Human destiny : a discussion : do reason and the Scriptures teach the utter extinction of an...

Front matter

: apeye

om ap thnto te age ae

-

Preface

Tuts Discussion is given to the public in book form, in compliance with the call of many friends, from various parts of the country. It originally appeared in the Christian Freeman and Family Visiter, and the manner of its origin will appear from the following editorial note and preliminary correspondence.

ANOTHER DISCUSSION.

ANNIHILATIONISM IN THE FIELD.

WE have repeatedly received requests from different parts of the country, to embrace the earliest opportunity to take up, in our columns, and thoroughly review, the annihilation theory, or that of the final and literal destruction of the unregenerate, to the extinction of their existence. We had intended to do so after closing the discussion with Dr. Adams, and to do it mainly in the form of a review of the large work published more than a year ago, by Rey. C. F. Hudson, entitled “Debt and Grace.” That work is devoted, in part, to the refutation of the doctrine of endless punishment, which is done with masterly power; and, in part, to the advocacy of this other theory, which is becoming popular in the West,* and into which many “Orthodox” professors in all parts of the country are sliding, as a poor relief from that of endless torments. We promised

* T think it prevails much more at the East than at the West.—C. F. H.

o

1V PREFACE.

a review of Mr. Hudson’s theory, put forth in his book, when we received a copy of it pion the author, but other labors have _ crowded it over.

And now, it is happily opportune that the author of that able work should propose to us a discussion, in our columns, of this important subject. The following preliminary correspondence will explain all : — >

REV. MR. HUDSON TO THE EDITOR.

Boston, Jan. 18, 1859.

Rey. 8S. Coss, Editor of the Christian Freeman: Dear Sir,— In your notice of my book, about a year ago, you remarked that vou might at some time give a “faithful review” of the theory it advocates. I have not seen your paper regularly since that time; but on inquiry I do not hear of such a review as your remark foretokened. I will now say that I have desired, for a reason which I will give hereafter, to give the public of Boston and vicinity some statements of my doctrine; and to do this in a newspaper discussion, as most likely to meet those I wish to reach. Another paper is open to me, but I would prefer yours. If you will entertain any proposal of the kind, either directly or after concluding your reply to Dr. Adams, I will consider or offer such terms of arrangement as may be convenient.

Yours, very respectfully, C. F. Hupson.

THE EDITOR TO MR. HUDSON.

Christian Freeman Office, Jan. 19, 1859.

Rev. C. F. Hupson: Dear Sir,— Your note of yesterday is received. Soon after I received your book, I announced my intention of giving its aflirmative principles a “ faithful review,” at some future time. Having closed reviews of other important works then in hand, I took up Miss Beecher’s “Common Sense,” etc.; and then the subject of Spiritualism; and then preliminary arrangements were entered into for the discussion, now in progress, with Dr. Adams; so that Ihave not even taken time to read your book in course, design-

‘mg to read it carefully when I should take it in hand, with reference ~ to the purposed review. Yet I have not for a moment relinquished my design to read it in the manner and for the purpose mentioned.

But with regard to the discussion which you suggest, to occupy the

PREFACE. vy columns of the Christian Freeman, I doubt not that a satisfactory arrangement to that end may be made between us. With regard to time, however, my reply to Dr. Adams will run through two months yet: and I shall want a little time further to get it out in book form, and a little respite, probably, extending to the.commencement of my new volume, the first of May. In the mean time, you will inform me of your purpose and plan (for I have nothing to propose), let me: know your aim, and the method which liexin your mind, and if it shall be such as, in my view, promises good to the public, I shall enter most cordially into the arrangement.

Yours, most truly, S. Coss.

MR. HUDSON TO THE EDITOR.

Rev. S. Cons: Dear Str, — Yours of yesterday is received. I regret if my first note seemed to imply any need of explanation of delay in the proposed review. I am sufficiently aware of the endless and ever changing duties of an editor, to understand how a strong purpose of the kind might be not only postponed, but fairly forgotten. _ The delay until May Ist, might be inconvenient for me, because I may not then be in this neighborhood, or in the vicinity of any good library. If I am then here, I shall be pleased if arrangements may be made. But, meanwhile, another arrangement might be made, which I would like quite as well if it would suit you. For reasons which would appear in the sequel, I care more to combat the notion of endless misery, than that of the final happiness of all, though I deem both views equally erroneous. The former, however, creates a panic which crushes reason, and perpetuates itself by making calm consideration impossible. The latter, I think, easily admits corrective influences, especially when it shall be viewed in proper relations of contrast. I think much of its power has come out of its just quarrel with the “ orthodox” view.

If, now, you know or can find any one who will maintain the “ orthodox” view against my own, I will agree to meet him in your paper, if that would suit you, and we could arrange preliminaries. Your own view would still remain to be considered. This would, indeed, be a triangular discussion; but Christianity has got itself into a triangle; and the debate, if novel, would be no more so than the fact. :

If this strikes your mind favorably, the terms of the second part of

1* vi PREFACE.

the. discussion could be fixed at your pleasure. ‘Two ways would be open. Either I could introduce the new discussion, or, you might introduce your view as a reply to my own, and allow a rejoinder.

My “aim” would be mainly to make known the principal reasons and methods of argument that support my view, as they are now little understood. I have thought of doing this in a pamphlet, and shall do so if there is no discussion. I may add that the circumstance which first suggested a discussion was the materialism that encumbered the late discussion in this city.*

Yours, very respectfully, C. F. Hupson.

THE EDITOR TO MR. HUDSON.

Christian Freeman Office, Jan. 28, 1859.

Rev. Mr. Hupson: Dear Sir,— Your note of the 20th instant was duly received. With regard to the proposition for a discussion in my columns between yourself and some one believing in endless punishment, it does not strike my mind favorably, for the reason, among others, that the great argument for endless punishment from one of its most able advocates, has just been presented to my readers, and I am occupying considerable space in replying to it. But a friendly discussion of your own theory between yourself and me may conveniently obtain. I do not see that the probability of your absence from this city the latter part of the spring, and early summer, presents any serious difficulty. The plan of the discussion may be matured; you may have your main work in perfect readiness, and left with me; I will send the papers to you wherever you may be, which shall contain your statement of principles and argument, and my replies; and you can send by mail such brief rejoinder as you may deem expedient. Why not?

I suppose you will furnish me with a complete statement of your theory, so far at least as it may differ from Universalism, embracing, perhaps, some succinct statement of your reasons for renouncing endless punishment, which I may publish in one or more numbers, and proceed to review. Please give mea definite statement of your plan.

In respect to the time of beginning, I shall not probably get through with Dr. Adams until about the last of March. My new volume commences the first of May. That will leave me but the month of

* Reference is here made to the oral debate between Rev. Mr. Grant, Destructionist, and Rey. Dr. Litch, of Philadelphia, Presbyterian.—S. C.

PREFACE.. vii.

April for respite, and for various necessary preparations for the new volume. Furthermore, as there will be additions of new subscribers. to commence with the new volume, for this reason, and the convenience to those who bind their files to have the entire discussion in one wolume, the right time to commence will be the first of May.

Yours, most truly, S. Coss.

MR. HUDSON TO THE EDITOR.

Boston, Jan. 31, 1859.

’ Rey. Sytvanus Coss: Dear Sir,— Yours of the 28th instant as received. You may consider the discussion as a thing agreed on, and to be begun at the time you name. i

{ may furnish you, in a day or two, a succinct statement on the points you named; i.e., reasons for renouncing the so-called orthodox view, and the heads.of my present faith. These are of course given at large in my book, except the relations I hold to your view, which are slightly indicated.

I can now state, however, that my plan of argument would be briefly this: I should begin with naming the prominent occasions of the Universalist faith, as they discover themselves to my mind. This on the principle indicated by ‘Coleridge,—we must recognize the features of truth in a system, ere we can meet its supposed errors.

~ Next, I should raise the question, Are there radically bad men ?— giving my reasons for thinking there are.

_ Thirdly, Do the Scriptures teach the immortality of mankind as a race, or of the good — or those who shall become good — as a class ? This I should consider the main question.

As supplementary to the last, would follow some historical argument, mainly as comment on the expression: “ Life and immortality brought to light.”

Then would come the rational argument; cr, Is the view I offer consistent with a just philosophy, and with the sentiments of humanity ? . This would include a metaphysical argument.

I might add a theological argument; or endeavor to show that the main tenor of the gospel and the import of the term “ salvation,” is better observed by my view than by yours.

Yours, very respectfully, C. F. Hupson.

So, then, this discussion is to take place, to commence some time in May. We do not know whether or not we shall comviii PREFACE.

mence our reply in the same number which shall contain Mr. Hudson’s first article. It will depend on whether there shall be a completeness in it of itself, or whether there shall appear to be such a relation in it to something to follow, that we shall judge it expedient to wait that we may see the whole in all its bearings.

And now with regard to. the status of the man whom we introduce to our readers in the capacity of a diseussionist. We would not dishonor our Family Visiter, nor misuse our patrons, by admitting as a disputant a weak-minded, illiterate, and discourteous opponent. Mr. Hudson is a gentleman of the first order of talent, education, and social and Christian refinement. He was graduated at Western Reserve College, Ohio, studied Theology at Lane Seminary, under Drs. Beecher and Stowe, labored some time in the orthodox ministry; embraced his present sentiment about six years ago, has since devoted a portion of the time as a teacher in an institution of learning, and much of his time to researches in ecclesiastical history, and to book-making. The following editorial notices of his large book before mentioned, mostly from his theological opponents, will afford our readers an idea of his standing in the world of mind :—

“ We have here a work surpassing in elaborateness and completeness the most of modern theological productions. . . . The author is mild and candid in the statement of his views, correct in his. representations of others, and exceedingly full and impartial in his exhibition of the various phases of belief and conjecture that have prevailed, both among philosophers and Christian writers, from the Fathers down to the present time.”—-Zion’s Herald.

“We have read it with deep interest, and not without profit.”— Congregationalist.

“‘ His work shows very careful and extensive research, and on many collateral points his suggestions will be found instructive and important. . . . The aim of the book is, by showing the limitation of evil, to vindicate the goodness of God. There is scarcely one of the numerous positions of the writer for which he does not find collateral support in passages from the writings of distinguished Christian authors of past centuries.” New-York Evangelist. —

“ As a history of religious opinions, their relations and influence, it

PREFACE. iX»- is a thesaurus. It has more real argument in it than almost any. other 12mo volume: of less than 500 pages we have ever seen. . . . It is impossible. not to respect his candor and acknowledge his ability. He is not to be answered by a paragraph, nor disposed of by a sneer.” —Free-Will Baptist Quarterly.

“ Moving straight in among some of the most perplexed, solemn, and profound questions of theological concern in our day, — especially those of Retribution, Human Nature, Divine Justice, and Love, —with a bold heart, a firm step, and a learned head, the author will not fail to get a hearing. He has suffered cheerfully, both for his orthodoxy and his liberality. Whatever sectarians and idlers may do, thinkers and scholars will attend to him with respect.”—Huntington’s Monthly Religious Magazine.

“ The following is from one of the best-informed theologians of America: —‘It is a work with which no one who feels an interest in the subject can afford to dispense, whatever may be his views. The matter of fact and argument condensed in it would be expanded by many writers into half a dozen volumes. . . . Iam persuaded: that there is no single work which gives so good an historical. view of the various forms of opinion in relation to the matters discussed. - + It is not merely a work of learning; it is full of thought.’”— Christian Register. e

“A most extraordinary book—on the score of argumentative ability, among the greatest contributions that have been made to theological literature in America for many years.”—Universalist Quarterly.*

These are samples of the commendations of Mr. Hudson’s

* The book is entitled, ‘‘ Debt and Grace, as related to the Doctrine of a Future Life.” Pp. viii. and £72,12mo. Price, $1.25. Published by Messrs. J. P. Jewett & Co., Boston.

The Rev. Convers Francis, D.D., Professor in Cambridge Divinity School, says of it: —‘‘ The most exigiidlinslattagay notices have certainly done it no more than justice—hardly that. The more I have read it, the more I have admired the very thorough and painstaking research, the profound scholarship, and the able, fair reasoning, which pervade the whole work. I really think it is a book of higher theological character than we have had among us for a long time. The ability, the-sound learning, and the extent of research by which it is characterized, will entitle it to rank among the works of permanent and settled value in theology.”

x PREFACE.

talents and acquirements, which we might proceed to copy at great length. A few days since we saw an original letter addressed to him from Edward White, of London, who stands at the head of this denomination in England, conceding to him priority of rank in their religious body, for ability and effective labor in their cause.

And now it is with unfeigned pleasure that we introduce into our columns an opponent who is our superior in talent and education, for our combined efforts will conduce the more efficiently to the development of truth.

"We presume there will be no occasion for making this discussion a very protracted one, as the essential points will be few, and we can conceive of no necessity for extensively discussing but few passages of Scripture—leading passages, which shall be samples of the classes relied upon. The numbers will also be made shorter than we have made them in our discussion with Dr. Adams, that the other varieties on the inside of our paper may not be crowded out.

If the result of this discussion shall be the enlargement of the faith of some, so that what John Foster calls a “ prodigious relief” shall become a “joy unspeakable and full of glory,” we ‘shall feel abundantly compensated for our labor.

Contents

THE AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT.

INTRODUCTION.......: II Net as o's vias o sle's coe Ade SOU ON ve

Chapter I

WHAT ARE THE PROMINENT OCCASIONS OF THE UNIVERSALIST SN re os ot kos Ge ccc tee ececns Jays eee ee es

{Reviewed in the Negative Argument, p. 411.]

CHAPTER Ii

ARE THERE RADICALLY Bap MEN?...........eeeeees ma pe : [Reviewed, Negative, p. 815.]

Not included in Jesus’ Dying Prayer...........-0e.eeeaere [Noticed, Negative, p. 378.] Semmes te. FIOlY GOSE. «o's io gk ode again ccs cr gerne

[Explained, Negative, pp. 280-290.] CHAPTER III.

‘Do rue ScrRIPTURES TEACH THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN ASA

RACE, OR OF THE GOOD; OR THOSE WHO SHALL BECOME

§ 1. Is the proper immortality of man assumed in the Bible ? § 2. Is the immortality of the soul implied in the Bible?....

53 53 63

All CONTENTS.

§ 3. The General Tenor of Scripture Language............

§ 4. The Exegetical or Analytical Argument.......... <x

§ 5. Concerning the phrases Zoe aionios, and Zoe eis ton

7 i re remnant § 6. The same general subject.............. Dies 's 9 $ ahde mene ‘The scriptural Resurrection. . .. +. ...5) =n seaelaw een

{For Mr. Cobb’s Reply toso much of the argument in the foregoing Chapter as treats of Physical Death as the wages of Sin, and as involving Annihilation, see Negative, Chapters I. and I., pp. 149-180. And on the subject of Immortality, Negative, Chapter III., pp. 181-264.}

Chapter IV

Tuer HistoricaL ARGUMENT......... eis Laas ere {Responded to, Negative, Chapter VIII., pp. 400-4.}

Chapter V

DorEs THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF A CLASS AC- CORD WITH A JUST PHILOSOPHY AND WITH THE SENTIMENTS

§ 1. The Ontological Proof of a Future Life,............. : [Noticed, Negative, Chapter VII., pp. 343-348.]

§ 2. The Theology of Salvation........ 2.34 aa a males

[Noticed, Negative, pp. 348-371.] § 3. Nature and Design of Punishment..... <a ae eps [Noticed, Negative, p. 372.] § 4. Is the Immortality of a Class unkind to Man?......... [Reviewed, Negative, pp. 872-388.] § 5. Is the Selection of a Class to Immortality worthy of God? [Reviewed, Negative, pp. 388-899]

65 73

89 91

125 125

| Two pages of Contents, in part supplementary, are here inserted. The preceding references to the Negative are convenient and proper. The plan might have included the Rejoinder and Review. |

THE AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT.

ER EN OE Ee” an ee nd es rr? |

Chapter I

Wuar ARE THE PROMINENT OCCASIONS OF THE UNIVERSALIST NR et ee SR ee Fe 25 1. Reaction from the Doctrine of Eternal Misery . . . . . 25

2, Certain Views cf Divine Sovereignty . .. .... . 26

woweeacertain View of the “ Highest Good? oii aya + 28

IMM RAIETEES PLCS Ng cae MS Rare te op 2D

6. Modern Spiritualism ... . Cree = Maha aap awa ue OO

7. A light Estimate of the Import of Salcnalon y Larue erent OO CHAPTER II.

ReeetmerE HADICALLY Bap Man?.. . . . . . . . » s ))84 1. The essential Freedom of the Human Will . ... . . 386 2. The Nature of genuine Moral Virtue ....... =. 40 3 Extensive Wickedness among Mankind ...... . 42 DPORU MS AIRAM DIES 1. SPE Re ee PAP aa a Ra at 45

Chapter III

Do tHE ScrRIPTURES TEACH THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN AS A Race. OR OF THE GOOD —OR THOSE WHO SHALL BECOME ETI CTE Ree OANA eas Re eh - a

§ 1. Is the proper Immortality of Man assumed in the Bible? . 53 xii*

§ 2. §3. §4.

§ 5.

§ 6.

§7.

CONTENTS.

Is the Immortality of the Soul ¢mplied in the Scriptures? . The General Tenor of Scripture Language . ies The Exegetical or Analytic Argument. Gen.ii. 17; Ezek. Xviii. 81, 32; Luke x. 25, 28; John xiv. 19; Rev. ii. 10, 1; Matt. x. 28; and 2 Pet. ii. 12, examined

Do the Phrases z6é aidnios, (rendered in our Version “ eternal ”’ or “everlasting life,’ by Universalists, ‘‘ age-lasting ” or “aionian life,”) and its equivalent 20@ es ton aidna, imply Immortal Life 4 Ree ee If “aionian”’ life does not imply Immortal Life, then do any who fail of it finally attain Immortal Life? Luke xx. 84-38; 1 Cor. xv. 22; Rom. v.18; and Acts xxiv. 15, examined A a TE ie a a

The Two Theodores. Change for Authorities

CHAPTER IV. Tue HisroricAL ARGUMENT

$1.

§ 2.

§ 3.

There was deplorable need of Light on Sip Subject of la mortality when Christ came Aad ‘ ‘

As the early Christians were not “ Orthodox,” so neither were they Universalists . ; Ses

Whence did Universalist Views ate ace Rise ’ :

CHAPTER V. Dors THE DocTRINE OF THE IMMORTALITY OF A CLASS AC

CORD WITH A JUST PHILOSOPHY AND WITH THE SENTIMENTS oF HuMANITY? . . a. ae te ee

§ 1.

The Ontological Proof He a “Feito Life oa

§2. The Theology of Salvation . . . RES a §3. The Nature and Design of Buidetinacte ‘ § 4. Is the Immortality of a Class unkind to Man?. . § 5. Is the Selection of a Class to Immortality worthy of Goa?

fe

89 103

111 114

125 125 130 135 139 144 a

CONTENTS.

& ~ ; THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENT.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS: «2.2.0 cccecccceccecoccecece ‘i

Chapter I

Tae RELATION oF CHARACTER TO PERSONAL EXISTENCE... Sec. I. Human Existence is not the Product of Human NE gee et ep a

Sec. II. The Dissolution of Physical Nature, and Termination of the Earthly Life, is not the Product, Result, or Recompense of Human Character........ (1.) The subject Physiologically treated.............. (2.) The subject Scripturally treated........ las oaks

Chapter II

Human CHARACTER AFFECTS HUMAN CONDITION............ POMNEPSEIE? GAINES O's) dors OA SENIOR. ol Chae ven ae

Chapter III

Tue ARGUMENT FOR IMMORTALITY............ccccecsevece Sec. I. The Philosophical Argument.............. es Ae The terms perished, destroyed, perdition, and destruction, as used in favor of annihilation, consid-

ered, and the principal texts in which they occur,

NE a brd Srvc win ary rary Ward Save 4, talc Miah Wie oe a8

The resurrection of the identical earthly body imli tia Fass wands gale 8k sso tee

Elder Grant on Soul and Spirit............6++.4-

The image of God in Man...........csessecvves

Dr. Emmons on Primitive Nature........,-++++++ xii

155 156 160

XiV CONTENTS.

Immortality of God, and of Man, as treated in the Scriptures, compared os isan wks Wea s <0 os Argument from Human Capacities............... Do. from Human Wants. sy cc essussewss Man for Immortality........ cas naehs: ebay sees Mr. Blanchard on Transmutation of Insects, an- BWOTCG 605. is cee as o20 6 ain ae Re es 1% The rising into the next life, the Resurrection...... The Universalist Philosophical Argument for Immortality free from the embarrassments of other

THOOTICSs 0 ca cc ec o's eis w 8.1 gate © pate eee ete

Sec. II. The Scriptural Argument for Immortality....... (1.) The Necessity of a Supernatural Revelation.......

A Ramble with Heathen Philosophers............

Coming with clearer perceptions to the Gospel.....

(2.) The Times and Seasons of the Gospel Revelation.. (3.) The general Purpose, Tone, and Spirit, of the Sa-

¥iour’s Mission. .°. :.. .-.:0' set ane cece eee ;

Adaptation of Descriptive Phraseology to the People’s Conceptions............. ey Carpe e asegeye > we

Prof. Stuart on Universal Worship.............. Christ in Death a Representative..............+.. The Better Covenant, .i.'. 5.3. 2.50 eee aig

(4.) The Direct Scripture Testimony on the Immortal Resurrection. «. . «+ «+» «sees tle Seen nitedtt

Old Testament Testimonies. .<....s0s¥ase0s 0a eee Jesus.on the Resurrection......+..«0-aeenew Aves Apostolic Testimonies..... vena tor aa stung’ 4 oi aS

Chapter IV

THE DESTRUCTIONISTS’ DIRECT BispLe ARGUMENT FOR ANNI- HILATION . 5-555 Ns ade a aonrasaiet alata” Cie ec Pe Fee Jatt Gehenna, Matthew X. 28... «i. ses 0 ce aguas Targums and Talmud......... o2s 00h le

193 197 197 201

203 205

206 208 208 210° 213 215

219 223

234 234 236 248

265 266 268

CONTENTS. XV

ONE DIORLI sos wk wd) a eT EN Ss va tet ee Aionion Destruction, 2 Thess. I.9.............4-. 267 Perish, to be Destroyed, Perdition, Destruction.. . 277

CHAPTER V. Lirz, anp AIONION LIFE, AS THE FrRuiIT OF FAITH; AND

THE SUBJECT OF REWARD IN GENERAL......... ..000, 283 Dents Of, Satatibme ss) ovis. earls dnses eened> o. 00s 280 Plurality of Periods in the Messianic Age......... 281 Sin against the Holy: Ghost:.. gs wwrinnd ees csces 284 Difficulty of Renewing. Apostates, Heb. VI. 4-6... 297

SPIN TROLS HACHMCOMOLP DING . 5.00. weg reecdo dees sce 299 Zoe Aionios ; its General Meaning............... 293 False Meothods,exposed...+sisei's sees neeneecccees 302 BI WOR RATRCIATE we ibie ie ceingincie sigeimndy ade eves os 306 Aionian Life as a Final Destiny..............0..: 308 The Subject of Rewards in general.............6+ 312

Chapter VI

Rapicat BapNESS; AND FrEE WILL............ gy PEER 315 Src. I. Are there Radically Bad Men?.................4. 315 DERIOON UL C9 s oy vinta see Cet een eee. 3 rate 318

God’s Purpose in the Moral System.............. 335

What is Free Will? Our Hope in if............. 338

XVI CONTENTS.

Chapter VII

THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND Moral ARGUMENT.........+++.0- 343 The Ontological Proof of a Future Life........... 344 The Theology of Salwation}:)...........2 wcoeee . 848 The Jailer’s Household... 2... 23... 00 mw orev e¥ eee 351 The Salvation of Faith... .....sdtt¥0s Soave eae 353 Are there few that be saved Penne ce eee eee e tree ens 355 Criticism on the word All....... . 004 aOR a 358 From what does the Gospel save?............5- -. ooo Justice not opposed to Grace. ....5 Lice soos ee eee 361 Salvation from Actual Evil.........0..e00.. ene, ae Punishment and Forgiveness... .....c.ce.eeeee ees 365 Sin forgiven and Disease healed.........e0.000008 367 Repulsiveness of Errors.......... VO eee DINE wie iene 371 Nature and Design of Punishment................ 372 Is Destructionism unkind to Man?..............6. 372 The Dying Prayer of Jesus............. ie ee 379 God’ the Father-of Spirite: 3 [222909 BRA «snes 383 Infinite Love seeks the highest good.............. 387 The Divine Character Vindicated.........cescces- 388 Is Destructionism Worthy of God ?.. ........... . 888 abe Sifting Process... . Jn «ssi sae aa. 2 0ee Creature Agency God's Gift.......snemessmeenenee 393 Virtue Heroic..... YA « peagaecit® nian’ s aaa dei cla ie 325 Stoicism and Christianity.......... errr re A eee | Destruction not Moral Subjection..............+.. 398

Chapter VIII

THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT...........e00. . SE Fee i aa aen eee Life and Immortality Revealed.......... Sa a Doctrines of the Fathers............... eee

CONTENTS. XVil

Knowledge Progressive........ Pit nestansaiccunc. |. Skee How New Testament Passages in relation to Judg- Meera WCPO UTSE PETVETCR 0. cee wae 459 Sources of Universalist Views. ..........0cssesese. 411 Heathen and Orthodox Policy.............6...... 417 ane i. wo theodores; Tholuck... oo. cc. ee. ess 419 SSS ED 6 (000), rere 421 meme Pe View, EY PIR. CORE ric. ce hee eee eees 443 a 2 te Per acess ize - 3 tte eee ee i. ee, cen yl ng Nm : ae e Te ae a

4 a @4.4% ri © ets be ee > toatiys

DISCUSSION OF HUMAN DESTINY.

DISCUSSION OF HUMAN DESTINY.

oo

QUESTION.

Do reason and the Scriptures teach the utter extinction of an unregenerate portion of human beings, instead of the final salvation of all?

AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT.

By C. - h. HUDSON

Introduction

For several generations past the great controversy in the Christian Church has turned on the question of a supposed eternal misery of the wicked, and a supposed eternal evil in the universe of God. Two parties have been arrayed against each other, separated by a twice infinite difference of opinion, inasmuch as endless bliss and endless woe are each infinitely removed, and in opposite directions, from man’s original nothingness. Each party has also maintained, consistently with its confidence in the safety of truth, or at least in the hurtfulness of error, that its opinion is most conducive to the present and future welfare of man. And when we look to the lives of those who have held the opposing opinions with any devoutness, it can not be denied that they have exhibited real, though sometimes different, graces and virtues.

Paradoxical though it may seem, their twice infinite difference has turned on one point of agreement. They have held alike and in common the actual immortality of all human souls. The paradox vanishes at a single thought, and appears as an essential and explanatory fact. For only as immortal beings can sinful men be eternally blessed or endlessly wretched.

But this common opinion of a general immortality is lately, more than for several centuries past, challenged and denied. It is claimed, by respectable and growing numbers, that man’s immortality is not absolute, but dependent on personal goodness and virtue of character, The language of Paul, “to ‘those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor, and immortality, eternal life,” is taken by these persons in a literal sense, which precludes the endless life of those who obey not the gospel of Christ. This third opinion, commonly known as that of the final annihilation of the wicked, is now giving a triangular character to the Eschatology of the day. In its recent history it is not old enough to have produced much character of any kind, and will be judged somewhat by the existing character of those who embrace it. I think it suffers no disparagement by their general morals. And two hundred years ago, when it had lived long enough to allow some estimate of its proper fruits, we are told it was “matter of public notoriety that in respect to morals no sect had approached more nearly to the simplicity and strictness of the early Christians” than those who held this view.