• Introduction - To the American Reader
• Preface to the Fifth Edition
• Author's Preface
• CHAPTER 1. Future Punishment Is Eternal.
• CHAPTER 2. Eternal Death
• CHAPTER 3. Testimony Of The Old Testament.
• CHAPTER 4. Testimony Of The New Testament.
• CHAPTER 5. The Greek Of The New Testament.
• CHAPTER 6. The Primary Sense Of Terms Vindicated.
• CHAPTER 7. The Illustrations Of Scripture.
• CHAPTER 8. The Resurrection Of The Wicked.
• CHAPTER 9. The Divine Justice.
• CHAPTER 10. The Extinction Of Evil.
• CHAPTER 11. Examination Of Particular Texts.
• CHAPTER 12. Distinctions In Future Punishment.
• CHAPTER 13. Theories Of Punishment And Christian Missions.
• CHAPTER 14. Some Objections Answered.
• CHAPTER 15. The Apostolic Fathers. Clement Of Rome.
• CHAPTER 16. Justin Martyr.
• CHAPTER 17. Irenaeus, Martyr And Bishop Of Lyons.
• CHAPTER 18. Rise Of The Theory Of Eternal Life In Hell.
• CHAPTER 19. Tertullian.
• CHAPTER 20. Rise Of The Theory Of Universal Restoration Origen.
• CHAPTER 21. Conclusion.

The Duration And Nature Of Future Punishment

Grk/Heb Fonts

PDF

By HENRY CONSTABLE, A.M.
Prebendary of Cork

Fifth Edition - 1875

CHAPTER XIV

Some Objections Answered

A DOCTRINE of destruction such as we advocate would, we may be certain, draw forth many objections. Subversive of theories cherished and taught in Christendom for fifteen hundred years: subversive of man's boast of his natural inalienable immortality, handed down from Egyptian priestcraft to Christian fathers: subversive of man's clinging to the fond hope that somewhere in the hereafter, no matter what may have been here his conversation, life, or faith, he will find life and peace: we might well expect that from every point of the atmosphere of human thought the storm of objection would blow fiercely against a doctrine which rebuked the hideous cruelty of the Augustinian, exposed the delusive hope of the Universalist, and told the Theist that his system of natural religion, sufficient for the unfallen but not sufficient for the sinner, is of no avail whatever. From all such quarters we are blown upon. The Augustinian rails and gnashes upon us with his teeth. The Universalist dreads the putting forth of a theory which robs him of the plea on which most he rested. The Theist hates a doctrine which rests all human hope of blessing upon that Gospel of Christ which he disdainfully rejects. To some of these objections we will briefly reply. We could not hope here to reply to them all. Our reply will chiefly confine itself to the objections of that Augustinian system which has enrolled so vast and heterogeneous a body in defence of its faith: which summons the priests of Egypt and the philosophers of Greece to side with fathers of the Christian Church: which calls forth the subtle cruel schoolmen of the middle ages, in union with the religious orders of the Roman church and the bishops and pastors of the churches of the Reformation, to do battle for its hell.

2. One objection which constantly meets us is this, that in denying eternity of being to the wicked we diminish the certainty of everlasting life to the redeemed, or remove the ground for the latter altogether. Dr. Salmon thus states the objection: "In no system which disposes of the wicked by annihilation will it be long possible to maintain faith in the immortality of the good." ¹ A more groundless objection we think it scarcely possible to make. The Universalist who denies the eternity of future punishment is open to this objection: we, who hold its eternity, are not. Dr. Salmon rests his objection upon two grounds. The first is, that "Scripture in many passages leads us to attribute co-extensive duration to the happiness of the blessed, and the pains of the lost." This is precisely what we wholly deny. We hold that Scripture attributes co-extensive duration to the life of the blessed and to the death, punishment, destruction, of the lost. We deny that there is in Scripture one single passage which tells us that the pains of the lost are co-extensive in duration with the happiness of the blest. To say that the lost will wail in hell is not saying that they will wail for ever. To say that their punishment is everlasting is not to say that it consists in an everlasting life of misery. If we will be satisfied with the scriptural definition of everlasting punishment we will find it to consist in a destruction and death which remain in force for ever. According to our theory, the life of the righteous is co-extensive in duration with the destruction of the wished. Both are eternal. How does this militate against the "immortality of the good?"

3. The second ground on which Dr. Salmon rests his objection is, that, "If human souls enjoy no exemption from the lot which ordains that all things eventually become the prey of death, it is hard to believe that self-love is not deceiving us when we flatter ourselves that we can escape the doom which overhangs not only all other created things, but also multitudes of our fellow men." Dr. Salmon's argument here appears to us to be this, that, unless the souls of all mankind possess within themselves an essential or inalienable immorality of which they cannot be deprived, we can have no good reliance that the blessed will live for ever! Dr. Salmon tells us that our only sure hope of immortality rests upon the nature of the soul itself! He throws us on Plato for our hope! We think that we have in our theory drawn from Scripture a far surer ground for hope. It is that immortality is brought to us through Christ: that it is the believer's heritage resting on the sure promise and almighty power of the only Being who hath life in Himself or can bestow it upon others. If this is not enough for the Augustinian, it is enough for us. Elsewhere we see no good hope at all.

4. Another objection brought against our view is, that, if annihilation be the end of the ungodly hereafter, it seems a pitiless and uncalled-for act of severity on God's part to raise them in judgment and expose them to any pain or suffering whatever in a future state of being. ² It is very amusing to hear an Augustinian objecting to our system on the score of its severity, but nevertheless it is frequently done. We however do not fear scrutiny on this account. The common principles of justice, as recognized among men, demand some such procedure as Dr. Salmon and his fellow theorists affect to condemn as vindictive and cruel. This present world does not present to view Divine rewards and punishments attending men according to their deserts. This is universally acknowledged. It is asserted in the Bible. It is confessed, deplored, wondered at, among men who believe in a Moral Governor of the world. It is used as a favourite argument by the Atheist to prove that there is no God. It is accepted by the Theist as a sure ground of belief that there will be a future life and retribution. It is laid down in Scripture as the reason why there will be a future judgment. ³ God means to show Himself a rewarder of every man according to his works. He does not do so here; therefore He will do so hereafter. Therefore there will be, and ought to be, such pains and penalties as we, following Scripture, teach. And for this we are condemned, even by such men as Dr. Salmon, as holding a cruel and pitiless theory! If we taught that God would raise up the wicked to endure eternal pain in the way of retribution, we should be teaching what, according to them, would be logical, just, and merciful: when we teach that God will raise them up to suffer such pains as their evil deeds deserve, we are illogical, unmerciful, and unjust! Such is Augustinian reasoning! A bad cause can only present a. weak defence.

5. Another argument brought in favour of the Augustinian theory and against ours is, that the "perpetual exhibition" of the everlasting agony of the lost may be essential to keep unfallen races from transgression, while temporary pain, followed by destruction, would not have this salutary effect. ⁴ We differ wholly from such reasoning. We think that the "perpetual exhibition" of agony would make the unfallen regard God as unjust and tyrannical. Nor do we think so meanly of the races whom God has brought, or may hereafter bring, into being, as to think that they will require such a picture to be ever before their eyes to keep them from sinning. ⁵ The consciousness of their own happy life, the knowledge perpetually kept in mind by that hell where myriads such as they lost an eternal life, would seem to us sufficient to prevent them from falling, without their requiring to have ever before them a scene which, unless their hearts were harder than the nether millstone, must rob their own life of its joy and peace.

6. Perhaps the most usual objection to our doctrine is, that it removes from the sinner the dread of the consequences of his sin. It is often said that if the common view of hell, with all its imaginable terrors, is yet insufficient to deter man from transgression, what would the effect be if we removed from the mind the fear of this hell, and substituted for it a punishment which, however severe, was yet infinitely less.

7. Now we allow that the Augustinian theory of punishment is infinitely more terrible than ours. Between the two there is and can be no comparison. It is idle to compare them— as idle as to compare time with eternity. Read our view of punishment. You can bear it. Read the accounts of punishment as given by Tertullian, or Jeremy Taylor, or Father Furniss, or Mr. Spurgeon. If you dwell on them, and try to realize them, they will set you wild. Now it is just because of this infinite difference between the Augustinian hell and ours that we say that, taking the principle of fear into calculation, the Augustinian theory is less capable of deterring from sin than ours. We ground our assertion on a well-known and universally acknowledged principle of legal jurisprudence. Moses Stuart, who held the Augustinian theory, thus admirably expressed it: "If a penalty is enormously disproportioned to an offence, it loses all its power as a penalty, and produces reaction and disgust, if not indignation." Moses Stuart has here given the text on which may be preached the grave homily of the failure of the Augustinian theory of punishment to deter from sin, and the cause of its failure. We will try and draw out a short homily on the Professor of Andover's text.

8. The threatening of a penalty felt to be excessive defeats its own end. It has done so in the present case. The theory of eternal agony, as the punishment for the sins of this life, has long been held as the view taught by Scripture. Tatian, and Tertullian, and Athanasius, and Augustine, led the way, and Christendom as a body accepted their view, and has held it for centuries. What was one of its immediate results? A refuge from it in Purgatory! Rome tells you that purgatory is a very ancient doctrine. So it is. It dates from the inculcation of eternal misery in hell. Rome tells you it is and has been very commonly held. So it has. It is and has been the belief of nine tenths of professing Christendom. The partial purgatory of Tertullian, Augustine, and Rome, has not been enough. Origen fled from eternal misery to a universal purgatory, and has been followed by multitudes of the most thoughtful minds in every century, and especially in our own. Eternal agony has no terrors for those who have substituted for it a purgatory of cleansing and purifying pain.

9. Let us take another large class of men—the profane, the irreligious, and the sceptical. You tell them that everlasting misery is the doctrine taught in Scripture. They willingly accept at your hands this comment on Bible teaching. It is just what they want. You put the weapon into their hands and they proceed to knock you down with it. They do not love the Scriptures: they do not love God: they want to live without any sense of responsibility and control. The God of the Bible is the only God wicked men of any intelligence fear. So they willingly accept, your account of this God. He is one who dooms to eternal agony myriads who never heard of Him, and who would have never had this miserable life if He had not given it unasked. He dooms to eternal misery others who did hear of Him, and disobeyed Him. As death was the only punishment that could satisfy an ancient Grecian lawgiver for every offence against his law, so eternal misery is the only punishment that can satisfy this God of yours for disobedience to Him. What is the consequence? You put into the mouths of these men a plea, a most powerful plea, for their infidelity. They reject your God and your Bible altogether. They reject your God as a monster: your Bible as a foul lie. Their whole nature, their reason, their conscience, their heart, tells them that punishment such as you speak of is unjust. Theodore Parker is at one with Mr. Spurgeon in his premise; but he differs from him in his conclusion. "I believe," says the infidel, "that Jesus Christ taught eternal torment: I do not accept it on His authority." ⁶ Of what avail is your theory of punishment upon Theodore Parker and his great school? They are not afraid of your hell, because your hell has given them their best reason for not believing in your God.

10. It is almost as inoperative as a motive of fear with others who neither take refuge in purgatory or infidelity. They think of your hell, and its unspeakable endless agony. They do not perhaps reject it: they probably imagine that they believe it: at all events they argue for it as though it were the corner stone of faith. But they secretly think that God will scarcely inflict it on them . There may be great multitudes for whom it is in store—Heathens, Mohammedans, Papists, Schismatics, Destructionists, and such like but surely not for them. Something or other will avert it from them. A change of life, a word of penitence at the end, a sigh of sorrow for the past as the spirit leaves its tabernacle, something, will surely avert from them a fate too terrible for a merciful God to inflict on such as they. So the very transcendent terrors of the Augustinian hell defeat the object of threatened penalty; for few, if any, believe in it for themselves. We will not be suspected of summoning an unfair witness when we summon the modern poet of Augustine's hell to testify to the sinner's universal disbelief in it:

"But say, believing in such woe to come,
Such dreadful certainty of endless pain,
Could beings of forecasting mould, as thou
Entitlest man, deliberately walk on?
Thy tone of asking seems to make reply,
And rightly seems: they did not so believe
Not one." ⁷

And now what comes of the outcry against us, that in overthrowing the terrors of Augustine's hell we are removing the salutary effect of fear as a restraint, or as a motive to repentance'? Why the very people who are mythically supposed to be living under a constant dread of the Augustinian hell do not believe that they are in any danger of it. To use the words of Archer Butler: "When they think about it at all, it seems to them monstrous, disproportioned, impossible." The Augustinian theorist, in his study or his pulpit, fancies men are trembling at his hell when they are only laughing at it.

11. Our theory is credible, and does not remove from the sinner the salutary dread of punishment. Even if we taught that the first death would be for the sinner an eternal sleep, we should be laying before him the awful deprivation of that eternal life which Christ offers him. But this is not our teaching. We affirm for the sinner a resurrection, a judgment, a sentence to the realm of hell, where he will suffer the due reward for his deeds in passing under the sad irrevocable sentence of eternal death. Are there no terrors here? Is there not here enough to terrify any soul whom mere fear may lead to fly from the wrath to come? And all this is credible. It may be carped at; but it cannot be reasoned down. Here, in God's world, is pain: here, in God's world, is death: here, pain is the token, the premonition, produced by and producing death. The man of natural religion cannot object to finding pain and death in a life following this. We are but making the God of Nature and the God of Revelation one and the same Being. And are they not one and the same? We hold up before the human mind those "terrors of the Lord" which Paul held up before the mind of Felix when he reasoned of "judgment to come;" that death which Paul declared would be the end of sin and sinners, and which minds such as that of Felix feel and acknowledge to be the worthy award of evil deeds. ⁸ Accept our theory, and Atheism has no weapon, infidelity is robbed of its sneer, pious and holy men can preach and teach with authority of a terrible judgment to come, sinners may tremble at the prospect and fly through dread even where they are not drawn by the stronger voice that tells them that the God of righteous judgment is also the God of love.

12. Another frequent objection to our view is that it detracts from the value of the atonement of Christ. To us it adds to it. The way in which it is sought to establish that the Augustinian theory imputes a greater value to the atonement than ours is this. The Augustinian punishment of endless misery is a greater punishment than that which we teach: therefore an atonement which delivers from the greater punishment is more to be valued and thought of than that which delivers from the less. Arguments of this kind are to us very valueless things. They are the old scholastic reasoning of the middle ages which largely taints our Protestant theology. They are appeals to reason to determine the course of God's proceedings. We might well leave them unanswered, except that we are told that we must sometimes "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." We will therefore say a few words to show that our view of future punishment magnifies the grace of God far more than the Augustinian theory, and stamps a greater value upon the atonement of His Son.

13. If the Augustinian theory of punishment were true, we could scarcely think it possible for God to avoid making the most strenuous efforts to save man from it. We cannot imagine a man, we can scarce even imagine a devil, who would not pity and seek to save from such a doom. To say that God would send His Son to redeem mankind from endless agony is only to say of Him what we would say of any being who was susceptible of the most ordinary feelings of compassion. It certainly does not magnify His grace to say that it was exerted for such a cause. It magnifies it infinitely more to say that it sought to save from death. Surely God's love, and pity, and grace, shine with brighter lustre when we believe that it was from consideration for a creature who had once known Him, and whose existence was endangered by transgression, that He planned salvation. He had been less than man, we would think, if He had made no effort to save from Augustine's hell: He is God, His ways higher than our ways, His love stronger than ours, His pity purer and deeper, when He sends His Son that "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

14. Again, the atonement of Christ is itself magnified by our view. According to the Augustinian theory, Christ came to alter the condition of life from being miserable to being happy: according to out theory, Christ came to bestow life itself. This latter is the greater work. It involves the happiness of which the Augustinian speaks, it adds the grand gift of an immortal life. It brings forward Christ once more in His old part of Creator. It attributes to Him as Redeemer the part He took in man's opening as Creator. It makes us owe our life, our being, our existence, to our Redeemer, and not merely the happiness of our existence. This latter follows as a matter of course from the former. To say that God gives life, is to say that he gives with it all that can make life happy. To say that he would bestow life without those circumstances that render it delightful is to attribute to the Universal Father what we would not attribute to one of us who had a son. It is therefore that Scripture, in speaking of the effect of the atonement of Christ, generally calls it simply the gift of life. That is enough. That involves all the pleasures that are at God's right hand to give. And the view which attributes to the atonement the gift of eternal life magnifies that atonement more, infinitely more, than the view which only attributes to the atonement the alteration of the condition and circumstances of life.

15. Once more, we are commonly charged with endangering the faith by our theory. General charges of this kind have considerable weight with ignorant people: with others they have none. If they are not substantiated they only deserve contempt. In such a charge we only say "Not guilty!" and demand proof. Remember what our view is. It is an eternal life of joy for the redeemed: eternal death, after they have suffered as God judges right, for the lost. What is there here to endanger any article of faith? Does it imperil our faith in God? What attribute of His is attacked? His love! Is it the part of love to inflict eternal pain if it can be helped? His mercy! Is it the part of mercy never to be satisfied with the misery of others? His holiness! Is it essential to holiness to keep evil for ever in existence? His justice! Can justice only be satisfied with everlasting agonies? No; we do not endanger faith. We strengthen it, by allying it once more with the divine principles of mercy, equity, and justice. It is the Augustinian theory which endangers faith, and has made shipwreck of faith in the case of multitudes, by representing God as a Being of boundless injustice, caprice, and cruelty.