, 1880-12-12

1
IN lew OF is representations, still dared
express u glimmer, Of hope In favor Of the
tnt9an CANNED; "a :, Ill.,. The doctrine of the resti
only Ill connection with other heretical no
tons, and es peci ally with the otherwise anti
origenlstic MilIennarianisln."
me additional writer's whom Hagenbach
dqrlng this period are Jerome, Pelagius
Chrysoston, and Basil the Great.
l, IL Is perhaps needless to add that belief in
me eternity Of the punishment of the wicked
WaS almost, It not quite, universal during the
and extending to tho Reformation. Hagen:
bach mentions only one writer {John Scotus
Er1gena) who yentured to intimate a revival
Of the l.otion Of 0rigen concerning restitu-
flon, and yet he did not deny the eternity Of
This was the age In which great promi-
nence was given to the doctrine, and
preacher and poet, as we'll as artist also, vicd
with one another in portraying and puinting
PERIOD" says uagenbach, "retained the
| doctrlne OF the eternity Of the punishments
of Hell, as is exenlpltied III the concise
WHO enter here, leave all hope behind.' The
| imagination of the orthodox mystics in
| famed by the vision Of ininit wo, dwelt with
ever"
Concerning the fourth. period our author
| were In almost perfect accord us to the doc
trine OF the last things with the exception
| OF tho doctrine concerning Purgatory. The
fanaticaI !. notions Of the AnHbaptists con-
| lected b. the Protestants." So far, then, as
the authority of Ilagenbach goes, we find
that the doctrine Of endless punishment was
prevalent in the ancient Church, and that it
hac ha1 f%a
the orthodox faith of the Church. all oppos-
ing theories springing up from time to time
being pronounced heretical.
will cite only one more authority on the
took and Strong's Cyclopadia Tie writer
OF the article entitled Future Punisll-
ment' says: :. In tie Ancient Church the
Alexandrian theologians were the first to
xSaats tsash that u thfrs gould be end to the pun
According to them, discipline and reforma-
ton were the only ends OF punishment, SO
that it could not be eternal. And the writer
quotes from Clement and from Origen utter
ances in favor Of restorationalis1n that sound
strangely like some Of tho utterlnceS we now
hear from modern lips, and suggest doubt
whether after all there is anything new I'M
der the sun, and whether or not much Of the
ow fser lF4t that comes to some men nov IN
BY striking their fints upon the old Alexan-
drian grlndstone.
The writer. further says: "In opposition
to these the doctrine Of the eternity Of future
distinguished, teachers-e. O., Basil, John Of
Constantinople among the Greeks, and
am! among I the Lat Latins by jerome, Angus; $;
fps and oths5s; v TIE tn doctrine o1
Gil of Carthage lsos, l. -, and afterwards
by many councils. and the doctrine of the
eternity Of future punishlnents was estab-
1ished as the faith OF the Church."
Af.; ~.
t1ine Of endless future pnnisllllAent" has
been steadily held and maintained by the
great majority Of the Church from the begin
ming unit! now 1t has perhaps never been
universally received; there wero Saducees in
tho Jewish Church who denied it, as i'll fact
they denied all future existence, and there
were Gnostics in the early Christian Church
who then, as their successors do now, op-
posed the doctrine OH philosophical grounds;
but it has steadily held its own, in the con-
trine OF Christ and His Apostles,
The conclusion to which, in my opinion.
We are led by careful investigation Of his
tory is IL, this: 11 that 4 the doctrine in question
ish Church, and taught by Greek writer's be-
fore the coming Of Christ; that it received an
emphatic Endorsement and the seal of Ger
talnty by the teachings Of Christ; that it
formed part Of the teaching and preaching
of the Apostles, and WAS the general, If not
universal, faith of the Apostolic Churches;
that it was scarcely questioned ILL near tho
beginning OF the third century, and then by
those who taught through philosophy many
other things opposed to the Word of God;
that in the controversies, which cnsued it
trinnlphed over the restorationism Of Alex |
andria and was reafflrmed again and again
trine Of Christi and that until now 1t has
held the convictions and swayed the COLI
SCIENCES Of the great majority OF the Chris
tian Church.
;.,$ r
or against the doctrine, although Tbclieyc it !
to be true i'll fact,-the true Touching of leev- |
elation,-l close with simply word Of refer |
ence to the statements with which | colu~ !
menced. With reference to the editoria! state
ment Of an Aurora paper, reply: 1t is not
very rational to suppose That, Us matter Of |
fact, a hitherto unheard of or untaught doc |
trlne OF "endless punishment" could all ut |
once, several hundred years after tho death |
world" and "spread dark pail over man-
kind Such sudden revolutions of pub
JIG sentiment, and especially OF re1ig
l0uS convictions, are unknown to history. |
The great doctrines of Christianity lie on the
OpMcnt rather than in that of a catastrophe |
As to DR.. Peeke's statement, am con-
strained i'll charity to believe lie is not cor
rcctly reported. Surely no Clergyman with
that the church Of the first three or four
centuries never presented the idea Of eternal |
punishment, and it was not until tho six
teenth century that the doctrine was promuI-
gated"
Surely it the Doctor has seen how he was
BY areporter on question of |
history he would long ago have corrected
the false impression which, with the weight
OF his name, has been made.
As to the statement of DR.. Thomas, it is
more guarded, yet the impression it gives
that orthodoxy on this point was in the
to five-is wholly wrong One
man only taught NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.;
one school only taught Restorltionisn,-the |
although it is true that in the
East = for time the theory was
popular with several leading theologians;
also, number OF distinguished
Greek Fathers advocated the orthodox doc
trine, and after the division of the Church
into two great branches, the Western and
The Eastern, the latter, or Greek Church,
adopted the Athanasian creed, which has III
it formal statement Of the doctrine Of end
less punishment
Surely, however We may differ in our |
views Of doctrine, there ought to be no SUBJ
stantia difference among scholars on mat |
ters Of fact, on questions Of history. None |
Of us believe that the doctrine rests upon the
opinion Of the Fathers; yet If men were to
believe from careless statements of those
who are supposed to know, that the doctrine
IL question is a sort of modern Invention,
hing of priest-craft, rather than a truth
hat has hnen accented for nipFltenn centi1rir4 |