Chapter XXXI: Part VIII: Eschatology, or the Doctrine of Final Things (7)

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).