_Rom. 2:5_—“_after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up

for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the

righteous judgment of God_”; _Rev. 21:8_—“_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_”: _2 Thess. 1:9_—“_who shall suffer punishment, even

eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory

of his might_”—here ἀπό, from, = not separation, but “proceeding

from,” and indicates that the everlasting presence of Christ, once

realized, ensures everlasting destruction; _Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever

shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness,

but is guilty of an eternal sin_”—a text which implies that (1)

some will never cease to sin; (2) this eternal sinning will

involve eternal misery; (3) this eternal misery, as the appointed

vindication of the law, will be eternal punishment. As Uzziah,

when smitten with leprosy, did not need to be thrust out of the

temple, but “_himself hasted also to go out_” (_2 Chron. 26:20_),

so Judas is said to go “_to his own place_” (_Acts 1:25_; _cf._

_4:23_—where Peter and John, “_being let go, they came to their

own company_”). _Cf._ _John 8:35_—“_the bondservant abideth not in

the house forever_” = whatever be his outward connection with God,

it can be only for a time; _15:2_—“_Every branch in me that

beareth not fruit, he taketh it away_”—at death; the history of

Abraham showed that one might have outward connection with God

that was only temporary: Ishmael was cast out; the promise

belonged only to Isaac.

Wrightnour: “Gehenna was the place into which all the offal of the

city of Jerusalem was swept. So hell is the penitentiary of the

moral universe. The profligate is not happy in the prayer meeting,

but in the saloon; the swine is not at home in the parlor, but in

the sty. Hell is the sinner’s own place; he had rather be there

than in heaven; he will not come to the house of God, the nearest

thing to heaven; why should we expect him to enter heaven itself?”

Summing up all, we may say that it is the loss of all good, whether

physical or spiritual, and the misery of an evil conscience banished from

God and from the society of the holy, and dwelling under God’s positive

curse forever. Here we are to remember, as in the case of the final state

of the righteous, that the decisive and controlling element is not the

outward, but the inward. If hell be a place, it is only that the outward

may correspond to the inward. If there be outward torments, it is only

because these will be fit, though subordinate, accompaniments of the

inward state of the soul.

Every living creature will have an environment suited to its

character—“its own place.” “I know of the future judgment, How

dreadful so e’er it be, That to sit alone with my conscience Will

be judgment enough for me.” Calvin: “The wicked have the seeds of

hell in their own hearts.” Chrysostom, commenting on the words

“Depart, ye cursed,” says: “Their own works brought the punishment

on them; the fire was not prepared for them, but for Satan; yet,

since they cast themselves into it, ‘Impute it to yourselves,’ he

says, ‘that you are there.’ ” Milton, Par. Lost, 4:75—Satan:

“Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.” Byron: “There is no

power in holy men, Nor charm in prayer, nor purifying form Of

penitence, nor outward look, nor fast, Nor agony, nor, greater

than all these, The innate torture of that deep despair Would make

a hell of heaven, can exorcise From out the unbounded spirit the

quick sense Of its own sins.”

Phelps, English Style, 228, speaks of “a law of the divine

government, by which the body symbolizes, in its experience, the

moral condition of its spiritual inhabitant. The drift of sin is

to physical suffering. Moral depravity tends always to a corrupt

and tortured body. Certain diseases are the product of certain

crimes. The whole catalogue of human pains, from a toothache to

the _angina pectoris_, is but a witness to a state of sin

expressed by an experience of suffering. Carry this law into the

experience of eternal sin. The bodies of the wicked live again as

well as those of the righteous. You have therefore a spiritual

body, inhabited and used, and therefore tortured, by a guilty

soul,—a body, perfected in its sensibilities, inclosing and

expressing a soul matured in its depravity.” Augustine,

Confessions, 25—“Each man’s sin is the instrument of his

punishment, and his iniquity is turned into his torment.” Lord

Bacon: “Being, without well‐being, is a curse, and the greater the

being, the greater the curse.”

In our treatment of the subject of eternal punishment we must remember

that false doctrine is often a reaction from the unscriptural and

repulsive over‐statements of Christian apologists. We freely concede: 1.

that future punishment does not necessarily consist of physical

torments,—it may be wholly internal and spiritual; 2. that the pain and

suffering of the future are not necessarily due to positive inflictions of

God,—they may result entirely from the soul’s sense of loss, and from the

accusations of conscience; and 3. that eternal punishment does not

necessarily involve endless successions of suffering,—as God’s eternity is

not mere endlessness, so we may not be forever subject to the law of time.

An over‐literal interpretation of the Scripture symbols has had

much to do with such utterances as that of Savage, Life after

Death, 101—“If the doctrine of eternal punishment was clearly and

unmistakably taught in every leaf of the Bible, and on every leaf

of all the Bibles of all the world, I could not believe a word of

it. I should appeal from these misconceptions of even the seers

and the great men to the infinite and eternal Good, who only is

God, and who only on such terms could be worshiped.”

The figurative language of Scripture is a miniature representation

of what cannot be fully described in words. The symbol is a

symbol; yet it is less, not greater, than the thing symbolized. It

is sometimes fancied that Jonathan Edwards, when, in his sermon on

“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” he represented the sinner

as a worm shriveling in the eternal fire, supposed that hell

consists mainly of such physical torments. But this is a

misinterpretation of Edwards. As he did not fancy heaven

essentially to consist in streets of gold or pearly gates, but

rather in holiness and communion with Christ, of which these are

the symbols, so he did not regard hell as consisting in fire and

brimstone, but rather in the unholiness and separation from God of

a guilty and accusing conscience, of which the fire and brimstone

are symbols. He used the material imagery, because he thought that

this best answered to the methods of Scripture. He probably went

beyond the simplicity of the Scripture statements, and did not

sufficiently explain the spiritual meaning of the symbols he used;

but we are persuaded that he neither understood them literally

himself, nor meant them to be so understood by others.

Sin is self‐isolating, unsocial, selfish. By virtue of natural

laws the sinner reaps as he has sown, and sooner or later is

repaid by desertion or contempt. Then the selfishness of one

sinner is punished by the selfishness of another, the ambition of

one by the ambition of another, the cruelty of one by the cruelty

of another. The misery of the wicked hereafter will doubtless be

due in part to the spirit of their companions. They dislike the

good, whose presence and example is a continual reproof and

reminder of the height from which they have fallen, and they shut

themselves out of their company. The judgment will bring about a

complete cessation of intercourse between the good and the bad.

Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:239—“Beings whose relations to

God are diametrically opposite, and persistently so, differ so

greatly from each other that other ties of relationship became as

nothing in comparison.”

In order, however, to meet opposing views, and to forestall the common

objections, we proceed to state the doctrine of future punishment in

greater detail:

A. The future punishment of the wicked is not annihilation.

In our discussion of Physical Death, we have shown that, by virtue of its

original creation in the image of God, the human soul is naturally

immortal; that neither for the righteous nor the wicked is death a

cessation of being; that on the contrary, the wicked enter at death upon a

state of conscious suffering which the resurrection and the judgment only

augment and render permanent. It is plain, moreover, that if annihilation

took place at death, there could be no degrees in future punishment,—a

conclusion itself at variance with express statements of Scripture.

The old annihilationism is represented by Hudson, Debt and Grace,

and Christ our Life; also by Dobney, Future Punishment. It

maintains that κόλασις, “_punishment_” (in _Mat. 25:46_—“_eternal

punishment_”), means etymologically an everlasting “cutting‐off.”

But we reply that the word had to a great degree lost its

etymological significance, as is evident from the only other

passage where it occurs in the New Testament, namely, _1 John

4:18_—“_fear hath punishment_” (A. V.: “fear hath torment”). For

full answer to the old statements of the annihilation‐theory, see

under Physical Death, pages 991‐998.

That there are degrees of punishment in God’s administration is

evident from _Luke 12:47, 48_—“_And that servant, who 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_”;

_Rom. 2:5, 6_—“_after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest

up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the

righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according

to his works_”; _2 Cor. 5:10_—“_For we must all be made manifest

before the judgment‐seat of Christ; that each one may receive the

things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether

it be good or bad_”; _11:15_—“_whose end shall be according to

their works_”; _2 Tim. 4:14_—“_Alexander the coppersmith did me

much evil: the Lord will render to him according to his works_”;

_Rev. 2:23_—“_I will give unto each one of you according to your

works_”; _18:5, 6_—“_her sins have reached even unto heaven, and

God hath remembered her iniquities. Render unto her even as she

rendered, and double unto her the double according to her works:

in the cup which she mingled, mingle unto her double._”

A French Christian replied to the argument of his deistical

friend: “Probably you are right; probably you are not immortal;

but I am.” This was the doctrine of conditional immortality, the

doctrine that only the good survive. We grant that the measure of

our faith in immortality is the measure of our _fitness_ for its

blessings; but it is not the measure of our _possession_ of

immortality. We are immortal beings, whether we believe it or not.

The acorn is potentially an oak, but it may never come to its full

development. There is a saltless salt, which, though it does not

cease to exist, is cast out and trodden under foot of men. Denney,

Studies in Theology, 256—“Conditional immortality denies that man

can exist after death without being united to Christ by faith. But

the immortality of man cannot be something accidental, something

appended to his nature, after he believes in Christ. It must be

something, at the very lowest, for which his nature is

constituted, even if apart from Christ it can never realize itself

as it ought.”

Broadus, Com. on _Mat. 25:46_ (page 514)—“He who caused to exist

could keep in existence. _Mark 9:49_—‘_Every one shall be salted

with fire_’—has probably this meaning. Fire is usually

destructive; but this unquenchable fire will act like salt,

preserving instead of destroying. So Keble, Christian Year, 5th

Sunday in Lent, says of the Jews in their present condition:

‘Salted with fire, they seem to show How spirits lost in endless

woe May undecaying live. Oh, sickening thought! Yet hold it fast

Long as this glittering world shall last, Or sin at heart

survive.’ ”

There are two forms of the annihilation theory which are more plausible,

and which in recent times find a larger number of advocates, namely:

(_a_) That the powers of the wicked are gradually weakened, as the natural

result of sin, so that they finally cease to be.—We reply, first, that

moral evil does not, in this present life, seem to be incompatible with a

constant growth of the intellectual powers, at least in certain

directions, and we have no reason to believe the fact to be different in

the world to come; secondly, that if this theory were true, the greater

the sin, the speedier would be the relief from punishment.

This form of the annihilation theory is suggested by Bushnell, in

his Forgiveness and Law, 146, 147, and by Martineau, Study,

2:107‐8. Dorner also, in his Eschatology, seems to favor it as one

of the possible methods of future punishment. He says: “To the

ethical also pertains ontological significance. The ’second death’

may be the dissolving of the soul itself into nothing.

Estrangement from God, the source of life, ends in extinction of

life. The orthodox talk about demented beings, raging in impotent

fury, amounts to the same—annihilation of their human character.

Evil is never the substance of the soul,—this remains

metaphysically good.” It is argued that even for saved sinners

there is a loss. The prodigal regained his father’s favor, but he

could not regain his lost patrimony. We cannot get back the lost

time, nor the lost growth. Much more, then, in the case of the

wicked, will there be perpetual loss. Draper: “At every return to

the sun, comets lose a portion of their size and brightness,

stretching out until the nucleus loses control, the mass breaks

up, and the greater portion navigates the sky, in the shape of

disconnected meteorites.”

To this argument it is often replied that certain minds grow in

their powers, at least in certain directions, in spite of their

sin. Napoleon’s military genius, during all his early years, grew

with experience. Sloane, in his Life of Napoleon, however, seems

to show that the Emperor lost his grip as he went on. Success

unbalanced his judgment; he gave way to physical indulgence; his

body was not equal to the strain he put upon it; at Waterloo he

lost precious moments of opportunity by vacillation and inability

to keep awake. There was physical, mental, and moral

deterioration. But may this not be the result of the soul’s

connection with a body? Satan’s cunning and daring seem to be on

the increase from the first mention of him in Scripture to its

end. See Princeton Review, 1882:673‐694. Will not this very

cunning and daring, however, work its own ruin, and lead Satan to

his final and complete destruction? Does not sin blunt the

intellect, unsettle one’s sober standards of decision, lead one to

prefer a trifling present triumph or pleasure to a permanent good?

Gladden, What is Left? 104, 105—“Evil is benumbing and deadening.

Selfishness weakens a man’s mental grasp, and narrows his range of

vision. The schemer becomes less astute as he grows older; he is

morally sure, before he dies, to make some stupendous blunder

which even a tyro would have avoided.... The devil, who has sinned

longest, must be the greatest fool in the universe, and we need

not be at all afraid of him.” To the view that this weakening of

powers leads to absolute extinction of being, we oppose the

consideration that its award of retribution is glaringly unjust in

making the greatest sinner the least sufferer; since to him

relief, in the way of annihilation, comes the soonest.

(_b_) That there is for the wicked, certainly after death, and possibly

between death and the judgment, a positive punishment proportioned to

their deeds, but that this punishment issues in, or is followed by,

annihilation.—We reply first, that upon this view, as upon any theory of

annihilation, future punishment is a matter of grace as well as of

justice—a notion for which Scripture affords no warrant; secondly, that

Scripture not only gives no hint of the cessation of this punishment, but

declares in the strongest terms its endlessness.

The second form of the annihilation theory seems to have been held

by Justin Martyr (Trypho, Edinb. transl.)—“Some, who have appeared

worthy of God, never die; but others are punished so long as God

wills them to exist and be punished.” The soul exists because God

wills, and no longer than he wills. “Whenever it is necessary that

the soul should cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from

it, and there is no more soul, but it goes back to the place from

which it was taken.”

Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, 2:608, 609—“Justin Martyr teaches

that the wicked or hopelessly impenitent will be raised at the

judgment to receive an eternal punishment. He speaks of it in

twelve passages: ‘We believe that all who live wickedly and do not

repent will be punished in eternal fire.’ Such language is

inconsistent with the annihilation theory for which Justin Martyr

has been claimed. He does indeed reject the idea of the

independent immortality of the soul, and hints at the _possible_

final destruction of the wicked; but he puts that possibility

countless ages beyond the final judgment, so that it loses all

practical significance.”

A modern advocate of this view is White, in his Life in Christ. He

favors a conditional immortality, belonging only to those who are

joined to Christ by faith; but he makes a retributive punishment

and pain fall upon the godless, before their annihilation. The

roots of this view lie in a false conception of holiness as a form

or manifestation of benevolence, and of punishment as deterrent

and preventive instead of vindicative of righteousness. To the

minds of its advocates, extinction of being is a comparative

blessing; and they, for this reason, prefer it to the common view.

See Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment Endless?

A view similar to that which we are opposing is found in Henry

Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World. Evil is punished by

its own increase. Drummond, however, leaves no room for future

life or for future judgment in the case of the unregenerate. See

reviews of Drummond, in Watts, New Apologetic, 332; and in Murphy,

Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, 19‐21, 77‐124. While Drummond is

an annihilationist, Murphy is a restorationist. More rational and

Scriptural than either of these is the saying of Tower: “Sin is

God’s foe. He does not annihilate it, but he makes it the means of

displaying his holiness; as the Romans did not slay their captured

enemies, but made them their servants.” The terms αἰών and

αἰώνιος, which we have still to consider, afford additional

Scripture testimony against annihilation. See also the argument

from the divine justice, pages 1046‐1051; article on the Doctrine

of Extinction, in New Englander, March, 1879:201‐224; Hovey,

Manual of Theology and Ethics, 153‐168; J. S. Barlow, Endless

Being; W. H. Robinson, on Conditional Immortality, in Report of

Baptist Congress for 1886.

Since neither one of these two forms of the annihilation theory is

Scriptural or rational, we avail ourselves of the evolutionary hypothesis

as throwing light upon the problem. Death is not degeneracy ending in

extinction, nor punishment ending in extinction,—it is atavism that

returns, or tends to return, to the animal type. As moral development is

from the brute to man, so abnormal development is from man to the brute.

Lord Byron: “All suffering doth destroy, or is destroyed.” This is

true, not of man’s being, but of his well being. Ribot, Diseases

of the Will, 115—“Dissolution pursues a regressive course from the

more voluntary and more complex to the less voluntary and more

simple, that is to say, toward the automatic. One of the first

signs of mental impairment is incapacity for sustained attention.

Unity, stability, power, have ceased, and the end is extinction of

the will.” We prefer to say, loss of the freedom of the will. On

the principle of evolution, abuse of freedom may result in

reversion to the brute, annihilation not of existence but of

higher manhood, punishment from within rather than from without,

eternal penalty in the shape of eternal loss. _Mat. 24:13_—“_he

that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved_”—has for its

parallel passage _Luke 21:19_—“_In your patience ye shall win your

souls,_” _i. e._, shall by free will get possession of your own

being. Losing one’s soul is just the opposite, namely, losing

one’s free will, by disuse renouncing freedom, becoming a victim

of habit, nature, circumstance, and this is the cutting off and

annihilation of true manhood. “To be in hell is to drift; to be in

heaven is to steer” (Bernard Shaw).

In _John 15:2_ Christ says of all men—the natural branches of the

vine—“_Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it

away_”; _Ps. 49:20_—“_Man that is in honor, and understandeth not,

Is like the beasts that perish_”; _Rev. 22:15_—“_Without are the

dogs._” In heathen fable men were turned into beasts, and even

into trees. The story of Circe is a parable of human fate,—men may

become apes, tigers, or swine. They may lose their higher powers

of consciousness and will. By perpetual degradation they may

suffer eternal punishment. All life that is worthy of the name may

cease, while still existence of a low animal type is prolonged. We

see precisely these results of sin in this world. We have reason

to believe that the same laws of development will operate in the

world to come.

McConnell, Evolution of Immortality, 85‐95, 99, 124,

180—“Immortality, or survival after death, depends upon man’s

freeing himself from the law which sweeps away the many, and

becoming an individual (indivisible) that is fit to survive. The

individual must become stronger than the species. By using will

aright, he lays hold of the infinite Life, and becomes one who,

like Christ, has ‘_life in himself_’ (_John 5:26_). Gravitation

and chemical affinity had their way in the universe until they

were arrested and turned about in the interest of life.

Overproduction, death, and the survival of the fittest, had their

ruthless sway until they were reversed in the interest of

affection. The supremacy of the race at the expense of the

individual we may expect to continue until something in the

individual comes to be of more importance than that law, and no

longer.... Goodness can arrest and turn back for nations the

primal law of growth, vigor, and decline. Is it too much to

believe that it may do the same for an individual man?... Life is

a thing to be achieved. At every step there are a thousand

candidates who fail, for one that attains.... Until moral

sensibility becomes self‐conscious, all question of personal

immortality becomes irrelevant, because there is, accurately

speaking, no personality to be immortal. Up to that point the

individual living creature, whether in human form or not, falls

short of that essential personality for which eternal life can

have any meaning.” But how about children who never come to moral

consciousness? McConnell appeals to heredity. The child of one who

has himself achieved immortality may also prove to be immortal.

But is there no chance for the children of sinners? The doctrine

of McConnell leans toward the true solution, but it is vitiated by

the belief that individuality is a transient gift which only

goodness can make permanent. We hold on the other hand that this

gift of God is “_without repentance_” (_Rom. 11:29_), and that no

human being can lose life, except in the sense of losing all that

makes life desirable.

B. Punishment after death excludes new probation and ultimate restoration

of the wicked.

Some have maintained the ultimate restoration of all human beings, by

appeal to such passages as the following: Mat. 19:28; Acts 3:21; Eph. 1:9,

10.

_Mat. 19:28_—“_in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit

on the throne of his glory_”; _Acts 3:21_—Jesus, “_whom the heaven

must receive until the times of restoration of all things_”; _1

Cor. 15:26_—“_The last enemy that shall be abolished is death_”;

_Eph. 1:9, 10_—“_according to his good pleasure which he purposed

in him unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up

all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things

upon the earth_”; _Phil. 2:10, 11_—“_that in the name of Jesus

every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and

things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that

Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father_”; _2 Pet.

3:9, 13_—“_not wishing that any should perish, but that all should

come to repentance ... But, according to his promise, we look for

new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness._”

Robert Browning: “That God, by God’s own ways occult, May—doth, I

will believe—bring back All wanderers to a single track.” B. W.

Lockhart: “I must believe that evil is essentially transient and

mortal, or alter my predicates of God. And I must believe in the

ultimate extinction of that personality whom the power of God

cannot sometime win to goodness. The only alternative is the

termination of a wicked life either through redemption or through

extinction.” Mulford, Republic of God, claims that the soul’s

state cannot be fixed by any event, such as death, outside of

itself. If it could, the soul would exist, not under a moral

government, but under fate, and God himself would be only another

name for fate. The soul carries its fate, under God, in its power

of choice; and who dares to say that this power to choose the good

ceases at death?

For advocacy of a second probation for those who have not

consciously rejected Christ in this life, see Newman Smyth’s

edition of Dorner’s Eschatology. For the theory of restoration,

see Farrar, Eternal Hope; Birks, Victory of Divine Goodness;

Jukes, Restitution of All Things; Delitzsch, Bib. Psychologie,

469‐476; Robert Browning, Apparent Failure; Tennyson, In Memoriam,

§ liv. _Per contra_, see Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 95‐144. See

also, Griffith‐Jones, Ascent through Christ, 406‐440.

(_a_) These passages, as obscure, are to be interpreted in the light of

those plainer ones which we have already cited. Thus interpreted, they

foretell only the absolute triumph of the divine kingdom, and the

subjection of all evil to God.

The true interpretation of the passages above mentioned is

indicated in Meyer’s note on _Eph. 1:9, 10_—this namely, that “the

allusion is not to the restoration of _fallen individuals_, but to

the restoration of _universal harmony_, implying that the wicked

are to be excluded from the kingdom of God.” That there is no

allusion to a probation after this life, is clear from _Luke

16:19‐31_—the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Here penalty is

inflicted for the sins done “_in thy lifetime_” (_v. 25_); this

penalty is unchangeable—“_there is a great gulf fixed_” (_v. 26_);

the rich man asks favors for his brethren who still live on the

earth, but none for himself (_v. 27, 28_). _John 5:25‐29_—“_The

hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the

Son of God; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath

life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in

himself: and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he

is a son of man. 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 resurrection of life;

and they that have done evil, until the resurrection of

judgment_”—here it is declared that, while for those who have done

good there is a resurrection of life, there is for those who have

done ill only a resurrection of judgment. _John 8:21, 24_—“_shall

die in your sin: whither I go, ye cannot come ... except ye

believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins_”—sayings which

indicate finality in the decisions of this life.

Orr, Christian View of God and the World, 243—“Scripture

invariably represents the judgment as proceeding on the data of

this life, and it concentrates every ray of appeal into the

present.” _John 9:4_—“_We must work the works of him that sent me,

while it is day: the night cometh __ when no man can

work_”—intimates that there is no opportunity to secure salvation

after death. The Christian hymn writer has caught the meaning of

Scripture, when he says of those who have passed through the gate

of death: “Fixed in an eternal state, They have done with all

below; We a little longer wait; But how little, none can know.”

(_b_) A second probation is not needed to vindicate the justice or the

love of God, since Christ, the immanent God, is already in this world

present with every human soul, quickening the conscience, giving to each

man his opportunity, and making every decision between right and wrong a

true probation. In choosing evil against their better judgment even the

heathen unconsciously reject Christ. Infants and idiots, as they have not

consciously sinned, are, as we may believe, saved at death by having

Christ revealed to them and by the regenerating influence of his Spirit.

_Rom. 1:18‐28_—there is probation under the light of nature as

well as under the gospel, and under the law of nature as well as

under the gospel men may be given up “_unto a reprobate mind_”;

_2:6‐16_—Gentiles shall be judged, not by the gospel, but by the

law of nature, and shall “_perish without the law ... in the day

when God shall judge the secrets of men._” _2 Cor. 5:10_—“_For we

must all be made manifest before the judgment‐seat of Christ_;

[not that each may have a new opportunity to secure salvation,

but] _that each one may receive the things done in the body,

according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad_”; _Heb.

6:8_—“_whose end is to be burned_”—not to be quickened again;

_9:27_—“_And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and

after this cometh_ [not a second probation, but] _judgment._”

Luckock, Intermediate State, 22—“In _Heb. 9:27_, the word

‘_judgment_’ has no article. The judgment alluded to is not the

final or general judgment, but only that by which the place of the

soul is determined in the Intermediate State.”

Denney, Studies in Theology, 243—“In _Mat. 25_, our Lord gives a

pictorial representation of the judgment of the heathen. All

nations—all the Gentiles—are gathered before the King; and their

destiny is determined, not by their conscious acceptance or

rejection of the historical Savior, but by their unconscious

acceptance or rejection of him in the persons of those who needed

services of love.... This does not square with the idea of a

future probation. It rather tells us plainly that men may do

things of final and decisive import in this life, even if Christ

is unknown to them.... The real argument against future probation

is that it depreciates the present life, and denies the infinite

significance that, under all conditions, essentially and

inevitably belongs to the actions of a self‐conscious moral being.

A type of will may be in process of formation, even in a heathen

man, on which eternal issues depend.... Second probation lowers

the moral tone of the spirit. The present life acquires a relative

unimportance. I dare not say that if I forfeit the opportunity the

present life gives me I shall ever have another, and therefore I

dare not say so to another man.”

For an able review of the Scripture testimony against a second

probation, see G. F. Wright, Relation of Death to Probation, iv.

Emerson, the most recent advocate of restorationism, in his

Doctrine of Probation Examined, 42, is able to evade these latter

passages only by assuming that they are to be spiritually

interpreted, and that there is to be no literal outward day of

judgment—an error which we have previously discussed and

refuted,—see pages 1024, 1025.

(_c_) The advocates of universal restoration are commonly the most

strenuous defenders of the inalienable freedom of the human will to make

choices contrary to its past character and to all the motives which are or

can be brought to bear upon it. As a matter of fact, we find in this world

that men choose sin in spite of infinite motives to the contrary. Upon the

theory of human freedom just mentioned, no motives which God can use will

certainly accomplish the salvation of all moral creatures. The soul which

resists Christ here may resist him forever.

Emerson, in the book just referred to, says: “The truth that sin

is in its permanent essence a free choice, however for a time it

may be held in mechanical combination with the notion of moral

opportunity arbitrarily closed, can never mingle with it, and must

in the logical outcome permanently cast it off. Scripture presumes

and teaches the constant capability of souls to obey as well as to

be disobedient.” Emerson is correct. If the doctrine of the

unlimited ability of the human will be a true one, then

restoration in the future world is possible. Clement and Origen

founded on this theory of will their denial of future punishment.

If will be essentially the power of contrary choice, and if will

may act independently of all character and motive, there can be no

objective certainty that the lost will remain sinful. In short,

there can be no finality, even to God’s allotments, nor is any

_last_ judgment possible. Upon this view, regeneration and

conversion are as possible at any time in the future as they are

to‐day.

But those who hold to this defective philosophy of the will should

remember that unlimited freedom is unlimited freedom to sin, as

well as unlimited freedom to turn to God. If restoration is

possible, endless persistence in evil is possible also; and this

last the Scripture predicts. Whittier: “What if thine eye refuse

to see, Thine ear of heaven’s free welcome fail, And thou a

willing captive be, Thyself thine own dark jail?” Swedenborg says

that the man who obstinately refuses the inheritance of the sons

of God is allowed the pleasures of the beast, and enjoys in his

own low way the hell to which he has confined himself. Every

occupant of hell prefers it to heaven. Dante, Hell, iv—“All here

together come from every clime, And to o’erpass the river are not

loth, For so heaven’s justice goads them on, that fear Is turned

into desire. Hence never passed good spirit.” The lost are

_Heautoutimoroumenoi_, or self‐tormentors, to adopt the title of

Terence’s play. See Whedon, in Meth. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1884;

Robbins, in Bib. Sac., 1881:460‐507.

Denney, Studies in Theology, 255—“The very conception of human

freedom involves the possibility of its permanent misuse, or of

what our Lord himself calls ‘_eternal sin_’ (_Mark 3:29_).” Shedd,

Dogm. Theology, 2:699—“Origen’s restorationism grew naturally out

of his view of human liberty”—the liberty of indifference—“endless

alternations of falls and recoveries, of hells and heavens; so

that practically he taught nothing but a hell.” J. C. Adams, The

Leisure of God: “It is lame logic to maintain the inviolable

freedom of the will, and at the same time insist that God can,

through his ample power, through protracted punishment, bring the

soul into a disposition which it does not wish to feel. There is

no compulsory holiness possible. In our Civil War there was some

talk of ‘compelling men to volunteer,’ but the idea was soon seen

to involve a self‐contradiction.”

(_d_) Upon the more correct view of the will which we have advocated, the

case is more hopeless still. Upon this view, the sinful soul, in its very

sinning, gives to itself a sinful bent of intellect, affection, and will;

in other words, makes for itself a character, which, though it does not

render necessary, yet does render certain, apart from divine grace, the

continuance of sinful action. In itself it finds a self‐formed motive to

evil strong enough to prevail over all inducements to holiness which God

sees it wise to bring to bear. It is in the next world, indeed, subjected

to suffering. But suffering has in itself no reforming power. Unless

accompanied by special renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, it only

hardens and embitters the soul. We have no Scripture evidence that such

influences of the Spirit are exerted, after death, upon the still

impenitent; but abundant evidence, on the contrary, that the moral

condition in which death finds men is their condition forever.

See Bushnell’s “One Trial Better than Many,” in Sermons on Living

Subjects; also see his Forgiveness and Law, 146, 147. Bushnell

argues that God would give us fifty trials, if that would do us

good. But there is no possibility of such result. The first

decision adverse to God renders it more difficult to make a right

decision upon the next opportunity. Character tends to fixity, and

each new opportunity may only harden the heart and increase its

guilt and condemnation. We should have no better chance of

salvation if our lives were lengthened to the term of the sinners

before the flood. Mere suffering does not convert the soul; see

Martineau, Study, 2:100. A life of pain did not make Blanco White

a believer; see Mozley, Hist. and Theol. Essays, vol. 2, essay 1.

Edward A. Lawrence, Does Everlasting Punishment Last Forever?—“If

the deeds of the law do not justify here, how can the penalties of

the law hereafter? The pain from a broken limb does nothing to

mend the break, and the suffering from disease does nothing to

cure it. Penalty pays no debts,—it only shows the outstanding and

unsettled accounts.” If the will does not act without motive, then

it is certain that without motives men will never repent. To an

impenitent and rebellious sinner the motive must come, not from

within, but from without. Such motives God presents by his Spirit

in this life; but when this life ends and God’s Spirit is

withdrawn, no motives to repentance will be presented. The soul’s

dislike for God will issue only in complaint and resistance.

Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:4—“Try what repentance can? what can it

not? Yet what can it, when one cannot repent?” Marlowe, Faustus:

“Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscribed In one self place; for

where we are is hell, And where hell is, there we must ever be.”

The pressure of the atmosphere without is counteracted by the

resistance of the atmosphere within the body. So God’s life within

is the only thing that can enable us to bear God’s afflictive

dispensations without. Without God’s Spirit to inspire repentance

the wicked man in this world never feels sorrow for his deeds,

except as he realizes their evil consequences. Physical anguish

and punishment inspire hatred, not of sin, but of the effects of

sin. The remorse of Judas induced confession, but not true

repentance. So in the next world punishment will secure

recognition of God and of his justice, on the part of the

transgressor, but it will not regenerate or save. The penalties of

the future life will be no more effectual to reform the sinner

than were the invitations of Christ and the strivings of the Holy

Spirit in the present life. The transientness of good resolves

which are forced out of us by suffering is illustrated by the old

couplet: “The devil was sick,—the devil a monk would be; The devil

got well,—the devil a monk was he.”

Charles G. Sewall: “Paul Lester Ford, the novelist, was murdered

by his brother Malcolm, because the father of the two brothers had

disinherited the one who committed the crime. Has God the right to

disinherit any one of his children? We answer that God disinherits

no one. Each man decides for himself whether he will accept the

inheritance. It is a matter of character. A father cannot give his

son an education. The son may play truant and throw away his

opportunity. The prodigal son disinherited himself. Heaven is not

a place,—it is a way of living, a condition of being. If you have

a musical ear, I will admit you to a lovely concert. If you have

not a musical ear, I may give you a reserved seat and you will

hear no melody. Some men fail of salvation because they have no

taste for it and will not have it.”

The laws of God’s universe are closing in upon the impenitent

sinner, as the iron walls of the mediæval prison closed in night

by night upon the victim,—each morning there was one window less,

and the dungeon came to be a coffin. In Jean Ingelow’s poem

“Divided,” two friends, parted by a little rivulet across which

they could clasp hands, walk on in the direction in which the

stream is flowing, till the rivulet becomes a brook, and the brook

a river, and the river an arm of the sea across which no voice can

be heard and there is no passing. By constant neglect to use our

opportunity, we lose the power to cross from sin to righteousness,

until between the soul and God “_there is a great gulf fixed_”

(_Luke 16:26_).

John G. Whittier wrote within a twelvemonth of his death: “I do

believe that we take with us into the next world the same freedom

of will we have here, and that _there_, as _here_, he that turns

to the Lord will find mercy; that God never ceases to follow his

creatures with love, and is always ready to hear the prayer of the

penitent. But I also believe that _now_ is the accepted time, and

that he who dallies with sin may find the chains of evil habit too

strong to break in this world or the other.” And the following is

the Quaker poet’s verse: “Though God be good and free be heaven,

Not force divine can love compel; And though the song of sins

forgiven Might sound through lowest hell, The sweet persuasion of

his voice Respects the sanctity of will. He giveth day; thou hast

thy choice To walk in darkness still.”

Longfellow, Masque of Pandora: “Never by lapse of time The soul

defaced by crime Into its former self returns again; For every

guilty deed Holds in itself the seed Of retribution and undying

pain. Never shall be the loss Restored, till Helios Hath purified

them with his heavenly fires; Then what was lost is won, And the

new life begun, Kindled with nobler passions and desires.” Seth,

Freedom as Ethical Postulate, 42—“Faust’s selling his soul to

Mephistopheles, and signing the contract with his life’s blood, is

no single transaction, done deliberately, on one occasion; rather,

that is the lurid meaning of a life which consists of innumerable

individual acts,—the life of evil means that.” See John Caird,

Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, 2:88; Crane, Religion of To‐

morrow, 315.

(_e_) The declaration as to Judas, in Mat. 26:24, could not be true upon

the hypothesis of a final restoration. If at any time, even after the

lapse of ages, Judas be redeemed, his subsequent infinite duration of

blessedness must outweigh all the finite suffering through which he has

passed. The Scripture statement that “good were it for that man if he had

not been born” must be regarded as a refutation of the theory of universal

restoration.

_Mat. 26:24_—“_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._” G. F. Wright,

Relation of Death to Probation: “As Christ of old healed only

those who came or were brought to him, so now he waits for the

coöperation of human agency. God has limited himself to an orderly

method in human salvation. The consuming missionary zeal of the

apostles and the early church shows that they believed the

decisions of this life to be final decisions. The early church not

only thought the heathen world would perish without the gospel,

but they found a conscience in the heathen answering to this

belief. The solicitude drawn out by this responsibility for our

fellows may be one means of securing the moral stability of the

future. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven; else why not

pray for the wicked dead?” It is certainly a remarkable fact, if

this theory be true, that we have in Scripture not a single

instance of prayer for the dead.

The apocryphal 2 Maccabees 12:39 _sq._ gives an instance of Jewish

prayer for the dead. Certain who were slain had concealed under

their coats things consecrated to idols. Judas and his host

therefore prayed that this sin might be forgiven to the slain, and

they contributed 2,000 drachmas of silver to send a sin offering

for them to Jerusalem. So modern Jews pray for the dead; see

Luckock, After Death, 54‐66—an argument for such prayer. John

Wesley, Works, 9:55, maintains the legality of prayer for the

dead. Still it is true that we have no instance of such prayer in

canonical Scriptures. _Ps. 132:1_—“_Jehovah, remember for David

All his affliction_”—is not a prayer for the dead, but signifies:

“_Remember for David_”, so as to fulfil thy promise to him, “_all

his anxious cares_”—with regard to the building of the temple; the

psalm having been composed, in all probability, for the temple

dedication. Paul prays that God will “_grant mercy to the house of

Onesiphorus_” (_2 Tim. 1:16_), from which it has been

unwarrantably inferred that Onesiphorus was dead at the time of

the apostle’s writing; but Paul’s further prayer in _verse

18_—“_the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that

day_”—seems rather to point to the death of Onesiphorus as yet in

the future.

Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:715 note—“Many of the arguments

constructed against the doctrine of endless punishment proceed

upon the supposition that original sin, or man’s evil inclination,

is the work of God: that because man is _born_ in sin (_Ps.

51:5_), he was _created_ in sin. All the strength and plausibility

of John Foster’s celebrated letter lies in the assumption that the

moral corruption and impotence of the sinner, whereby it is

impossible to save himself from eternal death, is not self‐

originated and self‐determined, but infused by his Maker. ‘If,’

says he, ‘the very nature of man, as _created_ by the Sovereign

Power, be in such desperate disorder that there is no possibility

of conversion or salvation except in instances where that Power

interposes with a special and redeeming efficacy, how can we

conceive that the main portion of the race, thus morally impotent

(that is, really and absolutely impotent), will be eternally

punished for the inevitable result of this moral impotence?’ If

this assumption of concreated depravity and impotence is correct,

Foster’s objection to eternal retribution is conclusive and

fatal.... Endless punishment supposes the freedom of the human

will, and is impossible without it. Self‐determination runs

parallel with hell.”

The theory of a second probation, as recently advocated, is not

only a logical result of that defective view of the will already

mentioned, but it is also in part a consequence of denying the old

orthodox and Pauline doctrine of the organic unity of the race in

Adam’s first transgression. New School Theology has been inclined

to deride the notion of a fair probation of humanity in our first

father, and of a common sin and guilt of mankind in him. It cannot

find what it regards as a fair probation for each individual since

that first sin; and the conclusion is easy that there must be such

a fair probation for each individual in the world to come. But we

may advise those who take this view to return to the old theology.

Grant a fair probation for the whole race already passed, and the

condition of mankind is no longer that of mere unfortunates

unjustly circumstanced, but rather that of beings guilty and

condemned, to whom present opportunity, and even present

existence, is a matter of pure grace,—much more the general

provision of a salvation, and the offer of it to any human soul.

This world is already a place of second probation; and since the

second probation is due wholly to God’s mercy, no probation after

death is needed to vindicate either the justice or the goodness of

God. See Kellogg, in Presb. Rev., April, 1885:226‐256; Cremer,

Beyond the Grave, preface by A. A. Hodge, xxxvi _sq._; E. D.

Morris, Is There Salvation After Death? A. H. Strong, on The New

Theology, in Bap. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1888,—reprinted in Philosophy

and Religion, 164‐179.

C. Scripture declares this future punishment of the wicked to be eternal.

It does this by its use of the terms αἰών, αἰώνιος.—Some, however,

maintain that these terms do not necessarily imply eternal duration. We

reply:

(_a_) It must be conceded that these words do not _etymologically_

necessitate the idea of eternity; and that, as expressing the idea of

“age‐long,” they are sometimes used in a limited or rhetorical sense.

_2 Tim. 1:9_—“_his own purpose and grace, which was given us in

Christ Jesus before times eternal_”—but the past duration of the

world is limited; _Heb. 9:26_—“_now once at the end of the ages

hath he been manifested_”—here the αἰῶνες have an end; _Tit.

1:2_—“_eternal life ... promised before times eternal_”; but here

there may be a reference to the eternal covenant of the Father

with the Son; _Jer. 31:3_—“_I have loved thee with an everlasting

love_” = a love which antedated time; _Rom. 16:25, 26_—“_the

mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal ...

according to the commandment of the eternal God_”—here “_eternal_”

is used in the same verse in two senses. It is argued that in

_Mat. 25:46_—“_these shall go away into eternal punishment_”—the

word “_eternal_” may be used in the narrower sense.

Arthur Chambers, Our Life after Death, 222‐236—“In _Mat.

13:39_—‘_the harvest is the end of the_ αἰών,’ and in _2 Tim.

4:10_—‘_Demas forsook me, having loved this present_ αἰών’—the

word αἰών clearly implies limitation of time. Why not take the

word αἰών in this sense in _Mark 3:29_—‘_hath never forgiveness,

but is guilty of an eternal sin_’? We must not translate αἰών by

‘_world_,’ and so express limitation, while we translate αἰώνιος

by ‘_eternal_,’ and so express endlessness which excludes

limitation; _cf._ _Gen. 13:15_—‘_all the land which thou seest, to

thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever_’; _Num. 25:13_—‘_it

shall be unto him_ [Phinehas], _and to his seed after him, the

covenant of an everlasting priesthood_’; _Josh. 24:2_—‘_your

fathers dwelt of old time_ [from eternity] _beyond the River_’;

_Deut. 23:3_—‘_An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter ... into

the assembly of Jehovah for ever_’; _Ps. 24:7, 8_—‘_be ye lifted

up, ye everlasting doors._’ ”

(b) They do, however, express the longest possible duration of which the

subject to which they are attributed is capable; so that, if the soul is

immortal, its punishment must be without end.

_Gen. 49:26_—“_the everlasting hills_”; _17:8, 13_—“_I will give

unto thee ... all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting

possession ... my covenant_ [of circumcision] _shall be in your

flesh for an everlasting covenant_”; _Ex. 21:6_—“_he_ [the slave]

_shall serve him_ [his master] _for ever_”; _2 Chron. 6:2_—“_But I

have built thee an house of habitation, and a place for thee to

dwell in for ever_”—of the temple at Jerusalem; _Jude 6,

7_—“_angels ... he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness

unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah ...

are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal

fire_”—here in _Jude 6_, bonds which endure only to the judgment

day are called ἀϊδίοις (the same word which is used in _Rom.

1:20_—“_his everlasting power and divinity_”), and fire which

lasts only till Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed is called αἰωνίον.

Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:687—“To hold land forever is to hold it

as long as grass grows and water runs, _i. e._, as long as this

world or æon endures.”

In all the passages cited above, the condition denoted by αἰώνιος

lasts as long as the object endures of which it is predicated. But

we have seen (pages 982‐998) that physical death is not the end of

man’s existence, and that the soul, made in the image of God, is

immortal. A punishment, therefore, that lasts as long as the soul,

must be an everlasting punishment. Another interpretation of the

passages in Jude is, however, entirely possible. It is maintained

by many that the “_everlasting bonds_” of the fallen angels do not

cease at the judgment, and that Sodom and Gomorrah suffer “_the

punishment __ of eternal fire_” in the sense that their

condemnation at the judgment will be a continuation of that begun

in the time of Lot (see _Mat. 10:15_—“_It shall be more tolerable

for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than

for that city_”).

(_c_) If, when used to describe the future punishment of the wicked, they

do not declare the endlessness of that punishment, there are no words in

the Greek language which could express that meaning.

C. F. Wright, Relation of Death to Probation: “The Bible writers

speak of eternity in terms of time, and make the impression more

vivid by reduplicating the longest time‐words they had [_e. g._,

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων = ‘unto the ages of the ages’]. Plato

contrasts χρόνος and αἰών, as we do time and eternity, and

Aristotle says that eternity [αἰών] belongs to God.... The

Scriptures have taught the doctrine of eternal punishment as

clearly as their general style allows.” The destiny of lost men is

bound up with the destiny of evil angels in _Mat. 25:41_—“_Depart

from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for

the devil and his angels._” If the latter are hopelessly lost,

then the former are hopelessly lost also.

(_d_) In the great majority of Scripture passages where they occur, they

have unmistakably the signification “everlasting.” They are used to

express the eternal duration of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

(Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 9:14; Rev. 1:18); the abiding presence of

the Holy Spirit with all true believers (John 14:17); and the endlessness

of the future happiness of the saints (Mat. 19:29; John 6:54, 58; 2 Cor.

9:9).

_Rom. 16:26_—“_the commandment of the eternal God_”; _1 Tim.

1:17_—“_Now unto the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, the

only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever_”; _Heb.

9:14_—“_the eternal Spirit_”; _Rev. 1:17, 18_—“_I am the first and

the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am

alive for evermore_”; _John 14:16, 17_—“_And I will pray the

Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be

with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth_”; _Mat.

19:29_—“_every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters

... for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall

inherit eternal life_”; _John 6:54, 58_—“_He that eateth my flesh

and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.... he that eateth this

bread shall live for ever_”; _2 Cor. 9:9_—“_His righteousness

abideth for ever_”; _cf._ _Dan. 7:18_—“_But the saints of the Most

High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever,

even for ever and ever._”

Everlasting punishment is sometimes said to be the punishment

which takes place in, and belongs to, an αἰών, with no reference

to duration. But President Woolsey declares, on the other hand,

that “αἰώνιος cannot denote ‘pertaining to an αἰών, or world

period.’ ” The punishment of the wicked cannot cease, any more

than Christ can cease to live, or the Holy Spirit to abide with

believers; for all these are described in the same terms; “αἰώνιος

is used in the N. T. 66 times,—51 times of the happiness of the

righteous, 2 times of the duration of God and his glory, 6 times

where there is no doubt as to its meaning ‘eternal,’ 7 times of

the punishment of the wicked; αἰών is used 95 times,—55 times of

unlimited duration, 31 times of duration that has limits, 9 times

to denote the duration of future punishment.” See Joseph Angus, in

Expositor, Oct. 1887:274‐286.

(_e_) The fact that the same word is used in Mat. 25:46 to describe both

the sufferings of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous shows that

the misery of the lost is eternal, in the same sense as the life of God or

the blessedness of the saved.

_Mat. 25:46_—“_And these shall go away into eternal punishment:

but the righteous into eternal life._” On this passage see Meyer:

“The absolute idea of eternity, in respect to the punishments of

hell, is not to be set aside, either by an appeal to the popular

use of αἰώνιος, or by an appeal to the figurative term ‘fire’; to

the incompatibility of the idea of the eternal with that of moral

evil and its punishment, or to the warning design of the

representation; but it stands fast exegetically, by means of the

contrasted ζωὴν αἰώνιον, which signifies the endless Messianic

life.”

(_f_) Other descriptions of the condemnation and suffering of the lost,

excluding, as they do, all hope of repentance or forgiveness, render it

certain that αἰών and αἰώνιος, in the passages referred to, describe a

punishment that is without end.

_Mat. 12:31, 32_—“_Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto

men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be

forgiven.... it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,

nor in that which is to come_”; _25:10_—“_and the door was shut_”;

_Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit

hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin_”; _9:43,

48_—“_to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire ... where their

worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched_”—not the dying worm

but the undying worm; not the fire that is quenched, but the fire

that is unquenchable; _Luke 3:17_—“_the chaff he will burn up with

unquenchable fire_”; _16:26_—“_between us and you there is a great

gulf fixed, that they that would pass from hence to you may not be

able, and that none may cross over from thence to us_”; _John

3:36_—“_he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the

wrath of God abideth on him._”

Review of Farrar’s Eternal Hope, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1878:782—“The

original meaning of the English word ‘hell’ and ‘damn’ was

precisely that of the Greek words for which they stand. Their

present meaning is widely different, but from what did it arise?

It arose from the connotation imposed upon these words by the

impression the Scriptures made on the popular mind. The present

meaning of these words is involved in the Scripture, and cannot be

removed by any mechanical process. Change the words, and in a few

years ‘judge’ will have in the Bible the same force that ‘damn’

has at present. In fact, the words were not mistranslated, but the

connotation of which Dr. Farrar complains has come upon them

since, and that through the Scriptures. This proves what the

general impression of Scripture upon the mind is, and shows how

far Dr. Farrar has gone astray.”

(_g_) While, therefore, we grant that we do not know the nature of

eternity, or its relation to time, we maintain that the Scripture

representations of future punishment forbid both the hypothesis of

annihilation, and the hypothesis that suffering will end in restoration.

Whatever eternity may be, Scripture renders it certain that after death

there is no forgiveness.

We regard the argument against endless punishment drawn from αἰών

and αἰώνιος as a purely verbal one which does not touch the heart

of the question at issue. We append several utterances of its

advocates. The Christian Union: “Eternal punishment is punishment

in eternity, not throughout eternity; as temporal punishment is

punishment in time, not throughout time.” Westcott: “Eternal life

is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which

time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea

except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but

we must not transfer them to realities of another order.”

Farrar holds that ἀΐδιος, “_everlasting_”, which occurs but twice

in the N. T. (_Rom. 1:20_ and _Jude 6_), is not a synonym of

αἰώνιος, “_eternal_”, but the direct antithesis of it; the former

being the unrealizable conception of endless time, and the latter

referring to a state from which our imperfect human conception of

time is absolutely excluded. Whiton, Gloria Patri, 145, claims

that the perpetual immanence of God in conscience makes recovery

possible after death; yet he speaks of the possibility that in the

incorrigible sinner conscience may become extinct. To all these

views we may reply with Schaff, Ch. History, 2:66—“After the

general judgment we have nothing revealed but the boundless

prospect of æonian life and æonian death.... Everlasting

punishment of the wicked always was and always will be the

orthodox theory.”

For the view that αἰών and αἰώνιος are used in a limited sense,

see De Quincey, Theological Essays, 1:126‐146; Maurice, Essays,

436; Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:485‐488; Farrar, Eternal Hope,

200; Smyth, Orthodox Theology of To‐day, 118‐123; Chambers, Life

after Death; Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment Endless? For the common

orthodox view, see Fisher and Tyler, in New Englander, March,

1878; Gould, in Bib. Sac., 1880:212‐248; Princeton Review,

1873:620; Shedd, Doctrine of Endless Punishment, 12‐117; Broadus,

Com. on _Mat. 25:45_.

D. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent with

God’s justice, but is rather a revelation of that justice.

(_a_) We have seen in our discussion of Penalty (pages 652‐656) that its

object is neither reformatory nor deterrent, but simply vindicatory; in

other words, that it primarily aims, not at the good of the offender, nor

at the welfare of society, but at the vindication of law. We have also

seen (pages 269, 291) that justice is not a form of benevolence, but is

the expression and manifestation of God’s holiness. Punishment, therefore,

as the inevitable and constant reaction of that holiness against its moral

opposite, cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end.

The fundamental error of Universalism is its denial that penalty

is vindicatory, and that justice is distinct from benevolence. See

article on Universalism, in Johnson’s Cyclopædia: “The punishment

of the wicked, however severe or terrible it may be, is but a

means to a beneficent end; not revengeful, but remedial; not for

its own sake, but for the good of those who suffer its

infliction.” With this agrees Rev. H. W. Beecher: “I believe that

punishment exists, both here and hereafter; but it will not

continue after it ceases to do good. With a God who could give

pain for pain’s sake, this world would go out like a candle.” But

we reply that the doctrine of eternal punishment is not a doctrine

of “pain for pain’s sake,” but of pain for holiness’ sake.

Punishment could have no beneficial effect upon the universe, or

even upon the offender, unless it were just and right in itself.

And if just and right in itself, then the reason for its

continuance lies, not in any benefit to the universe, or to the

sufferer, to accrue therefrom.

F. L. Patton, in Brit. and For. Ev. Rev., Jan. 1878:126‐139, on

the Philosophy of Punishment—“If the Universalist’s position were

true, we should expect to find some manifestations of love and

pity and sympathy in the infliction of the dreadful punishments of

the future. We look in vain for this, however. We read of God’s

anger, of his judgments, of his fury, of his taking vengeance; but

we get no hint, in any passage which describes the sufferings of

the next world, that they are designed to work the redemption and

recovery of the soul. If the punishments of the wicked were

chastisements, we should expect to see some bright outlook in the

Bible‐picture of the place of doom. A gleam of light, one might

suppose, might make its way from the celestial city to this dark

abode. The sufferers would catch some sweet refrain of heavenly

music which would be a promise and prophecy of a far‐off but

coming glory. But there is a finality about the Scripture

statements as to the condition of the lost, which is simply

terrible.”

The reason for punishment lies not in the benevolence, but in the

holiness, of God. That holiness reveals itself in the moral

constitution of the universe. It makes itself felt in

conscience—imperfectly here, fully hereafter. The wrong merits

punishment. The right binds, not because it is the expedient, but

because it is the very nature of God. “But the great ethical

significance of this word _right_ will not be known,” (we quote

again from Dr. Patton,) “its imperative claims, its sovereign

behests, its holy and imperious sway over the moral creation will

not be understood, until we witness, during the lapse of the

judgment hours, the terrible retribution which measures the ill‐

desert of wrong.” When Dr. Johnson seemed overfearful as to his

future, Boswell said to him: “Think of the mercy of your Savior.”

“Sir,” replied Johnson, “my Savior has said that he will place

some on his right hand, and some on his left.”

A Universalist during our Civil War announced his conversion to

Calvinism, upon the ground that hell was a military necessity. “In

_Rom. 12:19_, ‘_vengeance_,’ ἐκδίκησις, means primarily

‘_vindication_.’ God will show to the sinner and to the universe

that the apparent prosperity of evil was a delusion and a snare”

(Crane, Religion of To‐morrow, 319 note). That strange book,

Letters from Hell, shows how memory may increase our knowledge of

past evil deeds, but may lose the knowledge of God’s promises.

Since we retain most perfectly that which has been the subject of

most constant thought, retribution may come to us through the

operation of the laws of our own nature.

Jackson, James Martineau, 193‐195—“Plato holds that the wise

transgressor will seek, not shun, his punishment. James Martineau

painted a fearful picture of the possible lashing of conscience.

He regarded suffering for sin, though dreadful, yet as altogether

desirable, not to be asked reprieve from, but to be prayed for:

‘Smite, Lord; for thy mercy’s sake, spare not!’ The soul denied

such suffering is not favored, but defrauded. It learns the truth

of its condition, and the truth and the right of the universe are

vindicated.” The Connecticut preacher said: “My friends, some

believe that all will be saved; but we hope for better things.

Chaff and wheat are not to be together always. One goes to the

garner, and the other to the furnace.”

Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:755—“Luxurious ages and luxurious men

recalcitrate at hell, and ‘_kick against the goad_’ (_Acts

26:14_). No theological doctrine is more important than eternal

retribution to those modern nations which, like England, Germany

and the United States, are growing rapidly in riches, luxury and

earthly power. Without it, they will infallibly go down in that

vortex of sensuality and wickedness that swallowed up Babylon and

Rome. The bestial and shameless vice of the dissolute rich that

has recently been uncovered in the commercial metropolis of the

world is a powerful argument for the necessity and reality of

‘_the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone_’ (_Rev. 21:8_).”

The conviction that after death there must be punishment for sin

has greatly modified the older Universalism. There is little

modern talk of all men, righteous and wicked alike, entering

heaven the moment this life is ended. A purgatorial state must

intervene. E. G. Robinson: “Universalism results from an

exaggerated idea of the atonement. There is no genuine

Universalism in our day. Restorationism has taken its place.”

(_b_) But guilt, or ill‐desert, is endless. However long the sinner may be

punished, he never ceases to be ill‐deserving. Justice, therefore, which

gives to all according to their deserts, cannot cease to punish. Since the

reason for punishment is endless, the punishment itself must be endless.

Even past sins involve an endless guilt, to which endless punishment is

simply the inevitable correlate.

For full statement of this argument that guilt, as never coming to

an end, demands endless punishment, see Shedd, Doctrine of Endless

Punishment, 118‐163—“Suffering that is penal can never come to an

end, because guilt is the reason for its infliction, and guilt

once incurred, never ceases to be.... One sin makes guilt, and

guilt makes hell.” Man does not punish endlessly, because he does

not take account of God. “Human punishment is only approximate and

imperfect, not absolute and perfect like the divine. It is not

adjusted exactly and precisely to the whole guilt of the offence,

but is more or less modified, first, by not considering its

relation to God’s honor and majesty; secondly, by human ignorance

of inward motives; and thirdly, by social expediency.” But “hell

is not a penitentiary.... The Lamb of God is also Lion of the

tribe of Judah.... The human penalty that approaches nearest to

the divine is capital punishment. This punishment has a kind of

endlessness. Death is a finality. It forever separates the

murderer from earthly society, even as future punishment separates

forever from the society of God and heaven.” See Martineau, Types,

2:65‐69.

The lapse of time does not convert guilt into innocence. The

verdict “Guilty for ten days” was Hibernian. Guilt is indivisible

and untransferable. The whole of it rests upon the criminal at

every moment. Richelieu: “All places are temples, and all seasons

summer, for justice.” George Eliot: “Conscience is harder than our

enemies, knows more, accuses with more nicety.” Shedd: “Sin is the

only perpetual motion that has ever been discovered. A slip in

youth, committed in a moment, entails lifelong suffering. The

punishment nature inflicts is infinitely longer than the time

consumed in the violation of law, yet the punishment is the

legitimate outgrowth of the offence.”

(_c_) Not only eternal guilt, but eternal sin, demands eternal punishment.

So long as moral creatures are opposed to God, they deserve punishment.

Since we cannot measure the power of the depraved will to resist God, we

cannot deny the possibility of endless sinning. Sin tends evermore to

reproduce itself. The Scriptures speak of an “eternal sin” (Mark 3:29).

But it is just in God to visit endless sinning with endless punishment.

Sin, moreover, is not only an act, but also a condition or state, of the

soul; this state is impure and abnormal, involves misery; this misery, as

appointed by God to vindicate law and holiness, is punishment; this

punishment is the necessary manifestation of God’s justice. Not the

punishing, but the not‐punishing, would impugn his justice; for if it is

just to punish sin at all, it is just to punish it as long as it exists.

_Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit

hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin_”; _Rev.

22:11_—“_He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still;

and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still._” Calvin:

“God has the best reason for punishing everlasting sin

everlastingly.” President Dwight: “Every sinner is condemned for

his first sin, and for every sin that follows, though they

continue forever.” What Martineau (Study, 2:106) says of this

life, we may apply to the next: “Sin being there, it would be

simply monstrous that there should be no suffering.”

But we must remember that men are finally condemned, not merely

for _sins_, but for _sin_; they are punished, not simply for

_acts_ of disobedience, but for evil _character_. The judgment is

essentially a remanding of men to their “_own place_” (_Acts

1:25_). The soul that is permanently unlike God cannot dwell with

God. The consciences of the wicked will justify their doom, and

they will themselves prefer hell to heaven. He who does not love

God is at war with himself, as well as with God, and cannot be at

peace. Even though there were no positive inflictions from God’s

hand, the impure soul that has banished itself from the presence

of God and from the society of the holy has in its own evil

conscience a source of torment.

And conscience gives us a pledge of the eternity of this

suffering. Remorse has no tendency to exhaust itself. The memory

of an evil deed grows not less but more keen with time, and self‐

reproach grows not less but more bitter. Ever renewed affirmation

of its evil decision presents to the soul forever new occasion for

conviction and shame. F. W. Robertson speaks of “the infinite

maddening of remorse.” And Dr. Shedd, in the book above quoted,

remarks: “Though the will to resist sin may die out of a man, the

conscience to condemn it never can. This remains eternally. And

when the process is complete; when the responsible creature, in

the abuse of free agency, has perfected his ruin; when his will to

good is all gone; there remain these two in his immortal

spirit—sin and conscience, ‘_brimstone and fire_’ (_Rev. 21:8_).”

E. G. Robinson: “The fundamental argument for eternal punishment

is the reproductive power of evil. In the divine law penalty

enforces itself. _Rom. 6:19_—‘_ye presented your members as

servants ... to iniquity unto iniquity._’ Wherever sin occurs,

penalty is inevitable. No man of sense would now hold to eternal

punishment as an objective judicial infliction, and the sooner we

give this up the better. It can be defended only on the ground of

the reactionary power of elective preference, the reduplicating

power of moral evil. We have no right to say that there are no

other consequences of sin but natural ones; but, were this so,

every word of threatening in Scripture would still stand. We shall

never be as complete as if we never had sinned. We shall bear the

scars of our sins forever. The eternal law of wrong‐doing is that

the wrong‐doer is cursed thereby, and harpies and furies follow

him into eternity. God does not need to send a policeman after the

sinner; the sinner carries the policeman inside. God does not need

to set up a whipping post to punish the sinner; the sinner finds a

whipping post wherever he goes, and his own conscience applies the

lash.”

(_d_) The actual facts of human life and the tendencies of modern science

show that this principle of retributive justice is inwrought into the

elements and forces of the physical and moral universe. On the one hand,

habit begets fixity of character, and in the spiritual world sinful acts,

often repeated, produce a permanent state of sin, which the soul, unaided,

cannot change. On the other hand, organism and environment are correlated

to each other; and in the spiritual world, the selfish and impure find

surroundings corresponding to their nature, while the surroundings react

upon them and confirm their evil character. These principles, if they act

in the next life as they do in this, will ensure increasing and unending

punishment.

_Gal. 6:7, 8_—“_Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever

a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth unto his

own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption_”; _Rev. 21:11_—“_He

that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that

is filthy, let him be made filthy still._” Dr. Heman Lincoln, in

an article on Future Retribution (Examiner, April 2, 1885)—speaks

of two great laws of nature which confirm the Scripture doctrine

of retribution. The first is that “the tendency of habit is

towards a permanent state. The occasional drinker becomes a

confirmed drunkard. One who indulges in oaths passes into a

reckless blasphemer. The gambler who has wasted a fortune, and

ruined his family, is a slave to the card‐table. The Scripture

doctrine of retribution is only an extension of this well‐known

law to the future life.” The second of these laws is that

“organism and environment must be in harmony. Through the vast

domain of nature, every plant and tree and reptile and bird and

mammal has organs and functions fitted to the climate and

atmosphere of its habitat. If a sudden change occur in climate,

from torrid to temperate, or from temperate to arctic; if the

atmosphere change from dry to humid, or from carbonic vapors to

pure oxygen, sudden death is certain to overtake the entire fauna

and flora of the region affected, unless plastic nature changes

the organism to conform to the new environment. The interpreters

of the Bible find the same law ordained for the world to come.

Surroundings must correspond to character. A soul in love with sin

can find no place in a holy heaven. If the environment be holy,

the character of the beings assigned to it must be holy also.

Nature and Revelation are in perfect accord.” See Drummond,

Natural Law in the Spiritual World, chapters: Environment,

Persistence of Type, and Degradation.

_Hosea 13:9_—“_It is thy destruction, O Israel, that thou art

against me, against thy help_”—if men are destroyed, it is because

they destroy themselves. Not God, but man himself, makes hell.

Schurman: “External punishment is unthinkable of human sins.”

Jackson, James Martineau, 152—“Our light, such as we have, we

carry with us; and he who in his soul knows not God is still in

darkness though, like the angel in the Apocalypse, he were

standing in the sun.” Crane, Religion of To‐morrow, 313—“To insure

perpetual hunger deprive a man of nutritious food, and so long as

he lives he will suffer; so pain will last so long as the soul is

deprived of God, after the artificial stimulants of sin’s

pleasures have lost their effect. Death has nothing to do with it;

for as long as the soul lives apart from God, whether on this or

on another planet, it will be wretched. If the unrepentant sinner

is immortal, his sufferings will be immortal.” “Magnas inter opes,

inops”—poverty‐stricken amid great riches—his very nature compels

him to suffer. Nor can he change his nature; for character, once

set and hardened in this world, cannot be cast into the melting‐

pot and remoulded in the world to come. The hell of Robert G.

Ingersoll is far more terrible than the orthodox hell. He declares

that there is no forgiveness and no renewal. Natural law must have

its way. Man is a Mazeppa bound to the wild horse of his passions;

a Prometheus, into whose vitals remorse, like a vulture, is ever

gnawing.

(_e_) As there are degrees of human guilt, so future punishment may admit

of degrees, and yet in all those degrees be infinite in duration. The

doctrine of everlasting punishment does not imply that, at each instant of

the future existence of the lost, there is infinite pain. A line is

infinite in length, but it is far from being infinite in breadth or

thickness. “An infinite series may make only a finite sum; and infinite

series may differ infinitely in their total amount.” The Scriptures

recognize such degrees in future punishment, while at the same time they

declare it to be endless (Luke 12:47, 48; Rev. 20:12, 13).

_Luke 12:47, 48_—“_And that servant who 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_”; _Rev. 20:12,

13_—“_And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before

the throne; and books 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

... judged every man according to their works._”

(_f_) We know the enormity of sin only by God’s own declarations with

regard to it, and by the sacrifice which he has made to redeem us from it.

As committed against an infinite God, and as having in itself infinite

possibilities of evil, it may itself be infinite, and may deserve infinite

punishment. Hell, as well as the Cross, indicates God’s estimate of sin.

_Cf._ _Ez. 14:23_—“_ye shall know that I have not done without

cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord Jehovah._”

Valuable as the vine is for its fruit, it is fit only for fuel

when it is barren. Every single sin, apart from the action of

divine grace, is the sign of pervading and permanent apostasy. But

there is no _single_ sin. Sin is a germ of infinite expansion. The

single sin, left to itself, would never cease in its effects of

evil,—it would dethrone God. “The idea of disproportion between

sin and its punishment grows out of a belittling of sin and its

guilt. One who regards murder as a slight offence will think

hanging an outrageous injustice. Theodore Parker hated the

doctrine of eternal punishment, because he considered sin as only

a provocation to virtue, a step toward triumph, a fall upwards,

good in the making.” But it is only when we regard its relation to

God that we can estimate sin’s ill desert. See Edwards the

younger, Works, 1:1‐294.

Dr. Shedd maintains that the guilt of sin is infinite, because it

is measured, not by the powers of the offender, but by the majesty

of the God against whom it is committed; see his Dogm. Theology,

2:740, 749—“Crime depends upon the object against whom it is

committed, as well as upon the subject who commits it.... To

strike is a voluntary act, but to strike a post or a stone is not

a culpable act.... Killing a dog is as bad as killing a man, if

merely the subject who kills and not the object killed is

considered.... As God is infinite, offence against him is infinite

in its culpability.... Any man who, in penitent faith, avails

himself of the vicarious method of setting himself right with the

eternal Nemesis, will find that it succeeds; but he who rejects it

must through endless cycles grapple with the dread problem of

human guilt in his own person, and alone.”

Quite another view is taken by others, as for example E. G.

Robinson, Christian Theology, 292—“The notion that the qualities

of a finite act can be infinite—that its qualities can be derived

from the person to whom the act is directed rather than from the

motives that prompt it, needs no refutation. The notion itself,

one of the bastard thoughts of mediæval metaphysical theology, has

maintained its position in respectable society solely by the

services it has been regarded as capable of rendering.” Simon,

Reconciliation, 123—“To represent sins as infinite, because God

against whom they are committed is infinite, logically requires us

to say that trust or reverence or love towards God are infinite,

because God is infinite.” We therefore regard it as more correct

to say, that sin as a finite act demands finite punishment, but as

endlessly persisted in demands an endless, and in that sense an

infinite, punishment.

E. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent with

God’s benevolence.

It is maintained, however, by many who object to eternal retribution, that

benevolence requires God not to inflict punishment upon his creatures

except as a means of attaining some higher good. We reply:

(_a_) God is not only benevolent but holy, and holiness is his ruling

attribute. The vindication of God’s holiness is the primary and sufficient

object of punishment. This constitutes a good which fully justifies the

infliction.

Even love has dignity, and rejected love may turn blessing into

cursing. Love for holiness involves hatred of unholiness. The love

of God is not a love without character. Dorner: “Love may not

throw itself away.... We have no right to say that punishment is

just only when it is the means of amendment.” We must remember

that holiness conditions love (see pages 296‐298). Robert Buchanan

forgot God’s holiness when he wrote: “If there is doom for one,

Thou, Maker, art undone!” Shakespeare, King John, 4:3—“Beyond the

infinite and boundless reach Of mercy, if thou didst this deed of

death, Art thou damned, Hubert!” Tennyson: “He that shuts Love

out, in turn shall be Shut out from Love, and on the threshold lie

Howling in utter darkness.” Theodore Parker once tried to make

peace between Wendell Phillips and Horace Mann, whom Phillips had

criticized with his accustomed severity. Mann wrote to Parker:

“What a good man you are! I am sure nobody would be damned if you

were at the head of the universe. But,” he continued, “I will

never treat a man with respect whom I do not respect, be the

consequences what they may—so help me—Horace Mann!” (Chadwick,

Theodore Parker, 330). The spirit which animated Horace Mann may

not have been the spirit of love, but we can imagine a case in

which his words might be the utterance of love as well as of

righteousness. For love is under law to righteousness, and only

righteous love is true love.

(_b_) In this life, God’s justice does involve certain of his creatures in

sufferings which are of no advantage to the individuals who suffer; as in

the case of penalties which do not reform, and of afflictions which only

harden and embitter. If this be a fact here, it may be a fact hereafter.

There are many sufferers on earth, in prisons and on sick‐beds,

whose suffering results in hardness of heart and enmity to God.

The question is not a question of quantity, but of quality. It is

a question whether any punishment at all is consistent with God’s

benevolence,—any punishment, that is to say, which does not result

in good to the punished. This we maintain; and claim that God is

bound to punish moral impurity, whether any good comes therefrom

to the impure or not. Archbishop Whately says it is as difficult

to change one atom of lead to silver as it is to change a whole

mountain. If the punishment of _many_ incorrigibly impenitent

persons is consistent with God’s benevolence, so is the punishment

of _one_ incorrigibly impenitent person; if the punishment of

incorrigibly impenitent persons for eternity is inconsistent with

God’s benevolence, so is the punishment of such persons for a

limited time, or for any time at all.

In one of his early stories William Black represents a sour‐

tempered Scotchman as protesting against the idea that a sinner he

has in mind should be allowed to escape the consequences of his

acts: “What’s the good of being good,” he asks, “if things are to

turn out that way?” The instinct of retribution is the strongest

instinct of the human heart. It is bound up with our very

intuition of God’s existence, so that to deny its rightfulness is

to deny that there is a God. There is “_a certain fearful

expectation of judgment_” (_Heb. 10:27_) for ourselves and for

others, in case of persistent transgression, without which the

very love of God would cease to inspire respect. Since neither

annihilation nor second probation is Scriptural, our only relief

in contemplating the doctrine of eternal punishment must come

from: 1. the fact that eternity is not endless _time_, but a state

inconceivable to us; and 2. the fact that evolution suggests

reversion to the brute as the necessary consequence of abusing

freedom.

(_c_) The benevolence of God, as concerned for the general good of the

universe, requires the execution of the full penalty of the law upon all

who reject Christ’s salvation. The Scriptures intimate that God’s

treatment of human sin is matter of instruction to all moral beings. The

self‐chosen ruin of the few may be the salvation of the many.

Dr. Joel Parker, Lectures on Universalism, speaks of the security

of free creatures as attained through a gratitude for deliverance

“kept alive by a constant example of some who are suffering the

vengeance of eternal fire.” Our own race may be the only race (of

course the angels are not a “race”) that has fallen away from God.

As through the church the manifold wisdom of God is made manifest

“_to principalities and powers in the heavenly places_” (_Eph.

3:10_); so, through the punishment of the lost, God’s holiness may

be made known to a universe that without it might have no proof so

striking, that sin is moral suicide and ruin, and that God’s

holiness is its irreconcilable antagonist.

With regard to the extent and scope of hell, we quote the words of

Dr. Shedd, in the book already mentioned: “Hell 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 kingdom of Christ. In the immense range of God’s dominion,

good is the rule and evil is the exception. Sin is a speck upon

the infinite azure of eternity; a spot on the sun. Hell is only a

corner of the universe. The Gothic etymon denotes a covered‐up

hole. In Scripture, hell is a ‘_pit_,’ a ‘_lake_’; not an ocean.

It is ‘_bottomless_,’ not boundless. The Gnostic and Dualistic

theories which make God, and Satan or the Demiurge, nearly equal

in power and dominion, find no support in Revelation. The Bible

teaches that there will always be some sin and death in the

universe. Some angels and men will forever be the enemies of God.

But their number, compared with that of unfallen angels and

redeemed men, is small. They are not described in the glowing

language and metaphors by which the immensity of the holy and

blessed is delineated (_Ps. 68:17_; _Deut. 32:2_; _Ps. 103:21_;

_Mat. 6:13_; _1 Cor. 15:25_; _Rev. 14:1_; _21:16, 24, 25_.) The

number of the lost spirits is never thus emphasized and enlarged

upon. The brief, stern statement is, that ‘_the fearful and

unbelieving ... their part shall be in the lake that burneth with

fire and brimstone_’ (_Rev. 21:8_). No metaphors and

amplifications are added to make the impression of an immense

‘_multitude which no man can number_.’ ” Dr. Hodge: “We have

reason to believe that the lost will bear to the saved no greater

proportion than the inmates of a prison do to the mass of a

community.”

The North American Review engaged Dr. Shedd to write an article

vindicating eternal punishment, and also engaged Henry Ward

Beecher to answer it. The proof sheets of Dr. Shedd’s article were

sent to Mr. Beecher, whereupon he telegraphed from Denver to the

Review: “Cancel engagement, Shedd is too much for me. I half

believe in eternal punishment now myself. Get somebody else.” The

article in reply was never written, and Dr. Shedd remained

unanswered.

(_d_) The present existence of sin and punishment is commonly admitted to

be in some way consistent with God’s benevolence, in that it is made the

means of revealing God’s justice and mercy. If the temporary existence of

sin and punishment lead to good, it is entirely possible that their

eternal existence may lead to yet greater good.

_A priori_, we should have thought it impossible for God to permit

moral evil,—heathenism, prostitution, the saloon, the African

slave‐trade. But sin is a fact. Who can say how long it will be a

fact? Why not forever? The benevolence that permits it now may

permit it through eternity. And yet, if permitted through

eternity, it can be made harmless only by visiting it with eternal

punishment. Lillie on Thessalonians, 457—“If the temporary

existence of sin and punishment lead to good, how can we prove

that their eternal existence may not lead to greater good?” We

need not deny that it causes God real sorrow to banish the lost.

Christ’s weeping over Jerusalem expresses the feelings of God’s

heart: _Mat. 23:37, 38_—“_O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the

prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would

I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her

chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is

left unto you desolate_”; _cf._ _Hosea 11:8_—“_How shall I give

thee up, Ephraim? how shall I cast thee off, Israel? how shall I

make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboiim? my heart is

turned within me, my compassions are kindled together._” Dante,

Hell, iii—the inscription over the gate of Hell: “Justice the

founder of my fabric moved; To rear me was the task of power

divine, Supremest wisdom and primeval love.”

A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 254, 267—“If one thinks of the Deity

as an austere monarch, having a care for his own honor but none

for those to whom he has given being, optimism is impossible. For

what shall we say of our loved ones who have committed sins? That

splendid boy who yielded to an inherited tendency—what has become

of him? Those millions who with little light and mighty passions

have gone wrong—what of them? Those countless myriads who peopled

the earth in ages past and had no clear motive to righteousness,

since their perception of God was dim—is this all that can be said

of them: In torment they are exhibiting the glorious holiness of

the Almighty in his hatred of sin? Some may believe that, but,

thank God, the number is not large.... No, penalty, remorse,

despair, are only signs of the deep remedial force in the nature

of things, which has always been at work and always will be, and

which, unless counteracted, will result sometime in universal and

immortal harmony.... Retribution is a natural law; it is universal

in its sweep; it is at the same time a manifestation of the

beneficence that pervades the universe. This law must continue its

operation so long as one free agent violates the moral order.

Neither justice nor love would be honored if one soul were allowed

to escape the action of that law. But the sting in retribution is

ordained to be remedial and restorative rather than punitive and

vengeful.... Will any forever resist that discipline? We know not;

but it is difficult to understand how any can be willing to do so,

when the fulness of the divine glory is revealed.”

(_e_) As benevolence in God seems in the beginning to have permitted moral

evil, not because sin was desirable in itself, but only because it was

incident to a system which provided for the highest possible freedom and

holiness in the creature; so benevolence in God may to the end permit the

existence of sin and may continue to punish the sinner, undesirable as

these things are in themselves, because they are incidents of a system

which provides for the highest possible freedom and holiness in the

creature through eternity.

But the condition of the lost is only made more hopeless by the

difficulty with which God brings himself to this, his “_strange

work_” of punishment (_Is. 28:21_). The sentence which the judge

pronounces with tears is indicative of a tender and suffering

heart, but it also indicates that there can be no recall. By the

very exhibition of “_eternal judgment_” (_Heb. 6:2_), not only may

a greater number be kept true to God, but a higher degree of

holiness among that number be forever assured. The Endless Future,

published by South. Meth. Pub. House, supposes the universe yet in

its infancy, an eternal liability to rebellion, an ever‐growing

creation kept from sin by one example of punishment. _Mat. 7:13,

14_—“_few there be that find it_”—“seems to have been intended to

describe the conduct of men then living, rather than to foreshadow

the two opposite currents of human life to the end of time”; see

Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 167. See Goulburn, Everlasting

Punishment; Haley, The Hereafter of Sin.

A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 239, mentions as causes for the

modification of view as to everlasting punishment: 1. Increased

freedom in expression of convictions; 2. Interpretation of the

word “eternal”; 3. The doctrine of the immanence of God,—if God is

in every man, then he cannot everlastingly hate himself, even in

the poor manifestation of himself in a human creature; 4. The

influence of the poets, Burns, Browning, Tennyson, and Whittier.

Whittier, Eternal Goodness: “The wrong that pains my soul below, I

dare not throne above: I know not of his hate,—I know His goodness

and his love.” We regard Dr. Bradford as the most plausible

advocate of restoration. But his view is vitiated by certain

untenable theological presuppositions: 1. that righteousness is

only a form of love; 2. that righteousness, apart from love, is

passionate and vengeful; 3. that man’s freedom is incapable of

endless abuse; 4. that not all men here have a fair probation; 5.

that the amount of light against which they sin is not taken into

consideration by God; 6. that the immanence of God does not leave

room for free human action; 7. that God’s object in his

administration is, not to reveal his whole character, and chiefly

his holiness, but solely to reveal his love; 8. that the

declarations of Scripture with regard to “_an eternal sin_” (_Mark

3:29_), “_eternal punishment_” (_Mat. 25:46_), “_eternal

destruction_” (_2 Thess. 1:9_), still permit us to believe in the

restoration of all men to holiness and likeness to God.

We regard as more Scriptural and more rational the view of Max

Müller, the distinguished Oxford philologist: “I have always held

that this would be a miserable universe without eternal

punishment. Every act, good or evil, must carry its consequences,

and the fact that our punishment will go on forever seems to me a

proof of the everlasting love of God. For an evil deed to go

unpunished would be to destroy the moral order of the universe.”

Max Müller simply expresses the ineradicable conviction of mankind

that retribution must follow sin; that God must show his

disapproval of sin by punishment; that the very laws of man’s

nature express in this way God’s righteousness; that the abolition

of this order would be the dethronement of God and the destruction

of the universe.

F. The proper preaching of the doctrine of everlasting punishment is not a

hindrance to the success of the gospel.

The proper preaching of the doctrine of everlasting punishment is not a

hindrance to the success of the gospel, but is one of its chief and

indispensable auxiliaries.—It is maintained by some, however, that,

because men are naturally repelled by it, it cannot be a part of the

preacher’s message. We reply:

(_a_) If the doctrine be true, and clearly taught in Scripture, no fear of

consequences to ourselves or to others can absolve us from the duty of

preaching it. The minister of Christ is under obligation to preach the

whole truth of God; if he does this, God will care for the results.

_Ez. 2:7_—“_And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they

will hear, or whether they will forbear_”; _3:10, 11, 18,

19_—“_Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I

shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine

ears. And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children

of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the

Lord Jehovah; whether they will hear, or whether they will

forbear.... When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and

thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from

his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in

his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand. Yet if

thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor

from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast

delivered thy soul._”

The old French Protestant church had as a coat of arms the device

of an anvil, around which were many broken hammers, with this

motto: “Hammer away, ye hostile bands; Your hammers break, God’s

anvil stands.” St. Jerome: “If an offence come out of the truth,

better is it that the offence come, than that the truth be

concealed.” Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:680—“Jesus Christ is the

Person responsible for the doctrine of eternal perdition.” The

most fearful utterances with regard to future punishment are those

of Jesus himself, as for example, _Mat. 23:33_—“_Ye serpents, ye

offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?_”

_Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit

hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin_”; _Mat.

10:28_—“_be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not

able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy

both soul and body in hell_”; _25:46_—“_these shall go away into

eternal punishment._”

(_b_) All preaching which ignores the doctrine of eternal punishment just

so far lowers the holiness of God, of which eternal punishment is an

expression, and degrades the work of Christ, which was needful to save us

from it. The success of such preaching can be but temporary, and must be

followed by a disastrous reaction toward rationalism and immorality.

Much apostasy from the faith begins with refusal to accept the

doctrine of eternal punishment. Theodore Parker, while he

acknowledged that the doctrine was taught in the New Testament,

rejected it, and came at last to say of the whole theology which

includes this idea of endless punishment, that it “sneers at

common sense, spits upon reason, and makes God a devil.”

But, if there be no eternal punishment, then man’s danger was not

great enough to require an infinite sacrifice; and we are

compelled to give up the doctrine of atonement. If there were no

atonement, there was no need that man’s Savior should himself be

more than man; and we are compelled to give up the doctrine of the

deity of Christ, and with this that of the Trinity. If punishment

be not eternal, then God’s holiness is but another name for

benevolence; all proper foundation for morality is gone, and God’s

law ceases to inspire reverence and awe. If punishment be not

eternal, then the Scripture writers who believed and taught this

were fallible men who were not above the prejudices and errors of

their times; and we lose all evidence of the divine inspiration of

the Bible. With this goes the doctrine of miracles; God is

identified with nature, and becomes the impersonal God of

pantheism.

Theodore Parker passed through this process, and so did Francis W.

Newman. Logically, every one who denies the everlasting punishment

of the wicked ought to reach a like result; and we need only a

superficial observation of countries like India, where pantheism

is rife, to see how deplorable is the result in the decline of

public and of private virtue. Emory Storrs: “When hell drops out

of religion, justice drops out of politics.” The preacher who

talks lightly of sin and punishment does a work strikingly

analogous to that of Satan, when he told Eve: “_Ye shall not

surely die_” (_Gen. 3:4_). Such a preacher lets men go on what

Shakespeare calls “the primrose way to the everlasting bonfire”

(Macbeth, 2:3).

Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:671—“Vicarious atonement is incompatible

with universal salvation. The latter doctrine implies that

suffering for sin is remedial only, while the former implies that

it is retribution.... If the sinner himself is not obliged by

justice to suffer in order to satisfy the law he has violated,

then certainly no one needs suffer for him for this purpose.”

Sonnet by Michael Angelo: “Now hath my life across a stormy sea

Like a frail bark reached that wide port where all Are bidden, ere

the final reckoning fall Of good and evil for eternity. Now know I

well how that fond fantasy, Which made my soul the worshiper and

thrall Of earthly art, is vain; how criminal Is that which all men

seek unwillingly. Those amorous thoughts that were so lightly

dressed—What are they when the double death is nigh? The one I

know for sure, the other dread. Painting nor sculpture now can

lull to rest My soul that turns to his great Love on high, Whose

arms, to clasp us, on the Cross were spread.”

(_c_) The fear of future punishment, though not the highest motive, is yet

a proper motive, for the renunciation of sin and the turning to Christ. It

must therefore be appealed to, in the hope that the seeking of salvation

which begins in fear of God’s anger may end in the service of faith and

love.

_Luke 12:4, 5_—“_And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of

them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can

do. But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he

hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you,

Fear him_”; _Jude 23_—“_and some save, snatching them out of the

fire._” It is noteworthy that the Old Testament, which is

sometimes regarded, though incorrectly, as a teacher of fear, has

no such revelations of hell as are found in the New. Only when

God’s mercy was displayed in the Cross were there opened to men’s

view the depths of the abyss from which the Cross was to save

them. And, as we have already seen, it is not Peter or Paul, but

our Lord himself, who gives the most fearful descriptions of the

suffering of the lost, and the clearest assertions of its eternal

duration.

Michael Angelo’s picture of the Last Judgment is needed to prepare

us for Raphael’s picture of the Transfiguration. Shedd, Dogm.

Theology, 2:752—“What the human race needs is to go to the divine

Confessional.... Confession is the only way to light and peace....

The denial of moral evil is the secret of the murmuring and

melancholy with which so much of modern letters is filled.”

Matthew Arnold said to his critics: “Non me tua fervida terrent

dicta; Dii me terrent et Jupiter hostis”—“I am not afraid of your

violent judgments; I fear only God and his anger.” _Heb.

10:31_—“_It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the

living God._” Daniel Webster said: “I want a minister to drive me

into a corner of the pew, and make me feel that the devil is after

me.”

(_d_) In preaching this doctrine, while we grant that the material images

used in Scripture to set forth the sufferings of the lost are to be

spiritually and not literally interpreted, we should still insist that the

misery of the soul which eternally hates God is greater than the physical

pains which are used to symbolize it. Although a hard and mechanical

statement of the truth may only awaken opposition, a solemn and feeling

presentation of it upon proper occasions, and in its due relation to the

work of Christ and the offers of the gospel, cannot fail to accomplish

God’s purpose in preaching, and to be the means of saving some who hear.

_Acts 20:31_—“_Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space

of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day

with tears_”; _2 Cor. 2:14‐17_—“_But thanks be unto God, who

always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest

through us the savor of his knowledge in every place. For we are a

sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are being saved, and

in them that are perishing; to the one a savor from death unto

death; to the other a savor from life unto life. And who is

sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many,

corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in

the sight of God, speak we in Christ_”; _5:11_—“_Knowing therefore

the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest

unto God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your

consciences_”; _1 Tim. 4:16_—“_Take heed to thyself and to thy

teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt

save both thyself and them that hear thee._”

“Omne simile claudicat” as well as “volat”—“Every simile halts as

well as flies.” No symbol expresses all the truth. Yet we need to

use symbols, and the Holy Spirit honors our use of them. It is

“_God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to

save them that believe_” (_1 Cor. 1:21_). It was a deep sense of

his responsibility for men’s souls that moved Paul to say: “_woe

is unto me, if I preach not the gospel_” (_1 Cor. 9:16_). And it

was a deep sense of duty fulfilled that enabled George Fox, when

he was dying, to say: “I am clear! I am clear!”

So Richard Baxter wrote: “I preached as never sure to preach

again. And as a dying man to dying men.” It was Robert McCheyne

who said that the preacher ought never to speak of everlasting

punishment without tears. McCheyne’s tearful preaching of it

prevailed upon many to break from their sins and to accept the

pardon and renewal that are offered in Christ. Such preaching of

judgment and punishment were never needed more than now, when lax

and unscriptural views with regard to law and sin break the force

of the preacher’s appeals. Let there be such preaching, and then

many a hearer will utter the thought, if not the words, of the

Dies Iræ, 8‐10—“Rex tremendæ majestatis, Qui salvandos salvas

gratis, Salva me, fons pietatis. Recordare, Jesu pie, Quod sum

causa tuæ viæ: Ne me perdas ilia die. Quærens me sedisti lassus,

Redemisti crucem passus: Tautus labor non sit cassus.” See

Edwards, Works, 4:226‐321; Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 459‐468;

Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 310, 319, 464; Dexter, Verdict

of Reason; George, Universalism not of the Bible; Angus, Future

Punishment; Jackson, Bampton Lectures for 1875, on the Doctrine of

Retribution; Shedd, Doctrine of Endless Punishment, preface, and

Dogm. Theol., 2:667‐754.

INDEXES.

The author acknowledges his great indebtness to the Reverend Robert Kerr

Eccles, M. D., of Lemoore, California, for the preparation of the

exceedingly full and valuable Indexes which follow, and a similar

obligation to Mr. Herman K. Phinney, Assistant Librarian of the University

of Rochester, for his care in the proof‐reading of the whole work.

Index Of Subjects.

Ability, gracious, 602, 640

natural, of New School, 640, 641

not test of sin, 558

Pelagian, 640

Abiogenesis, 389

Absolute, its denotation, 9

as applied to divine attributes, 249

how related to finite, 58, 255

Reason, an, the postulate of logical thought, 60

Abydos, triad of, 351

_Acceptilatio_, the Grotian, 740

Acquittal of believing sinners, from punishment, 854

Action, divine, not _in distantia_, 418

Acts, evil, God’s concurrence with, 418

_Ad aperturam libri_, 32

Adam, his original righteousness not immutable, 519

had power of contrary choice, 519

not created undecided, 519

his love, God‐given, 519

his exercise of holy will not meritorious, 520

unfallen, according to Romish theologians, 520

his physical perfection, 523

unfallen, according to Fathers and Scholastics, 523

his relations to lower creation, 524

his relations to God, 524

his surroundings and society, 525

the test of his virtue, 526

physical immortality possible to, 527

his Fall, see Fall.

his twofold death, resulting from Fall, 590

his communion with God interrupted, 592

his banishment from God, 593

imputation of his sin to his posterity, see Imputation.

in him “the natural,” had he continued upright, might without death have

obtained “the spiritual,” 658

was Christ in, 759

Christ, the Last, 678

Christ, the Second, 680

Adoption, what?, 857

_Aequale temperamentum_, 523

Affections, 362, 815

holy, authors on, 826

Agency, free, and divine decrees, 359‐362

Alexander, unifier of Greek East, 668

Allegorical arrangement in theology, 50

_Allœosis_, 686

Altruism, 299

Ambition, what? 569

American theology, 48, 49

_Anacoloutha_, Paul’s, 210

Analytical method, in theology, 45, 49

Ancestry of race, proofs of a common, 476‐482

“Angel of the church,” 452, 916

“Angel of Jehovah,” 319

Angelology of Scripture, not derived from Egyptian or Persian sources, 448

“Angels’ food,” 445

Angels, their class defined, 443

Scholastic subtleties regarding, their influence, 443, 444

Milton and Dante upon, 443

their existence a scientific possibility, 444

faith in, enlarges conception of universe, 444

list of authors upon, 444

Scriptural statements and intimations concerning, 441‐459

are created beings, 444

are incorporeal, 445

are personal, 445

possessed of superhuman intelligence, 445

distinct from and older than man, 445

not personifications, 445

numerous, 447

are a company, not a race, 447

were created holy, 450

had a probation, 450

some preserved their integrity, 450

some fell from innocence, 450

the good, confirmed in goodness, 450

the evil, confirmed in evil, 450

Angels, good, they stand worshiping God, 451

they rejoice in God’s works, 451

they work in nature, 451

they guide nations, 451

watch over interests of churches, 452

assist individual believers, 452

punish God’s enemies, 452

ministers of God’s special providences, 452

act within laws of spiritual and moral world, 453

their influence illustrated by psychic phenomena, 453, 454

Angels, evil, oppose God, 454

hinder man’s welfare, 455

tempt negatively and positively, 455

their intercourse with Christ, 456

execute God’s will, 457

their power not independent of human will, 457

limited by permissive will of God, 458

the doctrine of, not opposed to science, 459

not opposed to right views of space or spirit, 459

not impossible that, though wise, they should rebel, 460

the continuance and punishment of evil, not inconsistent with divine

benevolence, 461

their organization, though sinful, not impossible, 461

the doctrine of evil, not hurtful, 461, 462

the doctrine of evil, does not degrade man, 462

good, the doctrine of, its uses, 462

evil, the doctrine of, its uses, 463

fallen, if no redemption provided for, why? 463

created in Christ, 464

their salvation, Scripture silent upon, 464

Anger, sometimes a duty, 294

Annihilation, of infants, held by Emmons, 609

at death, inequitable, 987, 1036

disproved by Scripture, 991‐998

terms which seemingly teach, 993

language adduced to prove, often metaphorical, 994

old view of, 1036

the theory that it is a result of the weakening of powers of soul by

sin, considered, 1036

“second death” regarded as dissolution of the soul, 1036

the theory that a positive punishment proportioned to guilt precedes and

ends in, 1037

the tenet of, rests on a defective view of holiness, 1037

a part of the “conditional immortality” hypothesis, 1037

as connected with the principle, “Evil is punished by its own increase,”

1038

Annihilationists, 487

“Answer (Interrogation) of a good conscience,” phrase examined, 821

Anthropological argument for God’s existence, 80‐85

Anthropological method in theology, 50

Anthropology, a division of theology, 464

Anthropomorphism, 122, 250

“Anthropomorphism inverse,” 468

Antichrist, 1009

“Anticipative consequences,” 403, 658

Antinomianism, 875

Antiquity of race, relation of Scripture to, 224‐226

Apocalypse, its exegetic not yet found, 1014

Apocrypha, 115, 150, 865

Apollinarianism, 487, 670, 671

Apostasy, man’s state of, 533‐664

Apostasy of the believer, how treated in Scripture, 884‐886

_A posteriori_ reasoning, 66, 86

Apostles, 199‐201, 909, 971

_Apotelesmaticum genus_, 686

_A priori_ argument for God’s existence, the, see God.

judgments, 10

reasons for expecting a divine revelation, 111‐114

_Arbitrium_, 557

Argument _ad hominem_ in Scripture, 233

for existence of God, its value, 65‐67, 71, 72, 87‐89

Arianism, 328‐330, 670

Arminianism, 362, 601‐606

Arrangement of material in theology, 2, 49, 50

Art, 529, 1016

Aryan and Semitic languages, their connection, 479

Ascension, Christ’s, 708‐710

Christ’s humanity, how related to the Logos in, 709

Aseity of God, 256, 257

not confined to Father, 342

_Assensus_, an element in faith, 837

Assurance of salvation, 808, 845

“Asymptote of God,” man, the, 565

Athanasian Creed, 329

Atoms, 96, 374

Atomism, 600, 635

Atonement, facts in Christ’s sufferings which prove, 713

defined, 713

satisfies holiness, the fundamental attribute of God, 713

meets the conditions of a universe in which happiness is connected with

righteousness and suffering with sin, 714

in it Christ as Logos, the Revealer of God in the universe, inflicts the

penalty of sin, while, as Life of humanity, he endures the

infliction, 714

humanity has made, when righteousness in Christ, as generic humanity,

condemns sin, and love in Christ endures the penalty, 714

substitutionary and sharing, 715

in, Christ suffers as the very life of man, 715

not made, but revealed, by Christ’s historical sufferings, 715

the sacrifice of, the final revelation of the heart of God and of the

law of universal life, 716

a model of, and stimulus to, self‐sacrifice, 716

its subjective effects must not exclude consideration of its ground and

cause, 716

Scripture methods of representing, 716‐722

originates in God’s love and manifests it, 716

an example of disinterested love to secure our deliverance from

selfishness, 716, 717

a ransom in which death is the price paid, 717

an act of obedience to law, 717

an act of priestly mediation, 718‐728

a sin‐offering, 719

a propitiation, 719

a substitution, 720

correct views of, grounded on proper interpretation of the institution

of sacrifice, 721

is it to be interpreted according to notions derived from Jewish or

heathen sacrifices? 728

theories of, 728‐766

Socinian (example) theory, 728, 729

objections to above, 735‐740

Bushnellian (moral influence) theory, 733‐735

objections to above, 735‐740

Grotian (governmental) theory of, 740, 741

Irvingian (gradually extirpated depravity) theory of, 744, 745

objections to theory, 745‐747

Anselmic (commercial) theory of, 747, 748

Military theory of, 747

objections to, 748‐750

Criminal theory of, 748

the Ethical theory of, 750‐771

a true theory of, resolves two problems, 750, 751

grounded in holiness of God, 751

a satisfaction of an ethical demand of the divine nature, 751, 752, 753

substitution in, an operation of grace, 752

the righteousness of law maintained in, 752

maintains, as a first subordinate result, the interests of the divine

government, 753

provides, as a second subordinate result, for the needs of human nature,

753

the classical passage with reference to, 753

sets forth Christ as so related to humanity that he is under obligation

to pay and does pay, 754

explains how the innocent can suffer for the guilty in, 755, 756, 757

Andover theory of, 756

by one whose nature was purified, but his obligation to suffer

undiminished, 757

the guilt resting on Christ in, what it was, 645, 646, 757

as a member of the race, did he not suffer in, for his own sin?, 758

showed what had been in the heart of God from eternity, 758

explanations of Christ’s identification with humanity as a reason why he

made, 759‐761

exposition of 2 Cor. 5:21, 760

grounded in the holiness and love of God, 761

is accomplished through the solidarity of the race, and Christ the

common life, bearing guilt for men, 761

ground of, on the part of man, 761

rather revealed than made by incarnate Christ, 762, 763

Ethical theory of, philosophically correct, 764

combines the valuable elements of other theories, 764

shows most satisfactorily how demands of holiness are met, 764

presents only explanation of sacrificial rites and language, 765

alone gives proper place to death of Christ, 765

is best explanation of sufferings of Christ, 765

satisfies most completely the ethical demand of human nature, 765, 766

objected to, as inconsistent with God’s omnipotence or love, 766

objected to, as presented ideas mutually exclusive, 767

objected to, as obviating real propitiation, 768

objected to, as an act of injustice, 768

objected to, because transfer of punishment is impossible, 768, 769

objected to, because the remorse implied in it, was impossible to

Christ, 769

objected to, because sufferings finite in time cannot satisfy infinite

demands of law, 769, 770

objected to, that it renders Christ’s active obedience superfluous, 770

objected to, as immoral in tendency, 770

objected to, as requiring faith to complete a satisfaction which ought

to be itself perfect, 771

extent of, 771‐773

unlimited, 771

its application limited, 771

passages asserting its special efficacy, 771

passages asserting its sufficiency for all, 771

secures for all men delay in execution of sentence against sin, 772

has made objective provision for all, 772, 773

has procured for all incentives to repentance, 773

limited, advocates of, 773

universal, advocates of, 773

Attributes, divine, see God.

mental, higher than those of matter, inference from, 92

Aurignac Cave, its evidence doubtful, 532

Australian languages, their affinities, 479

Automatic, mental activity largely, 550

“Automatic excellence or badness,” 611

Avarice, defined, 569

Avatars, Hindu, 187

Christ’s incarnation unlike, 698

_Ayat_ of Koran, 213

Baalim, 318

Balaam, inspired, yet unholy, 207

Baptism and Lord’s Supper, only accounted for as monuments, 157

the formula of, correlates Christ’s name with God’s, 312

according to Romish church, 522

of Jesus, its import, 761, 762, 942

Christian, definition of, 931

instituted by Christ, 931

of universal and perpetual obligation, 931

ignored by Salvation Army and Society of Friends, 931

John’s recognized by Christ, 931, 932

John’s, was it a modification of a previously existing rite?, 931, 932

proselyte, its existence discussed, 931, 932

John’s, essentially Christian baptism, 732

made the law of the church, 932

Christian, complementally related to Lord’s Supper, is of equal

permanency, 932, 933

its mode, immersion, 933

meaning of its original word, according to Greek usage, 933, 934

meaning of original word as determined by contextual relation, 934

meaning of original word determined by voice used with ’water,’, 935

meaning of original word determined by prepositional connections, 935

meaning of original word derived from circumstances, 935

original meaning of word determined from figurative allusions, 936

original meaning of word determined by practice of early church, 936

occasional change in its mode permitted for seeming sufficient reason at

an early date, 936

original meaning of word determined by usage of Greek church, 937, 938

Dr. Dods’ statement as to its mode, 938

concession to its original method of observance in the introduction of

baptisteries or “fontgraves” into non Baptist places of

worship, 938

the church, being only an executive body, cannot modify Christ’s law

concerning, 939

the law of, fundamental, and therefore unalterable save by Legislator

himself, 939

any modification of, by church, implies unwisdom in Appointer of rite,

939

any change in mode vacates ordinance of its symbolic significance, 939

objections to its mode, immersion, 940

if its mode impracticable, ordinance not a duty, 940

when its mode dangerous, ordinance not to be performed, 940

the mode of baptism decently impressive, 940

the ordinance symbolizing suffering and death is consistently somewhat

inconvenient, 940

God’s blessing on an irregular administration of, no sanction of

irregularity, 940

its symbolism, 940‐945

what it symbolizes is general, 940

it symbolizes death and burial of Christ, 940

it symbolizes union with Christ, 941

it symbolizes atonement and redemption, 941

it symbolizes to the believer being baptized his spiritual death and

resurrection, 941

it symbolizes union of believers with each other, 942

it symbolizes the death and resurrection of the body, 942

the central truth, set forth by, 942

a correlative truth set forth by, 943

sets forth purification through communion with death of Christ, 944

symbolizes regenerating power of Jesus’ death, 944

immersion in, alone symbolizes the passage from death unto life in

regeneration and communion with Christ in his death and

rising, 944

the substituting for the correct mode of, one which excludes all

reference to Christ’s death destroys the ordinance, 944

is a historical monument, 945

is a pictorial expression of doctrine, 945

and Lord’s Supper, 945

subjects of, 945‐959

the proper subjects of, 945

those only to be baptized who have first been made disciples, 945

those only to be baptized who have repented and believed, 945

those only to be baptized who can be members of the church, 945

those only to be baptized for whom the symbolism is valid, 946

not a means of regeneration, 946

the spiritual and the ritual so combined in, that the whole ordinance

may be designated by its outward aspect, 946

as a being “born of water,” 946

connected with repentance “for the remission of sins,”, 946

without baptism, discipleship incomplete, and ineffective, 947

the teachings of Campbellism regarding, 947, 948

act of person baptized, 948

before it is administered, church should require evidence that

candidates are regenerated, 949

incorrectly called “door into the church,”, 949

as expressive of inward character of candidate, 950

as regeneration is once for all, baptism must not be repeated, 950

as outward expression of inward change, is the first of all duties, 950

should follow regeneration with least possible delay, 950

if an actual profession of faith, not to be repeated, 950

accessories to, matters of individual judgment, 951

its formula, 951

Infant, 951‐959

without warrant in scripture, 951

has no express command, 951

no clear example, 951

passages held to imply it, have no reference thereto, 951

expressly contradicted, 952

in it the prerequisites of faith and repentance impossible, 952

in it the symbolism of baptism has lost significance, 952

its practice inconsistent with constitution of the church, 952

is unharmonious with prerequisites to the Lord’s Supper, 952

has led in Greek Church to infant communion, 953

denied by the Paulicians, 953

the reasons of its rise and spread, 953

a necessary concomitant of a State Church, 954

founded on unscriptural and dangerous reasonings, 954

it assumes power of church to tamper with Christ’s commands, 954

contradicts New Testament ideas of church, 954

assumes a connection of parent and child closer and more influential

than facts of Scripture and experience will support, 954,

955

its propriety urged on various unsettled grounds, 956

does it make its subjects members of the church?, 956

its evil effects, 957‐959

forestalls any voluntary act, 957

induces superstitious confidence, 957

has led to baptism of irrational and material things, 957

has obscured and corrupted Christian truth, 958

is often an obstacle to evangelical views, 958

merges church in nation and world, 958

substitutes for Christ’s command an invention of men, 958, 959

literature concerning, 959

Baptismal Regeneration, 820‐822, 946, 947

literature upon, 948

Baptist Theology, 47

Baptists, English, 972, 977

Free Will, 972, 977, 979

Believers, and the “old man,”, 870

and the Intermediate State, 998, 999

_Bewusstsein_, in _Gottesbewusstsein_, 63

Bible, see Scripture.

Bishop, office of, early made sole interpreter of apostles, 912

in his progress from _primus inter pares_ to Christ’s vicegerent, 912

ordaining, his qualifications in Episcopal church, 913

“presbyter” and “pastor” designate same order, 914, 915

the duties of, 916, 917

ordination of, 918‐924

Blessedness, what?, 265

contrasted with glory, 265

Bodies, new, of saints, are confined to space, 1032

Body, image of God, mediately or _significative_, 523

honorable, 488

suggestions as to reason why given, 488

immortality of, sought by Egyptians, 995

not indispensable to activity and consciousness, 1000

spiritual, what it imports, 1016, 1021‐1023

resurrection of, see Resurrection.

same, though changed annually, 1020

a “flowing organism,”, 1021

to regard it as a normal part of man’s being, Scriptural and

philosophical, 1021, 1022

“Bond servant of sin,” what?, 509, 510

Book may be called by name of chief author, 239

Book of Mormon, 141

of Enoch, 165

of Judges, 166, 171

of the Law, its finding, 167

Books of O. T. quoted by Jesus, 199

of N. T. received and used, in 2d century, 146

Brahma, 181

Brahmanism, 181

Bread, in Lord’s Supper, its significance, 963

of life, 963

Brethren, Plymouth, 895, 896

Bride catching, not primeval, 528

“Brimstone and fire,” sin and conscience, 1049

Brute, conscious but not self conscious, 252, 467

cannot objectify self, 252, 467

is determined from without, 252, 468

none ever thought ’I,’ 467

has not apperception, 467

has no concepts, 467

has no language, 467

forms no judgments, 467

does not associate ideas by similarity, 467

cannot reason, 467

has no general ideas, 468

has no conscience, 468

has no religious nature, 468

man came not _from_ the, but _through_ the, 467

Buddha, 181, 182, 183

Buddhism, its grain of truth, 181

a missionary religion, 181

its universalism, 181

its altruism, 181

its atheism, 182

its fatalism, 182

“Buncombe,” 17

Burial of food and weapons with the dead body, why practiced by some

races, 532

Burnt offering, its significance, 726

Byzantine and Italian artists differ in their pictures of Jesus Christ,

678

Cæsar, writes in the third person, 151

unifier of the Latin West, 566

his words on passing the Rubicon, 1032

“Caged eagle theory” of man’s life, 560

Caiaphas, inspired yet unholy, 207

Cain, 477

Calixtus, his analytic method in systematic theology, 45, 46

Call to ministry, 919

Calling, efficacious, 777, 782, 790, 791, 793, 794

general or external, 791

is general, sincere?, 791, 792

Calvinism, in history, 368

Calvinistic and Arminian views, their approximation, 362, 368

Cambridge Platform, 923

“Carnal mind,” its meaning, 562

Carthage, Council of (397), and Epistle to the Hebrews, 152

Synod of (412), and Pelagius, 597

Caste, what?, 181

and Buddhism, 181

and Christianity, 898

Casualism, 427, 428

Casuistry, non scriptural, 648

Catacombs, 191

Catechism, Roman, on _originalis justitiæ donum additum_, 522

Westminster Assembly’s, on Infant Baptism, 957

Causality, its law, 73

does not require a first cause, 74

Cause and effect, simultaneity of, 793

Cause, equivalent to ’requisite,’, 44

formal, 44

material, 44

efficient, 44

final, 44

can an infinite, be inferred from a finite universe? 79

when the efficient, gives place to the final? 125

various definitions of, 814, 815

Causes, Aristotle’s four, 44

an infinite series of, does not require a cause of itself, 74

Celsus, derides the same religion for many peoples, 192

Certainty not necessity, 362

Chalcedon (451) Symbol, on Mary as ’mother of God,’ 671, 686

condemned Eutychianism, 672

promulgated orthodox doctrine as to the Person of Christ, 673

its formula negative with a single exception, 673

Chance as a name for ignorance, term allowable, 428

as implying absence of causal connection in phenomena, not allowable,

428

as undesigning cause, insufficient, 428

Change, orderly, requires intelligent cause, 75

Character, helped by systematic truth, 16

changed rather than expressed by some actions, 360

what it is, 506, 600

how a man may change, 507

extent of one’s responsibility for, 605

sinning makes, 1041

sinful, renders certain continuance in sinful actions, 1041

dependent on habit, 1049

Chastisement, not punishment, 654, 766

Cherubim, 449, 593

Child, unborn, has promise and potency of spiritual manhood, 644

individuality of the, 492

visited for sins of fathers, 634

Chiliasts in all ages, 1007

Chinese, their religion a survival of patriarchial family worship, 180

their history, its commencement, 225

may have left primitive abodes while language still monosyllabic, 478

Choice, of an ultimate end, 504

of means, 504

decision in favor of one among several conflicting desires, 505, 506

not creation, our destiny, 508

New School idea of, 550

first moral, 611

evil, uniformity of, what it implies, 611

contrary, possessed by Adam, 519

not essential to will, 600

as at present possessed by man, 605

God’s, see Election.

Christ, his person and character must be historical, 186

Christ, no source for conception of, other than himself, 187

conception of, could not originate in human genius, 187

acceptance of the story of, a proof of his existence, 187

some of the difficulties in which the assumption that the story of, is

false, lands us, 188

if the story of, is true, Christianity is true, 188

his testimony to himself, its substance, 189

his testimony to himself, not that of an intentional deceiver, 189

his testimony to himself, not that of insanity or vanity, 189

if neither mentally nor morally unsound, his testimony concerning

himself is true, 190

in his sympathy and sorrow reveals God’s feeling, 266

the whole Christ present in each believer, 281

his supreme regard for God, 302

recognized as God in certain passages, 305‐308

some passages once relied on to prove his divinity now given up for

textual reasons, 308

Old Testament descriptions of God applied to him, 309

possesses attributes of God, 309

undelegated works of God are ascribed to him, 310

receives honor and worship due only to God, 311

his name associated on equality with that of God, 312

equality with God expressly claimed for him, 312

“_si non Deus, non bonus_,”, 313

proofs of his divinity in certain phrases applied to him, 313

his divinity corroborated by Christian experience, 313, 682

his divinity exhibited in hymns and prayers of church, 313

his divinity, passages which seem inconsistent with, how to be regarded,

314

as pre‐incarnate Logos, Angel of Jehovah, 319

in pre‐existent state, the Logos, 335

in pre‐existent state, the Image of God, 335

in pre‐existent state, the Effulgence of God, 335

the centrifugal action of Deity, 336

and Spirit, how their work differs, 338

his eternal Sonship, 340

if not God, cannot reveal him, 349

orders of creation to be united in, 444

his human soul, 493

his character convinces of sin, 539

he is the ideal and the way to it, 544

not law, “the perfect Image” of God, 548

his holiness, in what it consisted, 572

in Gethsemane felt for the race, 635

with him believers have a connection of spiritual life, 636

human nature in, may have guilt without depravity, 645

educator of the race, 666

the Person of, 669‐700

the doctrine of his Person stated, 669

a brief historical survey of the doctrine of his Person, 669

views of the Ebionites concerning, 669

reality of his body denied by Docetæ, 670

views of Arians concerning, 670

views of Apollinarians, 670, 671

views of Nestorians, 671, 672

views of Eutychians, 672

the two natures of, their integrity, 673

his humanity real, 673

is expressly called “a man,”, 673

his genealogies, 673

had the essential elements of human nature, 674

had the same powers and principles of normal humanity, 674

his elocution, 674

subject to the laws of human development, 675

in twelfth year seems to enter on consciousness of his divine Sonship,

675

suffered and died, 675

dies (Stroud) of a broken heart, 675

lived a life of faith and prayer, and study of Scripture, 675

the integrity of his humanity, 675‐681

supernaturally conceived, 675

free from hereditary depravity and actual sin, 676

his ideal human nature, 678

his human nature finds its personality in union with the divine, 679

his human nature germinal, 680

the “Everlasting Father,” 680

the Vine man, 680

Docetic doctrine concerning, confuted, 681

possessed a knowledge of his own deity, 681

exercised divine prerogatives, 682

in him divine knowledge and power, 682

union of two natures in his one person, 683‐700

possesses a perfect divine and human nature, 683, 684

proof of this union of natures in, 684

speaks of himself as a single person, 684

attributes of both his natures ascribed to one person, 684, 685

Scriptural representation of infinite value of atonement and union of

race with God prove him divine, 685

Lutheran view as to communion of natures in, 686

four _genera_ regarding the natures of Christ, 686

union of natures in, 686

theory of his incomplete humanity, 686

objections to this theory, 687, 688

theory of his gradual incarnation, 688, 689

objections to this view, 689‐691

real nature of union of persons in, 691‐700

importance of correct views of the person of, 691, 692

chief problems in the doctrine of the person of, 692

why the union of the natures in the person of Christ is inscrutable, 693

on what the possibility of the union of deity and humanity in his person

is grounded, 693, 694

no double personality in, 694‐696

union of natures in, its effect upon his humanity, 696, 697

union of natures in, its effect upon the divine, 697

this union of natures in the person of, necessary, 698

the union of natures in, eternal, 698, 699

the infinite and finite in, 699, 700

the two states of, 701‐710

the nature of his humiliation, 701‐706

not the union in him of Logos and human nature, 701

his humiliation did not consist in the surrender of the relative divine

attributes, 701

objections to above view, 701‐703

his humiliation consisted in the surrender of the independent exercise

of the Divine attributes, 703

his humiliation consisted in the assumption by the pre‐existent Logos of

the servant‐form, 703

his humiliation consisted in the submission of the Logos to the Holy

Spirit, 703

his humiliation consisted in the surrender as to his human nature of all

advantages accruing thereto from union with deity, 703, 704

the five stages of his humiliation, 704‐706

his state of exaltation, 706‐710

the nature of his exaltation, 706, 707

the stages of his exaltation, 707‐710

his quickening and resurrection, 707, 708

his ascension, 708‐710

his offices, 710‐776

his offices three, 710

his Prophetic work, 710‐713

prophet, its meaning as applied to him, 710

three methods of fulfilling the prophet’s office, 711

his preparatory work as Logos, 711

his ministry as incarnate, 711, 712

his ascended guidance and teaching of the church on earth, 712

his final revelation of the Father to the saints in glory, 712, 713

his Priestly office, 713‐775

in what respects he was a priest, 713

his atoning work, see Atonement.

as immanent in the universe, see Logos.

bearer of our humanity, life of our race, 715

his sufferings not atonement but revelation of atonement, 715

his death a moral stimulus to men, 716

did he ever utter the words “give his life a ransom for many”?, 717

did not preach, but established the gospel, 721

a noble martyr, 729

his death the central truth of Christianity, 733, 764

his death set forth by Baptism and Lord’s Supper, 733

the Great Penitent, 734, 737, 760

the Savior of all men, 739

refused “the wine mingled with myrrh,”, 742

never makes confession of sin, 746

a stumbling‐block to modern speculation, 746

had not hereditary depravity but guilt, 747, 762

was he slain by himself or another?, 747

does he suffer intensively the infinite punishment of sin?, 747

his obedience, active and passive, needed in salvation, 749, 770

died for all, 750

incorporate with humanity, became our substitute, 750

how “lifted up,”, 751

mediator between the just God and the merciful God, 754

in his organic union with the race is the vital relation which makes his

vicarious sufferings either possible or just, 754

as God immanent in humanity, is priest and victim, condemning and

condemned, atoning and atoned, 755

created humanity, and as immanent God sustains it, while it sins, thus

becoming responsible for its sin, 755, 769

as Logos smitten by guilt and punishment, 755

the “must be” of his sufferings, what?, 755

his race‐responsibility not destroyed by incarnation, or purification in

womb of Virgin, 756

his sufferings reveal the cross hidden in the divine love from

foundation of the world, 756, 763

in womb of Virgin purged from depravity, guilt and penalty remaining,

757, 759

the central brain of our race through which all ideas must pass, 757

his guilt, what?, 757

innocent in personal, but not race relations, 758

his secular and church priesthood, 758

did he suffer only for his own share in sin of the race?, 758

his incarnation an expression of a prior union with race beginning at

creation, 758

various explanations of his identification with race, 759

he longed to suffer, 759

he could not help suffering, 760

all nerves and sensibilities of race meet in him, 760

his place in 2 Cor. 5:21, 760, 761

when and how did he take guilt and penalty on himself, 761

import of his submission to John’s baptism, 762

was he unjustified till his death?, 762

his guilt first purged on Cross, 762

as incarnate, revealed, rather than made, atonement, 762

the personally unmerited sufferings of, the mystery of atonement, 768

may have felt remorse as central conscience of humanity, 769

his sufferings, though temporal, met infinite demands of law, 769

paid a penalty equivalent, though not identical, 769, 770

how Savior of all men, 772

specially Savior of those who believe, 773

his priesthood, everlasting, 773

as Priest he is intercessor, see Intercession.

his Kingly office, 775

his kingship defined, 775

his kingdom of power, 775

his kingdom of grace, 775, 776

the only instance of _Fortwirkung_ after death, 776

his kingdom of glory, 776

his kingdom, the antidote to despair concerning church, 776

his kingship, two practical remarks upon, 776

union with, see Union.

ascended, communicates life to church, 806

heathen may receive salvation from Christ without knowing giver or how

gift was purchased, 843

his sufferings secure acquittal from penalty of law, 858

his obedience secures reward of law, 858

union with, secures his life as dominant principle in soul, 860

his life in believer will infallibly extirpate all depravity, 860

“we in,” Justification, 862

“in us,” Sanctification, 862

his twofold work in the world, 869

a new object of attention to the believer, 873

union with, secures impartation of spirit of obedience, 875

his commands must not be modified by any church, 939

submitted to rites appointed for sinners, 943

God’s judicial activity exercised through, 1027

qualified by his two natures to act as judge, 1027

his body confined to space, 1032

his soul not limited to space, 1032

Christianity, its triumph over paganism, the wonder of history, 191‐193

its influence on civilization, 193, 194

its influence on individuals, 194, 195

submits to judgment by only test of a religion, not ideals, but

performances, 195

and pantheism, 282

circumstances favorable to its propagation, 666

Japanese objection to its doctrine of brotherhood, 898

Christological method in theology, 50

Christology, 665‐776

Chronology, schemes of, 224, 225

Church, its safety and aggressiveness dependent on sound doctrine, 18

its relation to truth, 33

polity and ordinances of, their purpose, 546

a prophetic institution, 712

doctrine of the, 887‐980

constitution of the, or its Polity, 887‐929

in its largest signification, 887

and kingdom, difference between, 887, 889

definition of, in Westminster Confession, 887

the universal, includes all believers, 888

universal, the body of Christ, 888

a transcendent element in, 888

union with Christ, the presupposition of, 888

the indwelling Christ, its elevating privilege, 888

the universal or invisible distinguished from the local or visible, 889

individual, defined, 890

the laws of Christ on which church gathered, 890

not a humanitarian organization, 890

the term employed in a loose sense, 891

significance of the term etymologically, 891

the secular use of its Greek form, 891

used as a generic or collective term, 891

the Greek term translated, its derivation, 891

applied by a figure of rhetoric to many churches, 891

the local, a divine appointment, 892

the Hebrew terms for, its larger and narrower use, 892

Christ took his idea of, from Hebrew not heathen sources, 892

exists for sake of the kingdom, 892

will be displaced by a Christian state, 893

the decline of, not to be deplored, 893

a voluntary society, 893

membership in, not hereditary or compulsory, 893

union with, logically follows union with Christ, 893

its doctrine, a necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of regeneration, 893

highest organism of human life, 894

is an organism such as the religion of spirit necessarily creates, 891

its organization may be informal, 894

its organization may be formal, 894

its organization in N. T. formal, 894

its developed organization indicated by change of names from Gospels to

Epistles, 895

not an exclusively spiritual organization, 895

doctrine of Plymouth Brethren concerning, 895, 896

organization of the, not definitely prescribed in N. T. and left to

expediency; an erroneous theory, 896

government of, five alleged forms in N. T., 897

regenerate persons only members of, 897

Christ law giver of, 897

members on equality, 898

one member of, has no jurisdiction over another, 898

independent of civil power, 899

local, its sole object, 899

local, united worship a duty of, 899

its law, the will of Christ, 900

membership in, qualifications prescribed for, 900

membership in, duties attached to, 900

its genesis, 900

in germ before Pentecost, 900

three periods in life of, 901

officers elected as occasion demanded, 901

Paul’s teaching concerning, progressive, 902

how far synagogue was model of, 902

a new, how constituted, 902

in formation of, a council not absolutely requisite, 902, 903

at Antioch, its independent career, 903

its government, 903‐926

its government, as to source of authority, an absolute monarchy, 903

its government, as to interpretation and execution of Christ’s law, an

absolute democracy, 903

should be united in action, 904

union of, in action should be, not passive submission, but intelligent

co‐operation, 904

peaceful unity in, result of Spirit’s work, 904

Baptist, law of majority rule in, 904

as a whole responsible for doctrinal and practical purity, 905

ordinances committed to custody of whole, 905

as a whole, elects its officers and delegates, 906

as a whole, exercises discipline, 907

the self government of, an educational influence, 908

pastor’s duty to, 908

the world church or Romanist theory of, considered, 908‐911

Peter as foundation of, what meant by the statement, 909‐911

See also Peter.

the hierarchical government of, corrupting and dishonoring to Christ,

911

the theory of a national, considered, 912‐914

Presbyterian system of the, authors upon, 912

independence of, when given up, 912

a spiritual, incapable of delimitation, 913

officers of the, 914‐924

offices in, two, 914‐916

a plurality of eldership in the primitive, occasional, 915, 916

the pastor, bishop or elder of the, his three fold duty, 916, 917

the deacon, his duties, 917, 918

did women in the early church discharge diaconal functions?, 918

ordination of officers in, 918‐924

See Ordination.

local, highest ecclesiastical authority in N. T., 920

discipline of, 924‐926

relation of, to sister churches, 926‐929

each, the equal of any other, 926

each, directly responsible to Christ, and with spiritual possibilities

equal to any other, 926

each, to maintain fraternity and co‐operation with other churches, 926

each, should seek and take advice from other churches, 927

the fellowship of a, with another church may be broken by departures

from Scriptural faith and practice, 928

independence of, qualified by interdependence, 928

what it ought to do if distressed by serious internal disagreements, 928

its independence requires largest co‐operation with other churches, 929

list of authorities on general subject of the, 929

ordinances of the, 930‐980

See Ordinances, Baptism, and Lord’s Supper.

_Circulatio_, 333

Circumcision, of Christ, its import, 761

its law and that of baptism not the same, 954, 955

_Circumincessio_, 333

Civilization, can its arts be lost?, 529

Coffin, called by Egyptians ’chest of the living,’, 995

_Cogito ergo Deus est_, 61

_Cogito ergo sum = cogito scilicet sum_, 55

_Cogito = cogitans sum_, 55

Cognition of finiteness, dependence, etc., the occasion of the direct

cognition of the Infinite, Absolute, etc., 52

Coming, second, of Christ, 1003‐1015

the doctrine of, stated, 1003

Scriptures describing, 1003, 1004

statements concerning, not all spiritual, 1004

outward and visible, 1004

the objects to be secured at, 1004

said to be “in like manner” to his ascension, 1004, 1005

analogous to his first, 1005

can all men at one time see Christ at the?, 1005

the time of, not definitely taught, 1005

predictions of, parallel those of his first, 1007

patient waiting for, disciplinary, 1007

precursors of, 1008‐1010

a general prevalence of Christianity, a precursor of, 1008

a deep and wide spread development of evil, a precursor of, 1008

a personal antichrist, a precursor of, 1008

four signs of, according to some, 1010

millennium, prior to, 1010, 1011

and millennium as pointed out in Rev. 20:4‐10, 1011

immediately connected with a general resurrection and judgment, 1011

of two kinds, 1014

a reconciliation of pre‐millenarian and post‐millenarian theories

suggested, 1014

is the preaching which is to precede, to nations as wholes, or to each

individual in a nation?, 1014

the destiny of those living at, 1015

Comings of Christ, partial and typical, 1003

Commenting, its progress, 35

Commission, Christ’s final, not confined to eleven, 906

Commercial theory of Atonement, 747

Common law of church, what?, 970

Communion, prerequisites to, 969‐980

limitation of, commanded by Christ and apostles, 969

limitation of, implied in its analogy to Baptism, 969

prerequisites to, laid down not by church, but by Christ and his

apostles expressly or implicitly, 970

prerequisites to, are four, 970

Regeneration, a prerequisite to, 971

Baptism, a prerequisite to, 971

the apostles were baptized before, 971

the command of Christ places baptism before, 971

in all cases recorded in N. T. baptism precedes, 971

the symbolism of the ordinances requires baptism to precede, 971, 972

standards of principal denominations place baptism before, 972

where baptism customarily does not precede, the results are

unsatisfactory, 972

church membership, a prerequisite to, 973

a church rite, 973

a symbol of Christian fellowship, 973

an orderly walk, a prerequisite to, 973

immoral conduct, a bar to, 973, 974

disobedience to the commands of Christ, a bar to, 974

heresy, a bar to, 974

schism, a bar to, 975

restricted, the present attitude of Baptist churches to, 976

local church under responsibility to see its, preserved from disorder,

975, 976

open, advocated because baptism cannot be a term of communion, not being

a term of salvation, 977

open, contrary to the practice of organised Christianity, 977

no more binding than baptism, 978

open, tends to do away with baptism, 978

open, destroys discipline, 978

open, tends to do away with the visible church, 979

strict, objections to, answered briefly, 979, 980

open, its justification briefly considered, 980

a list of authors upon, 980

Compact with Satan, 458

Complex act, part may designate whole, 946

Concept, not a mental image, 7

in theology, may be distinguished by definition from all others, 15

Concupiscence, what?, 522

Romish doctrine of, 604

Concurrence in all operations at basis of preservation, 411

divine efficiency in, does not destroy or absorb the efficiency

assisted, 418

God’s, in evil acts only as they are natural acts, 418, 419

Confession, Romanist view of, 834

Conflagration, final, 1012

Confucianism, 180, 181

Confucius, 180, 181

Connate ideas, 53, 54

Conscience, what?, 82, 83

proves existence of a holy Lawgiver and Judge, 82

its supremacy, 82

warns of existence of law, 82

speaks in imperative, 82

represents to itself some other as judge, 82

the will it expresses superior to ours, 83

witness against pantheism, 103

thirst of, assuaged by Christ’s sacrifice, 297

its nature, 498

not a faculty, but a mode, 498

intellectual element in, 498

emotional element in, 498

solely judicial, 498

discriminative, 498

impulsive, 498

other mental processes from which it is to be distinguished, 499

the moral judiciary of the soul, 500

must be enlightened and cultivated, 500

an echo of God’s voice, 501

in its relation to God as holy, 502

the organ by which the human spirit finds God in itself, and itself in

God, 503

rendered less sensitive, but cannot be annulled, by sin, 647

needs Christ’s propitiation, 736

absolute liberty of, a distinguishing tenet of Baptists, 898, 899

Consciousness, Christian, not _norma normans_, but _norma normata_, 28

defined, 63

not source of other knowledge, 63

self, primarily a distinguishing of itself from itself, 104

comes logically before consciousness of the world, 104

self consciousness, what?, 252

Consubstantiation, 968

Contrary choice, in Adam, 519

not essential to will, 600, 605

its present limits, 605

Contrition, Romish doctrine of, 834

Conversion, God’s act in the will in, 793

sudden, 827

defined, 829

relation to regeneration, 829

voluntary, 829

man’s relation to God in, 830

conversions other than the first, 831

relations of the divine and human in, 831

Cosmological argument, see God.

Covetousness, what?, 569

Cranial capacity of man and apes, 473

Creatianism, its advocates, 491

its tenets, 491

its untenability, 491‐493