinitarian Universalist.
 
 72 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 much a cherished fact to the one as to the other. 
 We both measure the love of God in the light of 
 the cross. The difference between us is in our 
 inferential assertion from this fact. The Uni- 
 versalist says, " God is love ; therefore he will 
 ultimately save all men." We say, " God is 
 love, and desires to save all men, but cannot 
 save those who in life will not be saved." The 
 reason of future endless retribution, as before 
 intimated, will be considered later on. 
 
 3. Sufficient has also been said concerning the 
 divine justice. 
 
 4. Another fact which is virtually (Martensen), 
 and sometimes actually (Jukes), urged as an 
 argument in favor of final universal restoration 
 is what is called by some an " antinomy " in the 
 Scriptures, and by others an " apparent contra- 
 diction." Sometimes this so-called antinomy, 
 or apparent contradiction, is attempted to be 
 explained, and in the interest of restoration ; 
 again, it is left unexplained with a secret hope 
 that beneath the mystery lies a deep purpose of 
 benevolence that will finally compass the salva- 
 tion of all men. The facts on which this doc- 
 trine is built may best be stated in the language 
 of its advocates. 
 
 "This antinomy meets us if we turn to the
 
 OBJT.C'I IOXS AXD ARi'.l'MENTS. 73 
 
 Holy Scriptures, and no definite solution is given 
 of it there. There are texts which, if they be 
 taken in their full and literal import, most dis- 
 tinctly refer to eternal damnation. When the 
 Lord speak\of ' everlasting fire, prepared for the 
 devil and his angels ; ' when he speaks of ' the 
 worm that dieth not, and the fire which shall 
 not be quenched ; ' when he mentions sins 
 against the Holy Ghost, which ' shall never be 
 forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that which 
 is to come' (Mark ix, 43; Matt, xii, 32); when 
 the apostle John declares that there is a sin unto 
 death, for which a man must not pray (i John 
 v, 16), these texts, if they be taken without 
 reservation or refinement, clearly express the 
 idea of a condemnation in which there is no 
 cessation, to which there is no end. But, on the 
 other hand, there are contrasted expressions of 
 Scripture which have an equal claim to be taken 
 in their full sense. When the apostle Paul says 
 that ' the last enemy that shall be destroyed is 
 death' (therefore the other, the second death; 
 because otherwise there would still remain an 
 unconquerable enemy) ; when he speaks of the 
 time 'when God shall be all in all ' (i Cor. xv, 
 26-28), without referring to any contrast what- 
 ever between blessed and condemned ; when he
 
 74 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 states, without any reservations, that ' all things 
 shall be gathered together in Christ ' (Eph. i, 10) 
 as the Head, that ' as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive ' (i Cor. xv, 22), 
 if we take these texts without limiting their full 
 and obvious import, we shall not be far from the 
 idea of a universal restoration ; for the apostle 
 says expressly ALL, not some. (Compare Matt. 
 xix, 26!) This apparent contradiction in the 
 language of Scripture shows that Scripture itself 
 does not afford us a final dogmatic solution of 
 the question. He who seeks to establish the 
 doctrine of (aTroKardoraot^ universal restoration 
 must invalidate those texts which make mention 
 of eternal damnation, must limit and pare them 
 down according to this idea ; and he who would 
 establish eternal damnation as a dogma by 
 means of Scripture is obliged to limit and pare 
 down those texts which speak for the arroKard- 
 araoig, according to this idea : for example, when 
 the apostle says, ' As in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive,' he must ex- 
 plain the second ' all ' as meaning ' some,' and 
 he must take the first ' all ' in a particular and 
 equally restricted sense. We readily grant that 
 the Word of God cannot contradict itself, and 
 that the antinomy here presented must really be
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMEN1 ' S. 75 
 
 solved in the depth of God's Word. We only 
 maintain that this solution is nowhere expressly 
 given ; and we ask whether we may not recog- 
 nize divine wisdom in the fact that a final solu- 
 tion is not given us, while we are still in the 
 stream of time and in the course of develop- 
 ment?" (Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 
 
 475. 4/6.) 
 
 Again : " What, then, does Scripture say on 
 this subject ? Its testimony appears at first 
 sight contradictory. Not only is there on the 
 one hand law, condemning all, while on the other 
 hand there is the Gospel, with good news for 
 every one ; but, further, there are direct state- 
 ments as to the results of these, which at first 
 sight are apparently irreconcilable. First our 
 Lord calls his flock ' a little flock,' and states 
 distinctly that ' many are called, but few are 
 chosen ; ' that ' strait is the .gate, and narrow 
 is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there 
 be that find it ; ' that ' many shall seek to enter 
 in, and shall not be able;' that while 'he that 
 believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, he 
 that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but 
 the wrath of God abideth on him ;' that ' the 
 wicked shall go away into everlasting punish- 
 ment,' ' prepared for the devil and his angels;'
 
 76 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 ' the resurrection of damnation ;' ' the damnation 
 of hell,' ' where their worm dieth not, and the fire 
 is not quenched ;' that though ' every word 
 against the Son of man may be forgiven, the sin 
 against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, 
 neither in this world, nor in that which is to come ; ' 
 and that of one at least it is true, that ' good had 
 it been for that man if he had not been born.' 
 
 ***** 
 " Words could not well be stronger. The 
 difficulty is that all this is but one side of Script- 
 ure, which in other places seems to teach a 
 very different doctrine. For instance, there are 
 first the words of God himself, repeated again 
 and again by those same apostles whom I have 
 just quoted, that ' in Abraham's seed all the 
 kindreds of the earth shall be blessed ' words 
 which St. Peter expounds to mean that there 
 shall be 'a restitution of all things,' adding th.it 
 ' God hath spoken of this by the mouth of all his 
 holy prophets since the world began.' St. Paul 
 further declares this wondrous ' mystery of God's 
 will, that he hath purposed in himself, according 
 to his good pleasure, to rehead and reconcile 
 unto himself, in and by Christ, all things, 
 whether they be things in heaven ' that is, the 
 spirit-world, where the conflict with Satan yet is
 
 OBJF.CTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 77 
 
 'or things on earth' that is, this outward world, 
 where death now reigns, and where even God's 
 elect are by nature children of wrath, even as 
 other men. Further, St. Paul asserts that 'all 
 creation, which now groans, shall be delivered 
 from the bondage of corruption, into the glori- 
 ous liberty of the children of God." In another 
 place he declares that ' God was in Christ recon- 
 ciling the world unto himself,' and that Christ 
 'took our flesh and blood, through death to de- 
 stroy him that had the power of death, that is, 
 the devil ;' that ' if by the offense of one many 
 be dead, much more the grace of God and the 
 gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, 
 hath abounded unto many ;' that ' therefore as by 
 the offense of one, or by one offense, judgment 
 came on all to condemnation, even so by the 
 righteousness of one, or by one righteousness, 
 the free gift should come on all unto justification 
 of life,' while ' they which receive abundance of 
 grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign 
 in life by one, Jesus Christ;' that 'as sin hath 
 reigned unto death, so grace might reign unto 
 eternal life,' yea, that ' where sin abounded, grace 
 did yet much more abound. . . .' 
 
 "... What can this contradiction mean? Is 
 there any key, and if so, what is it, to this
 
 78 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 mystery?" (Jukes, Restitution of All Things, 
 pp. 19-26.) 
 
 The key that this writer finds is the doctrine 
 of universal restoration. 
 
 As to the alleged antinomy we can offer noth- 
 ing better than the following from a writer 
 already quoted : 
 
 " There is a sophism in the very word. In 
 a pure question of fact the term ' antinomy ' is 
 not applicable. It can properly apply only to 
 the relation existing between two laws or princi- 
 ples (principles either of procedure or of thought) 
 which are each conceived as valid and impera- 
 tive, but which issue in contradictory proposi- 
 tions. Now, of course, it is allowable to argue 
 the purely a priori question : Do our concep- 
 tions of God, or of the moral nature of man, 
 necessitate a belief that the punishment of 
 human sin will be endless? Such an argument 
 may issue in a so-called ' antinomy of faith.' 
 But the question in hand is one of fact. The 
 mind may remain at rest in an antinomy ; it does 
 not, at least, annul organic thought. It is com- 
 patible with reason and science. The instance 
 given above is familiar ; divine foreknowledge on 
 the one hand, human responsibility on the other. 
 It is otherwise with a question of fact the ex-
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 79 
 
 istence and non-existence at the same time of a 
 given thing, the taking place and the not taking 
 place of a given event. The present question is 
 one of the latter kind one on which the Script- 
 ures do not reason with men, but announce to 
 men " (William A. Stevens, in the Bibliotheca 
 Sacra, January, 1889, p. 139). 
 
 But allowing the word " antinomy" to stand, 
 if thereby is intended an " apparent contradic- 
 tion," as others affirm, we are prepared to assert 
 that there is no such " apparent contradiction " 
 between the passages cited except to those who 
 persistently ignore their plain and obvious in- 
 tent as seen when read in their connections. 
 Consideration will be given to these specific pas- 
 sages in another place (pp. 91-113). 
 
 5. Punishment remedial. It is asserted that 
 in the Scriptures future punishment is set forth 
 as corrective, remedial, and hence that it will 
 cease when it has fulfilled its function in disci- 
 plining the lost for heaven. This is sometimes 
 asserted as an inference from the fact of a divine 
 benevolent chastisement in the present life 
 (Heb. xii, 5-11). Again, the assertion is made 
 on the ground of certain Scripture words and 
 statements. We propose to consider the valid- 
 ity or invalidity of the claim.
 
 80 FUTURE RETRIBUl^ION. 
 
 So far as the teaching is an inference from 
 such Scriptures as Heb. xii, 5-11, it is plainly in 
 conflict with the logical requirement which de- 
 mands the ground of the inference. We gladly 
 recognize the revealed fact that our heavenly 
 Father chastens his children for their profit in 
 this life, but see nothing in this to invalidate the 
 fact, equally revealed, of future punishment that, 
 because eternal, cannot be corrective. Besides, 
 the "chastisement" of the Bible is for " sons," 
 and sinners are not sons in the evangelical use 
 of the word. (Compare John viii,44 ; Rom. viii, 
 14; Gal. iv, 5, 6.) 
 
 As to Scripture facts directly claimed in its 
 favor, it is said that the word aoXani^ in the 
 phrase " eternal punishment " (icokaoiv aluvLov) in 
 Matt, xxv, 46, signifies "pruning," or discipline, 
 and that the wicked are accordingly assigned in 
 the judgment to an " seonial pruning," not pun- 
 ishment. It is claimed that the true Greek word 
 for " retributive " punishment is r/.juwp/a, not 
 
 It is freely acknowledged that the alleged dis- 
 tinction is made in the classic Greek writings. 
 (See Thayer, ut supra.} But even in these writ- 
 ings "usage does not always recognize the dis- 
 tinction," especially in the later of them (ibid.}.
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 81 
 
 Also, KOAOOIS is used in the Septuagint in some 
 instances (for example, 2 Mace, iv, 38), and once 
 at least in the verb form in the Ne\v Testament 
 (Acts iv, 21), where the idea of discipline is ex- 
 cluded. The first of these passages concerns the 
 punishment of Andronicus by Antiochus for the 
 murder of the high-priest Onias, and is as fol- 
 lows : " And being kindled with anger, forth- 
 with he took away Andronicus his pupil, and 
 rent off his clothes, and leading him through the 
 whole city unto that very place where he had 
 committed impiety against Onias, there slew he 
 the cursed murderer. Thus the Lord rewarded 
 him his punishmer.t [icokaaiv] as he had deserved." 
 The passage in Acts is as follows : " And they, 
 when they had further threatened them, let 
 them go, finding nothing how they might pun- 
 ish [KoAaCTwvTof] them, because of the people." 
 Moreover, there is no instance of the use of the 
 word in the Bible where the retributive sense 
 is not perfectly natural, and in fact only so. 
 (Compare I John iv, 18 ; 2 Pet. ii, 9.) The 
 word that properly signifies discipline is naideia. 
 Again, Kohaois is not alone used in the Script- 
 ures of the punishment of the wicked. In Heb. 
 x, 29, it is asked, " Of how much sorer punish- 
 
 ment [rtjuwptof], think ye, shall he be judged 
 C
 
 82 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of 
 God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
 wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, 
 and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? " 
 
 Again, it is asserted that the remedial charac- 
 ter of future punishment is taught in the ue of 
 the word " fire," which describes its nature, and 
 especially in the phrase " salted with fire " in 
 Mark ix, 49. It is said one of the functions of 
 fire, and especially " salt," is to purify, or cleanse, 
 and that these words intimate the purging qual- 
 ity of the punishment of the life to come, which 
 purging will go on until all the moral filth of the 
 universe is burned up. When sin is thus burned 
 out of the souls of men, then they will be ready 
 for the purity of heaven. It is intimated that 
 the fires of Hinnom (yeevva), the place which 
 symbolized the future place of torment, were 
 kindled and kept burning for sanitary purposes. 
 
 In response to this we may say, first, that no 
 doubt fire has a sanitary function, and that the 
 fire of hell has the same function for the moral 
 world ; but it is for the purgation of the moral 
 world, and not of those cast into it. The fire of 
 Hinnom kept the pestilence from the city of 
 Jerusalem ; it did not cleanse, but destroyed the 
 things cast into it. Moreover, fire was used in
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 83 
 
 some instances for purely punitive purposes (Lev. 
 x, 2 ; Num. xvi, 35). 
 
 The phrase "salted with fire" is somewhat 
 different, and yet it is with little consistency that 
 writers of this school lay so much emphasis 
 upon so " isolated " and figurative an expression. 
 Besides, it is not admitted by all that the words 
 refer to the future life at all; and if they do, it 
 must be remembered that the sacrifice (to which 
 allusion is made, see Lev. ii, 13) was not salted 
 for its own sake, but as a symbol of cleansing 
 for the people. For further consideration of 
 this most difficult passage, the reader must be 
 referred to the various commentaries and kin- 
 dred works. 
 
 Another fact that is urged to prove that the 
 future punishment of the wicked is remedial is 
 that which is recorded in First Corinthians, fifth 
 chapter and fifth verse, concerning the offender 
 who was to be delivered unto Satan for the de- 
 struction of the flesh, that his spirit might be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (Compare 
 I Tim. i, 20.) It is said that " this wretched 
 Corinthian was, as we know, redeemed by his 
 very condemnation, and delivered from the 
 power o/ the devil by being delivered into the 
 power of the devil" (2 Cor. ii, 5-11). The
 
 84 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 inference is made from this case that when the 
 wicked are delivered unto Satan in the judgment 
 it is with a like beneficent purpose. 
 
 In response, besides referring to tne unwar- 
 ranted assumption which bases a doctrine of the 
 future life upon God's dealings with men in this 
 life, we may say : (i) The express object of the 
 present deliverance unto Satan of this man was 
 that the flesh might be destroyed and the spirit 
 "saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" Why 
 this present concern except on the assumption 
 that without the present destruction of the flesh 
 the spirit would be lost in the day of the Lord 
 Jesus? (2) Being delivered unto Satan could 
 not mean the same as " cast into the lake of 
 fire" "prepared for the devil and his angels." 
 The act of the Corinthian Church was an eccle- 
 siastical act of excommunication. This seems 
 to have been the import of the phrase " deliver 
 such a one unto Satan," so far as the Corinthian 
 society had to do with the matter. Surely that 
 Church had no other power. By this excom- 
 munication, and consequent surrendering of this 
 wicked one unto Satan, whom he had already 
 been serving, or, in other words, by the rebuke 
 of the Church, and being left to the unrestrained 
 working of the lust of the flesh, Paul hoped (and
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 85 
 
 he did not hope in vain) that the fallen brother 
 might be restored. 
 
 But we have a dogmatic controversy with this 
 doctrine. If future punishment is remedial, 
 what did Christ die to redeem us from ? Surely 
 not from a necessary remedy; and Universalists 
 such as Mr. Cox say that future punishment is 
 necessary as a remedy. But they say future 
 punishment is also retributive. Then, are we 
 saved from the retributive element of punish- 
 ment, and left to endure it for the remedial ef- 
 fect ? Shall \ve thus split the intent of future 
 punishment? And if so, what effect of sin are 
 we practically redeemed from ? What is the 
 retributive element of future punishment as 
 separate from the remedial in the punishment 
 itself? We can conceive the twofold intent of 
 punishment, but cannot conceive a redemption 
 from an intent while the punishment yet re- 
 mains. The outcome is, we are not redeemed 
 from punishment or penalty, and, indeed, that 
 we have no proper redemption at all on this sup- 
 position. If future punishment is a necessary 
 remedy for a life of sin, then it in itself is a 
 mercy, and needs no mercy to redeem from it. 
 God's method of salvation is thus not by for- 
 giveness through a merciful atonement, but by
 
 86 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 development and purification through a beneficent 
 system of punishment. The result is, the atone- 
 ment as a means of forgiveness is a superfluity 
 in the divine economy. Surely a conclusion 
 with such disastrous results to the scriptural 
 doctrine of redemption cannot be true. 
 
 This needs to be insisted on. The Universal- 
 ist, from his own premises and conclusions, ad- 
 mits this result, for men must undergo all their 
 penalty incurred as a necessary remedy. If they 
 undergo the penalty of sin, from what are they 
 redeemed? From the power of sin? Well, 
 suppose so ; but then, not through Christ, but 
 through suffering. Suffering is the great healer 
 and restorer. But we insist that if there is any 
 redemption from the guilt of sin, it cannot come 
 through the endurance of the penalty. This is 
 paying the penalty, not being delivered from it. 
 There is no place for a true atonement on this sup- 
 position in the Restoration ist's plan of salvation.* 
 
 6. Argument is attempted from certain Old 
 Testament analogies. It is alleged that as the 
 Jews misread the Old Testament predictions con- 
 
 * It is only consistent in Mr. Cox when he says : " For myself, 
 I believe every sin must receive its due punishment " (Salvatot 
 MuMcfi, p. 227). Not only is this so of the sins of the wicked, 
 according to this writer, but also of those of the righteous (ibid., 
 pp. 150-158).
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 87 
 
 earning the Messiah, and, consequently, were not 
 ready to receive him when he came, having falsely 
 learned to look for a temporal Messiah and king- 
 dom (for which expectation there was some 
 ground in the apparent teaching of the older 
 Scriptures), so we are to learn, in the matter of his 
 second coming to judgment, not to look so much 
 at the surface teaching of the new Scriptures, lest 
 we make a similar mistake, but at the deeper and 
 more " spiritual " meaning. It is suggested that 
 as the few only perceived the real spiritual sig- 
 nification of the first advent, while the great 
 body of the Jews including priests and scribes 
 falsely read into the Scriptures their temporal 
 expectation concerning the Messiah, so the 
 "few" only to-day seem to be able to grasp the 
 deep spiritual import of the language of the New 
 Testament concerning the second advent. This 
 " spiritual interpretation " is to be applied to 
 our understanding of the language and terms 
 that are used concerning the future punishment 
 of the wicked. The result will be a doctrine of 
 final universal restoration (Cox, ut supra, pp. 
 229-237). Others would gather rays of hope 
 from such facts as the universal purpose of God 
 in the election of the Jews, and in the laws of 
 the first-fruits and the first-born. As the Jews
 
 88 FUTURE RETRIBU7ION. 
 
 were selected from among the nations, not to be 
 the exclusive recipients of God's favors, hut to 
 be bearers of them to others (Gen. xxii, 18), and 
 as the first-fruits were the promise and pledge 
 of a larger ingathering, and the first-born had 
 certain relations of helpfulness toward the later- 
 born for which he was given a " double portion " 
 of the inheritance, so the " elect " of Christ and 
 the " first-fruits " and " first-born " with him 
 have similar missions of mercy to the non-elect 
 and larger harvest and later-born in the world's 
 redemption, which missions are to be fulfilled, 
 not wholly in time, or the " age " that now is, 
 but through the " ages to come." All shall at 
 last be saved. So slight a fact as the redemption 
 of an ass by a lamb (Exod. xiii, 12, 13) must 
 have its New Testament analogy, and we are to 
 read in the fact the " eternal purpose " of God for 
 the restoration at last of the meanest and most 
 worthless by the ministry of the good and the 
 pure (Jukes, Restitution of All Things, pp. 27-68). 
 As to the first analogy claimed in the interest 
 of final universal restoration, it may be said in 
 response: (i) The analogy would be truer if the 
 mistake of the Jews were urged as a rebuke to 
 the too temporal anticipations of those Chris- 
 tians who are looking for a thousand years' reign
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 89 
 
 of Christ on the earth before the judgment. (2) 
 
 'The Jews were not mistaken in looking for a 
 
 temporal, or earthly, kingdom of the Messiah, 
 
 but in looking for the kind of a kingdom thev 
 
 o o -* 
 
 expected. Christ has a temporal kingdom on 
 earth. He reigns and rules in his Church. The 
 Jews, through unbelief, have excluded themselves 
 from participation in it, and from sharing for the 
 present in its more direct privileges, although, 
 by and by, " all Israel [that is, Israel as a people, 
 and not in individual cases only as in the days 
 of Paul] shall be saved " (Rom. xi, 26). (3) The 
 word " spiritual " is not the proper word to use 
 in the matter of plain New Testament state- 
 ments concerning the lost. If the language on 
 which the orthodox doctrine is based were 
 wholly, or largely, figurative, the word might 
 with some propriety be used ; but not so in the 
 case of language that is so plain and simple as it 
 is in this case. The word " spiritual " in this 
 connection is an unadulterated device resorted to 
 as a convenient method to weaken the terrible 
 force of the straightforward teaching of the 
 divine word. 
 
 As to the other analogies urged, several re- 
 marks may be made. 
 
 I. As to the inference drawn from the election
 
 90 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 of Israel for a world-wide mission. This mission 
 may be aptly and appropriately urged as a. lesson 
 for the Christian Church in its mission of preach- 
 ing the Gospel to every creature. Here the 
 analogy holds good ; not to an assumed mission 
 of the saved to the unsaved in the other world. 
 The promise, accordingly, that in Abraham's seed 
 (Christ, Gal. iii, 16) " all the nations of the earth " 
 should be blessed (Gen. xxii, 18), was a promise 
 for the nations, which is being gloriously fulfilled 
 in the Christianization of the world. 
 
 2. As to the first-born and first-fruits, it must 
 be said, (i) If the plain teaching of the New 
 Testament is to be any guide in our interpreta- 
 tion of the lessons drawn from these facts, they 
 lend no support to the doctrine we are combat- 
 ing. The places where the term " first-born " is 
 used in the New Testament are Rom. viii, 29; 
 Col. i, 15, 18; Heb.xii,23- In the first instance, 
 the reference is to Christ " the first-born among 
 many brethren;" the second, to Christ " the 
 first-born of all creation ; " the third, to him as 
 " the first-born from the dead ; " the last, to the 
 "church of the first-born " that is, the Church 
 of the Hebrews. In none of these instances is 
 there any semblance of a reference to future 
 restoration of the lost. They, therefore, lend
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 91 
 
 no support to the doctrine. The places where 
 the term " first-fruits " is used are Rom. viii, 
 23; xi, 16; xvi, 5; I Cor. xv, 2O, 23; xvi, 15; 
 Jas. i, 18; Rev. xiv, 4. Examination will show 
 that in none of these instances, likewise, is there 
 any reference to this doctrine, or the future 
 life. (2) The doctrine of the "ages" on which 
 this teaching is based is not tenable. If refer- 
 ence is made to God's "eternal purpose" (Gr. 
 " purpose of the ages," Eph. iii, 1 1) for proof, we 
 reply, The purpose here referred to is concerning 
 the ages that are past, not those of the future. 
 The verse reads, " God, according to the eternal 
 purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our 
 Lord." If it be said that " in the ages to come " 
 God will " show the exceeding riches of his grace 
 in kindness," we reply, by express limitation, 
 toward them that are " in Christ Jesus " (Eph. ii, 
 7). For the rest, we refer to the fact already re- 
 marked upon, that the plural phrases containing 
 forms of al&v are rhetorical expressions used to 
 intensify the thought of eternity. 
 
 II. Specific passages of Scripture used to 
 prove the doctrine of universal restoration. 
 
 i. The first class of passages of this kind that 
 are made to do yeoman service for this doctrine 
 are those that exhibit the benevolent and uni-
 
 02 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 versal provision and purpose of God concerning 
 man's redemption. They are as follows : " For 
 if by the trespass of the one the many died, much 
 more did the grace of God, and the gift by the 
 grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto 
 the many" (Rom. v, 15). "So then as through 
 one trespass the judgment came unto all men to 
 condemnation ; even so through one act of right- 
 eousness the free gift came unto all men to justifi- 
 cation of life " (ibid., verse 18; compare the whole 
 passage, 12-21). " But all things are of God, 
 who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and 
 gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation ; to 
 wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world 
 unto himself, not reckoning unto them their 
 trespasses, and having committed unto us the 
 word of reconciliation " (2 Cor. v, 18, 19). " Be- 
 hold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the 
 sin of the world ! " (John i, 29). " And we have 
 beheld and bear witness that the Father hath 
 sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world " 
 (i John iv, 14), etc. 
 
 Concerning these passages it will be sufficient 
 to reply, with Muller, that they " cannot be 
 made to sanction the idea of universal restora- 
 tion, unless we adopt the principle that the final 
 issue of the divine purposes must coincide with
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 93 
 
 their primary tendency and design ; in other 
 words, that God could not arrange his purposes 
 according to the free action of man in relation to 
 them " (CJiristian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii, p. 426) ; 
 adding, simply, that they are to be " studied in 
 their connection," and according to the " analogy 
 of faith." According to this last hermeneutical 
 law, as general statements they are to be limited 
 by other limiting passages of the divine word, as, 
 for example, those which declare the conditions 
 of their fulfillment or realization. These limiting 
 conditions are not doubtful. " Except ye re- 
 pent ye shall all in like manner perish ' (Luke 
 xiii, 3). " That whosoever believeth may in him 
 have eternal life " (John iii, 15). "Except ye 
 eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his 
 blood, ye have not life in yourselves " (John vi, 
 53), etc. 
 
 2. Another set of passages that are used to 
 prove this doctrine concern the resurrection of 
 the dead and the " consummation of the world " 
 (ovvrekeia TOV cuwvoc). Chief among these are : 
 " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall 
 all be made alive" (i Cor. xv, 22). " For he 
 must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under 
 his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished 
 is death" (ibid., verses 25, 26). "And when all
 
 94 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 things have been subjected unto him, then shall 
 the Son also himself be subjected to him that did 
 subject all things unto him, that God may be all 
 in all" (ibid., verse 28 ; compare the entire passage, 
 20-28). " Whom the heaven must receive until 
 the times of restoration [Authorized Version, 
 "restitution"] of all things, whereof God spake 
 by the mouth of his holy prophets which have 
 been since the world began " (Acts iii, 21). These 
 passages demand separate treatment. 
 
 " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ 
 shall all be made alive." These words are simi- 
 lar to much of the language in the fifth of Ro- 
 mans, the one having reference to physical death 
 and resurrection, the other to moral or spiritual. 
 The emphasis which writers of this class lay 
 upon them is the same in both cases. Conse- 
 quently, the observations made upon the pas- 
 sages in Romans will equally apply here (p. 92). 
 It is necessary to add further, simply, that the 
 apostle, in the entire chapter, is writing to Chris- 
 tian believers concerning the reality of the res- 
 urrection. There had grown up in the Church 
 at Corinth some doubt as to this doctrine, and 
 Paul would re-establish and confirm their faith in 
 it. He does not attempt to prove the univer- 
 sality of the resurrection, but simply seeks to
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 95 
 
 establish the fact of the resurrection. His par- 
 ticular thought was with reference to the resur- 
 rection of the righteous dead (witness this in the 
 general drift of the whole chapter, and in such 
 particular statements as inverses 51, 52, 58), as 
 was his thought in writing of the same doctrine, 
 from other reasons, to the Thessalonians (i Thess. 
 iv, 13-18); and, proving the fact of the resurrec- 
 tion, he asserts that, " as in Adam all [meaning 
 the righteous] die, so also in Christ shall all [the 
 righteous] be made alive." And at all events, 
 there is no ground in these words for asserting 
 the doctrine of universal restoration ; for other 
 Scriptures which teach the universality of the 
 resurrection teach also that the issue is a two- 
 fold result some are raised to " life," and others 
 are raised to condemnation. " Marvel not at 
 this : for the hour cometh, in which all that are 
 in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come 
 forth ; they that have done good, unto the res- 
 urrection of life ; and they that have done ill, 
 unto the resurrection of judgment " (John v, 28, 
 29.* Compare Dan. xii, 2). 
 
 * It is useless to try to prove that our Lord in this case was 
 speaking of a spiritual, or moral, resurrection ; for, if so, wherein 
 is the difference between those raised to " life " and those raised 
 to " judgment ? " Also, the phrase " marvel not at this" marks 
 a change of thought from the moral resurrection spoken of in
 
 96 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 " For he must reign, till he hath put all his ene- 
 mies under his feet. The last enemy that shall 
 be abolished is death." The facts involved in 
 this text and its connections have already been 
 referred to in our proofs of the doctrine of future 
 punishment. We refer to them again in this 
 connection because Universalists lay so much 
 stress upon the passage given to prove their doc- 
 trine. They are as follows: The end of the 
 mediatorial reign of Christ accompanies the de- 
 struction of the " last enemy, " and the last enemy 
 that is to be destroyed is physical death, in and 
 by the resurrection, leaving the " asonian pun- 
 ishment," pronounced at the judgment, to follow 
 this destruction of the last enemy. 
 
 There is not the shadow of a reason for the 
 statement in Martensen, that when Paul says 
 " 'the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death " 
 therefore the other, the second death ; be- 
 cause otherwise there would still remain an un- 
 
 verse 25, and that in the verses we are considering. Our Lord's 
 hearers were exhorted not to marvel at the soul resurrection from 
 the death of sin, because the time would come when even the 
 bodies of men would be raised from the tomb. Again, the dif- 
 ference in the two cases is shown by the two phrases, " the hour 
 cometh, and now is," in the first case, and simply " the hour 
 cometh," in the second the one was present, the other future. 
 Besides, it is forced and artificial to identify the " dead " of the 
 first instance with "all that are in tombs" of the second.
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 97 
 
 conquerable enemy" (Christian Dogmatics, p. 
 475). The fact is in proof of the very reverse of 
 this, as we have seen. The argument of Mar- 
 tensen, moreover, is a clear case of potitio princi- 
 pii. His assertion is to the effect that all men 
 are to be restored because Paul says the " last 
 enemy to be destroyed is death," and that Paul's 
 expression includes the " second death " because 
 otherwise all men would not be restored. We 
 are willing that the Universalist shall have all 
 the defense he can get from this sort of logic. 
 We know his need of it. 
 
 But to reiterate for the sake of emphasis, the 
 order of events at the consummation of the 
 world (Matt, xxviii, 20) is as follows : (i) The 
 parousia, or coming of Christ ; (2) the resur- 
 rection of the dead; (3) the judgment; (4) 
 the end of Christ's mediatorial reign, when the 
 kingdom will be delivered up to the Father. 
 These events occur at the same time, or in im- 
 mediate succession.* The wicked, therefore, 
 
 * No account is taken here of the millennium, for in any case 
 the order of events is the same ; and the general resurrection, 
 when the last enemy is to be destroyed, follows the parousia 
 (however long or short the interval), and comes before the judg- 
 ment. The significance of the irpuTt] fb&rrtUK?, and other facts 
 and difficulties connected with the millennium, do not enter, 
 therefore, for consideration here. 
 7
 
 98 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 are to go away into aeonian punishment after, 
 or at the consummation, of all things. There 
 remains, therefore, for them no more hope. 
 Their judgment to death is part of the consum- 
 mation of all things. 
 
 " And when all things have been subjected 
 unto him, then shall the Son also himself be sub- 
 jected to him that did subject all things unto him, 
 that God may be all in all." The most that is said 
 in this passage is that all things shall be sub- 
 jected unto Christ, and, finally, Christ to God. 
 There is nothing in this statement to lend the least 
 support to the doctrine of universal restoration. 
 
 Much is made of the phrase, " that God may 
 be all in all. ' ' One writer comments thus : " ' That 
 God may be,' not all in some, but ' all in all.' ' 
 Nothing could show the perversity of the inter- 
 pretation of writers of this class better than this. 
 Not only is the whole context ignored, as is 
 oftenest the case with these writers, but the 
 manifest meaning of " divine supremacy" is also 
 overlooked. The words do not mean that God 
 may be all in all persons, but simply that he may 
 be supreme. (Compare Eph. i, 23.) 
 
 "Whom the heaven must receive until the 
 times of restoration of all things, whereof God 
 spake by the mouth of his holy prophets which
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 99 
 
 have been since the world began." As is well 
 known, it is this text that furnishes the often-used 
 and, exegetically, much-abused phrase, a-nona- 
 rdoraoig -ndvrwv "restitution of all things." 
 This phrase has come to be used by some writers 
 as synonomous with universal restoration. Its 
 abuse will be seen when it is remembered that 
 there is good ground for the assertion that the 
 word aTTOKardaraaig does not mean restitution or 
 restoration in this place, in any proper sense of 
 the word, at all, but " fulfillment," having reference 
 to the fulfillment " of all things, whereof [or 
 which, wv] God spake by the mouth of his holy 
 prophets since the world began." (Compare Matt, 
 xvii, II.) But if the word be accepted to mean 
 " restitution " or " restoration," that it cannot 
 include the idea of the final universal restoration 
 of the lost is manifest from the following fact, 
 namely, that " the times of the restoration of all 
 things" are to be fulfilled at the coming of our 
 Lord. " The heaven must receive " him " until " 
 then. The " restoration of all things " precedes, 
 therefore, the elg TOV$ otwvo? rwv aluvuv of future 
 punishment. Besides, the " prophets " have no- 
 where spoken of universal restoration. 
 
 3. Still another class of passages that are urged 
 in favor of universal restoration are those that
 
 100 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 speak of the " reconciliation " or summing up 
 of all things in Christ, whether they be things 
 in heaven or things on earth. The two most 
 explicit passages of this class are Eph. i, 9, 10, 
 and Col. i, 19, 20. They are as follows: " Hav- 
 ing made known unto us the mystery of his will, 
 according to his good pleasure which he purposed 
 in him unto a dispensation of the fullness of the 
 times, to sum up all things in Christ \ava,Ke(f>a- 
 hai&aaadai rd rrdvra KV TGJ Xptarui], the things in the 
 heavens, and the things upon the earth." " For 
 it was the good pleasure of the Father that in 
 him should all the fullness dwell ; and through 
 him to reconcile all things unto himself, having 
 made peace through the blood of his cross ; 
 through him, I say, whether things upon the 
 earth, or things in the heavens." 
 
 We gladly recognize the deep and glorious 
 truth of these words. Christ is a cosmic Being, 
 having a universal relation to all things, both in 
 the heavens and on the earth. Just what that 
 relation to other worlds than ours is, except that 
 it must be beneficent, we cannot know. The 
 two words used in the above quoted passages 
 (dvanefjiakaiob), dnoKaTakkdooui) furnish us with a 
 general statement of some beneficent relation 
 to the heavens as well as to the earth ; but just
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 101 
 
 what we, perhaps, in its fullness, will never know. 
 There is no reason for supposing that the efficacy 
 of the cross, except in its moral lesson to other 
 intelligences, extends beyond our own world, since 
 it was wrought on earth and in our nature ; and 
 just what the special implication of the recon- 
 ciliation and re-heading, or summing up, of all 
 things " in the heavens " may be, we cannot know. 
 Our reconciliation to God is through the sacrifice 
 of the cross ; how and in what sense * that of the 
 heavens is effected we are not told. The same 
 remark is to be made concerning the summing 
 up of all things in the heavens in Christ, since 
 this is most likely the same as the reconciliation ; 
 or, at least, the one is involved in the other. 
 But whatever the significance of this reconcil- 
 
 * The reconciliation of things on earth is distincily said to be 
 "peace through the blood of his cross." This divine and gra- 
 cious work seems to be separate in the thought of the text from 
 the undefined and general reconciliation of all things in heaven 
 and on earth. The reconciliation on earth seems separately and 
 specially given "having made peace," etc. the other is not. 
 Besides, if we assume that other worlds are reconciled, as is ours, 
 by the death of the cross, we must assume universal sinfulness 
 in the universe ; for our reconciliation is through an infinite sac- 
 rifice on account of sin. But some, at least, of the angels we 
 know have not sinned. This is involved in the expression in 
 Jude 6, "The angels which kept not their own principality, but 
 left their proper habitation," etc. Some did keep "their own 
 principality." Still further, that our atonement is not for the 
 angels is emphatically involved in Heb. ii, 1 6.
 
 102 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 iation and summing up of all things in Christ 
 may be, and the specific agency of their realiza- 
 tion, these texts can lend no support to the doc- 
 trine we are opposing. One manifest reason is, 
 that they say nothing about it. Another is, that 
 they limit the reconciliation to the things in the 
 heavens and on the earth. The comment of 
 Dr. Jukes is evidently coined for the emergency : 
 "'Whether they be things in heaven' that is, 
 the spirit-world, where the conflict with Satan 
 yet is ' or things on earth ' that is, this out- 
 ward world, where death now reigns, and where 
 even God's elect are by nature children of wrath, 
 even as other men " * (ut supra, p. 22). 
 
 But we insist upon it, if the doctrine of uni- 
 versal restoration is true, that the great apos- 
 tle did not say, "And things under the earth," 
 in these passages, is not to be accounted for. 
 What a magnificent opportunity Paul had to 
 teach this doctrine had he so desired, and how 
 natural it would have been to do so if it were 
 true ! The limitation seems intentional when 
 
 * The unreliableness of this writer as an exegete is demon- 
 strated in the turn of thought he gives to the passage referred to 
 in the latter part of the quotation, as in many other instances. 
 In this case Dr. Jukes says: "Where even God's elect are by 
 nature children of wrath," etc. ; whereas Paul says, " were by 
 nature children of wrath."
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 103 
 
 we consider the fact that this apostle in other 
 connections, and where the thought is of univer- 
 sal subjugation to Christ, without specifying 
 whether it is voluntary or compulsory (Phil, ii, 
 9, 10*), uses the very phrase, "and things 
 under the earth." As Paul was familiar with the 
 fact that " every knee " in heaven and earth and 
 hell should bow to Christ, why, we urge, did he 
 not say " and things under the earth " when 
 speaking of the re-heading and reconciliation of 
 all things in Christ if the Universalist is right ? 
 The conclusion is patent and inevitable. Paul, 
 who had already declared that the wicked " shall 
 suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from 
 the face of the Lord and from the glory of his 
 might " (2 Thess. i, 9), knew that for the lost there 
 was " no more a sacrifice for sins " (Heb. x, 26). 
 4. Still another class of passages that are used 
 by the Universalist to support his claim are 
 some that relate to the universal conquest of the 
 Gospel, or that show the world-wide mission of 
 
 * That the thought in this text implies the universal supremacy 
 of Christ and his kingdom, without specifying what is the char- 
 acter of the subjection, is manifest to all but those who insist 
 on reading their doctrine of restoration into it. Bowing the 
 knee was an act of homage and subjection for both friendly and 
 unfriendly subjects. Moreover, the phrase is used in Rom. xiv, 
 10-12. with special reference to the "judgment." (Compare Eph. 
 iii, 14 ; Matt, xxvii, 29 ; Isa. xlv, 23.)
 
 104: FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 Christianity. Of course, the Universalist will 
 not allow the claim involved in this classification ; 
 but a slight examination, in most instances, will 
 show the validity of it. 
 
 The chief passages of this class are as follows: 
 " And in thy seed shall all the nations of the 
 earth be blessed " (Gen. xxii, 18). "And so all 
 Israel shall be saved" (Rom. xi, 26). "Who 
 willeth that all men should be saved, and come 
 to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one 
 God, one Mediator also between God and men, 
 himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a 
 ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its 
 own times" (i Tim. ii, 4-6). "And I, if I be 
 lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto 
 myself" (John xii, 32). 
 
 The first two passages have already been re- 
 ferred to in the course of this discussion, and 
 need but a moment's consideration here. That 
 the promise to Abraham, that in his seed the 
 world should be blessed, was a promise which 
 had reference to the universal spread of Chris- 
 tianity, may be proved by the fact that it con- 
 cerned the "nations," and that Paul so applies 
 it (Gal. iii, 8). That that referring to the salva- 
 tion of " all Israel " is to be understood as refer- 
 ring to the conversion of the Jews as a people
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 105 
 
 to Christianity may be proved by reference to 
 the entire passage in which the words occur 
 (Rom. xi). Here it will be found that the apostle 
 is contrasting and explaining the conversion of 
 the Gentiles and the rejection of Israel ; not 
 every individual Israelite, but Israel as a people. 
 A " remnant " had already been saved, " ac- 
 cording to the election of grace " (verse 5), by 
 \ith ; but Israel as a people had been " broken 
 off" through unbelief (verse 20). Paul, however, 
 foresees the time when " all Israel shall be saved." 
 or when Israel as a people shall be restored to 
 the covenanted privileges from which they had 
 excluded themselves. 
 
 The reference of the other two passages is 
 likewise unmistakable. That the passage in First 
 Timothy refers to the conversion of the world will 
 be seen by including the seventh verse : " Where- 
 unto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle 
 (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the 
 Gentiles in faith and truth." Paul's reference in 
 this verse to the Gentiles shows the universal 
 thought he has of the Gospel when he says Christ 
 was given " a ransom for all ; the testimony to 
 be borne in its own times." The whole context 
 (verses 1-8) is helpful to the same exposition. 
 The import of John xii, 32, may be judged from
 
 106 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the explicit reference of verse 31 : " Now is the 
 judgment of this world : now shall the prince 
 of this world be cast out," preceding immediately 
 the words of the text. The occasion also shows 
 beyond any doubt what thought our Lord had 
 in mind when he uttered the words. Certain 
 Greeks (Gentiles) had come to see him. This 
 gives rise to a discourse by Christ, the leading 
 thought of which is, as Tholuck expresses it, " in 
 the longing of these Gentiles is an anticipation 
 of the future conversion of the world." The "all 
 men," then, of this passage is synonomous with 
 the " all nations " of Gen. xxii, 18, and the " all " 
 of i Tim. ii, 4-6. 
 
 5. Two passages of Scripture urged in favor 
 of this doctrine, that form a class by themselves, 
 are Matt, v, 26 : " Verily I say unto thee, Thou 
 shalt by no means come out thence, till thou 
 have paid the last farthing ; " and Luke xii, 47, 
 48 : " And that servant, which knew his lord's 
 will, and made not ready, nor did according to 
 his will, shall be beaten with many stripes ; but 
 he that knew not, and did things worthy of 
 stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." It is 
 affirmed that both of these passages involve the 
 cessation of punishment. 
 
 It is to be said : (i) If they teach the cessation
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 107 
 
 of punishment in the cases to which they refer, 
 they would not, therefore, teach universal restora- 
 tion. The most, in any case, that can be claimed 
 from them is that they teach the restoration of 
 some. We would then have both " eternal " and 
 "temporal" future punishment. (2) But it is to 
 be questioned whether the first passage (as, per- 
 haps, Matt, xii, 32) expresses more than an " em- 
 phasized negative " in relation to the condition 
 of the lost. (3) The second passage can be ex- 
 plained, after the common fashion, to signify 
 degrees in punishment rather than duration. It 
 is confessedly a figurative mode of speech, and 
 can, therefore, teach nothing that contradicts oth- 
 er and explicit declarations of the divine word. 
 
 6. Miscellaneous. There are a few other pas- 
 sages that need brief consideration that cannot be 
 otherwise classified than as miscellaneous. These 
 are: " For God hath shut up all unto disobe- 
 dience, that he might have mercy upon all " 
 (Rom. xi, 32); " For to this end Christ died, and 
 lived again, that he might be Lord of both the 
 dead and the living " (Rom. xiv, 9) ; " For to 
 this end we labor and strive, because we have 
 our hope set on the living God, who is the Sav- 
 iour of all men, specially of them that believe" 
 (i Tim. iv, 10) ; " And death and Hades were cast
 
 108 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 into the lake of fire" (Rev. xx, 14); "And he 
 shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and 
 death shall be no more ; neither shall there be 
 mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more : the 
 first things are passed away. And he that sitteth 
 on the throne said, Behold, I make all things 
 new " (Rev. xxi, 4, 5) ; " And there shall be no 
 curse any more" (Rev. xxii, 3). We will con- 
 sider these in the order given. 
 
 " For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, 
 that he might have mercy upon all." The import 
 of this verse is no doubt identical with that of 
 Rom. iii, 9: "For we before laid to the charge 
 both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under 
 sin," and Gal. iii, 22: " Howbeit the Scripture 
 hath shut up all things under sin, that the prom- 
 ise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to 
 them that believe." This last passage distinctly 
 limits the " promise by faith in Jesus Christ " to 
 " them that believe." This is in keeping with 
 the whole teaching of Romans (for example, iii, 
 21, 22) and the other Scriptures, and must be 
 understood here. 
 
 " For to this end Christ died, and lived again, 
 that he might be Lord of both the dead and the 
 living." The apostle is teaching the duty of the 
 strong toward the weak, particularly in the mat-
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 109 
 
 ter of eating meat and observing days. He as- 
 serts: "He that regardeth the day, regardeth 
 it unto the Lord : and he that eateth, eateth 
 unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; 
 and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he 
 eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For 
 none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to 
 himself. For whether we live, we live unto the 
 Lord ; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord : 
 \\hether we live therefore, or die, we are the 
 Lord's " (verses 6-8). And then follows imme- 
 diately upon this the verse we are considering. 
 The connections clearly show that the lordship 
 of Christ over the dead and the living is confined 
 by the apostle's thought in this passage to be- 
 lievers ; not that it is intentionally so confined, 
 but because Paul had no occasion to think of any 
 others. " Whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; 
 or whether we die, ive die unto the Lord : whether 
 we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's." 
 Christ both "died, and lived again, "that he might 
 be Lord of his own, dead and alive. "Thus it 
 is," as Godet says, " that he reigns simulta- 
 neously over the two domains of being through 
 which his own are called to pass, and that he can 
 fulfill his promise to them (John x, 28) : 'None 
 shall pluck them out of my hand ' " (Commen-
 
 110 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 tary, in loco). The Universalist, therefore, can find 
 in this passage no valid ground for his doctrine. 
 " For to this end we labor and strive, because 
 we have our hope set on the living God, who is 
 the Saviour of all men, specially of them that 
 believe." As to this passage it is only necessary 
 to say that if Paul is to be interpreted by him- 
 self the two phrases, " Saviour of all men" and 
 " specially of them that believe," can have no 
 doubtful meaning. The first is illustrated by 
 such passages as the following : " Even so through 
 one act of righteousness the free gift came unto 
 all men to justification of life" (Rom. v, 18) ; 
 " For the love of Christ constraineth us ; because 
 we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore 
 all died ; and he died for all, that they which 
 live should no longer live unto themselves, but 
 unto him who for their sakes died and rose again " 
 (2 Cor. v, 14, 15) ; the second, by these : " For I 
 am not ashamed of the gospel : for it is the 
 power of God unto salvation to every one that 
 believeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the 
 Greek " (Rom. i, 16); " By their unbelief they 
 were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith " 
 (Rom. xi, 20). Christ is the Saviour of all men 
 this the Scriptures every-where gloriously reveal ; 
 but he is also "specially " {jidkiara "in the
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. \\\ 
 
 greatest degree" that is, in " the greatest and 
 fullest exhibition of his awr^pm, its complete re- 
 alization ") the Saviour " of them that believe." 
 This is so here and hereafter. Christ is the 
 Saviour of all in his provisions of mercy and 
 grace ; of those that believe, in the full realiza- 
 tion of those provisions in a saved experience. 
 
 "And death and Hades were cast into the 
 lake of fire." It is said this involves the destruc- 
 tion of death and Hades. The inference is, 
 " Therefore the second death and Gehenna ;" this 
 latter from the fact that Hades, or the under 
 world, includes Gehenna. 
 
 It will be sufficient to refute this argument to 
 refer to the verse immediately following the one 
 for which so much is claimed. After saying 
 death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire, 
 John says : " And if any was not found written 
 in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of 
 fire " (verse 1 5). It is unfortunate for the Univer- 
 salist that he cannot find a second " lake of fire " 
 into which this first one is cast ; and if so it would 
 not involve the restoration of those cast into it. 
 
 Attempted arguments like the above simply 
 increase one's wonder at the manifest unfairness 
 of the exposition of the Scriptures by which the 
 doctrine of restoration is sought to be established.
 
 112 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 The last two passages may be considered to- 
 gether. " And he shall wipe away every tear 
 from their eyes ; and death shall be no more ; 
 neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor 
 pain, any more : the first things are passed away. 
 And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, 
 I make all things new." " And there shall be no 
 curse any more." If the reader will examine the 
 passages in their connections he will find in both 
 cases that after them in the same chapter there 
 is distinct reference to another state of things 
 for the wicked. In the first case, in chapter xxi, 
 8, we have, " But for the fearful, and unbelieving, 
 and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, 
 and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their 
 part shall be in the lake that burneth with 
 fire and brimstone ; which is the second death." 
 In the second case, in the twenty-second chap- 
 ter and the fifteenth verse, we have, " Without 
 are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornica- 
 tors, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and 
 every one that loveth and maketh a lie." From 
 these facts it must appear to all that the passages 
 cited furnish no support for the doctrine of resto- 
 ration. But if examination is made again it will 
 be found that these things are said by explicit 
 reference to the righteous. " He that overcometh
 
 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS. 113 
 
 shall inherit these things " (xxi, 7). In the same 
 verse with the second of the two passages is this : 
 " And his servants shall do him service," and fol- 
 lowing this in the next verse : "And they shall see 
 his face; and his name shall be on their foreheads." 
 We have now completed a brief survey of the 
 leading objections and arguments of the Univer- 
 salists. We have not consciously omitted refer- 
 ence to any important fact or consideration ; but, 
 on the other hand, we have endeavored to deal 
 fairly with the doctrine we oppose in every case, 
 a hundred times wishing that we might find in 
 the arguments of its advocates some valid 
 ground for faith in it to rest upon. To use a 
 common but apt figure, again and again, like the 
 dove of the ark, we have wandered over the 
 waste of biblical criticism on this subject, seek- 
 ing some place to rest our feet in confidence ; 
 but after repeated and vain research we have 
 had to return, on exegetical grounds, to the old 
 ark of the orthodox Church, and believe her 
 teaching to be that only which will bear the test 
 of the Scriptures. For no "larger hope " can 
 we desert this stronghold of the truth ; and in 
 this confidence it shall be our aim, whether our 
 pleasure or not (Jon. iii, 2), to persuade men to 
 
 " flee from the wrath to come " (Matt, iii, 7). 
 8
 
 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the 
 book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the 
 book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things 
 which are written in this book." Rev. xxii, 19.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 New Testament Terminology Respecting Future Ret- 
 ribution. 
 
 IT is not our conviction that the words of the 
 Bible in either their classical or Jewish signi- 
 fication, or in themselves, considered in an iso- 
 lated fashion and alone, can at all determine the 
 question of the future life. Their biblical signi- 
 fication is rather to be determined by the general 
 scope and spirit of the passages in which they 
 are found, and by the whole teaching of the 
 Scriptures on the subject by all the proof ad- 
 duced in the first chapter of this book. Remem- 
 bering these qualifications, however, a study of 
 the subject from the present stand-point will not 
 be without its results, and seems necessary to a 
 full understanding of all the facts in the case. 
 
 The terms that demand attention may be 
 classified and treated as follows: I. Those that 
 pertain to the place of future punishment, a6r)$ 
 Hades (Heb. f>iNB>) ; yeevva Gehenna; rapra- 
 poioag Tartarus ; </>psap, dQvaaog, XlfivT] rov irvpoc. 
 2. Those that pertain to time, or the duration of
 
 116 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 punishment, aluv (with its plural forms and 
 phrases), aiuviog, aidtoc;. 3. Those that describe 
 the condition or state of the lost, Odvarog, 
 o/U#po, e^oXodpevu, diafideipu, 
 d0avtw, etc. This we believe 
 to be an exhaustive classification of the more 
 important terms used in connection with the 
 subject, and in this order we will briefly consider 
 them.* 
 
 I. Those that pertain to the place of future 
 punishment. Three of these, f^/Cj y&vva, rapra- 
 puaas, are in all instances alike translated in the 
 Authorized Version (two of them, -yievva, rapra- 
 puaag, in the Revised, with an additional marginal 
 reading) by the English word " hell." These we 
 will consider first in their order, and follow with 
 a short account of the remaining words. 
 
 "Aidr/g, translated " hell " in the Authorized Ver- 
 sion and " Hades " in the Revised in every in- 
 
 * We omit reference here to the words Kpivu, KCtraKptvu, Kpifia, 
 Kpiaif (translated " to damn " and " damnation " in the Authorized 
 Version, but, rightly, "judged" [2 Thess. ii, 12], "condemned" 
 [Mark xvi, 16], "condemnation" [Mark xii, 40], "judgment" 
 [Matt, xxiii, 33] in the Revised), because in the nature of the 
 case their signification is very general, and they therefore express 
 nothing definite either as to the duration or the character of 
 future punishment. In the phrase "judgment of hell" (Greek 
 Gehenna), for example, the word that conveys a definite mean- 
 ing is " hell," not icpiaic.
 
 .Yf'.ir TESTA ME.VT TERM I .\'OLOG Y. 117 
 
 stance,* is derived, according to etymologists, 
 from a privative and Men/, to see, signifying that 
 which is not seen. It is used in the Septuagint 
 in translating the Hebrew ?iNE* in most instances, 
 a word with which it is identical in several par- 
 ticulars. In the Greek writings (always in Homer) 
 it is used as the name of Pluto or Dis, the god of 
 the spirit-world. It was also used in these writ- 
 ings to signify the spirit-world itself. In later 
 Greek this became its more common meaning. In 
 the New Testament it is undoubtedly identical in 
 meaning with the secondary classical significa- 
 tion, except that in classic usage it was under- 
 stood to signify the permanent abode of the 
 dead, whereas in the New Testament it signifies 
 the abode of the dead before the resurrection 
 (Rev. xx, 14). In two instances it is personified 
 as a living power (Rev. vi, 8 ; xx, 14). In other 
 instances it has a metaphorical signification 
 (Matt, xi, 23; Luke x, 15). There can be no 
 doubt, moreover, that it was used to represent 
 the after-death abode of the righteous and the 
 unrighteous alike (Luke xvi, 23 ; compare Acts 
 ii, 27. 31). In this respect it was kindred in its 
 
 * In I Cor. xv, 55 (where in the Authorized Version we have 
 "giave," ddijf), tfdvarof is substituted for a'^w, according to the 
 best manuscripts, and is so given in the Revised Version.
 
 118 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 use to -that of the Greek and Latin writers, who 
 divided Hades into Tartarus for the bad and 
 Elysium for the good. But it seems equally 
 certain that it was used sometimes as equivalent 
 simply to the abode of wicked spirits (Matt, xvi, 
 18). It is on this supposition, moreover, that 
 the metaphorical use of the word in Matt, xi, 23, 
 and Luke x, 15, can have any significance. In 
 both this latter respect and the one preceding 
 it is the same as the Hebrew 7V&& (Gen. xlii, 
 38; Psa. ix, 17; Psa. cxxxix, 8; Prov. ix, 18). 
 In all general respects the usage was the same 
 in the Jewish and early Christian writings out- 
 side of the Scriptures.* 
 
 As to the common impressions that prevailed 
 concerning this unseen world, a remark or two 
 may be made. In both classic and Jewish writ- 
 ings it was thought of as being in the earth, or 
 under it, according to the false astronomy of the 
 times; and the grave was supposed to be the 
 entrance into it. As Christ did not come to 
 
 * Later, however, the fathers located Paradise (the place of 
 the righteous dead) elsewhere than in Hades. " Origen placed it 
 in an apartment of heaven the third heaven. More and more 
 the feeling spread, especially after Origen's time, that Hades, 
 the under-world, was a gloomy, undesirable region, where there 
 could be nothing but suffering, and where Satan held sway " 
 {Discussions in History and Theology, G. P. Fisher, p. 417).
 
 NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 119 
 
 teach science, he, together with the writers of 
 the New Testament, used the common forms of 
 thought and expression in the matter as he 
 found them. The Old Testament idea of this 
 world seems to have been that of a shadowy and 
 somewhat dismal abode even for the righteous 
 (Psa. vi, 5 ; Job x, 21, 22). Its expressions con- 
 cerning it were vague and uncertain. Unlike 
 this was Hades to the heathen writers. " The 
 pagan poets gave the popular mind definite 
 pictures of Tartarus and Elysium ; of Styx and 
 Acheron ; of happy plains where dead heroes 
 held high discourse, and of black abysses where 
 offenders underwent strange and ingenious tort- 
 ures." The New Testament idea was more 
 definite, and more cheerful for the good. It 
 was divided into Paradise, or Abraham's bosom 
 (the Jews also spoke of it as the " Garden of 
 Eden " and the " Tree of Life " Edersheim), 
 for the righteous, and Gehenna for the wicked. 
 It is thought by some writers that the New 
 Testament represents the saints since the res- 
 urrection as going immediately upon death to 
 heaven. There certainly seems, in some in- 
 stances at least, to be a changed attitude and 
 expression toward the other life. Witness, for 
 example, the case of Stephen when stoned (Acts
 
 120 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 vii, 55, 56, 59. Compare Phil, i, 21, 23, etc. ; but 
 see also p. 127). 
 
 The passages in the New Testament where 
 the word o&r\<; is given are as follows: "And 
 thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto 
 heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades : for if 
 the mighty works had been done in Sodom 
 which were done in thee, it would have remained 
 until this day " (Matt, xi, 23) ; " And I also say 
 unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this 
 rock I will build my church ; and the gates of 
 Hades shall not prevail against it " (Matt, xvi, 
 18); "And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be ex- 
 alted unto heaven ? thou shalt be brought down 
 unto Hades " (Luke x, 15); "And in Hades he 
 lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth 
 Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom " 
 (Luke xvi, 23) ; " Because thou wilt not leave my 
 soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy 
 One to see corruption." " He foreseeing this 
 spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that 
 neither was he left in Hades, nor did his flesh 
 see corruption " (Acts ii, 27, 31); "And I was 
 dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and 
 I have the keys of death and of Hades " (Rev. 
 i, 1 8); "And I saw, and behold, a pale horse: 
 and he that sat upon him, his name was death ;
 
 AViJ/' TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY, 121 
 
 and Hades followed with him " (Rev. vi, 8) ; 
 " And the sea gave up the dead which were in 
 it; and death and Hades gave up the dead 
 which were in them : and they were judged 
 every man according to their works. And death 
 and Hades were cast into the lake of fire " (Rev. 
 xx, 13, 14). 
 
 reevva. This word is the Grecized form of the 
 Hebrew D3'n '3, valley of Hinnom or more fully 
 nan-ja S'3, or Darna \s. The etymology of the word 
 D3'n is uncertain. Some suppose it is the name 
 of a man. Others think it is derived from a root 
 signifying " lamentation," in reference to the 
 cry of the children offered in sacrifice to Molech 
 in the valley of its name. 
 
 This valley (also called Tophet, most probably 
 from the root ^w, "to spit upon," hence "ab- 
 horred ") was on the south and west of Jerusa- 
 lem. It is first mentioned in the Scriptures in 
 Josh, xv, 8; xviii, 16, in connection with the 
 description of the boundaries of the territories 
 of Judah and Benjamin. In the time of Solo- 
 mon the worship of Molech a bull-shaped image 
 into whose burning arms the Jews learned to 
 cast their children was set up in it (i Kings xi, 
 7), and Ahaz set the example for the people of 
 making his own " son to pass through the fire,
 
 122 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 according to the abominations of the heathen" 
 (2 Kings xvi, 3). These rites continued to be 
 practiced until the time of Josiah, who " defiled " 
 the place and overthrew the heathenish worship 
 (2 Kings xxiii, 10). On account of the horrible 
 rites there practiced the Jews afterward made 
 the valley the common place of sewage for the 
 filth of the city. The carcasses of animals and 
 the bodies of criminals were also thrown into it. 
 A fire was kept burning in it for the purpose of 
 destroying these things and to prevent pesti- 
 lence. These facts made the place afterward to 
 be looked upon as a symbol of the place of 
 future punishment. Hence "Gehenna" be- 
 came the name of the place of the lost in Hades, 
 and was so used by the Jews in the time of 
 Christ. 
 
 The term yeewa is used in the New Testa- 
 ment twelve times, in every instance but one 
 (Jas. iii, 6) in the gospels. Twice it is used in 
 the phrase yeevva rov nvpog " Gehenna of fire " 
 (Matt, v, 22 ; xviii, 9). Once we have vlo<; yeewr)$ 
 "son of Gehenna " (Matt, xxiii, 15) and once 
 Kpiaig TT/f yeevv?/? "judgment of Gehenna" 
 (Matt, xxiii, 33). 
 
 The passages in which the word is found are 
 as follows: " But I say unto you, that every one
 
 NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 123 
 
 who is angry with his brother shall be in danger 
 of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to 
 his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the 
 council ; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, 
 shall be in danger of the hell of fire " (Matt, v, 
 22) ; " And if thy right eye causeth thee to 
 stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee : for 
 it is profitable for thee that one of thy members 
 should perish, and not thy whole body be cast 
 into hell. And if thy right hand causeth thee 
 to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee : 
 for it is profitable for thee that one of thy 
 members should perish, and not thy whole 
 body go into hell " (Matt, v, 29, 30) ; " And be 
 not afraid of them which kill the body, but are 
 not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him 
 which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
 hell " (Matt, x, 28) ; " And if thine eye causeth 
 thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from 
 thee : it is good for thee to enter into life with 
 one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast 
 into the hell of fire " (Matt, xviii, 9) ; "Woe 
 unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for 
 ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte ; 
 and when he is become so, ye make him twofold 
 more a son of hell than yourselves " (Matt, xxiii, 
 15); "Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how
 
 124 FUTUKE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 shall ye escape the judgment of hell ? " (Matt, 
 xxlii, 33); "And if thy hand cause thee to 
 stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter 
 into life maimed, rather than having thy t\vo 
 hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. 
 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: 
 it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather 
 than having thy two feet to be cast into hell. 
 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it 
 out: it is good for thee to enter into the king- 
 dom of God with one eye, rather than having 
 two eyes to be cast into hell ; where their worm 
 dieth not, and the fire is not quenched " (Mark 
 ix, 43, 45, 47) ; " But I will warn you whom ye 
 shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed 
 hath power to cast into hell ; yea, I say unto 
 you, Fear him " (Luke xii, 5) ; " And the tongue 
 is a fire: the world of iniquity among our mem- 
 bers is the tongue, which defileth the whole 
 body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, 
 and is set on fire by hell " (Jas. iii, 6). 
 
 Taprapd)oag. This word is found but once in 
 the Bible (2 Pet. ii, 4), and is translated " hell " 
 in both versions. It is the aorist participle of 
 the verb Toprapoo) " to hurl into Tartarus " and 
 is used as a noun for rdprapof; Tartarus. 
 
 signified to the Greeks in their older
 
 NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 125 
 
 writings a place below Hades as far as the latter 
 was below heaven. This was the prison of the 
 Titans, and the place into which Zeus threw 
 " the worst offenders against his authority." In 
 the later writers it was used to signify the under- 
 world in general (hence synonomous with 
 Hades), and, particularly, as one part of Hades, 
 the abode of wicked spirits, as over against 
 Elysium, the place of the good (Liddell and 
 Scott). It was used chiefly in this latter signifi- 
 cation. 
 
 The passage in Peter in which the word is 
 found reads as follows : " For if God spared not 
 angels when they sinned, but cast them down to 
 hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, 
 to be reserved unto judgment : . . . the Lord 
 knoweth how to deliver the godly out of tempta- 
 tion, and to keep the unrighteous under punish- 
 ment unto the day of judgment." 
 
 When it is remembered that for the incurably 
 wicked the Greeks knew no restoration from 
 Tartarus, the intent of the apostle in using the 
 word in this passage cannot be doubtful. 
 
 If it is objected that Peter expressly limits the 
 state of things described in the passage to the 
 time of "judgment," in response we would refer 
 the reader to the fact already given, that wicked
 
 126 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 men and devils are to suffer an aeonian punish- 
 ment after the judgment. Granting, therefore, 
 that the passage here teaches a punishment to 
 last only until the judgment, the other passages 
 referred to settle the question of punishment 
 after that event. 
 
 4>peap, dfivoaog, "k'(iivr\ rov irvpog. These words 
 may be considered together. The first is used 
 seven times in the New Testament, three times 
 translated " well " (Luke xiv, 5 [in A. V. " pit "]; 
 John iv, n, 12), four times (Rev. ix, i, 2), "pit." 
 In this latter connection it is used twice with 
 ajQutTCTOf, and is translated in the Revised Version 
 " the pit of the abyss." In the four places in Rev- 
 elation it seems to be identical in signification 
 with Gehenna and Tartarus in Hades. "Afivaoos 
 "abyss" is in Rom. x, 7, and Rev. ix, i, 2, 
 used of the under-world in general. In the first 
 case reference is made to Christ's descent into 
 Hades. In Rev. ix, i, 2, the "pit " is in the 
 abyss. In other places it seems to signify 
 simply Gehenna, Tartarus, or the " pit." The 
 demons of Luke viii, 31, requested that they 
 might not be sent into the "abyss" (dfivaoos). 
 So, also, Rev. ix, n ; xi, 7 ; xvii, 8; xx, I, 3. 
 The phrase /UjuvTj rov -rrvpog "lake of fire" is 
 found only in Revelation, and in every case
 
 NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 127 
 
 signifies the place of future punishment. In one 
 case the phrase is " lake of fire and brimstone " 
 detov (chap, xx, 10); in another, "the lake 
 that burneth with fire and brimstone " (chap. 
 xxi, 8) ; once, " the lake of fire that burneth 
 with brimstone " (chap, xix, 20). Twice the 
 " lake of fire " is identified with the " second 
 death " (chap, xx, 14; xxi, 8). From Rev. xx, 
 14, "and death and Hades were cast into the 
 lake of fire," we might infer that " the lake of 
 fire " is meant to signify the place of the 
 Kokaoig aiwviog after the judgment, Hades as the 
 place of the righteous and unrighteous dead 
 alike no longer existing, the " world " and the 
 saved having been " perfected," or consummated 
 (Matt, xxviii, 20; Phil, i, 6). 
 
 2. The second class of terms, as we have 
 named them, are those that pertain to the dura- 
 tion of future punishment. 
 
 First among these is aluv. The most gener- 
 ally received etymology connects this word with 
 dei (always), and makes it identical with the 
 Latin cevunt, from which we get the English 
 aye or ever, deriving Greek, Latin, and English 
 ultimately from the Sanskrit evas. The signifi- 
 cations of the word are not doubtful either in 
 the classics or the Scriptures. In the former
 
 128 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the word signifies " an age," " human life time," 
 "life itself;" also, <r an unbroken age, perpetuity 
 of time, eternity." With its classic usage corre- 
 sponds in some particulars its use in the Septua- 
 gint (in translating the Hebrew oHy) and in the 
 New Testament. In both of these, however, it 
 has significations peculiar to themselves. We 
 are concerned chiefly with the use of the word 
 in the New Testament. Here it signifies: 
 
 (i) An age. In this sense it is used to signify 
 a dispensation, or economy. The Jews were in 
 the habit of dividing time into two periods, that 
 which preceded the Messiah (njn Dbiyn), and that 
 which would be after his advent (N3n Q?iyn). 
 The New Testament writers adopted the same 
 division of time, and in a number of instances 
 referred to the present age preceding the 
 parousia as 6 atwv ovrof this age (Rom. xii, 2), 
 6 alu)v the age (Matt, xiii, 22], 6 evecrrcbf aluv 
 the present, or existing age (Gal. i, 4), 6 vvv aluv 
 the now age (i Tim. vi, 17); to that which 
 will succeed the parousia as atwv /zeAAwv the 
 future age (Matt, xii, 32), 6 atwv eitelvos that age 
 (Luke xx, 35), 6 aiuv b ep%6fj,evoc the coming age 
 (Luke xviii, 30). In some instances the word 
 seems synonomous with " the time of life," or, at 
 least, it involves this idea. Hence Demas is
 
 A'EIV TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 1^9 
 
 condemned for having loved " the now age " 
 ayaTTT/aaf rov vvv aluva (2 Tim. iv, lo) ; there is 
 a wisdom which is " of this age " ootyia rov 
 altivng rovrov (i Cor. ii, 6. Compare, also, I Cor. 
 i, 20; Luke xvi, 8 ; Eph. ii, 2). 
 
 (2) " By metonomy of the container for the 
 contained, ol aluveg denotes tJie worlds, the uni- 
 verse, that is, the aggregate of things contained 
 in time," as opposed to Koafiog, or the world as 
 contained in space. Thus we have : " Through 
 whom also he made the worlds " roi-g al&vag 
 (Heb. i, 2); "By faith we understand that the 
 worlds rovg aiuvag have been framed by the 
 word of God " (Heb. xi, 3). 
 
 (3) Another signification of the term is dura- 
 tion without limitation, or forever. Thus in 
 2 Pet. iii, 18, we have: "To him be the glory 
 both now and forever" elg j^ucpav aluvog, liter- 
 ally, " unto the day which is eternity." In John 
 vi, 51, we have: " If any man eat of this bread he 
 shall live forever " elg rov aluva, etc. Other 
 forms of the word that express the same idea 
 are e^ irdvrag roi-g aluvag unto all the ages 
 (Jude 25) ; ? rovg al^vag ~H)v al&vw unto the 
 ages of the ages (Rev. i, 6, etc.). When these 
 phrases are used with a negative particle, as 
 ov \ir\, or simply ou, they signify an unqualified
 
 130 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 never, or not forever. Examples are as follows : 
 " But whosoever drinketh of the water that 
 I shall give him shall never thirst 'V ov p) 
 diiprjaei elg rbv atwvaQohn iv, 14); " Wherefore, if 
 meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat 
 no flesh for evermore " ov p) 0ayw ttpea elg rov 
 aiuva (i Cor. viii, 13); "And the bond-servant 
 abideth not in the house forever " ov fievei lv 
 rq olida elg rbv aluva (John viii, 35). 
 
 (4) In some cases the word signifies simply a 
 very long time. " The same were the mighty 
 men which' were of old" arr' aiuvoq (Gen. vi, 4. 
 Compare, also, Luke i, 70; John ix, 32 ; Acts iii, 
 2 1 ; xv, 1 8). 
 
 From the substantive aluv is derived the ad- 
 jective alurtog. That this word is used to signify 
 ' everlasting " would never have been questioned 
 but for the possible implication of this fact in 
 relation to the doctrine of future punishment. 
 In the following instances it undoubtedly bears 
 this meaning. " The eternal God " (Rom. xvi, 
 26) ; " For we know that if the earthly house of 
 our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building 
 from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, 
 in the heavens" (2 Cor. v, i) ; "The eternal 
 Spirit " (Heb. ix, 14) ; " And for this cause he is 
 the mediator of a new covenant, that a death
 
 NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 131 
 
 having taken place for the redemption of the 
 transgressions that were under the first covenant, 
 they that have been called may receive the 
 promise of the eternal inheritance " (Heb. ix, 
 15); " Therefore I endure all things for the elect's 
 sake, that they also may obtain the salvation 
 which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory " 
 (2 Tim. ii, 10), etc. 
 
 It is also used, however, metaphorically or 
 poetically (Hab. iii, 6) to signify indefinite or 
 long time. But we would suggest that its 
 metaphorical and poetic use is grounded upon, 
 and derives its force from, its absolute significa- 
 tion. An illustration may be given in the use of 
 our own word ''eternal." Because this word 
 signifies to us " everlasting " in an absolute sense, 
 therefore its metaphorical use, as when \ve say 
 "eternal hills" or "eternal laws," etc., has the force 
 of meaning that such expressions convey to us. 
 
 The same remark maybe made concerning the 
 use of aluviog in other than strictly metaphorical 
 significations. Examples are as follows : " And 
 I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, 
 the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, 
 for an everlasting possession " (Gen. xvii, 8) ; 
 "And this shall be an everlasting statute unto 
 you " (Lev. xvi, 34). In these and other instances
 
 132 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the absolute signification of the word furnishes 
 ground for its secondary and limited use. 
 
 The Septuagint use of al&v and aluviog is of in- 
 terest as illustrating the New Testament use, the 
 latter in many respects being derived from the 
 former. There they are used in translating D?0? 
 and iy (with their plural forms, reduplication;-., 
 and combinations), with which they have very 
 similar meanings, though different etymological 
 ideas. Some of the corresponding forms in 
 Hebrew and Greek are as follows: nf\y = aluv 
 Dpiy? = elg rov aluva ; D'Cvty D^ij? = al)V$ r&v al&vwv ; 
 *1JJ wijnj? t'wf rov alijvos *:~i-" unto the time of 
 eternity and on ;" D^Tiy =aluvi oc. The following 
 passages are examples in addition to those given 
 above : " And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not 
 strive with man forever " (Gen. vi, 3) ; " As I 
 live forever " (Deut. xxxii, 40) ; " One genera- 
 tion goeth, and another generation cometh ; and 
 the earth abideth forever" (Eccl. i, 4); "But 
 Israel shall be saved by the Lord with an ever- 
 lasting salvation : ye shall not be ashamed nor 
 confounded world without end" (Isa. xlv, 17). 
 
 When all the recognized and indisputable uses 
 of aluv and aluvio<; in classic and in Old and 
 New Testament writings are taken into the ac- 
 count, their influence in determining the question
 
 A'EIT TEST AM EXT TERMINOLOGY. 133 
 
 of the duration of future punishment is in them- 
 selves alone of little worth ; but in connection 
 with all the facts given on the subject, remember- 
 ing their possible signification of " everlasting," 
 they are of great importance.* 
 
 'AiSiog. This word is found but twice in the 
 New Testament, once in Rom. i, 20, " For the 
 invisible things of him since the creation of the 
 world are clearly seen, being perceived through 
 the things that are made, even his everlasting 
 [at&o^] power and divinity," and once in Jude 6, 
 "And angels which kept not their own princi- 
 pality, but left their proper habitation, he hath 
 kept in everlasting [at&'otf] bonds under darkness 
 unto the judgment of the great day." 
 
 Much capital is made by some writers out of 
 the fact that aidiog, which, as they assert, is a 
 much stronger word than atwvtof, is used but once 
 in the New Testament in connection with the 
 subject of future punishment. And then, they 
 assert, where it is so used it cannot signify eternal 
 punishment ; for the " everlasting bonds " in which 
 the fallen angels are kept " under darkness " last 
 04ily "unto the judgment of the great day." 
 
 * We doubt if any orthodox writer claims more for these 
 words, and yet many writers of the opposite class expend much 
 time and labor in proving that the words do not always in the 
 Scr-'ptures signify "eternity."
 
 1,14 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 Besides what has already been two or three 
 times said as to the punishment of the lost after 
 the judgment, we may ask if this word signifies 
 so much more than aiuviog in the New Testa- 
 ment, as these writers assert. Paul, as we have 
 seen, is the only writer besides Jude who uses 
 the word. The signification of the word as used 
 by him is not uncertain ; but this same apostle 
 who speaks of the " aidian " power and divinity 
 of God speaks also in another place of the 
 "aeonian [aiwwoc] God" (Rom. xvi, 26). Did he 
 mean more when he used dldtog in the one case 
 than when he used aluviog in the other ? Can 
 we translate " everlasting power and divinity " in 
 the one case and " age-long God " in the other, 
 and believe the apostle had any such distinction 
 in his thought? Must we not regard his use of 
 the words as not only synonomous, but identical? 
 Besides, St. Jude, in the same passage in which 
 he speaks of "aidian bonds," speaks also of 
 " aeonian fire " (xvp aluviov'). Did he mean more 
 by the one word than by the other ? or did he 
 use them as interchangeable ? 
 
 Whatever the passage in Jude may or may 
 not signify as to the punishment of the lost, we 
 are persuaded from the above considerations that 
 the claim that O.L$LO<; would have been a better
 
 NEIV TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 135 
 
 word in general to express the orthodox doctrine 
 of future punishment than a;u>wo? has no foun- 
 dation in the facts in the case. Indeed, this is 
 tacitly, though inconsistently, granted in the as- 
 sertion above referred to, that didiog in the pas- 
 sage in question does not mean " everlasting." 
 
 3. Our third class of words are those that per- 
 tain to the condition or state of the lost. These 
 terms are those upon which the Annihilationist 
 bases his claim. As to this doctrine we will 
 have more to say further on. For the present 
 we are to deal with the terms simply from the 
 stand-point of the present chapter. They are in 
 all general respects identical, and so may be 
 briefly considered together. 
 
 The claim made for them is that they signify 
 the total destruction, not the eternal punishment, 
 of the lost. This assertion is based partly upon 
 the use of the terms in the Greek writers. Thus 
 White says, " No fact in literature is capable of 
 clearer demonstration than that the majority of 
 these nouns and verbs, denoting destruction of 
 some sort, are used by Plato again and again in 
 the Plicedon, a dialogue on immortality, expressly 
 for the purpose of conveying the idea of the lit- 
 eral destruction or extinction of the soul" (Life in 
 Christ, p. 360). " They arc precisely the terms
 
 136 FUTURE RETRIBUl^JON. 
 
 generally chosen in the New Testament to de- 
 note the punishment of the wicked, with this 
 difference, that Plato says the soul will not suffer 
 Odvaroc;, d-<oAa, oXedpog, 0popa ; that it is not des- 
 tined to aTroheaOai, KarcKpOei.peGOai, dia^deipKoOat, 
 dnodvr/fjKeiv; while the New Testament writers 
 declare that wicked men shall suffer what is de- 
 noted by these terms. In Plato's dialogue these 
 words stand for extinction of life, for that idea 
 only, and in the strongest possible contrast to 
 the idea of perpetuation of being. Our argu- 
 ment is that in the New Testament they signify 
 precisely the same doom the final and absolute 
 extinction of life in the case of the wicked " (ibid., 
 p. 361). It is this latter claim that we wish chiefly 
 to examine. 
 
 A word may be said, however, as to the classic 
 use of these terms. It is not denied that Plato 
 used them in the sense which Mr. White claims 
 for them. But it is denied that this is their com- 
 mon classic signification. Dean Plumptre shows 
 that the earliest use of the earliest form of OLTTOA- 
 Af//t did not signify extinction of conscious be- 
 ing, and reminds us that the New Testament 
 writers, in their use of the words in question, 
 were not influenced by Plato, but by the older 
 Greek writers through the Septuagint. He says
 
 NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 137 
 
 of the word aTrdAAu/a in these writers: "Of any 
 approach of its use in regard to men, of the de- 
 struction of conscious existence, there is, so far as 
 I know, not a single instance." The colloquial 
 use of the word was the same (Spirits in Prison, 
 pp. 323, 324, 327). 
 
 That these words ia their biblical use do not 
 signify the annihilation of the wicked (a doctrine 
 contrary to the assumed immortality of the soul 
 every-where in the Scriptures), but the utter ruin 
 and loss of the soul, the following facts will abun- 
 dantly demonstrate : 
 
 (l) Qdvarog (and it will not be assumed that the 
 other words can assert more in the matter than 
 this word, or that they can prove annihilation if 
 it does not) is used concerning the soul in this 
 life under sin, in which case it clearly cannot 
 mean annihilation or extinction. Instances are 
 as follows : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He 
 that heareth my word, and believeth him that 
 sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into 
 judgment, but hath passed out of death into life" 
 (John v, 24). " We kno\v that we have passed 
 out of death into life, because we love the breth- 
 ren " (i John iii, 14). Instances in which the 
 kindred word vettpog is used are as follows : " And 
 you did he quicken, when ye were dead through
 
 138 FUTURE RETRIBU7ION. 
 
 your trespasses and sins " (Eph. ii, i). " And 
 you, being dead through your trespasses and 
 the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did 
 he quicken together with him, having forgiven 
 us all our trespasses" (Col. ii, 13). One notable 
 passage in which three kindred words are found 
 (davarog being one of them) is Rom. vii, 9-11 : 
 "And I was alive apart from the law once: but 
 when the commandment came, sin revived, and 
 I died [a7ro6W/fT-w] ; and the commandment, which 
 was unto life, this I found to be unto death [elg 
 ddvarov] : for sin, finding occasion, through the 
 commandment beguiled me, and through it slew 
 me [aTTwremo]." 
 
 The figurative use of ddvarog, and its class of 
 words, in other connections need only be referred 
 to. Compare Rom. vi, 2, 7, 8, ii, etc. 
 
 (2) 'A7r6AAr;p (and with this the other words go 
 likewise) is also used of a soul in sin in life. Ex- 
 amples are as follows : " And he spake unto 
 them this parable, saying, What man of you, 
 having a hundred sheep, and having lost 
 [dTroAeffa?] one of them, doth not leave the ninety 
 and nine in the wilderness, and go after that 
 which is lost [TO dTroAcoAo^], until he find it? ... 
 I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy 
 in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more
 
 .\'EU' TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY. 139 
 
 tlian over ninety and nine righteous persons, 
 which need no repentance " (Luke xv, 3-7). "Or 
 what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she 
 lose [a-xoXeoq] one piece, doth not light a lamp, 
 and sweep the house, and seek diligently until 
 she find it? ... Even so, I say unto you, there 
 is joy in the presence of the angels of God over 
 one sinner that repenteth " (Luke xv, 8-lo). 
 " For the Son of man came to seek and to save 
 that which was lost [TO dTToAwAof] " (Luke xix, 
 lo) ; " For this my son . . . was lost [dTroAwAcuf], 
 and is found " (Luke xv, 24). 
 
 The Septuagint use of the terms ddvaroq and 
 d7r6AAu/.w is the same as that in the New Testa- 
 ment, from which the latter is derived. There 
 they are used in translating the Hebrew niE and 
 "ntf. It will be necessary simply to quote a few 
 passages in illustration. " I have gone astray 
 like a lost sheep [wf Trpofiarov aTroAwAo^] " (Psa. 
 cxix, 176). "And he shall set up an ensign for 
 the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts 
 [rovg d-roAo/jevot'f] of Israel, and gather together 
 the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of 
 the earth " (Isa. xi, 12). " I will seek that which 
 was lost [TO drroAwAof] " (Ezek. xxxiv, 16). "As I 
 live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the 
 death [6dva-o<f\ of the wicked " (Ezek. xxxiii, 1 1).
 
 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and 
 stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have 
 gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her 
 chickens under her wings, and ye would not ! Behold, jour 
 house is left unto you desolate." Matt, xxiii, 37, 38. 
 
 " How shall I give thee up, Ephraim ? how shall I deliver 
 thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set 
 thee as Zeboim ? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings 
 are kindled together." Hos. xi, 8. 
 
 "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." 
 John v, 40. 
 
 " But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth 
 my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." Rom. 
 
 X, 21. 
 
 "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear 
 my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will 
 sup with him, and he with me." Rev. iii, 20.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Ground of Future Endless Retribution ; or, Fcr 
 What the Wicked are Punished Eternally. 
 
 IN the foregoing chapters we have considered 
 the scriptural grounds of the doctrine of future 
 endless retribution and presented and answered 
 the objections and arguments of the Universalist, 
 supplementing these considerations with a chap- 
 ter on the New Testament terminology on the 
 subject. It is now time to consider the question 
 involved in the title of the present chapter: 
 for what will the wicked be punished eternally? 
 The importance of this phase of the subject 
 will be manifest to every one ; especially when 
 it is remembered how many false views have 
 prevailed at one time or another, and in one 
 part of the Christian Church or another, and how 
 much confusion prevails to-day in the minds of 
 many writers and teachers on both sides of the 
 question with regard to it. It will be our aim 
 in the present chapter to gather together the 
 facts and considerations involved in this inquiry, 
 and to seek the true solution of the difficulty in
 
 142 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the answer of the Scriptures. We propose to 
 consider first the things for which men will not 
 be punished forever, or false views upon the sub- 
 ject, and then, positively, that for which they will 
 be thus punished, or the ground of eternal guilt. 
 
 THINGS FOR WHICH THE WICKED WILL NOT 
 BE PUNISHED ETERNALLY. 
 
 In general terms it may be said that no man 
 will be punished in the other life for that over 
 which he had no control, or for things for which 
 he was not responsible, in this life. We have 
 no doctrine upon the subject which denies the 
 position that ability and responsibility are com- 
 mensurate ; none which assigns man to perdition 
 for any other cause than personal demerit. The 
 following doctrines cannot, therefore, be true : 
 
 I. That which assigns men to hell for the sin 
 of Adam. This doctrine has played an influen- 
 tial part in the theology of the Church from the 
 days of Augustine to the present time, and still 
 lingers in creeds that do not trace their paternity 
 through any direct line to this ancient father. A 
 few sample quotations embodying the venerable 
 error will be in place. The first we take from 
 the Augsburg Confession, the first and most 
 generally received symbol of the Lutheran
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 143 
 
 Church. In Article II, on "Original Sin," it 
 says: 
 
 " Also they [' the churches with common con- 
 sent among us'] teach that, after Adam's fall, all 
 men begotten after the common course of nature 
 are born with sin ; that is, without the fear of 
 God, without trust in him, and with fleshly appe- 
 tite ; and that this disease, or original fault, is 
 truly sin, condemning and bringing eternal death 
 now also upon all that are not born again by 
 baptism and the Holy Spirit " (Schaff 's Creeds 
 cf Christendom, vol. iii, p. 8). 
 
 In the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of 
 England, on the same subject, Article IX, is the 
 following: 
 
 " Original sin standeth not in the following of 
 Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) ; but it is 
 the fault and corruption of the nature of every 
 man, that naturally is engendered of the off- 
 spring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone 
 from original righteousness, and is of his own 
 nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth 
 always contrary to the spirit ; and therefore in ev- 
 ery person born into this world, it deserveth God's 
 wrath and damnation* . . ." (ibid., vol. iii, p. 493). 
 
 * Tt should be remembered that this last clause was left out of our 
 "Articles of Religion " when abridged from the Thirty-Nine cf
 
 144 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 Once more, in the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, Article VI, "Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, 
 and of the Punishment Thereof," is the following : 
 
 " Every sin, both original and actual, being a 
 transgression of the righteous law of God, and 
 contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring 
 guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over 
 to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so 
 made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, 
 temporal, and eternal" (ibid., p. 616). 
 
 We repudiate this doctrine as irrational and 
 unscriptural. We are concerned with it mostly, 
 however, as unscriptural. This the following facts 
 will demonstrate : 
 
 (i) The Scriptures every-where represent the 
 guilt of man as personal, and not hereditary. 
 Witness the following illustrative passages : " I 
 the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even 
 to give every man according to his ways, accord- 
 ing to the fruit of his doings " (Jcr. xvii, 10) ; 
 " The soul that sinneth, it shall die ; " " The 
 soul that sinneth, it shall die : the son shall not 
 bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the 
 father bear the iniquity of the son ; the right- 
 
 the Church of England by Mr. Wesley, and adopted by the Christ- 
 mas Conference of 1784. As a Church we are, therefore, com- 
 mitted against the error.
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 115 
 
 eousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and 
 the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him " 
 (Ezek. xviii, 4, 20) ; " And I say unto you, that 
 every idle word that men shall speak, they shall 
 give account thereof in the day of judgment " 
 (Matt, xii, 36) ; " Who will render to every man 
 according to his works " (Rom. ii, 6 ; compare 
 Psa. Ixii, 12; Prov. xxiv, 12; Jer. xxxii, 19; 
 Matt, xvi, 27; 2 Cor. v, 10; Rev. ii, 23; xx, 
 12; xxii, 12); "So then each one of us shall 
 give account of himself to God " (Rom. xiv, 
 12). And nowhere is it said in the Scriptures 
 that a man shall give account to God for the sin 
 of Adam, or of any one but himself. 
 
 Depravity is inherited, but not guilt ; and it is 
 with reference to this fact that all the passages 
 that arc frequently urged to prove inherited 
 guilt, such as Eph. ii, 3, " And were by nature 
 children of wrath," * and Rom. v, 12-21, find 
 their proper interpretation. 
 
 * \Ve include Ep!i. ii, 3, among this class of passages because 
 it is one of the strongholds of the advocates of inherited guilt, 
 and by opponents of this doctrine is said simply to teach genetic 
 depravity , but we question if it has any direct reference to 
 " original sin " in any sense. In the light of the context (verses 
 l-io) the passage seems to teach simply that those to whom it 
 refers were "according to condition " before they received the 
 gospel subjects of the divine wrath. In Paul's thought the 
 contrast in the passage is between the Ephesian Christians as 
 10
 
 146 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 (2) In the New Testament representations of 
 the judgment the lost are assigned to punish- 
 ment solely for their own sins. Examine Matt. 
 xxv, 41-46; 2 Pet. ii ; Rev. xx, 12-15; xxii, 
 10-15. In all of these passages the punishment 
 of the wicked is represented as awarded on the 
 ground of personal guilt in actual sin. In the 
 story of Dives and Lazarus, moreover, no inti- 
 mation is given that the former was in punish- 
 ment for the sins of any but himself. 
 
 2. Again, the wicked will not be punished for- 
 ever on the ground of an arbitrary reprobation. 
 This doctrine differs from the one preceding in 
 that it is confined to the Calvinistic creeds and 
 theologies. No Arminian advocates uncondi- 
 tional election and reprobation, while some do 
 hold to the doctrine of hereditary guilt. 
 
 Appealing to the only rule of faith on this as 
 on every other doctrine the Scriptures we 
 reject this teaching also, for the following chief 
 reasons : 
 
 (i) It contradicts the many passages which 
 
 saved, and as living, formerly, according to the " course of this 
 world," as " the rest" of the Gentiles. They, then, were "by 
 nature " (<f>iiaei), or according to natural condition or state as liv- 
 ing in sin, "children of wrath [worthy of the divine wrath ; 
 compare the phrase "son of Gehenna" in Matt, xxiii, 15] even 
 as the rest."
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 147 
 
 declare the free and universal purpose and pro- 
 vision of God for the "sins of the whole world." 
 Familiar examples are as follows : " Behold, 
 the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of 
 the world ! " (John i, 29) ; " For God so loved the 
 world, that he gave his only begotten Son, tluit 
 whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
 but have eternal life" (ibid., iii, iC) ; "God was 
 in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" 
 (2 Cor. v, 19) ; " And he is the propitiation for 
 our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the 
 whole world " (i John ii, 2). 
 
 The Calvinist has one all-convenient recourse 
 by which he can obviate the plain import of these 
 gracious words of Scripture, namely, by dis- 
 honoring God in attributing to him an insincere 
 purpose, according to the teaching which as- 
 cribes to him a " secret," as over against his 
 " revealed," will, the one contradicting and be- 
 lying the other ; God, according to the latter, 
 declaring to men his willingness and desire to 
 save, and according to the former, withholding 
 from the non-elect " effective " grace. 
 
 It is quite sufficient to reply to this, that if 
 this assumption be true we are unable to know 
 whether God's " revealed " will concerning the 
 " elect " is a sincere will ; and, for aught we can
 
 148 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 know to the contrary, all will be finally reprobate 
 through the working out of his "secret" will. 
 Thus the Calvinist by his own assumption takes 
 the ground of confidence from beneath his own 
 feet, and destroys all effective assurance of the 
 salvation even of the saints. Thus, like the un- 
 lucky mechanic, he saws off the very limb on 
 which he is sitting.* 
 
 (2) God explicitly says that he has no pleasure 
 in the death of the wicked. In Ezekiel he asks 
 and answers his own question pertaining to this 
 
 * Moderate New England Calvinism (the New Haven type) 
 rejected this explanation of the difficulty on the ground of two 
 wills, inconsistent and contradictory, and resorted to the view 
 that God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, but that it is 
 incompatible with the highest good of his system as a whole to 
 efficiently cause the salvation of any but the elect. These latter 
 are not loved more than others, but are chosen with reference 
 to the general motive named, namely, the greatest possible good 
 of the system as a whole. (Fisher, Discussions in History and 
 Theology, pp.325, 326.) 
 
 This doctrine implies that the best possible system Cod could 
 arrange involved and necessitated the unconditional reprobation 
 of some men, beyond their ability to choose or receive the con- 
 trary, to eternal death. It is held by Arminians (and was also 
 held by the New Haven School of Calvinists) that the best pos- 
 sible system, under the divine wisdom and benevolence, involves 
 freedom to sin with all its consequences, actual and possible ; 
 but this declares simply that the best order of things excludes 
 a divine forceful prevention of sin, or the destruction of free 
 moral agency. The distinctive doctrine of the New Haven the- 
 ology holds that it is necessary for the best possible outcome in 
 the created system that God should leave some men without
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 149 
 
 very subject. " Have I any pleasure in the 
 death of the wicked ? saith the Lord God : and 
 not rather that he should return from his way, 
 and live?" (chap, xviii, 23). The answer is in 
 verse 32 of this same chapter, and in chapter 
 xxxiii, 11:" For I have no pleasure in the death 
 of him that dieth, saith the Lord God : where- 
 fore turn yourselves, and live ;" " Say unto them, 
 As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleas- 
 ure in the death of the wicked ; but that the 
 
 the efficient and necessary means of salvation, or, in other 
 words, that the unconditional damnation of some men is a neces- 
 sary means of the Lest possible system of things. The former 
 doctrine makes the free agency of men the necessary element in 
 such a system ; the latter makes divine unconditional election 
 this necessary element. 
 
 But this doctrine, while better and profounder than the older 
 and more common one discussed in the text, is also freighted 
 with insuperable difficulties. It devolves upon advocates of the 
 doctrine to prove that the so-called necessity is real. As an as- 
 sumption it can only have weight upon the truthfulness of the 
 prior assumption of an unconditional election and reprobation. 
 In other words, it is of significance at all only on the assumption 
 that the Calvinistic doctrine cf election and its corollary are 
 exegetically proven. But this we do not allow. Besides, the 
 doctrine is, equally with the other, contrary to the assumed abil- 
 ity of nil men to repent and be saved in the Scriptures, and with 
 the universal provisions of grace with this end in view, also 
 given in the Scriptures and admitted by the Calvinist. 
 
 No form of Calvinism will ever be able to reconcile its doc- 
 trines of partial election and grace with the freeness and pro- 
 vision of grace offered to all men upon assumed conditions of 
 ability on the part of all to accept salvation.
 
 150 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 v i eked turn from his way and live : turn ye, 
 turn ye from your evil ways ; for why will ye 
 die, O house of Israel." In the New Testament 
 the divine revelation is equally explicit. " Who 
 willeth that all men should be saved, and come 
 to the knowledge of the truth " (i Tim. ii, 4). 
 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, 
 as some count slackness; but is long-suffering to 
 you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, 
 but that all should come to repentance " (2 Pet. 
 iii, 9). 
 
 In view of the positive divine declarations 
 of these passages, how singular that the " good 
 pleasure of his will " (Eph. i, 5) could ever have 
 been made to involve, in some cases, the eternal 
 and unconditional reprobation of men to death ! 
 Surely it is time for a revision of the Westmin- 
 ster Confession of Faith ! 
 
 Our general Arminian position makes it un- 
 necessary to notice the present false doctrine at 
 any greater length. 
 
 3. Nor will human beings be assigned to hell 
 
 *s O O 
 
 for a failure to receive what was not within 
 their power to receive ; but which, through the 
 neglect or providential inability of others, was 
 not given to them. We refer in this place to the 
 two false doctrines which have assigned persons
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 151 
 
 to perdition for not having received baptism over 
 which they had no control, and for not having 
 heard the Gospel. These theological errors like- 
 wise demand brief consideration. 
 
 Both of them have occupied a large place in 
 the teaching of the creeds, and are entertained 
 and taught in certain large sections of the Church 
 to-day. " Zwingli was the first to emancipate 
 the salvation of children dying in infancy from 
 the supposed indispensable condition of water- 
 baptism " (Schaffs Creeds of Christendom, vol. i, 
 p. 378). " The Roman Catholic Church, in keep- 
 ing with her doctrine of original sin and guilt, 
 and the necessity of water-baptism for salvation 
 (based upon Mark xvi, 16, and John iii, 5), teaches 
 the salvation of all baptized, and the condemna- 
 tion of all unbaptized children ; assigning the 
 latter to the limbus infantum on the border of 
 hell, where they suffer the mildest kind of pun- 
 ishment, namely, the negative penalty of loss 
 (pocna damni, or carentia beatifica tnsumts), but 
 not the positive pain of feeling (pcena sensus). St. 
 Augustine first clearly introduced this wholesale 
 exclusion of all unbaptized infants from heaven" 
 (ibid., p. 3/9). "The Lutheran creed retains sub- 
 stantially the Catholic view of baptismal regen- 
 eration, and hence limits infant salvation to those
 
 152 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 who enjoy this means of grace; allowing, how- 
 ever, some exceptions within the sphere of the 
 Christian Church, and making the damnatioii of 
 unbaptized infants as mild as the case will permit. 
 At present, however, there is scarcely a Luth- 
 eran divine of weight who would be willing to con- 
 fine salvation to baptized infants " (ibid., pp. 379, 
 380). The creed of the Greek Church is in keep- 
 ing with the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran.* 
 As to the salvation of the heathen Dr. Schaff 
 says : " Before Zwingli it was the universal opin- 
 ion that there can be no salvation outside of the 
 visible Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). 
 Dante, the poet of the mediaeval Catholicism, 
 assigns even Homer, Aristotle, Virgil, to hell " 
 (lit supra, p. 382). Zwingli was an exception in 
 his own age. " Luther was horrified at the idea 
 that even ' the godless Numa ' (!) should be 
 saved, and thought that it falsified the whole 
 Gospel, without which there can be no salvation " 
 (ibid?). This doctrine is taught to-day. In de- 
 
 * A strange coincidence in history is the fact that through the 
 logical exigency of two false doctrines (predestinarianism and a 
 false view of baptism as a necessary and saving ordinance) in- 
 nocent children have been assigned to that hell whose earthly 
 symbol (Ge Hinnom, the valley of Hinnom on the south and 
 west of Jerusalem) was at one time the place of the worship of 
 the god Molech, whose delight was in the cries of burning chil- 
 dren.
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 153 
 
 fense of it Dr. Charles Hodge says : " We must 
 not charge the ignorance and consequent per- 
 dition of the heathen upon God. The guilt rests 
 on us. We have kept to ourselves the bread 
 of life, and allowed the nations to perish " (Sys* 
 tematic Theology, vol. i, p. 31). Thus Dr. Hodge 
 charges the damnation of the heathen upon the 
 neglect of the Church.* 
 
 Both doctrines are alike contrary to the spirit 
 and explicit teaching of the Scriptures. As to 
 the first, it may be urged in general that nnbap- 
 tized children were by Christ declared to be ex- 
 amples and subjects of his kingdom (Matt, xviii, 
 2-5; xix, 13-15; Mark ix, 36, 37; x, 13-16; 
 Luke xviii, 15-17). As such they could not be 
 lost. It would seem a more rational inference to 
 say, Because they are Christ's they should be 
 baptized, than to say that they should be bap- 
 tized in order to be made Christ's.f As to the 
 
 * The history of this latter error is given at some length in 
 Plumptre's Spirits in Prison, chap. vi. 
 
 j-With reference to the passages that have been urged to 
 prove the damnation of children unbaptized (Mark xvi, 16 ; 
 John iii, 5), it maybe said : (i) That both imply the responsibility 
 of those of whom they speak. In the first instance Christ evi- 
 dently meant that condemnation would rest upon those who re- 
 fused the Gospel. In the second case no reference is made to 
 children, and the inference of their damnation if unbaptized 
 from the passage assumes that Christ must deal with children
 
 154 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 second doctrine, it is only necessary to urge the 
 words of the apostle Peter when sent to Cornel- 
 ius, " Of a truth I perceive that God is no re- 
 specter of persons: but in every nation he that 
 feareth him, and worke'ih righteousness, is ac- 
 ceptable to him" (Acts x, 34, 35); and to sug- 
 gest, still further, that, according to Paul in Rom. 
 i and ii, and elsewhere, even Peter's revelation was 
 not the fullest light to come on the subject of the 
 heathen in apostolic times. According to the 
 former apostle the following points seem to em- 
 brace the doctrine of the Scriptures upon the 
 subject: (i) That the Gentile is condemned by 
 disobedience to the light of nature (this includ- 
 ing both the teaching of nature and the universal 
 presence of the Holy Spirit [Rom. i, 20; 2, 12, 
 14, 15] ; compare John i, 9) ; (2) That God does 
 not require of him to live above what is revealed 
 to him, or above his opportunities (Acts xvii, 
 30) ; (3) That even by this standard, while con- 
 in an economy of grace as he does with adults, an assumption 
 without foundation in fact, as the passages above given in the 
 text demonstrate. Men are sinful and responsible, children are 
 not ; and it is folly in any case to draw a conclusion with refer- 
 ence to the innocent and irresponsible from words intended for 
 the responsible and sinful. (2) It cannot be proved that John 
 iii, 5i signifies more than the necessity of the new birth by the 
 Holy Spirit sym/w/^zeJ (not produced) by baptism. It no doubt 
 involves the duty of ChrUtian baptism.
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 155 
 
 demned for failure, justification cannot come ; 
 for none can be justified by keeping the law, 
 whether that law is given in nature or in the 
 Scriptures (Rom. iii, 19-30) ; (4) That while God 
 requires all men to strive to live up to the meas- 
 ure of light possessed, still occasional failure, or 
 even continual conscious deficiency, while to be 
 repented of, does not. exclude from the posses- 
 sion and privileges of divine sonship. Will- 
 ful and persistent rejection of the light possessed 
 seems the only bar to the divine favor and ac- 
 ceptance.* 
 
 Other false doctrines on the subject of eternal 
 guilt are (i) That which makes subscription to a 
 creed essential to salvation, and (2) That which 
 makes membership in a visible church neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Illustrations of the first error are as follows : 
 " Whosoever will be saved before all things, it is 
 necessary that he hold the Catholic faith : which 
 faith except every one do keep whole and unde- 
 filed, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" 
 
 * In proof of this last point we refer the reader to those pas- 
 sages in Paul's epistles which seek to correct sins in many believ- 
 ers, as, for example, I Cor. vi, 15-20 ; Eph. iv, 17-32 ; Col. iii, 
 i-io. The reader is also referred for a fuller statement of this 
 point to an article by the writer in the Methodist Review for 
 January, 1889, pp. 79-85.
 
 156 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 (Symbolum Quicunque, or The Athanasian Creed. 
 See the whole creed in Schaff, ut supra, vol. ii, 
 pp. 66-70); "I do, at this present, freely pro- 
 fess and truly hold this true Catholic faith, 
 without which no one can be saved " (Profes- 
 sion of the Tridentine Faith, A. D., 1564. See 
 Schaff, vol. i, pp. 96-98; vol. ii, pp. 207-210). 
 The famous bull " Unam Sanctam " of Bonifice 
 VIII. (1302) declared it necessary to salvation to 
 believe the Roman pontiff supreme in all secular 
 (governmental) affairs, as well as spiritual, and 
 the Vatican Council of 1870 confirmed this 
 doctrine in its decree concerning papal abso- 
 lutism and infallibility, and set its condemning 
 seal upon an opposing doctrine in the following 
 language : " But if any one which may God 
 avert presume to contradict this our definition : 
 let him be anathema" (Schaff, vol. ii, p. 271). 
 
 As to the second false doctrine, the Cyprionic 
 rule " extra ecclesiam nulla- salus" has not only 
 been applied to the heathen, but to nominal 
 Christians, and even to genuine followers of 
 Christ outside of some particular visible Com- 
 munion. Thus " in the seventeenth century the 
 Romanists excluded the Protestants, the Luther- 
 ans the Calvinists, the Calvinists the Arminians, 
 from the kingdom of heaven " (Schaff, as above,
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 157 
 
 vol. i, p. 384). The Romish doctrine is no bet- 
 ter to-day. 
 
 With regard to these doctrines the following 
 maybe said: As to the first, (i) That while the 
 New Testament makes unbelief in the Gospel a 
 condemning sin (Mark xvi, 16*), there is no 
 warrant for the extension of this principle to the 
 creeds of men, except in so far as they embody 
 and rightly interpret the Gospel ; and (2) That 
 then it is safer and less misleading to place the 
 condemnation on the ground of the teaching of 
 the New Testament than on the teaching of 
 human creeds. Against the second doctrine, (i) 
 That it contradicts the New Testament princi- 
 ples above announced concerning the heathen 
 (this larger relation of the Gospel to those out- 
 side of the visible Church including the lesser one 
 concerning the Christians in nominally Christian 
 countries outside of any Church : much more 
 those in the different denominations) ; (2) That 
 it makes salvation depend upon an agency 
 established to foster and develop the Christian 
 life, not to create it. The Holy Spirit is the 
 agent of eternal life (John iii, 3, 5, 7, 8); (3) That 
 
 * According to our revisers this text is in the midst of a doubt- 
 ful passage (Mark xvi, 9-20) ; but the truth it involves is given 
 elsewhere (John xii, 48).
 
 158 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 there have been, and are to-day, devout Chris- 
 tians outside of the visible Church, as, for exam- 
 ple, the Society of Friends.* 
 
 We teach it to be the duty of all to belong to 
 the visible Church and receive its sacraments, 
 because it is a divine institution (Matt, xvi, 18 ; 
 I Tim. iii, 15) and means of grace, and because 
 without membership in it it could not be 
 sustained, and its work of saving the world and 
 edifying believers properly done. We teach, 
 also, that a positive refusal to unite with the 
 Church, in the light of a clear conviction of this 
 as a duty, will exclude from the kingdom of 
 heaven. But this is placing the condemnation 
 of such persons as thus refuse on the ground of 
 positive sin, for " To him therefore that knoweth 
 to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin " 
 (Jas. iv, 17). All of this, however, is very 
 different from making the salvation of men de- 
 pend upon connection with a particular Church, 
 or with any Church without qualification. 
 
 THE GROUND OF ETERNAL GUILT. 
 
 Having considered these more prominent and 
 historic errors, we now turn to the positive side of 
 
 * This society of Christians cannot he said to be a Church, 
 because they ignore the sacraments.
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 159 
 
 our subject : for what will the wicked be punished 
 eternally ? or what is the ground of eternal guilt ? 
 
 In our treatment of this important topic two 
 very distinct questions must be taken into the 
 account : (i) That for which eternal death is 
 merited, and (2) That for which this death will 
 be inflicted under an economy of grace. This 
 division of our subject will save us much confu- 
 sion of thought, and help us the better to under- 
 stand certain current errors relating to it. 
 
 i. That for which men deserve eternal death. 
 In general terms it may be said that sin, or all 
 responsible wrong-doing, merits eternal death. 
 Or, to put the thought in other words, all trans- 
 gression of the divine law, which is sin, deserves 
 the affixed and necessary penalty of that law. 
 In the light of this definition it will be found 
 that all who have reached the age of responsible 
 action have justly subjected themselves, through 
 actual sin, to the wrath of God, and deserve his 
 condemnation.* 
 
 This doctrine is the reiterated teaching of the 
 Scriptures, and the background of the divine 
 
 * This is not the place to discuss the question of the relation 
 of children to the atonement, and we need only say that, not 
 being sinners in any true definition of sin, their relation to 
 Christ must be wholly peculiar, as is their relation to probation 
 and the new birth.
 
 160 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 mercy and grace in the atonement. It is be- 
 cause we have sinned and come short of the 
 glory of God, and deserve his just and necessary 
 wrath and condemnation, that a merciful and 
 gracious atonement was needed and possible. 
 Otherwise Christ would not have died. 
 
 It is this fact, moreover, that shows the depth 
 of the divine love for us in our redemption. It 
 was to save us from a deserved perishing that 
 God gave his only begotten Son. 
 
 These facts of Scripture are so well known, 
 and so freely admitted, that a fuller statement of 
 them is wholly needless; but, in a few words, 
 their bearing upon the modern doctrine of a 
 future probation must be considered. 
 
 This doctrine teaches that some men in this 
 life, particularly the heathen, have not a sufficient 
 probation. This means that they do not have a 
 " fair chance " of eternal life here and now ; and, 
 if its logical implications are at all to be taken 
 into the account, that all men do not deserve 
 eternal death for the sins of this present time. 
 In order to be worthy of death they must know 
 and reject the revelation of God in the life and 
 death of his Son they must know and reject the 
 historic Christ.- Some carry their principle so 
 far as to say that many in even nominally
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 161 
 
 Christian lands have not had sufficient oppor- 
 tunity of life to merit eternal punishment. 
 
 Our objections to this doctrine are involved in 
 our statement above of the ground of future 
 eternal guilt, and may be explicitly given as 
 follows: (i) The doctrine is contrary to the fact 
 that all men deserve death, whether they be 
 Christian or heathen. " For we before laid to 
 the charge both of Jews 'and Greeks, that they 
 are all under sin " (Rom. iii, 9). " For all have 
 sinned, and fall short of the glory of God " 
 (Rom. iii, 23). On this fact of universal sinful- 
 ness and condemnation is built by Paul the fact 
 of universal grace and atonement. If already 
 sinful and condemned, men need no future pro- 
 bation through which to merit eternal death. 
 They now deserve it. (2) The doctrine further 
 contradicts the Scriptures by making the knowl- 
 edge of Christ necessary for condemnation, 
 whereas Christ came not to condemn the world, 
 but to save it (John iii, 17). He found the 
 world already guilty and condemned, and came 
 to save it from its sin. 
 
 If the doctrine of a future probation is to be 
 maintained, therefore, it must find ground else- 
 where than in the demands of the divine justice. 
 
 According to this, as said, all deserve death. If 
 11
 
 162 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the doctrine is to be maintained, it must find 
 support in a revelation of mercy according to 
 divine grace. Our present continued probation 
 is such ; and if there is a future probation it 
 must be one of grace also. This is the position 
 that some advocates of the doctrine seem 
 chiefly to occupy. 
 
 That a gracious second * probation is not ex- 
 plicity revealed in the Scriptures the advocates 
 of the doctrine freely admit. They claim for it 
 simply the ground of a legitimate inference from 
 certain Scripture facts and teachings. These 
 facts and inferences may be briefly considered, 
 and then followed by a presentation of positive 
 facts against the doctrine. 
 
 (i) Argument from the "absoluteness" or 
 universality of the Christian religion. It is 
 claimed that unless Christ be made known to all 
 men somewhere before probation closes, the 
 universality of his atoning sacrifice is limited ; 
 
 * Advocates of this doctrine dislike to be charged with teach- 
 ing a "second" probation, and assert that they advocate only a 
 sufficient probation ; if not here, then hereafter. That they are 
 justly charged with teaching a " second " probation is manifest 
 from the fact above shown (from the fact of the condemnation 
 of alt), that all have a sufficient probation here. Universal con- 
 demnation involves universal probation, sufficient and full. If 
 men are to have a future probation, therefore, it will be a 
 " second '' probation. The one terms involves the other.
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. ]63 
 
 and as the heathen die without having known 
 Christ, it is inferred that without a future proba- 
 tion they do not share the universal grace of the 
 incarnation. This is the substance of a doctrine 
 upon which volumes have been written. 
 
 Our response to this teaching is: I.) That 
 the assumption is true only on the ground of a 
 moral influence doctrine of the atonement. We 
 readily grant that if the influence of Christ's life 
 and teaching is essential to salvation, then a 
 knowledge of the historic Christ must be given 
 to all men in probation, otherwise the atone- 
 ment is not universal in its provision for the 
 world's sin. But we do not admit the moral in- 
 fluence of the atonement as in any sense a 
 cardinal or essential fact. We do not deny the 
 fact of a moral influence in the atonement, but 
 simply that it is an essential part thereof, or that 
 it is a constituent element of atonement at all. 
 2.) That it contradicts the fact that some have 
 been saved without the knowledge of Christ. 
 No satisfactory account of the salvation of the 
 Old Testament saints has ever been given con- 
 sistently with the assumption that a knowledge 
 of the historic Christ is essential to a proper pro- 
 bation. Abraham's faith, which was counted to 
 him for righteousness (Rom. iv, 3 ; Gen. xv, 6},
 
 1 04 FUTURE . RE TRIE U TION. 
 
 was not a faith in the historic Christ, nor directly 
 in Christ at all. So, also, of the other Old Testa- 
 ment characters.* 
 
 The absoluteness or universality of Christianity 
 consists in the universal provision in the atone- 
 ment for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole 
 world, with the final complete regeneration and 
 sanctification of all who through faith (in Christ 
 for those who know him, and for those who do 
 
 * It is now admitted that salvation is possible without a 
 knowledge of Christ, but not final condemnation. " It has not 
 been our desire to show that no one could be saved, in the 
 popular acceptation of the term, without the knowledge of 
 God's redemptive love in Christ, but rather that those who ap- 
 parently would not otherwise be saved, among whom we placed 
 not the few but the many, might have the advant'age of this 
 knowledge before passing under judgment " (Andover Review 
 for April, 1890, p. 441). This is extremely inconsistent. To 
 say that a knowledge of Christ is essential to a proper probation, 
 and then to admit that some can be saved without this knowl- 
 edge, is to assert that the final destiny of some can be decided 
 without an adequate probation a contradiction of the funda- 
 mental thesis of these writers ; for they declare the necessity of a 
 full and proper probation for even children and imbeciles. They 
 first declare that a knowledge of Christ in probation is necessary 
 for eveiy one, and, after building upon this assumption the 
 doctrine of a future probation for the heathen and certain other 
 classes, they then, having gained all they desire from their 
 doctrine thus established, through the exigency of certain clear 
 cases of exception, overthrow that which they before established. 
 They thus land in a denial of their own peculiar assumption, 
 and help to re-establish and confirm the orthodox position that a 
 knowledge of Christ u no essential element of a full and proper 
 probation.
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 1G5 
 
 not, according to their opportunity and knowl- 
 edge) seek to obey the dictates of the universal 
 Spirit and the revelation given to them, whether 
 in the Scriptures or in nature.* 
 
 (2) A gracious future probation is also ar- 
 gued on the ground of Christ's universal judge- 
 ship. Because Christ is to judge all men it is 
 asserted that all men must know him ; that 
 Christ will not pronounce the doom of any soul 
 who has not first known and rejected him. 
 Thus the Andover reviewers say : 
 
 " It is clear that Christ is to be the judge. 
 Christ is to be on the judgment-seat. . . . 
 Now this means more than that in addition to 
 his offices of Redeemer and Master Christ is also 
 appointed Judge. It means that allmen are to 
 be judged under the Gospel ; to be judged by 
 their relation to Christ. . . . They are to come 
 before his judgment-seat, not as those who are 
 dragged there forcibly to meet a judge of whose 
 person, character, and even existence they know 
 nothing, but as those who are brought there as 
 the necessary result of the knowledge of God 
 which has been given them through him before 
 
 * For a fuller statement of this doctrine the reader is asked to 
 consult the article before referred to in the Methodist Review of 
 January, 1889.
 
 16o FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 whom they stand to be judged. When we read 
 that Christ is to be the judge, we are to under- 
 stand that the judgment will be a Christian 
 judgment. . ." (Progressive OrtJwdoxy, p. 72). 
 
 In reply we would say: I.) We most gladly 
 recognize the gracious truth declared and illus- 
 trated in the fact that our Judge is our Redeemer. 
 The most fundamental and characteristic fact in 
 our redemption is exhibited in this twofold re- 
 lationship of Christ to us. We are not to be 
 judged by God out of Christ, or according to 
 justice aside from mercy, but by God in Christ, 
 or by justice according to a gracious redemption. 
 By the first we are all condemned ; by the 
 second we may all be saved. But 2.) We see 
 nothing in the mere fact of Christ's judgeship of 
 all men to warrant the inference drawn from it 
 aside from the explicit teaching of the Script- 
 ures. Christ will judge all men in mercy and 
 according to the provisions of his atoning sac- 
 rifice ; but to say that he will not judge any but 
 those who have known him is an assumption for 
 which the Scriptures furnish no word of author- 
 ity. 3.) The facts of the Scriptures are against 
 it. We make the assertion here, and postpone 
 its proof to another place, further on. 
 
 (3) Argument from the incarnation. It is
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 167 
 
 argued that Christ, in taking upon him our nat- 
 ure and becoming God-man, practically demon- 
 strated the need of a knowledge of himself for 
 the salvation of men ; and that for the fulfill- 
 ment of the purpose of the incarnation all men 
 must in probation be brought into a relation of 
 knowledge to God thus manifested in the flesh. 
 This argument is the burden of the second 
 chapter in Progressive Orthodoxy, although there 
 not very explicit}' stated as such. It is one 
 phase of the general argument from the absolute- 
 ness or universality of the Christian religion 
 (see chap, ix, p. 256), but looked at from its 
 own special stand-point. 
 
 In this statement of the argument we have 
 placed upon it the best construction that we 
 believe to be possible. Our objections are: I.) 
 While the incarnation was an essential element 
 of the work of Christ in redemption (Phil, ii, 
 6-8; Heb. ii, 16-18; iv, 15, 16), and fulfills an 
 important place in the evangelization of the 
 world, that a knowledge of it is essential to sal- 
 vation is what remains to be proved. The proof 
 has not yet been given. But, on the other hand, 
 2.) The fact above urged in another connection, 
 but which equally applies here, that some have 
 been saved without this relationship of knowl-
 
 108 FUTUKE KKTKIHUTION. 
 
 edge to the incarnate Christ, is positive proof 
 against it. 
 
 (4) Another argument is based upon the as- 
 sumption that the Holy Spirit can find sufficient 
 material alone in the life, death, and teaching of 
 our Lord for his efficacious and proper work in 
 saving the lost. It is said in proof that the 
 heathen the great mass of them are very 
 corrupt, and in this condition cannot be saved. 
 The alternate, these writers assert, is either that 
 Christ must be made known to the heathen 
 somewhere in probation, or the vast majority of 
 them be forever lost. 
 
 In objection, besides urging the ever-recurring 
 " exceptional cases " of regeneration without the 
 knowledge of Christ, especially in the Old Tes- 
 tament, with which the Andover professors find 
 much difficulty at every point, we may say that 
 their cardinal mistake lies in the assumption 
 that regeneration and morality must always coin- 
 cide, or that they are inseparable in their lower, 
 as well as higher, stages of development. That 
 they are not may be proved, not only from the 
 imperfect cases of morality in the Old Testament 
 (for example, the cases of Abraham and Jacob), 
 but from the same imperfection in many Chris- 
 tians of New Testament times, and even in our-
 
 GROUND OF EA'DLKSS RETRIBUTION. 
 
 169 
 
 selves. A thorough study of the subject will re- 
 veal that, while regeneration depends upon the 
 inner working of the Holy Spirit, morality de- 
 pends largely upon knowledge ; and that moral- 
 ity may exist without corresponding regenera- 
 tion, and regeneration also in many cases with- 
 out its corresponding and proper morality. Our 
 inference from these facts is that many of the 
 devout, though superstitious and even immoral, 
 heathen may be, and most likely are, regenerate, 
 and only need more perfect knowledge for their 
 moral development and sanctification. For a 
 further statement of this point we must refer 
 the reader once more to our article in the 
 Methodist Review for January, 1889. 
 
 (5) It is argued, further, that the condemning 
 sin under the Gospel is unbelief, and that the 
 heathen cannot be guilty of this sin without a 
 knowledge of Christ. The inference is easy. 
 
 To this it may be said : I.) That faith in Christ 
 is the only way of salvation according to the 
 Scriptures (Rom. iii, 22, 25, 26, 30; v, i; xi, 20, 
 etc.), and yet Cornelius was accepted of God be- 
 fore he had heard of Christ (Acts x, 34, 35). 
 2.) The passages that speak of unbelief in Christ 
 as the condemning sin evidently refer to cases 
 where Christ is known. The preacJiing of the
 
 170 FUTURE XRTRIBUTION. 
 
 Gospel precedes the condemning unbelief of the 
 Gospel (Mark xvi, 15, 16). 
 
 (6) A future probation is also inferred from so 
 incidental a fact as the raising to life of the dead 
 (Mark v, 42; Luke vii, 11-17; John xi), and 
 from Paul's supposed prayer for Onesiphorus, 
 after the latter's decease (2 Tim. i, 16-18 ; 
 iv, 19). 
 
 As to the first case, Dorner says : " A proof 
 that, according to the New Testament, the time 
 of grace does not expire with death by a uni- 
 versal law, is found in Christ's raisings of the 
 dead ; for example, the youth at Nain received 
 through resurrection from the dead a prolonga- 
 tion of the time of grace, through which Christ's 
 love first became known to him " (System of 
 Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 409). 
 
 It may be said, however, that there is no rea- 
 son for supposing that this young man was not 
 saved at death (Lazarus and the daughter of 
 Jairus certainly were), and if so his return to 
 earth would not make any change in the out- 
 come of his life. His probation, therefore, was 
 practically and really closed at his first decease. 
 Besides, the Andover Future Probationists confess 
 that the argument based upon these facts is ex- 
 tremely uncertain. They say: *' Inferences from
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 171 
 
 the resurrection of Lazarus and of the widow's 
 son, and from their subsequent opportunities, 
 have always appeared to us very shadowy" 
 (Progressive Orthodoxy, p. 101). 
 
 As to the case of Onesiphorus, I.) it is not be- 
 yond doubt that he was dead ; 2.) the so called 
 prayer of Paul in his behalf seems no more than 
 an expression of good-will toward him. It cer- 
 tainly was not a formal and direct prayer. But 
 3.) if we must suppose he was dead, and if we 
 regard Paul's parenthetical expression, "The 
 Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord 
 in that day," a true prayer, such as would author- 
 ize us also to pray for the dead, it must be re- 
 membered that Onesiphorus was a Christian, and 
 that no further inference could be drawn from 
 the fact than that prayers might be offered for 
 the righteous dead. This is the doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 (7) Other passages which are said to furnish 
 ground for this doctrine are as follows : " Then 
 began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of 
 his mighty works were done, because they re- 
 pented not. Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! woe 
 unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if th mighty works 
 had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were 
 done in you, they would have repented long ago
 
 172 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 in sackcloth and ashes. Howbeit I say unto 
 you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and 
 Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And 
 thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto 
 heaven ? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if 
 the mighty works had been done in Sodom which 
 were done in thee, it would have remained 
 until this day. Howbeit I say unto you, that it 
 shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom 
 in the day of judgment, than for thee " (Matt, xi, 
 20-24) ; " And whosoever shall speak a word 
 against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ; 
 but whosoever shall speak against the Holy 
 Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in 
 this world, nor in that which is to come " (Matt. 
 xii, 32) ; " Because Christ also suffered for sins 
 once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he 
 might bring us to God ; being put to death in 
 the flesh, but quickened in the spirit ; in which 
 also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
 prison, which aforetime were disobedient, when 
 the long-suffering of God waited in the days of 
 Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein 
 few, that is, eight souls, were saved through 
 water " (i Pet. iii, 18-20); " For unto this end 
 was the gospel preached even to the dead, that 
 they might be judged according to men in the
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. ] 73 
 
 flesh, but live according to God in the spirit " (i 
 Pet. iv, 6*).f 
 
 As to the first passage, it is said that if the 
 ancient cities there referred to, " had they seen 
 what the Jews saw, would have repented in sack- 
 cloth and ashes, they would have been saved, 
 which therefore implies that if the time of grace 
 expired for them with death they would be 
 damned for not seeing and knowing Christ, 
 which was not their fault " (Dorner, System of 
 Cliristian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 410). As to the 
 second passage, it is said : " When, further, 
 Christ says of a sin, that it is forgiven neither in 
 this nor in the next life, whereas other sins are 
 forgiven in this world without limitation, this 
 contains a testimony that other sins, save the sin 
 against the Holy Ghost, may be forgiven in the 
 next world " (ibid.}. The two passages in First 
 Peter are the strongholds of this doctrine, and 
 
 * Compare Acts ii, 27, 31. Dorner thinks that Eph. iv, 8-10, 
 has no reference to Christ's Maclean descent (System of 
 Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, p. 128). 
 
 f \Ve omit reference here to such passages as I Tim. ii, 4-6 ; 
 Luke xix, 10 ; I John ii, 2, given by Dorner in favor of this 
 doctrine, for the manifest reason that "to quote such passages 
 to prove the broader view seems like trifling with the divine 
 testimony." They are not used by the Andover professors. 
 Besides, we have already sufficiently considered them in con- 
 nection with the doctrine of Universalism in the second chapter.
 
 174 FUTURE RETKIBUT1ON. 
 
 it is claimed that in them is furnished a compar- 
 atively direct testimony concerning it. 
 
 Without attempting to enter into a full discus- 
 sion of these much disputed passages of Script- 
 ure, it will be sufficient to say that one all 
 conclusive fact against the doctrine of a future 
 probation being inferred from them is that what- 
 ever the passages may signify as to a possible 
 hope for some after this life, they cannot signify 
 a future probation ; for the representation in each 
 case is entirely on the ground of things done in 
 this life. It will be more tolerable for Tyre and 
 Sidon and Sodom in the judgment than for 
 Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum ; but in all 
 cases reference is undoubtedly intended to the 
 earthly sins of these cities. So, also, if we are 
 to suppose that Matt, xii, 32, signifies a possible 
 forgiveness in the other life for all sins but the 
 sin against the Holy Ghost, still it is the forgive- 
 ness of sins committed in this life. No intima- 
 tion is given of the forgiveness of sins committed 
 after death.* Likewise, in the case of the ante- 
 
 * It is doubtful, however, whether this passage, as suggested 
 in another place, signifies more than what has been called an 
 " emphasized negative." Dr. Love also suggests the following: 
 " Some Jews, perhaps not many, previous to and at the time of 
 Christ, believed that some of their people, suddenly cut off by 
 death, though righteous, did not have passed upon them the full
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 175 
 
 diluvians, reference is made only to their earthly 
 " disobedience " (i Pet. iii, 20). 
 
 Future Probationists unwittingly overlook the 
 fact that their doctrine involves the idea that in 
 the other life sins may be both committed and 
 forgiven. This is implicit in the very idea of fut- 
 ure probation. Before the passages above given, 
 therefore, can be urged as favoring this doctrine, 
 they must be shown to have reference to sins 
 committed in that life, and not merely to the 
 possible forgiveness there of sins committed 
 here. That they have no such reference we have 
 seen. 
 
 In concluding this brief survey of the doctrine 
 of a future probation, ue would urge against it, 
 positively, that not only do the Scriptures repre- 
 sent the outcome in the other life as wholly 
 
 act of forgiveness until they reached the other world. Some of 
 them believed in p raver for such departed ones, as will hereafter 
 be shown. On similar grounds, baptism fur the dead was 
 practiced by a few among the early nominal Christians, though 
 generally discountenanced. A living Christian was baptized for 
 an unbaptized duni Christian (i Cor. xv, 29). By a few it was 
 thought that without receiving such baptism the departed un- 
 baptized could not be received into bliss. Knowing this belief 
 among some of his hearers concerning the forgiveness of the 
 dead who had suddenly been cut off, Jesus, without at all lend- 
 ing his sanction to that view, may have added the phrase, ' nor 
 in that which is to come," thus cutting off a groundless hope " 
 denture Probation EjUUMIHttl, \i. 259^.
 
 176 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 dependent upon this life, without any intimation 
 that acts there will be taken into the account in 
 deciding moral and spiritual destiny (Matt, x, 
 32, 33; Rom. ii, 6-10; 2 Cor. v, 10 ; Gal.vi, 7, 8; 
 Col. iii, 24, 25 ; Rev. xxii, 12, etc.), but in the repre- 
 sentations of the judgment all punishment is for 
 sins in this life (Matt, xxv, 41-46; Rev. xx, 12-15). 
 It must be remembered that the doctrine of a 
 future probation necessarily assumes that some 
 sins for which punishment will be awarded in 
 the judgment will have been committed in the 
 intermediate state, unless it be affirmed that all 
 will in that state decide for Christ ; and even 
 then it would have to be said that the rewards 
 of the righteous are also, according to these rep- 
 resentations, for deeds in this life (Matt, xxv, 
 34-40, etc.). Now, with punishment and reward 
 in the judgment solely for acts of this life, ac- 
 cording to New Testament representations of the 
 judgment, how maintain an after-death probation 
 in which men may so act as to be saved or finally 
 lost for the deeds of that state? On the ground 
 of these facts the doctrine of an after-death pro- 
 bation will have to be surrendered, whatever 
 other gracious truth the passages, or some of 
 them, urged in its favor may teach us. (See 
 chapter v.)
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 177 
 
 2. That for which eternal death will be in- 
 flicted under the Gospel. We now come to that 
 part of our present topic which most concerns us. 
 We have seen that for which men will not be 
 punished forever, and that for which eternal 
 death is merited according to the Scriptures, and 
 we now inquire as to that for which this deserved 
 death \vill be inflicted under the Gospel, or under 
 an economy of mercy and grace. 
 
 Our answer to this inquiry is implicit in what 
 has already been said. We have seen that all 
 deserve death for responsible sin, or for a willful 
 violation of the divine commandments, and have 
 intimated that this was the reason and ground 
 of the divine mercy and forgiveness in Christ. 
 We are now prepared to appreciate the teaching 
 of the Scriptures when they assert that there is no 
 other way of salvation than that offered in Christ. 
 " And in none other is their salvation : for neither 
 is there any other name under heaven, that is 
 given among men, wherein we must be saved " 
 (Acts iv, 12). From all this the inference is 
 easy that eternal death will be inflicted only in 
 the case of him who rejects the divine way of 
 forgiveness. For him who " hath trodden under 
 foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood 
 of the covenant ... an unholy thing, and hath
 
 178 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 done despite unto the Spirit of grace" "there 
 remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a cer- 
 tain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierce- 
 ness of fire which shall devour the adversaries " 
 (Heb. x, 26-31). There is no atonement for the 
 rejection of Christ, and it is this act, therefore, 
 that leaves the soul exposed to all the deserved 
 wrath of a violated divine law, and which is con- 
 sequently, under the Gospel, that which damns 
 forever. We deserved death before Christ came. 
 From this he came to deliver us. If we refuse 
 the deliverance offered in him, we remain lost 
 beyond the power of divine grace to save. Our 
 hell is made by rejecting the only way of life, and 
 is made forever. 
 
 That this is the teaching of the Scriptures none 
 who have accepted our doctrine thus far will be 
 disposed to question. Other illustrative pas- 
 sages in addition to those given above are as fol- 
 lows : " And she shall bring forth a son ; and 
 thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for it is he that 
 shall save his people from their sins " (Matt, i, 
 2i); "To him bear all the prophets witness, that 
 through his name every one that believeth on 
 him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts x, 43) ; 
 " For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory 
 of God ; being justified freely by his grace through
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS KETRIBUT1OX. 179 
 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom 
 God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, 
 by his blood, to show his righteousness, because 
 of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, 
 in the forbearance of God ; for the showing, I 
 say, of his righteousness at this present season: 
 that he might himself be just, and the justifier 
 of him that hath faith in Jesus " (Rom. iii, 23-26) ; 
 " But God commendeth his love toward us, in 
 that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for 
 us. Much more then, being now justified by his 
 blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God 
 through him " (Rom. v, 8,9) ; " He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that dis- 
 believeth shall be condemned " (Mark xvi, 16) ; 
 " I am come a light into the world, that whoso- 
 ever believeth on me may not abide in the dark- 
 ness. . . . He that rejecteth me, and receiveth 
 not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him : the 
 word that I spake, the same shall judge him in 
 the last day " (John xii, 46, 48) : " Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal 
 life" (John vi, 47); "He that eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood hath eternal life " (John 
 vi, 54), etc.* 
 
 * It will be noted that " rejecting " Christ (John xii, 48) is the 
 same .is unbelief (//W., verse 46). We reject Christ through
 
 180 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 While both by the logic of our general premises 
 concerning sin and redemption, and by the plain 
 and specific teaching of the sacred Scriptures, 
 we are led to this conclusion that the rejection 
 of Christ is the only damning sin under the Gos- 
 pel we are yet called upon to notice, according 
 to the same Scriptures, the different possible 
 forms of this all important sin. 
 
 (i) The direct sin of rejecting Christ. This is 
 possible only where Christ is known, and it as- 
 sumes the form of actual or practical unbelief. 
 The Scriptures always assume that this unbelief 
 is occasioned by a willful rejection of the light 
 given. " If any man willeth to do his will, he 
 shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, 
 or whether I speak from myself" (John vii, 17). 
 " I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in 
 your sins : for except ye believe that I am he, ye 
 shall die in your sins " (John viii, 24). " He 
 that believeth on him is not judged : he that be- 
 lieveth not hath been judged already, because 
 he hath not believed on the name of the only 
 
 unbelief. Also, "receiving" Christ and " believing on him" 
 and " eating and drinking his flesh and blood " are but different 
 New Testament ways of saying the same thing. We do not 
 eat Christ in the eucharist, as the Romanists say, but by faith 
 we receive him spiritually. The forty-seventh and fifty-fourth 
 verses of John vi express the same truth.
 
 GAOL'.\'D OF JiXDLfrSS RETRIKL'TIOX. 181 
 
 begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, 
 that light is come into the world, and men loved 
 the darkness rather than the light; for their 
 works were evil " (John iii, iS, 19). The belief 
 in Christ that saves, on the other hand, involves 
 a belief in him as divine (i John v, 9, 10, ct pas- 
 sim\ Unitarianism has a fearful sin to answer 
 for according to the New Testament. 
 
 This rejection of Christ through unbelief that 
 damns may be either his rejection as he is pre- 
 sented to men (Mark xvi, 16), or a final falling 
 away from a faith that once saved (Heb. vi, 4-8; 
 x, 26-31*). In both cases the sin may, in the 
 outcome, amount to the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 (2) The sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin 
 is presented in the New Testament as a separate 
 sin from the mere matter of unbelief (Matt, xii, 
 
 * These passages of Scripture must not be thought, however, 
 to teach that the simple act of falling away from Christ is un- 
 pardonable, or that once to have known Christ and to have re- 
 jected him admits of no return, but must be read in the light 
 of the circumstances of the case. The writer is speaking to the 
 Tews who had accepted Christ and who were in danger of apos- 
 tasy. He easily foresaw that if they should give up their faith 
 in our Lord it would be impossible to renew them unto repent- 
 ance. The circumstances of the case would make their sin pe- 
 culiarly grievous, and would involve a total denial of Jesus as 
 Lord (a thing that is not done in every case of backsliding), and 
 would consequently foreclose all return to sa!vat ; on nivlli'V.
 
 182 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 22-32; Mark iii, 22-30; Luke xii, 10; I John v, 
 16), and as such demands separate consideration. 
 According to the account in Matthew and 
 Mark, Christ had just healed a man that was 
 possessed with a devil, and had restored his sight 
 and speech. The people were amazed at this 
 wonderful demonstration of supernatural power, 
 and exclaimed in acknowledging faith : " Is not 
 this the son of David ? " the expected Messiah. 
 But when the Jewish leaders the Pharisees and 
 scribes heard of the event, and how the people 
 were being led by it to acknowledge Jesus as the 
 Christ, in order to rebut this divine testimony to 
 Jesus and call the people back from their ac- 
 knowledgment of him, they declared that Jesus 
 in casting out devils a fact they did not deny 
 did so by the power of Satan. It was equivalent 
 to saying that Christ was in league with Satan, 
 and was in reality attributing to the devil the 
 work of the Holy Ghost. The sin must have 
 been a deliberate one on the part of these Jewish 
 leaders, and must have been committed in the 
 clear conviction that their attribution of the 
 work of the Spirit to the evil one was a lie 
 against the Holy Ghost. Their motive was to 
 retain the confidence of the people in themselves 
 and to withhold them from reposing it in Christ ;
 
 GROU.VD OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 183 
 
 or, rather, they would dissuade the people from 
 believing in Christ in order that they might re- 
 tain their thievish and selfish hold upon them 
 (John x, 8, 10, 12, 13). This deliberate sin Jesus 
 said was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and 
 that for it there was no forgiveness. So willful a 
 rejection of the light given them closed the door 
 of pardon upon these men.* 
 
 There is a strong theological tendency which 
 seeks to resolve the damning sin of the New Tes- 
 tament into this sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 There can be no doubt, as above said, that the 
 final outcome of rejecting Christ amounts to this 
 sin, but we think it truer to the New Testament 
 teaching to represent the sin that damns as defin- 
 itive unbelief, and to represent the sin against 
 the Holy Ghost, as the Scriptures do, as one form 
 or manifestation, perhaps the culminating form, 
 of this sin. Certain it is, as above seen, that 
 the sin that damns is unbelief, or the final re- 
 jection of Christ. 
 
 * We do not see how this conclusion can be avoided when it is 
 remembered that Mark says that Jesus spoke of this sin "6e~ 
 cause" the Jews said, "He hath an unclean spirit" (iii, 30). 
 Besides, the impression we get from the whole narrative is not 
 that Jesus was warning these men of a sin they were in danger 
 of committing (Corner and others), but that he was speaking of 
 a sin they had already committed.
 
 184 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 But however we may regard these two sins as 
 related to each other, there can be no doubt that 
 either, or both, presupposes a persistent course 
 in sinful development. No man by a misstep 
 can fall into the guilt that damns forever under 
 the Gospel. It must in every case be a deliberate 
 act, or, better still, the culmination of many such 
 acts. In this we entirely coincide with Mu'ller 
 when he says : " Unthinking recklessness, as such, 
 is perfectly secure from the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost" (Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii, p. 421), 
 and as well, we may add, against definitive un- 
 belief; positing, however, that this sin persisted 
 in, as v/ell as every other sin, will no doubt ulti- 
 mately lead to the sin of final unbelief; for sin, 
 however much it is begun and continued in un- 
 thinking recklessness, or in any other spirit, be- 
 comes more and more, as time goes on and it con- 
 tinues, a matter of deliberate choice, with its corre- 
 sponding rejection of the good. Sin is unsafe in 
 any case ; purposely chosen and persisted in until 
 the close of life, it becomes final in the rejection of 
 Christ, and forever damns. The best and only safe 
 time to cease sinning and turn to the Lord is now. 
 
 (3) The sin for which condemnation is pro- 
 nounced in the judgment according to Matt, xxv, 
 4146. The sin for which final condemnation is
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 185 
 
 pronounced according to the representation in 
 this passage is unmcrci fulness, as that for which 
 the reward of the righteous is pronounced in the 
 preceding verses is mercifulness, or acts of be- 
 nevolence. " Depart from me. ye cursed, into 
 the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil 
 and his angels: for I was an hungered, and ye 
 gave me no meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me 
 no drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me not 
 in ; naked, and ye clothed me not ; sick, and in 
 prison, and ye visited me not." 
 
 At first sight this seems wholly peculiar, and 
 not what might have been expected from what has 
 been above said. On the other hand, however, ex- 
 amination will reveal, not only that it is in perfect 
 keeping with what has been said, but that it is 
 a demonstration and illustration of it. The faith 
 that saves is not a fruitless faith (Jas. ii, 14-26); 
 nor is the unbelief that damns. Both have their 
 corresponding fruits, and it is these fruits, or some 
 of them, that are represented by our Lord as that 
 for which condemnation or approval is respect- 
 ively pronounced in the last day.* This is in 
 
 * It is worthy of note that one of the fruits of a " dead " faith, 
 which is the same as unbelief, is, according to James, the very 
 sin for which condemnation is pronounced in the judgment as 
 given in Matthew. "But ye have dishonored the poor man " 
 (chap, ii, 6. See the whole chapter).
 
 186 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 keeping, moreover, with the representations of 
 the judgment in other places, as, for example, in 
 the parables of the Ten Virgins and the Talents 
 in the foregoing part of this same chapter, and in 
 the representations of the judgment in the Book 
 of Revelation. In this latter place it is said that 
 " the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, 
 and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, 
 and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in 
 the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone ; 
 which is the second death " (chap, xxi, 8). These, 
 also, are some of the fruits of unbelief, and as 
 such damn forever. Christ came to deliver us 
 both from condemnation already merited, and 
 also from the power of sin (Rom. vi, 1-8, etc.). 
 Faith is the condition of deliverance from both. 
 Unbelief leaves the soul subject to original con- 
 demnation, and a prey to the forces and powers 
 of evil, and in the outcome is death. Conse- 
 quently, by metonomy of the effect for the cause, 
 the fruits of final unbelief are represented as 
 furnishing the ground of final condemnation. 
 We are damned for unbelief, but for unbelief 
 that perpetuates and begets the sins that damn. 
 With this understanding of the passage in 
 question, it is immaterial to us in this discussion 
 whether it is taken to represent the general
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 187 
 
 judgment of Christians and heathen alike, or 
 simply that of the latter class of persons (Stier 
 and others). The heathen and the nominally 
 Christian are both alike justified by faith (Rom. 
 iii, 30), and both alike, according to a necessary 
 inference, condemned by unbelief; but both ac- 
 cording to their opportunities and knowledge : 
 the nominal Christian for faith or unbelief in 
 Christ ; the heathen for the same according to 
 the light of nature and the manifestation of the 
 Holy Spirit to him. In both cases, likewise, 
 will there be the corresponding fruits of faith or 
 unbelief, with their consequent approval or con- 
 demnation; but in this also for the heathen ac- 
 cording to his light and opportunities (Luke xii, 
 48). 
 
 Implicit in these last statements is the much 
 debated ground of final condemnation for those 
 who in probation do not know the historic 
 Christ. As some are received who do not be- 
 lieve in the historic Christ, so some will no doubt 
 be condemned who do not have the opportunity 
 of rejecting the historic Christ, but who in real- 
 ity reject Christ ; we do not object to the phrase 
 " essential Christ," for we think it a convenient 
 phrase to express the truth in the matter. If 
 from deliberate and persistent choice the heathen
 
 188 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 reject the light they have, it is to be inferred 
 that they would also reject greater light if given 
 to them. If they will not hear the voice of God 
 in the teaching of nature and by the Holy Spirit, 
 neither would they believe though Christ were 
 preached to them. (See Luke xvi, 31.) For " he 
 that is faithful in a very little " by application, 
 the heathen who strives to live up to the meas- 
 ure of light possessed " is faithful also in much." 
 Such a heathen would be faithful also in the 
 higher opportunities of the Gospel. " And he 
 that is unrighteous in a very little "by applica- 
 tion, the dim light and opportunities of those 
 who know not Christ " is unrighteous also in 
 much :" by equal application, such a person 
 would be unrighteous also in the fuller light of 
 the revelation of God in his Son (Luke xvi, 10). 
 This we think is the only consistent and 
 scriptural teaching upon the subject. The 
 heathen need no future probation in order to 
 have a fair chance of eternal life in Christ ; and it 
 is equally certain that they will not be damned 
 forever for not having known the historic Christ. 
 The cause of missions must find some other 
 ground of its inspiration than in the unqualified 
 damnation of the heathen for not having been 
 permitted to hear the Gospel a thing for which
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. ISO 
 
 they can in no wise be responsible, and which 
 contradicts the universal grace and free oppor- 
 tunity of redemption for every man for eternal 
 life. 
 
 To recapitulate, the conclusions of this chapter 
 are : (i) That men in general will not be damned 
 forever for that over which they have had no con- 
 trol, or for things for which they are not respon- 
 sible. Ability and responsibility are equal. They 
 will not, therefore, be condemned for the sin of 
 Adam, nor for any arbitrary divine reprobation 
 " for the glory of sovereign justice," nor for not 
 having received baptism or heard the Gospel. 
 Besides these matters for which persons are not 
 responsible, and for which many have been as- 
 signed to an endless hell by an irrational and un- 
 scriptural theology, to be named as not necessary 
 conditions of salvation are, subscription to a hu- 
 man creed, and membership in a, or the, visible 
 Christian Church. (2) On the other hand, that 
 for which all men deserve eternal death is re- 
 sponsible sin. By this standard all are guilty 
 and deserve death ; for " all have sinned and fall 
 short of the glory of God." On the ground of 
 this universal condemnation the doctrine of a 
 future probation is seen to have no claim upon 
 divine justice, and this fact lays upon the doc-
 
 190 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 trine the demand of proving that it is graciously 
 revealed and promised a thing which it fails to 
 do, and which is rebutted by positive Scripture 
 facts against it. But from this universal con- 
 demnation Christ came to deliver us. Conse- 
 quently, (3) That for which men are damned 
 under the Gospel is definitive unbelief, or a final 
 rejection of the only way of escape from their 
 deserved condemnation. This sin of definitive 
 unbelief has different forms and manifestations. 
 Its common representation in the Scriptures is 
 simple and final unbelief; but, as such, it no 
 doubt amounts to the sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 Among certain Pharisees and scribes in Christ's 
 day it assumed the distinctive form of the special 
 sin against the Holy Ghost ; and while, as above 
 said, all sin may be ultimately resolved into this 
 one, yet in the New Testament it is represented 
 as a special sin, and, as such, is to be distin- 
 guished from the more common sin of unbelief. 
 The final sin of unbelief, moreover, may be 
 judged, and will in the last day be judged, ac- 
 cording to Matt, xxv, 41-46 and the Book of 
 Revelation and elsewhere, by its fruits; and the 
 sentence of the Judge will then be pronounced 
 on the basis of these fruits. Unbelief damns 
 under the Gospel, but unbelief will be judged
 
 GROUND OF ENDLESS RETRIBUTION. 191 
 
 according to its fruits of sin, as also faith, on the 
 other hand, will be judged by its fruits. 
 
 These facts reveal to us the relation of the 
 heathen to the Gospel, and to their final con- 
 demnation. They will not be condemned for 
 what they have not, and cannot have, but alone 
 for persistently and finally refusing the light 
 given them in nature and the universal opera- 
 tions of the Holy Spirit. The cause of missions 
 cannot expect to continue its appeals to the de- 
 votion and liberality of the Church on the ground 
 of the indiscriminate damnation of the heathen 
 simply for not having heard of Christ. Its ap- 
 peal will hereafter be more rational, and true to 
 the facts of Scripture.
 
 "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that de-' 
 fileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a 
 lie : hut they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." 
 Rev. xxi, 27.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Number of the Lost. 
 
 TH E subject of the present chapter is one of 
 the greatest importance. A false doctrine 
 here would involve the gravest consequences; 
 and it therefore becomes us to examine very 
 closely as to the true teaching of the Scriptures 
 concerning it. 
 
 In the writings of Universalists, and some 
 others, it is quite generally assumed that the 
 orthodox teaching includes the great mass of 
 mankind among the damned. A few illustrative 
 quotations will be in place. " I was, of course, 
 immediately faced by the question, ' How can 
 life be regarded as worth living by the majority 
 of mankind if, as is taught by the current relig- 
 ious teaching, they are doomed to everlasting 
 damnation ? ' ' (Farrar, Eternal Hope, preface, 
 p. xlvii. Dr. Pusey has culled thirteen passages 
 from Dr. Farrar's little book in which similar 
 expressions are used.) " Many are perplexed, 
 hesitating to receive as perfect and divine a rev- 
 elation which, they are told, in the name of God 
 13
 
 194 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 consigns a large proportion of those who in some 
 sense at least are his offspring to everlasting 
 misery" (Jukes, Restitution of All Tilings, pref- 
 ace, p. v). " Although the grounds on which 
 these doctrines are alleged to rest differ widely 
 from one another, the general conclusion which 
 is deduced from them is for all practical pur- 
 poses the same, namely, that Christianity affirms 
 that the overwhelming majority of that innu- 
 merable multitude of men who have existed in 
 the past and who exist in the present will, after 
 this life is ended, pass into a state of endless 
 existence in never-ending misery" (Row, Future 
 Retribution, p. 2). " But when we consider the 
 array of figures which would be required to rep- 
 resent the numbers of the human race who have 
 existed in the past according to the best com- 
 putations more than twelve hundred millions 
 exist in the present and that those who, ac- 
 cording to the above theories, will thus perish 
 everlastingly will constitute an overwhelming 
 majority of them, the thought is so awful that 
 it may well set men thinking whether such 
 theories can possibly be true " (ibid., p. 16, et 
 passing. 
 
 But this assumption is not true. The Chris- 
 tian Church does not teach that the majority of
 
 NUMBER OF THE LOST. 195 
 
 men will be lost. Over against the assumption 
 \ve place the teaching of several of the most 
 eminent advocates of the orthodox view. " A 
 single remark remains to be made respecting the 
 extent and scope of hell. It is only a spot in 
 the universe of God. Compared with heaven 
 hell is narrow and limited. The kingdom of 
 Satan is insignificant in contrast with the king- 
 dom of Christ. In the immense range of God's 
 dominion good is the rule and evil is the excep- 
 tion. Sin is a speck upon the infinite azure 
 of eternity ; a spot on the sun. Hell is only 
 a corner of the universe " (Shedd, Dogmatic 
 Theology, vol. ii, p. 745). " We have reason to 
 believe, as urged in the first volume of this work, 
 and as often urged elsewhere, that the number 
 of the finally lost in comparison with the whole 
 number of the saved will be very inconsiderable. 
 Our blessed Lord, when surrounded by the in- 
 numerable company of the redeemed, will be 
 hailed as the Salvator hominum the Saviour of 
 men as the Lamb that bore the sins of the 
 world" (Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. iii, 
 p. 879). " As a final thought in eschatology, 
 reference may be made to the vast preponder- 
 ance of good over evil as the fruit of redemption 
 and judgment. Not only will order be restored
 
 190 FUTUKE KETR1BUT1ON. 
 
 throughout the universe, but the good will far 
 outnumber the bad ; the saved will be many 
 times more than the lost " (A. Hovey, Biblical 
 EscJiatology, p. 167). -" In respect, for example, to 
 the number of the saved and of the lost, it is by 
 no means just to allege with Farrar that, accord- 
 ing to the position of orthodoxy, the latter class 
 must include the vast majority of mankind " 
 (E. D. Morris, Is There Salvation After Death ? 
 p. 235). " The race in its vast majority, the 
 race as such, is actually saved [at the consum- 
 mation of all things] ; and as to the residue, it 
 will be cast out not only from God, but from 
 mankind, and not accounted of" (Pope, Com- 
 pendium of Christian Theology, vol. iii, p. 428). 
 "In the termination of the world's history the 
 gospel of the kingdom shall be universally 
 triumphant ; that is, the mass of mankind shall 
 be Christian believers and children of God, the 
 few only remaining obstinate and rebellious " 
 (Miner Raymond, Systematic Theology, vol. ii, p. 
 517). According to Shedd, even Calvin and 
 Edwards believed the majority of mankind would 
 be saved (ut supra, p. 747). 
 
 We now propose to examine the grounds of 
 this larger view, and to consider certain passages 
 of Scripture which seem to contradict it.
 
 Of-' 'J'HE LOST. ]07 
 
 It must be confessed at the outset, however, 
 that the question is a very difficult one, and one 
 which does not easily admit of a categorical 
 affirmative either one way or the other. One 
 manifest reason is that it is a contingent question 
 so far as responsible persons are concerned. 
 Whether many or fe\v will be saved depends 
 wholly upon the willingness or final refusal of 
 men to be saved. As to what will be the actual 
 outcome, therefore, we cannot confidently know 
 except by predictive revelation a thing that is 
 nowhere given. 
 
 It is very certain that no doctrine upon the 
 subject can be based upon the comparative num- 
 bers in the parables of our Lord. In the para- 
 ble of the Virgins five are wise and five foolish, 
 but in that of the Talents the proportion of the 
 faithful to the unfaithful is as two to one, and in 
 the parable of the Wedding-garment (a parable 
 within a parable) only one is cast out into the 
 outer darkness (Matt, xxii, 11-14). 
 
 The words of our Lord in Matt, vii, 13, 14, 
 21-23; Luke xiii, 23-30, must be given in full: 
 " Enter ye in by the narrow gate : for wide is 
 the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to 
 destruction, and many be they that enter in 
 thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened
 
 198 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the way, that leacleth unto life, and few be they 
 that find it." "Not every one that saith unto 
 me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom 
 of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my 
 Father which is heaven. Many will say to me 
 in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by 
 thy name, and by thy name cast out devils, and 
 by thy name do many mighty works ? And then 
 will I profess unto them, I never knew you: de- 
 part from me, ye that work iniquity." "And 
 one said unto him, Lord, are they few that be 
 saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter 
 in by the narrow door : for many, I say unto you, 
 shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 
 When once the master of the house is risen up, 
 and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand 
 without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, 
 open to us ; and he shall answer and say to you, 
 I know you not whence ye are ; then shall ye 
 begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy pres- 
 ence, and thou didst teach in our streets ; and 
 he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye 
 are ; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 
 There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, 
 when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
 and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and 
 yourselves cast forth without. And they shall
 
 NUMBER Of THE LOST. 199 
 
 come from the east and west, and from the north 
 and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of 
 God. And behold, there are last which shall be 
 first, and there are first which shall be last." 
 
 With regard to these passages we offer the fol- 
 lowing remarks: (i)"Many" will be cast out 
 and lost. " Many will say to me in that day 
 [certainly the last day, or day of judgment], 
 Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name," 
 etc. " And then will I profess unto them, I never 
 knew you : depart from me [compare Matt, xxv, 
 41], ye that work iniquity." But this reveals 
 nothing as to proportion; for "many" maybe 
 lost, and more saved. (2) On the other hand, the 
 word " few " * is used but once in these passages 
 by our Lord, and then in no unmistakable refer- 
 ence to the number of the finally saved. In 
 Luke, where the questioner uses the word, Christ 
 simply signifies that "many" will be lost, but 
 does not say " few" will be saved. He certainly 
 avoids a direct answer, and seems to intend : 
 " Without saying any thing as to the number of 
 the saved, many will be lost ; therefore, strive ye 
 
 * The phrase, "For many are called, but few chosen," in 
 Matt, xx, 16, is omitted in the Revised Version, and the same 
 phrase in Matt, xxii, 14, has undoubted reference to the Jews. 
 They were all called, but " few " of them accepted Christ. (See 
 the whole parable, verses 1-14.)
 
 200 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 to enter in by the narrow door." In Matt, vii, 
 14 (the instance where our Lord uses the word), 
 is given a description simply of the state of things 
 as Christ observed them. Few to whom the 
 Gospel was offered accepted it. The same is true 
 now. But this clearly says nothing as to the final 
 outcome of life. Few are walking in the way 
 that leads to life, but men maybe saved in Christ 
 in the last hour. Witness the familiar case cf 
 the thief on the cross. So many the multitude 
 are walking in the way " that leadeth to destruc- 
 tion," but through grace may be, and no doubt 
 many will be, saved at last. The way that leadeth 
 to destruction is not itself destruction. In order 
 to prove from this passage that the few only will 
 be saved, it would be necessary to assume that 
 to be lost now is to be lost forever. 
 
 In favor of the doctrine that the great majority 
 of the human race will be saved may be urged : 
 
 i. The fact that children dying in infancy will 
 be saved. Even Calvinists, as Dr. Hodge, now 
 teach this doctrine. This writer says : " All who 
 die in infancy are saved " (Systematic Theology, 
 vol. i, p. 26). " The Scriptures nowhere exclude 
 any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born 
 in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or 
 unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the
 
 NUMBER OF THE LOST. 201 
 
 redemption of Christ " (ibid.}. To die in child- 
 hood is to such Calvinists a sign of election. 
 " But we may still go a step further within 
 the strict limits of the Reformed Creed, and 
 maintain as a pious opinion that all departed 
 infants belong to the number of the elect. Their 
 early removal from a world of sin and temptation 
 may be taken as an indication of God's special 
 favor " (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. i, p. 
 380). From this teaching alone it follows that 
 the majority of the human race will be saved, 
 for the majority die before the age of account- 
 ability. 
 
 2. We cannot judge between the saved and 
 the lost by a sharp line of moral distinction : 
 and, accordingly, many may be saved who by the 
 standard of Christian morality manifest no sign 
 of regenerate life. We have before pointed out 
 this fact in relation to the heathen. The same 
 may be said as to some persons in nominally 
 Christian countries whose opportunities of moral 
 improvement have been much limited. A few 
 quotations in the line of this thought from sev- 
 eral prominent writers will be in place : 
 
 "We are, then, wholly ignorant of the rule by 
 which they [the heathen] will be judged. What 
 would be heavy sin in us may be none in them ;
 
 202 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 we cannot tell how far the exposure of infants 
 may be a sin in China, unless God by his secret 
 voice appeal to any individual parent against the 
 hereditary custom, or cannibalism in a nation of 
 cannibals. But since we are not God, and he has 
 not bestowed on us his prerogative of searching 
 the hearts, we have absolutely no ground upon 
 which to form a judgment; nor do Christians 
 form any. 
 
 " With the actual heathen far out of reach of 
 the Gospel must be counted a large portion of 
 the poor which the Church has lost in large cities, 
 as London and Paris, on whose souls the light 
 of the Gospel never shone. London is, alas ! in 
 all probability one of the largest heathen cities 
 in the world, and very many of its inhabitants 
 will be judged, we must suppose, by the same 
 law as the heathen in China and Japan. 'God 
 will,' in the great day, St. Paul says, 'judge the 
 secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my 
 gospel.' The very terms forbid our judging, since 
 they are the secrets of the heart which God will 
 judge " (Pusey, What is of Faitk as to Everlast- 
 ing Punishment? pp. 9, 10. See the whole of 
 this section and the following one, pp. 7-18). 
 
 " But if Abraham and Melchisedek, if Joseph 
 and Moses, if Rahab and Cornelius, if a great
 
 XUAfBER OF THE LOST. '_><>:} 
 
 number of the chosen people in every age may 
 have been penitent for sin, and accepted by the 
 Father of mercies through the atonement yet to 
 be made, or an atonement already made without 
 their knowledge, surely no one can deny the pos- 
 sibility of salvation to the heathen who know not 
 the name of Jesus. Of course, no one is able to 
 say how many of this class there have been among 
 the heathen since the world began, or how many 
 there may yet be before the end comes ; but, 
 whether few or many, all who are so renewed in 
 the temper of their minds that they will recog- 
 nize Christ whenever he is made known to them, 
 as fulfilling all their desire and hope, will be num- 
 bered at the last great day with the redeemed " 
 (A. Hovey, ut supra, p. 173). 
 
 "If the prayers and alms of Cornelius were 
 had in divine remembrance if in every nation 
 he that feareth God and worketh righteousness 
 is accepted of him if our Lord heard the out- 
 er}' of the dying thief, and carried him as a trophy 
 at once into the paradise whither he himself was 
 just going in triumph, may we not, without either 
 indulging in the universalistic delusion or contra- 
 dicting our own doctrine, still cherish with Pusey 
 a large and comforting hope respecting many, 
 perhaps multitudes, who live and die, alas! out-
 
 204 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 side of the blessed circle of the Household of 
 Faith ? " (Morris, Is There Salvation After Death ? 
 p. 236.) 
 
 Is it not, we may ask, in connection with this 
 doctrine that Christ's words concerning Tyre and 
 Sidon and Sodom, and the two passages in First 
 Peter, may be appropriately urged ? We have 
 seen that they cannot teach a future probation 
 for the reason that in all cases the representa- 
 tions of mercy, however large, are concerning 
 sins committed in this life alone. But we must 
 confess we are not satisfied with the common 
 interpretation of these passages, especially the 
 two in First Peter. We cannot understand these 
 latter passages, whatever more they may mean, 
 to signify less than (i) That Christ in his disem- 
 bodied condition went into the spirit-world ; (2) 
 That there he preached unto the " spirits in 
 prison " the Gospel ; (3) That the spirits to 
 whom he preached, among others, were those 
 who " were disobedient, when the long-suffering 
 of God waited in the days of Noah, while the 
 ark was a preparing." Can we believe all those 
 people perished everlastingly after suffering the 
 destruction of the flood ? May we not rather 
 believe, in view of the teaching of Peter, that 
 many of them are saved eternally, while at the
 
 NUMBER OF THE LOST. 205 
 
 same time God could do no better than destroy 
 them temporally f 
 
 If \ve are to distinguish between the temporal 
 destructions of peoples and the eternal destruc- 
 tion of individuals, it would seem that in the 
 case of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom, and other 
 ancient cities, many, perhaps multitudes, whose 
 lives God destroyed with their cities will be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Nineveh 
 was to be destroyed for its wickedness, and yet 
 God said to Jonah that many of the people were 
 so ignorant as to be unable to " discern between 
 their right hand and their left hand " (chapter iv, 
 ii). Can we suppose they would have been de- 
 stroyed everlastingly with the destruction of their 
 city, had Nineveh not repented? We cannot 
 suppose so, and this case must throw light upon 
 all similar cases; and we must conclude that the 
 inference involved here is the correct one. 
 
 3. The difficulties that we met in considering 
 the doctrine of Universalism would be all the 
 greater on the assumption that the majority of 
 mankind will be lost. The divine love and fore- 
 knowledge, and the question of a benevolent 
 teleology, would be all the more difficult to 
 understand. We cannot believe the majority of 
 the race of men will be lost, in view of these
 
 206 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 facts, without the clearest revelation concerning 
 it. This certainly is not given. 
 
 It is in this last respect that the present 
 doctrine, in urging these facts, differs from 
 Universalism when it urges the same ; for in the 
 case of the latter doctrine the revelation, as we 
 have seen, is unmistakable. 
 
 4. For the same reasons we can the more con- 
 sistently urge passages of Scripture like the 
 following in favor of the doctrine we are con- 
 sidering : " He shall see of the travail of his soul, 
 and shall be satisfied" (Isa. liii, 1 1) ; "Behold, 
 the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of 
 the world !" (John i, 29), etc. Such passages as 
 these could not well have been inspired in the 
 confident foreknowledge of the damnation of the 
 majority of men. 
 
 Observe, however, we do not claim that such 
 passages teach that the majority of men will be 
 saved, but simply that, in the absence of a clear 
 revelation that the majority will be lost, they 
 encourage this hope. 
 
 We would remind the reader, in conclusion, 
 that our chief concern with the present question 
 should be, as Christ no doubt made it, personal. 
 According to our Lord, as we have seen, 
 " many " will be lost, and our fear should be lest
 
 NUMBER OF 7HE LOST. 207 
 
 we be among that number. " Strive to enter in 
 by the narrow door : for many, I say unto you, 
 shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able." 
 " But I will warn you whom ye shall fear : Fear 
 him, which after he hath killed hath power to 
 cast into hell ; yea, I say unto you, Fear him " 
 (Luke xii, 5). " But I buffet my body, and 
 bring it into bondage : lest by any means, after 
 that I have preached to others, I myself should 
 be rejected" (l Cor. ix, 27).
 
 "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade 
 men." 2 Cor. v, u. 
 
 " For our God is a consuming tire." Heb. xii, 29.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Nature of Future Punishment. 
 
 THE nature of future punishment is a question 
 in itself of the greatest importance, and is 
 not to be confounded with either of the other 
 chief questions discussed in this book. We 
 place it here as the most suitable time for its 
 consideration. Its importance arises from sev- 
 eral facts. I. It is important that we should 
 know, as fully as revealed, the nature of future 
 punishment in order that the doctrine may have 
 its proper influence upon the minds and hearts 
 of men. It is in the nature of future punish- 
 ment that the doctrine finds value as a deterrent 
 from sin. 2. Its consideration is important, 
 further, from the fact that its awfulness has been 
 greatly exaggerated. The damnation of the lost 
 is awful enough as represented in the Scriptures, 
 without any human additions. 3. On the other 
 hand, its terrors have been made largely to dis- 
 appear by over-benevolent representations of it. 
 Our aim shall be to present the doctrine in its 
 true scriptural proportions. 
 14
 
 210 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 As a matter of course, it is impossible to know 
 the exact nature of future punishment except in 
 the experience of it. It cannot be revealed. 
 Consequently we find in the Scriptures only sen- 
 sible and figurative representations of it. These 
 are given under the following classified forms : 
 I. " Fire " and the " worm." " Where their worm 
 dieth not, and the fire is not quenched " (Mark 
 ix, 48). 2. " Outer darkness," or " blackness of 
 darkness." "And cast ye out the unprofitable 
 servant into the outer darkness" (Matt, xxv, 30). 
 " For whom the blackness of darkness hath been 
 reserved forever" (Jude 13; also 2 Pet. ii, 17). 
 3. 'Perishing," "destruction," "corruption," 
 " death." " For God so loved the world that he 
 gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believ- 
 eth on him should not perish" (John iii, 16). "Who 
 shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction 
 from the face of the Lord and from the glory of 
 his might" (2 Thess. i, 9). "For he that soweth 
 unto his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption " 
 (Gal. vi, 8). "This is the second death, even 
 the lake of fire " (Rev. xx, 14). 4. " Torment." 
 " And he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that 
 thou wouldest send him to my father's house ; 
 for I have five brethren ; that he may testify 
 unto them, lest they also come into this place of
 
 NATURE OF PUNISHMENT. 211 
 
 torment" (Luke xvi, 27, 28). "And they shall 
 be tormented day and night for ever and ever " 
 (Rev. xx, 10). 5. Other expressions suggestive 
 of the terribleness of the state of the wicked are 
 " cast away " and " lost." " But the bad they 
 cast away " (Matt, xiii, 48). " For what is a 
 man profited, if he gain the whole world, and 
 lose or forfeit his own self" (Luke ix, 25). As a 
 result of being excluded from heaven, we are 
 told " there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
 teeth " (Matt, xxv, 30). 
 
 Now, after allowing all we may be asked to 
 allow for the natural exaggeration of Oriental 
 hyperbole that may be found in these expres- 
 sions, still we cannot but see in them the repre- 
 sentation of a terrible reality for the wicked. 
 " It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of 
 the living God " (Heb. x, 31). Two things seem 
 perfectly clear : (i) The lost will be excluded 
 from the presence of God, and the life and 
 blessedness of the saved. Only the righteous 
 shall have right to the tree of life, and shall be 
 permitted to enter in by the gates into the city 
 (Rev. xxii, 14). This is the negative side of 
 the punishment of the lost, and has been called 
 the penalty of loss (pcena damnt), or absence of 
 the beatific vision (carcntia beatifica visionis}.
 
 212 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 If this were all of hell we should seek diligently 
 to escape it. But (2) it is also certain from the 
 Bible representations of hell that the wicked will 
 suffer a more positive penalty than is signified in 
 these negative expressions. Such is implied in 
 the word " torment" used in the parable of the 
 Rich Man and Lazarus, and in Rev. xx, 10. 
 This, however, is most likely itself the result 
 simply of being without God, the source of our 
 life and joy. The negative penalty of loss in- 
 volves the positive penalty of pain (pcena sensus). 
 The absence of the beatific vision creates the 
 loneliness and desolateness of the soul that is 
 " without God " and without " hope." The 
 presence of darkness is but the absence of light, 
 the presence of death but the absence of life. 
 
 This exclusion from the divine presence, with 
 its negative and positive implications, may in- 
 involve also remorse (Luke xvi, 25) and the evils 
 of association with the damned (Rev. xxii, 15). 
 It, of course, implies exclusion from the enjoy- 
 ments of this life (Hodge). 
 
 We do not feel authorized to say less of the 
 condition of the lost, nor need we say more. 
 
 We are, accordingly, obliged to think the 
 following representations too mild to express the 
 true sense of the Scriptures. " The will, in the
 
 NATURE OF PUNISHMENT. 213 
 
 exercise of its imperishable gift of freedom, may 
 frustrate [the divine] education . . . ; but if it 
 does so, it is because it ' kicks against the pricks ' 
 of the long-suffering that is leading it to repent- 
 ance ; and ... it may accept even an endless 
 punishment, and find peace in the acceptance " 
 (Plumptre, Spirits in Prison, p. 340). " Thousands 
 in this world are in conditions which other 
 thousands pronounce worse than non-existence, 
 but they themselves struggle hard and do their 
 utmost to perpetuate their being it may be 
 through the fear of something worse, but more 
 likely, in most cases, from an inherent natural 
 love of conscious life. Sin may be declared to be 
 exceeding sinful because it is offensive to God, 
 whatever be its consequences to the sinner him- 
 self; and it is so again, because to the sinner it 
 is a bar to the attainment of an infinite good, 
 and is the source of an evil inconceivably great, 
 even though it do not wholly overbalance the 
 bliss of being" (Miner Raymond, Systematic 
 Theology, vol. i, p. 357). 
 
 Such teaching, we are compelled to think, robs 
 hell of its terrors, and contradicts the spirit and 
 explicit representations of the Scriptures. 
 
 On the other hand, however, it is not neces- 
 sary to go beyond the Scripture representations
 
 214 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 in the matter, and picture to ourselves a state of 
 things more terrible than that revealed. The 
 following doctrines, therefore, maybe rejected as 
 without warrant in the word of God : 
 
 1. That which represents the " fire " of hell as 
 literal fire. Few only (as does Dr. Pusey) hold to 
 this view to-day. The commoner view makes 
 the fire of perdition symbolize the punishment 
 of the lost. 
 
 Against the literal view may be urged: (i) 
 The fact that if the " fire " must be considered 
 literal, so also must the " worm ; " but these are 
 incompatible. (2) The further representations 
 of the state of the lost as given above are mu- 
 tually exclusive on the basis of a literal inter- 
 pretation. " Blackness of darkness " is not con- 
 sistent with literal fire. 
 
 2. That which represents God as inflicting 
 positive punishment. This is a very common 
 view. To select one quotation out of a multi- 
 tude, we may give the following : " Future suffer- 
 ing is not exclusively the natural consequence 
 of sin, but also includes positive inflictions " 
 (Hodge, Systematic TJieology, vol. iii, p. 868). 
 
 We must ask the advocates of this view 
 for the grounds of their assertion. We have not 
 been able to find them.
 
 NATURE OF PUNISHMENT. 215 
 
 3. Other excessive representations are all Dnn- 
 tean pictures of the condition of the lost. \V 
 know no warrant for such explorations and descrip- 
 tions of the place and condition of the damned, 
 and we certainly take no pleasure in such a task. 
 
 4. We know no sufficient warrant, moreover, 
 for the assertion made by some, that the lost will 
 have their bodies given to them in the resurrec- 
 tion in order to increase their sufferings. The 
 statement is confessedly only an inference from 
 the fact of their resurrection, and we should 
 be extremely cautious of inferences upon a sub- 
 ject about which we know so little.* 
 
 But without being able to determine more pre- 
 cisely than we have the condition of the lost, 
 we know from further Scripture representation 
 that it is better for a man to pluck out a right 
 eye, or cut off a right foot or arm, or to suffer the 
 destruction of the whole body than to be cast into 
 hell (Mark ix, 43, 45, 47 ; Luke xii, 4, 5) : and that 
 it were good for such an one as is cast therein if 
 he had not been born (Matt, xxvi, 24). 
 
 * The ease with which some writers multiply their assertions 
 upon this subject would suggest that they know much more 
 about it than has been revealed. We know no part of our gen- 
 eral subject where we should adhere more closely to the Script- 
 ures than here ; and yet because so little is revealed writers are 
 no doubt all the more tempted to add their own conjectures.
 
 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." 
 Matt, xxv, 46.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Doctrine of Annihilation. 
 
 THE doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked 
 is, in the nature of the case, opposed to the 
 doctrine of Universalism. Its advocates strenu- 
 ously oppose the latter error. They strongly 
 advocate eternal punishment ; not, however, as 
 an eternal endurance, but in its results. If the 
 wicked are annihilated, they say, their punish- 
 ment is eternal in that its effects last forever. 
 The doctrine, therefore, may properly be con- 
 sidered in connection with the subject of the 
 nature of future punishment. 
 
 There are two forms of the doctrine Annihi- 
 lationism proper and the doctrine of Conditional 
 Immortality, otherwise known as " life in Christ." 
 The two doctrines are one in their outcome the 
 extinction of evil and evil-doers but differ in 
 other fundamental points. The chief points of 
 difference concern the doctrine of native immor- 
 tality and the method of ultimate annihilation. 
 Annihilationism teaches that the soul was created 
 immortal; Conditional Immortality teaches that
 
 218 FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 
 
 it was created mortal, with the capacity of im- 
 mortalization. Immortality is a gift of God in 
 Christ. If sin had not entered into the world 
 this gift would have been conferred (sacrament- 
 ally, we suppose) through the " tree of life," 
 from whose fruit our first parents were excluded 
 after their fall. Christ is the new tree of life 
 through whom, under grace, we again find access 
 to immortality. In the view of this doctrine 
 immortality is thus an acquisition, not an original 
 endowment ; and extinction of being is but the 
 ultimate outcome of a responsible failure to ob- 
 tain the life graciously offered to all in Christ. 
 The other form of the doctrine, adhering to the 
 metaphysical view that the soul is immortal by 
 original constitution, teaches that its annihilation 
 is by a divine destructive act corresponding to 
 the divine creative act in its origination. In 
 the doctrine of Conditional Immortality the soul 
 dies of itself, ultimately, if without Christ; in the 
 doctrine of Annihilation the soul that sinneth is 
 ultimately destroyed ; its immortality, being for- 
 feited through sin, is, in the end, taken from it. 
 Both doctrines teach a limited duration of con- 
 scious suffering for the wicked in the future life. 
 Such, in brief, is a doctrine in its twofold 
 aspect, which (especially in the form of life in
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 219 
 
 Christ) is meeting with considerable favor in cer- 
 tain very respectable quarters ; and we confess 
 to a very strong liking for it. If our liking fora 
 doctrine were all that we were required to con- 
 sider we would find no difficulty in knowing 
 where to cast the anchor of our faith. Both 
 doctrines (especially the latter) have much in their 
 favor. A divine theodicy is much easier under 
 either view than under the orthodox doctrine. 
 One of the heaviest burdens the latter doctrine 
 is required to sustain is the eternal continuance 
 of evil in a benevolent universe. Annihilation- 
 ism does away with this difficulty by providing 
 for the ultimate extinction of evil when the good 
 and the pure and the happy will be " all in all," 
 when sin shall no longer exist even as a " speck 
 on the infinite azure of eternity," but when the 
 last spot on the sun of righteousness shall be 
 effaced. The doctrine (always especially the 
 second form) is not wholly destitute of exeget- 
 ical points. But when tested by the whole tes- 
 timony of the Scriptures, we are compelled to 
 believe that it is found wanting, and must, there- 
 fore, be rejected. We part from it as from a 
 doctrine we would like to believe. 
 
 As the two forms of the doctrine readily clas- 
 sify in all essential respects, they may be consid-
 
 220 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 ered together. We propose in the present chap- 
 ter to review the chief grounds of the general 
 doctrine. 
 
 I. The argument of the Annihilationist is based 
 chiefly upon the use in the Scriptures of such 
 words as "death," "destruction," "perishing," 
 etc. To quote solely from the New Testament, 
 some of the texts upon which much confidence 
 is placed are as follows : " For the wages of sin 
 is death" (Rom. vi, 23); " For if ye live after 
 the flesh, ye must die " (ibid., viii, 13) ; " And be 
 not afraid of them which kill the body, but are 
 not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him 
 which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
 hell " (Matt, x, 28) ; " Broad is the way that 
 leadeth to destruction" (Matt, vii, 13); "For 
 God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him 
 should not perish, but have eternal life " (John 
 iii, 16); "Who shall suffer punishment, even 
 eternal destruction from the face of the Lord 
 and from the glory of his might " (2 Thess. i, 9). 
 
 But we reply to the argument based upon 
 such passages of Scripture, that these words are 
 used in a figurative sense, and properly suggest 
 simply the nature of eternal punishment. In 
 proof of this assertion we offer the following
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 221 
 
 facts: (i) The words "death," "destruction," 
 etc., are used of persons in this life who are liv- 
 ing in sin. The prodigal son, the " sheep," and 
 the "piece of silver " were lost (destroyed), and 
 Christ came " to seek and to save that which 
 was lost [destroyed]* " (Luke xv, 3-7, 8-10, 24, 
 32 ; xix, 10). Men are, according to Paul, al- 
 ready " dead in trespasses and sins " (Eph. ii, 
 I, 5 ; Col. ii, 13), and "she that giveth herself 
 to pleasure is dead while she liveth " (i Tim. 
 v, 6) dead evidently to the higher life of right- 
 eousness and holiness. The prodigal son also 
 was " dead " as well as " destroyed " (Luke xv, 
 24, 32). The morally and spiritually corrupt are 
 the "dead" and the "destroyed," according to the 
 New Testament ; and the eternity of the finally 
 lost is but the endless continuation of this state 
 begun on earth, as the eternal life of the right- 
 eous is but the endless continuance of a life of 
 holiness begun here. The Platonic use of these 
 words in the sense of extinction of being is 
 
 * It is an unfortunate comment that Dr. Petavel {Extinction 
 of Evil, p. 46) makes on these cases when he says : " But_/0r a 
 time the prodigal son. was as good as lost [destroyed] to his fa- 
 ther, and the coin as good as destroyed to its owner." Yes, we 
 reply, as good as lost to the father and as good as destroyed to 
 the owner, but not destroyed in themselves. The eternally lost 
 are as good as destroyed to their Father, and worse than de- 
 stroyed to themselves, but not annihilated.
 
 222 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 not that of the New Testament. (2) The word 
 " life " is used, correspondingly, with reference 
 not simply to existence, but to a life of right- 
 eousness. There are several instances where 
 the word cannot be made naturally to signify 
 immortality. One of these is Rom. viii, 6 : " For 
 the mind of the flesh is death ; but the mind of 
 the spirit is life and peace." Other instances 
 are : " But godliness is profitable for all things, 
 having promise of the life which now is, and of 
 that which is to come " (i Tim. iv, 8) ; " We 
 know that we have passed out of death into life, 
 because we love the brethren. He that loveth 
 not abideth in death " (i John iii, 14). Only an 
 artificial interpretation can make either the word 
 " death " or " life " in these passages signify more 
 than a metaphorical condition of soul. (3) Con- 
 firmatory of the figurative interpretation of these 
 terms is to be offered the fact that the New 
 Testament repeatedly uses figurative expressions 
 concerning the state of the soul. " Ye must be 
 born again " (John iii, 7) is a familiar instance. 
 Christ here did not mean that the soul needed 
 to be brought into existence, but that it needed 
 to be renewed in righteousness, and brought into 
 the life of righteousness. (4) 2 Thess. i, 9, in- 
 stead of furnishing evidence of annihilation,
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIH1LA TION. 223 
 
 explicitly contradicts the annihilationist's use 
 of the word "destruction." "Who shall suffer 
 punishment, even eternal destruction from the 
 face of the Lord and from the glory of his 
 might." Here the meaning of the term "de- 
 struction " is defined in the subsequent part of 
 the sentence. The destruction consists, evident- 
 ly, according to the apostle, in the banishment 
 of the soul from the presence of God and his 
 glory. Nothing could be plainer than the mean- 
 ing of Paul in this place. If he meant to teach 
 the doctrine of Annihilation his language was 
 wholly superfluous and meaningless. On the 
 orthodox supposition his meaning is perfectly 
 plain. (5) There are expressions in the New 
 Testament which, by teaching eternal punish- 
 ment, preclude the idea of annihilation. "And 
 these shall go away into eternal punishment " 
 (Matt, xxv, 46). " And they shall be tormented 
 day and night for ever and ever " (Rev. xx, 10). 
 (6) There are no instances of the use of the 
 words in question where the orthodox view is 
 not perfectly simple and intelligible. 
 
 2. But it is said in response that in the cases 
 referred to, and all others like them, the words 
 <; death," " destruction," etc., though they in or- 
 dinary use properly signify annihilation, are used
 
 22.4 FUTURE RETRIBU7ION. 
 
 proleptically. One writer, commenting on the 
 phrase " dead in trespasses and sins," says : " We 
 believe . . . that the apostle's statement means, 
 ' Ye were [virtually] dead' on your way to death. 
 Death was there, though only in its germ ; death 
 had begun its work, but was prevented from 
 completing it. By prolepsis Paul anticipates the 
 fatal results of total destruction, moral and 
 physical, that sin would have wrought in his 
 readers had they not received the Gospel " (Pet- 
 avel, Extinction of Evil, p. 175). In confirma- 
 tion of this view it is shown that prolepsis is a 
 figure of speech sometimes used in the Script- 
 ures. Instances are : " Whom he justified, them 
 he also glorified" (Rom. viii, 30); " Death is 
 swallowed up in victory" (i Cor. xv, 54). 
 
 But we reply, while we grant that prolepsis is 
 a true biblical figure of speech, we cannot admit 
 the fact in this case, (i) The hypothesis is evi- 
 dently devised not to meet a necessity in the use 
 of New Testament language (this certainly, as 
 before said, is intelligible and natural on the 
 orthodox supposition), but to meet the exigency 
 of a theory which cannot otherwise maintain it- 
 self. Prolepsis in the Scriptures we admit ; but 
 to affirm this of language where there is no other 
 necessity than the emergency of a foregone con-
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 225 
 
 elusion is not warrantable. When the advocates 
 of annihilation can find one clear instance where 
 the words " death," " lost," and the like, cannot 
 signify, naturally and properly, spiritual degen- 
 eracy or the moral ruin of the soul, or when 
 they on other grounds than these clearly establish 
 their doctrine, then they may present their hy- 
 pothesis of prolepsis as a demand of exegesis ; 
 not till then. And not till then will their doc- 
 trine carry conviction. (2) This meaning is not 
 the natural impression that the language of the 
 New Testament conveys to an unprejudiced 
 reader. (3) It is contradicted by "4 " and " 5 " 
 above, in which we show that the apostle Paul 
 defines his use of the word " destruction," and 
 that Matt, xxv, 46, and Rev. xx, 10, expressly 
 teach eternal suffering. (4) If we make the 
 \vords " death " and " destruction " in the cases 
 referred to signify a prolepsis, we must under- 
 stand the word " life," when used with reference 
 to the soul, in the same way. But we have seen 
 that it cannot so refer in some cases. When 
 Paul says, " Having promise of the life that now 
 is," he evidently does not mean existence, but 
 life in its higher worth and good. He does not 
 mean more when he refers to " that [life] which 
 
 is to come." In this case the metaphorical use 
 15
 
 226 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 of " life " is not only perfectly natural ; the sense 
 of life as immortality is positively excluded. 
 
 3. Again, response is made to our objection 
 from Matt, xxv, 46, and Rev. xx, 10, as follows: 
 With regard to Rev. xx, 10, that no confidence 
 is to be placed upon this for the reason that the 
 Book of Revelation is a book largely of symbol- 
 isms, and theology, accordingly, can find only 
 small ground in it to rest upon (Petavel, ut 
 supra, p. 171). No less than six different at- 
 tempts are made to avoid the manifest objection 
 from Matt, xxv, 46. These are: (i) That KoXaat^ 
 (punishment) is not an absolutely certain reading 
 of the original text. In proof of this is cited the fact 
 that in certain manuscripts of the ancient Latin 
 version of Matthew the Itala the word " fire " 
 is found instead of "punishment, "makingthe text 
 read : " And these shall go away into eternal fire." 
 It is assumed, of course, that " eternal fire " is not 
 so strong an expression as " eternal punishment " 
 (White, Life in Christ, p. 396 ; after him Row, 
 Future Retribution, p. 268). (2) It is said that 
 the word KOAaaig itself suggests annihilation. 
 " The etymology of the word kolasis, translated 
 ' punishment ' in the usual version, may lead us to 
 an apprehension of its intrinsic meaning. Lexi- 
 cographers refer it to a root signifying ' to break
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 227 
 
 by striking, to amputate, to shorten, to dismem- 
 ber, to mutilate ; ' from the said root our word 
 iconoclast, ' breaker, or destroyer, of images,' is 
 derived. Kolasis, therefore, denotes punishment 
 involving a cutting off, a loss." It is said, in 
 harmony with this, that all punishment involves 
 loss. " A fine consists in loss of money ; im- 
 prisonment, in loss of liberty ; death, in loss of 
 life" (Petavel, Extinction of Evil, p. 53). (3) It 
 is said that the punishment of the wicked is 
 eternal in its results, and that nokaois al&vior is to 
 be understood in this sense after the analogy of 
 such expressions as " eternal judgment " (Heb. 
 vi, 2) and "eternal redemption" (Heb. ix, 12) 
 (Petavel, pp. 33, 50). (4) Again, it is said that 
 pain is not an essential part of punishment. " It 
 is a mistake to think that punishment necessarily 
 involves pain. ... If any rash individual at- 
 tempted to gaze at the sun, he would first ex- 
 perience intense pain in his eyeballs. Should he 
 disregard the admonitory voice of suffering, and 
 persevere, the pain would cease, but he would 
 have become blind. The loss of sight would be 
 his punishment, and not the temporary anguish 
 that forewarned him of the consequences of his 
 folly." "As instances of punishment without pain, 
 we may quote the English law which condemned
 
 228 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the suicide to an ignominious burial in the high- 
 way, with a stake driven through the body, and 
 without Christian rites ; also the custom preva- 
 lent in certain North American States of render- 
 ing criminals insensible by chloroform before 
 their execution. Even without chloroform be- 
 heading and hanging are far less painful and 
 terrible than many so-called natural deaths. If 
 the essence of punishment were suffering, fifty 
 lashes of the cat-o '-nine-tails would be a graver 
 penalty than death on the scaffold, and murder- 
 ers should be made to endure tortures propor- 
 tionate to the number and atrocity of their 
 crimes " (ibid., pp. 56, 57). (5) It is also said 
 that the word al&vios does not signify everlasting 
 (Row, Future Retribution, pp. 204-218). (6) 
 When all of these devices fail, writers upon this 
 subject quite generally warn us that we must not 
 seek to build so great a doctrine as that of 
 eternal suffering upon so slight a basis as one or 
 two passages of the divine word ; that this is like 
 balancing " a mountain on the point of a needle," 
 etc. 
 
 As to the first of these responses, we may say 
 that while the Book of Revelation is confessedly 
 a book largely of symbolisms, this does not affect 
 the objection we urge from it to the present
 
 DOCTR1XE OF AXXI HJLATION. -_'29 
 
 doctrine. The verse to which we refer, if it 
 means any thing, clearly involves : I.) The punish- 
 ment of the devil after the judgment. 2.) Eter- 
 nal punishment. We have already seen that the 
 phrase et$ TOV^ al&vag TOJV afojvcjv is used to signify 
 an intensified idea of eternity. 3.) Suffering as 
 the essence of this eternal punishment. " Tor- 
 ment " can by no sort of exegetical legerdemain 
 possibly be made to signify annihilation. 
 
 We may consider the other responses in their 
 order. 
 
 (i) As to the reading of " fire " instead of 
 " punishment." Even Dr. White does not urge 
 this point as at all conclusive. " We shall, how- 
 ever, treat this passage on the supposition that 
 . . . Matthew wrote what we find in these ex- 
 pressions " (Life in Christ, p. 396). It is only 
 claimed that the reading "fire" is found in "the 
 two most ancient, and several more modern, 
 manuscripts of the Italic Version." This cer- 
 tainly can weigh nothing against the combined tes- 
 timony of all the other versions and manuscripts. 
 Besides, it is easier to see how the word " fire " 
 could be interpolated in this verse by some tran- 
 scriber than the word " punishment " (KoAaa^), 
 since " fire" (rrvp) is used just before in verse 41. 
 The transcriber who made the mistake had just
 
 230 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 written nvp aiuviov. To make the mistake of 
 writing Kokaaif atomo? a few verses after would 
 have been wholly unnatural. But the mistake 
 of writing nvp alumov in the second instance, as 
 he had just written in the previous instance, was 
 wholly natural and easy. 
 
 (2) The response that all punishment involves 
 loss, and that this is signified in the word no^aaig. 
 We reply, there can be no doubt that punish- 
 ment involves loss, but not annihilation. Much 
 less does it involve the annihilation of him who 
 suffers it. It involves the loss of something to 
 him, but not the loss of himself in the sense of 
 extinction of being. To suffer a fine is to lose 
 money, to suffer imprisonment is to lose liberty, 
 to suffer death is to lose life ; but this is not ex- 
 tinction in either case. As to the word KoXaois, 
 we have already seen that it is used by the Uni- 
 versalist to establish his claim. It is used with 
 as little plausibility by the Annihilationist. 
 There can be no doubt whatever that the word, 
 whatever its etymology, was used to signify 
 punishment in general without reference to the 
 mode or result of its infliction. The punish- 
 ment (KoXao'.g) of Andronicus was by death 
 (2 Mace, iv, 38). The Jewish authorities found 
 " nothing how they might punish " the apostles
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 231 
 
 (Acts iv, 21). The word never signified annihila- 
 tion. 
 
 (3) Eternal punishment is eternal in its effects. 
 But this view will not explain Rev. xx, 10. Nor 
 will it satisfy the spirit of the passage in Mat- 
 thew. The whole structure of this sentence is 
 well qualified to favor the orthodox view. " And 
 these shall go away into eternal punishment." 
 We cannot, except by forced construction, make 
 this mean : " And these shall be finally annihi- 
 lated." 1\\e going away into eternal punishment 
 is just such language as might have been used 
 by our Lord to signify eternal suffering. More- 
 over, this is its common impression upon an un- 
 prejudiced reader. Again, the Annihilationist 
 no more than the Universalist can explain the 
 contrasted phrases in this verse. There is no 
 more reason, except through the exigency of a 
 foregone conclusion, to say " eternal punish- 
 ment " means the eternal result of temporal suf- 
 fering than to say " eternal life " means the 
 eternal result of a temporal existence. The two 
 phrases are evidently intended parallels, and 
 their unforced impression will forever witness 
 against both the Annihilationist and Universalist 
 hypotheses. Further, the Annihilationist him- 
 self concedes that this phrase does not mean the
 
 232 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 eternal result of a single act, as in the analogous 
 cases cited, where "eternal judgment" means 
 the eternal result of an act of judgment and 
 " eternal redemption" the eternal result of the 
 atonement; for he teaches a gradual extinction 
 of the lost. They go away into a punishment 
 that will ultimately be annihilation. Still further, 
 in the analogous cases the context compels the 
 secondary construction ; not so in this. Lastly, 
 the Jews of Christ's time, who, as we have seen, 
 taught eternal suffering for some, and who also 
 taught annihilation for others, did not use lan- 
 guage like that in question to signify the second 
 doctrine. In regard to sinners of Israel the 
 School of Hillel taught " that they are tormented 
 in Gehenna for twelve months, after which their 
 bodies and souls are burnt up and scattered as 
 dust under the feet of the righteous ; but it sig- 
 nificantly excepts from this number certain classes 
 of transgressors ' who go down to Gehinnom and 
 are punished there to ages of ages' ' (Eders- 
 heim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 
 ii, p. 792). In view of this teaching, and the lan- 
 guage used to convey it, there is no way of mis- 
 taking the language of our Lord. 
 
 (4) The response which affirms that pain is not 
 an essential part of punishment. This, we reply.
 
 DOCTRINE OF AXXIHILAI'IOX. 233 
 
 is a contradiction in terms. There is no punish- 
 ment without pain of some kind. To be sure it 
 need not be physical pain ; this, indeed, is not 
 always the severest. The supposed cases of 
 painless punishment referred to by Dr. Petavel 
 are not apt instances. Is there no pain to a man 
 who by a rash act destroys his eyesight except 
 that which is experienced in the act ? Will he 
 not suffer from the loss of his eyesight as long 
 as he lives ? As to the English law that con- 
 demned the suicide to an ignominious burial in 
 the highway with a stake driven through his 
 body, this can only be said to be punishment to 
 the offender in an accommodated sense. It was 
 an example to others, and if properly a punish- 
 ment to the guilty one, only so in its anticipation. 
 In this latter sense it was punishment tc the sui- 
 cide, and only as such could it have any deterrent 
 effect upon others. The pain experienced in the 
 thought of this ignominious burial was what gave 
 it its deterring force, if it had any, and what 
 properly constituted its penalty. Again, is there 
 no pain in being hung even if the criminal is ren- 
 dered insensible by an anaesthetic ? Is there not 
 pain in the thought of dying the felon's death ? 
 And if there is greater suffering in the lash of the 
 cat-o'-nine-tails than in death on the scaffold.
 
 234 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 and the murderer deserves the worst form of 
 punishment of the two, why, in the name of com- 
 mon-sense, not give him the punishment of the 
 former and save him from the latter ? It will take 
 Dr. Petavel a long time to persuade the world that 
 there is more suffering in the first than in the last. 
 We do not teach that there is conscious eternal 
 suffering in all punishment, but simply that suffer- 
 ing is an essential element of all punishment ; and 
 that " eternal punishment " involves eternal suf- 
 fering. 
 
 (5) The Annihilationist as well as the Univer- 
 salist seeks to prove that aluvioq does not signify 
 "everlasting." Enough, however, has been said 
 upon this point in considering the doctrine of 
 the latter. 
 
 (6) As to building the doctrine of future suf- 
 fering upon a few passages of Scripture. In this 
 objection the Annihilationist practically surren- 
 ders his doctrine. It is a virtual confession that 
 a few passages of Scripture teach the orthodox 
 view. Again, how many times was it necessary 
 for our Lord to say, " And these shall go away 
 into eternal punishment," in order to convince 
 these writers that he meant to teach this doctrine ? 
 A thousand times would not more perfectly 
 teach it than this once, although repetition em-
 
 DOCTKINE OF AXXIII ILATIOX. -Jo5 
 
 phasizes. But this is accomplished in the use of 
 other language, as that which the Annihilation- 
 ist himself urges, and by the whole implication 
 of the gospels. We have tried to set forth the 
 full impression of this doctrine in the first chapter. 
 4. The Annihilationist seeks to augment his 
 argument based upon the terms " death " " de- 
 struction," and the like, by such Scriptures as 
 the following: " If a man abide not in me, he is 
 cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and they 
 gather them, and cast them into the fire, and 
 they are burned " (John xv, 6). " And if thy 
 hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good 
 for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than 
 having thy two hands to go into hell, into the 
 unquenchable fire " (Mark ix, 43). It is said 
 fire " symbolizes total destruction." It is also 
 the agent of the destruction of the wicked. " Fire 
 changes the diamond, the hardest of all sub- 
 stances, into a subtle vapor, dissolves granite and 
 converts it into lava. . . . No sort of life is com- 
 patible with fire ; and, according to the Bible, 
 destruction by fire is the doom of the ungodly ; 
 * for, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as 
 an oven ; and all the proud, yea, and all that do 
 wickedly, shall be stubble : and the day that 
 cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of
 
 236 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor 
 branch ' " (Petavel, p. 44). 
 
 But it will not be claimed that these passages 
 can teach the doctrine if those already considered 
 do not. Besides, there is no more reason, as 
 already seen in a previous chapter, for affirming 
 that the " fire " threatened the sinner is a literal 
 fire than that the " worm " and the " outer dark- 
 ness " are literal incompatible representations. 
 All of these are but sensible and figurative rep- 
 resentations used to signify the character of 
 future suffering. 
 
 5. The Annihilationist seeks to build his doc- 
 trine from the positive side upon the word " life " 
 as used in the New Testament. Life, he says, is 
 immortality, as " death " is extinction. This life 
 is in Christ. It will not be necessary to quote 
 passages in which this word is found, as the 
 reader by consulting his concordance can readily 
 find access to many of them. Nor will it be nec- 
 essary to respond to the argument based upon 
 them at any great length, since the interpretation 
 of this word stands or falls with what has already 
 been said concerning " death " and its kindred 
 words. We simply desire to reiterate one or two 
 remarks before made. One of these is that there 
 is no instance of the use of the word " life " in
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 237 
 
 the New Testament that is not compatible with 
 the orthodox interpretation. The other is that 
 the word is so used in some instances as positively 
 to exclude the connotation of immortality. Wo 
 quote other instances than those given. " And 
 he said unto them, Take heed, and keep your- 
 selves from all covetousness : for a man's life con- 
 sisteth not in the abundance of the things which 
 he possesseth " (Luke xii, 15). " Jesus therefore 
 said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and 
 drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. 
 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
 hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the 
 last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my 
 blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in 
 him " (John vi, 53-56). What more reason to 
 interpret " life " here literally than to interpret 
 " flesh " and " blood," as do the Romanists, in 
 the same way? "Again therefore Jesus spake 
 unto them, saying, I am the light of the world : 
 he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, 
 but shall have the light of life " (John viii, 12). 
 If we cannot interpret " light " and " darkness " 
 literally, why should we interpret "life" so in 
 this verse ? " The thief cometh not, but that he
 
 238 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 may steal, and kill, and destroy : I come that 
 they may have life, and may have it abundantly " 
 (John x, 10). Suppose we understand the word 
 " life " here to signify immortality, what will be 
 the result upon the sense of this passage ? It 
 would then read : " I come that they may have 
 immortality, and may have it abundantly." Will 
 the literalist tell us what an abundance of immor- 
 tality is ? By his interpretation the sense of the 
 passage is destroyed. There are degrees of 
 spiritual life and righteousness in Christ, but not 
 degrees of immortality. 
 
 6. Argument is attempted by the Annihila- 
 tionist from considerations of the divine love 
 and justice. These coincide perfectly with the 
 same as presented by the Universalist, and 
 have been sufficiently considered in refuting the 
 doctrine of the latter. 
 
 7. It is said that native and inamissible im- 
 mortality is not revealed in the Bible ; that the 
 doctrine is borrowed from Plato and not derived 
 from the Scriptures. It is said further to be 
 positively opposed by the Scriptures. The two 
 chief passages upon which reliance is placed in 
 proof are Gen. iii, 4, 22-24, an ^ Rom. ii, 7. It is 
 said, according to the former passage immortality 
 was conditioned upon the tree of life. As to
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 239 
 
 the second, it is said that God " only hath im- 
 mortality " (i Tim. vi, 1 6), and that we attain it 
 by seeking it. Again, it is said that " enforced " 
 immortality is contrary to the teaching of " uni- 
 versal analogy." " All about us in the world we 
 behold a struggle for existence and the survival 
 of the fittest. Be transformed in order to live ! 
 Such is the great law of nature. Such is also 
 the great law of the Gospel. What, from this 
 point of view, shall befall those free beings who 
 resist the required transformation and, in lieu of 
 progressing, recoil voluntarily and obstinately 
 toward animalism ? Evolutionary science itself 
 exhibits examples of retrogression in nature, 
 degenerations, backward progress. Without 
 culture superior types revert to the primitive 
 type. The conscious being may revert toward 
 the unconscious, and in fact the sleep which 
 takes possession of each of us every day is 
 like the daily menace of this unconsciousness 
 from which we have scarcely emerged " {Extinc- 
 tion of Evil, p. 96). We are told, still further, 
 that we are to distinguish, according to the 
 Scriptures, between the soul's survival of death 
 and the resurrection and its inamissible im- 
 mortality. " I have also drawn the reader's at- 
 tention to the fact that two questions which
 
 240 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 ought to be kept entirely distinct have been 
 habitually confounded together in this con- 
 troversy. One of these is, Have we reason for 
 believing that man will survive the dissolution 
 of the body? the other, Will that survival be of 
 endless duration?" (C. A. Row, Future Retri- 
 bution, p. 408). 
 
 To all of this we respond in order. 
 
 (i) Immortality not revealed. To this we 
 reply, not only is the immortality of the soul 
 every-vvhere assumed in the Scriptures, as is the 
 existence of God, but it is also involved in the 
 fact of eternal punishment as already proved by 
 the Scriptures. Again, it is involved in Christ's 
 conversation with the Sadducees recorded in 
 Matt, xxii, 23-33 ! Mark xii, 18-27 ; Luke xx, 
 27-40 : " And there came to him certain of the 
 Sadducees, they which say that there is no resur- 
 rection ; and they asked him, saying, Master, 
 Moses wrote unto us, that if a man's brother die, 
 having a wife, and he be childless, his brother 
 should take the wife, and raise up seed unto his 
 brother. There were therefore seven brethren : 
 and the first took a wife, and died childless ; 
 and the second ; and the third took her ; and 
 likewise the seven also left no children, and died. 
 Afterward the woman also died. In the resur-
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 241 
 
 rection therefore whose wife of them shall she 
 be ? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus 
 said unto them, The sons of this world marry, 
 and are given in marriage : but they that are ac- 
 counted worthy to attain to that world, and the 
 resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor 
 are given in marriage: for neither can they die 
 any more : for they are equal unto the angels ; 
 and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrec- 
 tion. But that the dead are raised, even Moses 
 showed, in the place concerning the Bush, when 
 he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and 
 the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now 
 he is not the God of the dead, but of the living : 
 for all live unto him. And certain of the scribes 
 answering said, Master, thou hast well said. 
 For they durst not any more ask him any ques- 
 tion." Now there can be no reasonable doubt 
 that Jesus in this conversation took the side of 
 the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection 
 and the immortality of the soul, against the 
 Sadducees, who believed in neither (Acts xxiii, 
 8). It is a pure assumption to affirm, as does 
 Dr. White, that Christ contradicted the doctrine 
 of the Pharisees in this matter as well as that of 
 the Sadducees. The well-known positions of 
 
 these two parties among the Jews (and there was 
 10
 
 242 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 no middle party) makes it certain that Christ's 
 unqualified approbation of the doctrine of the 
 Pharisees in this conversation with the Saddu- 
 cees implies his approval of the former's doctrine 
 of the native immortality of the soul. If Jesus 
 had meant to teach a doctrine neither of the 
 Pharisees nor Sadducees, but one midway be- 
 tween the two, he certainly would not have used 
 the language that he did without guarding it 
 against the doctrine of the former. The fact 
 furnishes as clear ground for the inference that 
 Jesus assumed the native immortality of the soul 
 as should be desired. 
 
 (2) The Scriptures opposed to native immor- 
 tality. As to the passage in Genesis urged to 
 prove this, we reply that it can be of force only 
 on the assumption that " to die" meant to be 
 annihilated. But this would be begging the 
 whole question, for it is just this point that is in 
 dispute. There certainly is no more difficulty in 
 supposing the tree of life to be able to conserve 
 physical and spiritual life than in supposing it 
 able to impart immortality. In either case it 
 could only have possessed this power sacra- 
 mentally ; and there is nothing in the narrative 
 itself to lead us to suppose that its office was to 
 impart immortality except we assume that man
 
 DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION. 243 
 
 was created mortal the very thing, as just said, 
 in question. Besides, when it is remembered, as 
 already remarked, that the immortality of the 
 soul is every-where assumed in the Scriptures 
 Old and New it becomes impossible to inter- 
 pret the narrative in question according to the 
 peculiar view of the doctrine of conditional im- 
 mortality. As to the passage in Romans we 
 need only say that it is to be understood to sig- 
 nify a blessed immortality.* Analogous to this 
 use of the word afydapaia (the word used in this 
 place, and translated " incorruption " in the Re- 
 vised Version) is its use in the Septuagint. (See 
 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
 Thayer.) Besides, all the other facts in the case 
 necessitate this interpretation, and no violence 
 is thereby done to the passage. 
 
 (3) The argument from analogy. We have 
 little to do with this argument except to refer to 
 it, for the reason that a skillful writer can find 
 proof from the so-called analogy of nature for 
 any doctrine that he undertakes to prove. We 
 
 * There can be no doubt that the Greek words afydapaia (the 
 word in Rom. ii, 7, and translated " incorruptiou " by our re- 
 visers) and adavaaia (translated alike in the Authorized and Re- 
 vised Versions by our word " immortality ") are used synony- 
 mously in the New Testament. Examine I Cor. xv, 53, 54 ; I 
 Tim. i, 17.
 
 944 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 are abundantly persuaded that analogy can 
 serve safely only two functions, namely, that of 
 illustration, and to remove objections to doctrines 
 involved in difficulties. Even Butler, the great 
 master in this field, strikes us as strong only 
 where he seeks to remove objections to the 
 doctrines he considers.* 
 
 (4) Survival does not involve immortality 
 according to the Scriptures. But we assert 
 directly the contrary. The Scriptures nowhere 
 make the distinction between survival and im- 
 mortality. This is a distinction devised, like the 
 doctrine of prolepsis, to meet the peculiar 
 emergency of this doctrine. Its advocates had 
 need of it, and they created it. This will be 
 evident when it is remembered that no such 
 distinction was ever made outside of the Script- 
 ures. Both in ancient and modern times it has 
 been customary to argue for the immortality of 
 the soul as if this were involved in the survival 
 of the soul in the dissolution of the body. Un- 
 less it can be shown that the Bible explicitly de- 
 parts from this custom the alleged distinction 
 
 * An example of both the weakness and the strength of the 
 argument from analogy has lately appeared in Drummond's 
 Natural Law in the Spiritual World a book weak in its 
 fundamental principle (the identity of natural and spiritual law), 
 but strong in its apt and beautiful illustrations.
 
 DOCTKINE OF ANNIHILATION. 245 
 
 will fall to the ground. But this cannot be 
 shown. 
 
 From purely exegetical considerations, there- 
 fore, we are compelled to reject the present 
 doctrine ; and simply say, in conclusion, that the 
 convictions of men in all ages and parts of the 
 world concerning the soul's native immortality 
 are not lightly to be set aside. We do not seek 
 to base our doctrine upon this primarily ; nor 
 upon metaphysical considerations of the soul's 
 immortality. These could weigh nothing in our 
 view against the clear teaching of the Scriptures 
 to the contrary ; but finding the doctrine assumed 
 every-where in the Scriptures, we may find con- 
 firmation of it in these extra-biblical facts and 
 arguments. We see no reason, moreover, in the 
 metaphysical nature of the soul (this being 
 granted) to prevent its annihilation. He who 
 created it is able to destroy it ; but this also is 
 not revealed, but the contrary.
 
 " For the wrath [justice] of God is revealed from heaven 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold 
 the truth in unrighteousness " Rom. i, 18. 
 
 "Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints." Rev. 
 xv, 3.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The Reason or Law of Necessity in Future Punishment. 
 
 WE have now sufficiently considered the fact 
 and nature of future punishment. One 
 other task yet remains, namely, to investigate 
 the reason or law of necessity in the punishment 
 of the lost. Why must the wicked be punished 
 forever ? 
 
 This is, perhaps, the least important part of our 
 subject, and yet it is not without interest, and its 
 consideration will not be without value. Several 
 chapters might be devoted to its discussion, but 
 we prefer to embrace it within the compass of a 
 single chapter. 
 
 Any proposed solution of the problem that 
 deserves so much as a hearing must begin by 
 taking for granted some real necessity ; and not, 
 as in Calvinism, by making the fact of punish- 
 ment the result of divine caprice. Excluding the 
 answer of Calvinism, and postulating some deep 
 necessity, we inquire wherein that necessity lies. 
 
 I. Is it in fixation of character? This is a 
 well-known doctrine, and is found in much of
 
 248 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the current teaching upon the subject. Its fun- 
 damental principle is that character, by the con- 
 stant and long indulgence of sin, becomes so 
 confirmed in badness that it bears in itself its own 
 unalterable, and therefore necessary, doom. Thus 
 Mr. Joseph Cook says: 
 
 '' I did not make the universe ; but the universe 
 is so made that whoever sins against light draws 
 blood on the spiritual retina of the moral eyes. 
 It is the most mysterious thing in the penalties 
 the soul is called on to endure, that sinning 
 against light blinds us to the very illumination 
 needed to rectify our condition. That is a fact 
 of science ; that is a terrific philosophical truth 
 which cannot be declaimed out of sight ; that is 
 a tremendous, indisputable circumstance in nat- 
 ural law ; and on it I plant myself when I say 
 reason shows that resisting the light that comes 
 in death may fix character and so end proba- 
 tion " (Boston Monday Lectures : Occident, p. 59). 
 
 Of course, whatever ends probation is itself 
 the law of necessity in eternal punishment. So 
 Mr. Cook would have us understand ; and on the 
 ground of the fixed character would he exclude 
 repentance after death, and justify to human rea- 
 son the compatibility of eternal punishment with 
 divine benevolence.
 
 REASON OK LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 249 
 
 Certainly it would follow, if the doctrine were 
 true, that there could be no repentance after 
 death, and no blame could be cast upon divine 
 goodness ; but, however plausible and convenient 
 the theory may appear, when tested by the Script- 
 ures it is found to be untenable. Several facts 
 will demonstrate its untenableness: 
 
 (l) All character is fixed without helping grace. 
 This fact will not be disputed by any one ; but it 
 is lost sight of in its bearing upon the doctrine 
 under discussion. The theory of Mr. Cook tacitly 
 assumes that no character is fixed but that which 
 becomes so from long and habitual sinning; 
 whereas, as just said, all character is unalterably 
 fixed without the intervention of divine grace. 
 Under the economy of redemption the Holy 
 Ghost is the light that lighteth every man that 
 cometh into the world, so that no character is 
 left to its naturally fixed condition of moral im- 
 potency in the beginning ; but we must carefully 
 remember that the reason of this moral or spir- 
 itual strength is in the presence and power of the 
 Holy Spirit. If for any reason the Holy Spirit 
 should take his flight from us, character would 
 be forever sealed in ruin from our consequent 
 weakness or inability to reform. 
 
 It is true, as Mr. Cook maintains, that charac-
 
 250 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 ter under sin becomes less and less susceptible 
 to appeals of religious truth ; " that sinning 
 against light blinds us to the very illumination 
 needed to rectify our condition :" but why? The 
 answer of the fixation doctrine is, Because char- 
 acter by sin becomes more and more hardened, 
 and, therefore, less and less susceptible to the 
 influence of the Holy Ghost, who alone can ap- 
 ply truth to the hearts of men in conviction and 
 salvation. Thus Mr. Cook again : 
 
 " I believe that light is kept before the lost. I 
 believe that God will be all in all both in the 
 saved and in the lost, and that the fact that God 
 is all in all in a lost soul is the chief source of 
 its misery" (Occident, p. 67). 
 
 This is the natural conclusion of the doctrine 
 as applied in its outcome to the future life. The 
 Holy Spirit is ever present, but finds its inability 
 for good in the moral steadfastness of the lost 
 soul. It ever strives to save, but is debarred by 
 the soul's fixedness in evil. 
 
 How obviously contradictory is this to those 
 passages of Scripture which signify the with- 
 drawal of the Holy Ghost on account of sin and 
 imply the moral ruin of the soul from that with- 
 drawal? " Cast me not away from thy presence ; 
 and take not thy Holy Spirit from me " (Psa.
 
 REASON OA 1 LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 251 
 
 li, 11). "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of 
 God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of 
 redemption " (Eph. iv, 30). Here the danger 
 is not that the character will become so fixed 
 by sin that the Holy Spirit cannot influence it, 
 but that the Holy Ghost will cease its wooing 
 and leave the soul to its natural state of ruin. 
 As sinning tends to drive the Holy Spirit from 
 us, we infer that in proportion as its influence 
 grows less on account of our sins are we less 
 and less susceptible to appeals of religious truth. 
 As we become hardened to religious impressions 
 on account of the Spirit's gradual but sure with- 
 drawal on account of sin, it follows that when 
 the Spirit ceases to operate upon the heart 
 there is then no further hope of moral or relig- 
 ious good. Left alone, man's character is forever 
 sealed in ruin. Why the Holy Spirit finally 
 ceases to strive with rebellious man will be seen 
 when we come to consider the theory which gives 
 the true account of the necessity in eternal pun- 
 ishment. Why the Holy Spirit gradually leaves 
 the sinful in this life may be accounted for on 
 the ground of his willful rejection. The Holy 
 Ghost cannot trespass upon free moral agency. 
 It is an awful fact, significant of man's greatness 
 in the scale of being, that at the bidding of a
 
 252 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 human will the Holy Spirit must retire. He can- 
 not, as well as will not, stay unwelcomed and 
 forbidden. 
 
 What has been said at this point may be 
 summed up for the sake of clearness and em- 
 phasis as follows : All character is unalterably 
 fixed without prevenient grace ; the light of the 
 Holy Spirit, which lighteth every man that com- 
 eth into the world, makes moral and spiritual 
 reform possible ; and the final withdrawal of that 
 Spirit on account of sin forever fixes lost char- 
 acter because left to its natural condition of 
 moral and spiritual helplessness. The fixation 
 doctrine, which assumes the reverse of this, name- 
 ly, that the Spirit is ever present, but debarred 
 from helpfulness on account of fixed character, 
 cannot, therefore, be true. 
 
 (2) Again, it is pure assumption to affirm that 
 character can become so fixed as to be beyond 
 the possibility of grace to reclaim, all other con- 
 siderations aside. There is not a passage in the 
 Bible which teaches such a doctrine or warrants 
 such a conclusion. There are passages that are 
 quoted as proof-texts, but they by no means 
 prove it. A favorite passage is Gal. vi, 7, 8 : 
 " Be not deceived ; God is not mocked : for 
 whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
 
 XEASON OK LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 253 
 
 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the 
 flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth unto 
 the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life." 
 That this passage teaches certain natural con- 
 sequences to a life of sin and others to a life of 
 righteousness, which it names, is not in the least 
 disputed ; but it does not, therefore, teach that 
 in steadfastness of character is to be found the 
 reason or law of eternal punishment. The con- 
 clusion goes beyond the teaching of the text, or 
 any warrantable inference from it. The error in 
 the interpretation here, and in the inference as 
 to the future life that is drawn from it, as in 
 that of other passages of similar import, is in the 
 failure to make the proper distinction between 
 fixity of character as the inevitable result of 
 a sinful life whose probation is ended, where by 
 implication and in fact there is no reclaiming 
 or restraining grace, and fixity of character as 
 the reason or law of eternal punishment. As all 
 character without prevenient grace is unaltera- 
 bly fixed, so when man persistently refuses the 
 assistance of divine grace his character becomes 
 more and more confirmed in badness. And so 
 it is that all lost character is eternally fixed. 
 This much of the theory is fundamentally true ; 
 but we believe it is true, not because grace has
 
 254 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 not the power to rescue, but because a limita- 
 tion, outside of the lost soul, is placed upon the 
 working of that grace. What that limitation is 
 will be seen presently. In the meantime let it 
 be borne in mind that fixity of character as a 
 result of being left alone and as a law explaining 
 the necessity of eternal punishment are radically 
 different. 
 
 (3) Another fatal objection to the theory is 
 that it necessarily implies, and therefore assumes, 
 if it does not assert, that the relations and con- 
 ditions of the future life of the lost are substan- 
 tially the same as those of this life. But there 
 is one important difference which must never be 
 forgotten, namely, the momentary gratification 
 from sin in this life cannot be received there. 
 This inference is in harmony with all Scripture 
 teaching with regard to the lost. We must not 
 forget that men in this life would not risk and 
 suffer the consequences of sin were it not for the 
 momentary pleasure of present indulgence. It 
 is inconceivable, therefore, that a free will can 
 attain such an " ultimate steadfastness and un- 
 changing bent " that it will eternally choose 
 the "torment" of hell in the absence of pleas- 
 urable gratification. We might conceive how 
 in a life such as this, as long, at least, as the sen-
 
 REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 255 
 
 sations of pleasure were possible, a corrupted 
 heart and perverted will might choose the evil ; 
 but not in a life such as the future of the wicked 
 will be, where all the conditions and opportuni- 
 ties of sinful pleasure are past. Conceivably, 
 will not the punishment of the wicked goad 
 them, at least, to a desire of deliverance ? If, 
 like the rich man, they be driven by the burn- 
 ings to call for a drop of cold water, who will say 
 that the Spirit could not send that drop, and 
 even take them out of the flame, were there no 
 barrier outside of themselves? Might not that 
 Spirit that changes the heart of stone to a heart 
 of flesh in this life even change the hardened 
 character of the lost were there no other law 
 that places a limit upon its operation ? The 
 " great gulf fixed " is betzveen the saved and the 
 lost, and not in the lost. 
 
 (4) Still further, and of great and conclusive 
 significance, is the fact that the Scriptures every- 
 where represent eternal punishment as ajudicially 
 inflicted penalty, and not as the natural result of 
 a sinful life. All those passages which speak of 
 the wrath of God as revealed from heaven against 
 all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, and, 
 
 o *-2 
 
 as well, those which describe the final judg- 
 ment, proclaim the truth and validity of this
 
 256 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 objection. Moreover, all the terms used with 
 reference to the matter are of a judicial nature. 
 " Judge," "judgment," "punishment," are famil- 
 iar scriptural examples. Christ, in Matt, xxv, 
 33, is represented as a judge pronouncing judi- 
 cial sentence upon the good and the bad for acts 
 in life, and not as one declaring to men the nat- 
 ural results of their earthly conduct. If the doc- 
 trine of fixity of character were true, we might 
 expect to find in the Bible no threatened pen- 
 alties, but only warning as to natural conse- 
 quences. It should be observed that the sin 
 against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness. 
 Christ does not say : " But he that shall blas- 
 pheme against the Holy Ghost will attain final 
 permanence of character that can never be 
 changed," or any thing like it; and any inter- 
 pretation that reads it so forces into the Saviour's 
 words, not only a meaning that they do not 
 contain, but one that is contradictory to their 
 judicial sense. 
 
 (5) Lastly, it may be asked, if this doctrine be 
 true, how account for an atonement in any true 
 sense of atonement, as a plan to deliver from 
 the eternal penalties of sin ? If fixation of char- 
 acter is the only bar to final restoration, then 
 what need of an atonement for forgiveness ? A
 
 KEASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 257 
 
 moral influence atonement is, on supposition of 
 this doctrine, the only atonement needed ; for, 
 clearly, all that men need is remedy, not for- 
 giveness ; unless we assume that forgiveness 
 through the atonement is of sins with only tem- 
 poral guilt. Clearly, the atonement that makes 
 possible the remission of eternal guilt teaches 
 that there is a barrier other than fixation of 
 character that precludes the restoration of the 
 lost, who have rejected that atonement, to holi- 
 ness and heaven. 
 
 The nature of eternal punishment is not under 
 consideration ; yet it should be said that possibly 
 this is to be understood as being in the burnings 
 of an unalterably fixed evil character; which fixity 
 of character, as explained, is the result of being left 
 alone by divine grace. Divine justice may judi- 
 cially surrender a lost soul to the eternal gnawings 
 and burnings of a bad character. The judicial act 
 would thus be the surrendering ; the punish- 
 ment, the result of that surrender, which, in any 
 case, would be moral and spiritual destitution. 
 This, at least, seems to be the doctrine of Rev. 
 xxii, 11. In these awful words sound forth both 
 the eternal sentence of the Judge and the eternal 
 doom of the wicked, as well as the eternal lot 
 
 of the righteous. Moreover, the term " death " 
 17
 
 258 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 as used in the New Testament to signify the 
 lost condition of the wicked, and which is, there- 
 fore, equivalent to " everlasting punishment "- 
 the opposite of "life eternal" seems to teach 
 the same doctrine. Eternal death is not in the 
 extinction or annihilation of the soul, but in the 
 total loss of the divine holiness and presence, as 
 eternal life is the eternal life of God in the soul. 
 In this deprivation of the life of God, which 
 must be eternal death, is to be found, it would 
 seem, the nature of that punishment to which 
 the justice of God surrenders the finally impen- 
 itent. Here, if anywhere in connection with 
 this doctrine, might be appropriately quoted 
 Gal. vi, 7, 8, and similar Scriptures, with their 
 inferential significance.* 
 
 * Since this chapter was written we have met a doctrine the very 
 reverse of the one just reviewed. It is the doctrine of Dr. 
 Campbell's little book, Unto the Uttermost. It rejects the fix- 
 ation doctrine, and, taking its suggestion, it would seem, from 
 Dorner (vol. iv, p. 424), makes the only barrier in the way of 
 final universal restoration to consist in the eternal and free 
 refusal of the soul to be restored. Thus: "The freedom of 
 man as a moral being, and .his consequent responsibility to 
 God, continue forever under conditions which render response 
 to every moral requirement eternally possible " (Preface, et 
 passim). But this is to remove every barrier to universal resto- 
 ration, for no soul can choose eternal hell. The Andover 
 Review rightly designates the book of Dr. Campbell as " Res- 
 torationist."
 
 REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 2o9 
 
 2. Is the law of necessity in eternal punish- 
 ment from eternal sinning? 
 
 " It is not that the Judge assigns eternal pun- 
 ishment for temporal sin ; but that sin is taken 
 confirmed into eternity. Non cessantc peccato 
 nequit cessare pcena. It is not because man has 
 sinned only, but because his nature is turned 
 away from God, and he sins still. One of our 
 Lord's most solemn words of threatening pre- 
 diction was this : ' Ye shall die in your fins' " 
 (Popes Compendium of Christian Theology, vol. 
 iii, p. 421). "There is no eternal punishment 
 but of eternal sinning: the eternal state of sep- 
 aration from God is both sin and its punish- 
 ment " (ibid., 437). 
 
 The following is taken from The Christian 
 Advocate of October 23, 1884, in an article en- 
 titled " Eternal Sinning," by Rev. T. H. Arm- 
 strong, Ph.D. : 
 
 " But these are held in eternal sin : such is the 
 habit they have fixed about themselves that 
 they cannot but sin. Each new day of eternity 
 the soul will darken with sin and discharge upon 
 itself the wrathful shafts of the nature of things. 
 The righteous Judge does not assign eternal 
 punishment for temporal sin, but that sin is 
 taken confirmed into eternity. Well has one of
 
 260 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 the fathers said : Non cessante peccato nequit ces- 
 sare pcena. While sin does not cease it is im- 
 possible for punishment to cease. It is the sin 
 which the soul commits in eternity for which it 
 shall be punished eternally, and not the sin of 
 this probationary life. Until some one can show 
 how the soul can be delivered from sin in eter- 
 nity, eternal punishment cannot be denied." 
 
 A composite doctrine, it starts with assuming 
 eternal fixedness of character as the ground of 
 eternal sinning, and awards the punishments 
 not punishment of eternity to the lost on 
 the ground of eternally repeated acts of sin- 
 ning.* Thus Christ will be forever a Judge 
 awarding to the lost the just penalties of their 
 continual sins! Or, perhaps, the eternity of 
 punishment will be awarded in the judgment 
 once for all in view of the foreseen eternal sin- 
 ning! Moreover, eternal punishment is not the 
 penalty for sins committed " in the body " (2 Cor. 
 v, 10) ; but the punishments of eternal sinning 
 out of the body. 
 
 The manifestly anti-scriptural character of this 
 
 * In Dr. Pope's treatment of the doctrine estate is said to be 
 sin (a doctrine that well accords with the equally untenable doc- 
 trine of " hereditary guilt " ) ; and for this guilty state the pun- 
 ishment of eternity is awarded.
 
 REASON OK LAW OF PUNISHME.VT. 2 (il 
 
 doctrine makes it unnecessary to notice it 
 further.* 
 
 3. We may now turn to a theory which is 
 thoroughly scriptural, and answers, as we believe, 
 to a real necessity. It is the doctrine of the 
 Methodist Catechism. 
 
 Question. " Why is it right and necessary 
 that God should punish sin ? " 
 
 Answer. " In order to vindicate his law, to 
 preserve his authority, and to promote the great- 
 est good of his creatures " (Catechism No. 3, 
 p. 28). 
 
 The doctrine thus succinctly stated finds its 
 fundamental principles in the Scriptures, and 
 bases its conclusions on those principles. The 
 following propositions are, therefore, quite self- 
 evident. 
 
 (1) God is a moral Ruler; and as such has es- 
 tablished certain laws of his government, and 
 affixed penalties to those laws as their sanction. 
 
 (2) The honor of God and the good of his 
 obedient moral subjects are involved in the con- 
 servation of his government. 
 
 (3) Without penalty law could not restrain the 
 
 * Perhaps attention might well be called to the fact that he 
 who commits the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to be 
 " guilty of an eternal bin " (Mark iii. 29).
 
 262 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 disobedient ; for such law, if indeed it can 
 properly be called law, would be no more than 
 entreaty or advice. 
 
 (4) Without law there could be no moral gov- 
 ernment over free intelligent beings. 
 
 (5) Without government there would be an- 
 archy in the moral universe. 
 
 (6) God as a God of justice, as well as a God 
 of love, could not allow anarchy to prevail among 
 his intelligent moral subjects ; for that would be 
 indifference to the interests of those whose 
 choice is that of obedience and holiness. 
 
 (7) God, having created free moral subjects, 
 and having established the principles of moral 
 government, is bound but bound by a self-im- 
 posed obligation* to conserve his government 
 
 * It is objected to this doctrine by some that it ties the 
 hands of God, and is, consequently, a reflection upon the di- 
 vine almightiness. Our reply is, Even creation is a limitation 
 upon God ; and natural law as much so as governmental law. 
 The limitation of creation (in which is involved that of natural 
 law), which Pantheism urges as an objection to Theism, is, as 
 Dr. G. P. Fisher says, " voluntary. It is a self-limitation" 
 and ' a most free act, performed in the exercise of benevolence." 
 The same is our defense of the divine governmental limitations. 
 Moreover, governmental laws inhere in. or are based upon, the 
 nature of moral relations. Moral law is by reason of created 
 moral beings, and upon the fact and ground of moral law is 
 superinduced governmental law : so that the divine govern- 
 mental law is founded upon so-called natural law ; or, in oilier 
 words, upon divinely established natural relations. Besides, it
 
 A' E A SON OK LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 263 
 
 for his own honor and the interests of his 
 obedient subjects. 
 
 (8) The penalty that God has affixed to his 
 laws as their sanction is eternal punishment. 
 
 (9) The only escape from that penalty for guilty 
 man is in the atonement. 
 
 (10) The atonement rejected in probation leaves 
 the soul after death to the endurance of the 
 penalty of God's violated laws.* 
 
 This is a brief statement of principles which 
 need no elaboration. 
 
 All that was said in objection to the doctrine 
 of steadfastness of character may be reaffirmed 
 in the interest of the present one; especially the 
 fact that eternal punishment is a judicially in- 
 flicted penalty. If eternal punishment were not 
 
 does not relieve the matter to refer it to natural law instead of 
 governmental, for God is the author of both. Indeed, it ag- 
 gravates the difficulty, for there is no reason suggested in the 
 doctrine of natural law for the eternal continuance of penalty ; 
 no reason why the wicked, for example, should not be annihi- 
 lated. Still further. God has governmental law in this world, 
 lie had it in the Jewish theocracy, has it now among Christians 
 that is, in the laws of the Christian Church and has it also in 
 the secular world, and has always had it (Rom. xiii). But all of 
 this is and has been based upon natural moral and human 
 relationships. 
 
 * The same law which required an atonement in order that 
 God might forgive sin must be the law of necessity in the 
 eternal punishment of those who, in probation, reject that 
 atonement. Both doctrines are one in their philosophy.
 
 264 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 a rectoral necessity it would not be represented 
 in the Bible as a penalty inflicted for violation of 
 divine law. Character, we have seen, is unalter- 
 ably fixed in moral and spiritual ruin when the 
 Holy Ghost forever leaves the soul. In a gov- 
 ernmental necessity we find the reason why the 
 Holy Spirit forever takes his flight and leaves the 
 finally impenitent to the natural consequences of 
 moral and spiritual impotency. It is this neces- 
 sity that fixes the " great gulf" between heaven 
 and hell. God cannot, consistently with justice 
 and the demands of his government, justify the 
 guilty who, in the time of probation, reject the 
 atonement. 
 
 It will be needful to ask and answer two ques- 
 tions of difficulty. 
 
 I. What is the measure of the intrinsic demerit 
 of sin ? It is readily granted that God could not 
 in justice punish sin beyond the measure of its 
 deserts, not even in the interest of moral govern- 
 ment. Such z'/zjustice would be subversive of 
 moral government. Moreover, it is contrary to 
 the character of God. What, then, is the meas- 
 ure of sin's intrinsic demerit? Who, it must be 
 asked, from the very nature of the case, can 
 answer this question but He who alone is omnis- 
 cient and who possesses the scales of eternal
 
 KEASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 265 
 
 right? In such a matter it is not for man to 
 presume to answer; it is a fact beyond his reach. 
 If, presumably, God alone is able to answer this 
 question, where shall we find that answer, if it is 
 to be found at all, but in his revealed Word? 
 His Word teaches the fact of eternal punishment. 
 Therefore, we infer that as God is just and his 
 word true, eternal punishment is his revelation 
 to us of the least measure of the intrinsic de- 
 merit of sin. 
 
 2. The second question relates to the measure 
 of punishment necessary for the conservation of 
 God's moral government. It is not true that 
 God must punish sin to the full extent of its 
 demerit, or to any extent, apart from rectoral 
 considerations. 
 
 " Nor has penalty any rational account simply 
 as retributive. It does not so answer to the 
 common moral judgment respecting it, nor to 
 the severe denunciations of Scripture against 
 criminal injuries, nor to the many appeals there- 
 in to instances of divine retribution as a deterrent 
 from sin. And for a right exposition of justice 
 we must take large account of its strictly rectoral 
 ends " (Miley, Atonement in Christ, p. 222). 
 
 This being true, the question recurs, What is 
 the measure of the punishment necessary for the
 
 266 FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 
 
 conservation of the divine government? What 
 finite mind, again, shall presume to answer ? 
 This, also, is beyond the knowledge of man. 
 We therefore appeal, as before, for our answer to 
 the Scriptures. We there find the same fact of 
 eternal punishment. Therefore, we conclude, as 
 before, that since God is love and would not 
 punish sin beyond the demands of his govern- 
 ment even if sin had greater intrinsic demerit, 
 eternal punishment is God's revelation to us of 
 the least measure of punishment necessary for 
 the ends of his government. 
 
 Thus we have revealed from heaven the 
 answer to both inquiries. The one fact of 
 eternal punishment revealed, in view of the char- 
 acter of God and the nature of justice, proclaims 
 to us the twofold fact of the eternal demerit of 
 sin and the necessity of an eternal penalty for 
 the ends of divine government. 
 
 The following forceful and beautiful statement 
 of truth from Dr. Pope, notwithstanding the 
 criticism offered upon another element of his 
 doctrine, may fitly conclude this discussion : 
 
 " The righteousness of divine laws implies also 
 that they are conformed to his aim and purpose, 
 and in this sense right. It is well to believe that 
 they are equal and just in their relation to the
 
 REASON OR LAW OF PUNISHMENT. 2l>7 
 
 creaturely nature. But that is not all. They 
 must be measured by another standard ; they 
 are right in their perfect adaptation to the divine 
 plans. Here comes in ourapologyfor the divine 
 Lawgiver : his own supreme theodicy, or vindica- 
 tion of himself. It is not given us to understand 
 the mysteries of the hidden rectoral administra- 
 tion of God. We must believe now that it is 
 righteous; as we shall certainly one day know 
 that it is. Clouds and darkness are round about 
 liim : unbelief forms out of these clouds, and 
 writes upon this darkness innumerable matters 
 of questioning. But righteousness and judgment 
 are the habitation of his throne: behind, all is 
 clear, steadfast, and perfect right. . . . Ten 
 thousand difficulties are swept away, rather are 
 obviated, if we remember that the righteousness 
 of God's moral government is to be measured 
 not only by the creature's nature it will always 
 bear to be thus measured but by the design 
 and final end of the economy of his will."