Section II.

The Penalty of the Law is Not Annihilation, but Conscious Suffering.

The real question at issue is, what is the penalty of the law Or, in other words, what is the punishment which the law of God inflicts for sin If we can obtain the right answer to this question, we shall know whether or not the wicked will be annihilated; for it may be presumed that no one will contend for annihilation, only upon the supposition that the loss of existence is the penalty of the law. If annihilation is the penalty which the law inflicts for sin, then those who are not saved by Christ will be annihilated; but if the penalty of the law is not annihilation, then it cannot be maintained that sinners will be annihilated. What then is the penalty of the law It must be one of the three following things:

First, annihilation without conscious suffering; or, secondly, it must be conscious suffering and annihilation combined, consisting in part of both; or, thirdly, it must be conscious suffering without annihilation.

It will not be denied that the penalty of the law must be found in one or the other of these propositions; we will therefore examine them separately, and see if we can determine in which it lies. If it can be proved not to he in either of the first or second, it must follow that it is contained in the third.

The Penalty of the Law is Not Annihilation Without Suffering.

Is annihilation without suffering, or the endurance of other evil than the loss of existence, the penalty of the law, or the punishment due to sin We answer this in the negative, and render the following reasons in support of our answer:

1. We maintain that the simple loss of existence cannot be a penalty or punishment, in the circumstances of the sinner after the general resurrection. All punishment must consist of pain or loss; but the proposition that the penalty of the law is annihilation without conscious suffering, excludes the idea of pain, and the penalty is made to consist of loss only, the loss of existence. This, in the circumstances of the sinner, is not, and cannot be a punishment. Punishment is an evil, but to have existence taken away is not an evil, in the circumstances of the sinner. The punishment of loss supposes deprivation of something valuable, but existence is not valuable in the circumstances of the sinner, and therefore deprivation of existence cannot be a punishment. To cease to exist cannot be a punishment of loss, only so far as the existence taken away involves happiness, but the existence of sinners, who shall be such after the general resurrection, will not involve happiness, but misery, and, therefore, to cease to exist will not involve a loss of happiness, but an exemption from suffering, and cannot be a penalty or punishment. Would the continued existence of a sinner, after the general resurrection, be an advantage or benefit to him Certainly not, unless such existence were a happy one; and hence to deprive him of that existence cannot be a punishment, unless it be first proved that sinners will be happy after the resurrection, and when that is proved no one will contend for annihilation. Keeping in mind that God's law threatens the sinner with evil, that its penalty is a curse, and not a blessing, we will state the argument in another form.

The state of sinners after the general resurrection, must be a state of prospective happiness or misery, if they should continue in conscious existence. This cannot be denied by any one, Orthodox, Universalist, Destructionist, or Infidel; conscious existence in a future state implies happiness or misery. If then at the general resurrection, sinners shall be happy, immediately or prospectively, we admit that annihilation would be a loss. But there is nothing in the theory of the Destructionists on which to base annihilation, while its supposed subjects are yet happy, or within the reach of happiness. Suppose them to be happy, or suppose happiness to be within their reach, suppose their circumstances to be those in which they can and will seek and obtain happiness, and suppose it to be consistent with the government of God that they should thus seek and obtain happiness, and upon what principle would God annihilate them We know of none. The developments of the divine administration, as well as the declaration of God's word, show that he never seals the sinner's overthrow, be it misery or annihilation, until he has progressed beyond the reach of reformation, and rendered hopeless his own restoration to holiness and happiness. Indeed, those who contend for annihilation, always place it in opposition to endless conscious suffering, and insist that it is more consistent with the benevolence of God to take away their existence, subject to endless misery. It is then plain that annihilation is advocated, only in opposition to a miserable existence; no one contends that God will annihilate happy beings, or those whom he can render happy, consistently with the principles of his government. If annihilation takes place at all, it will be only in the case of those who would otherwise be miserable, and with such it cannot be a punishment, and therefore cannot be the penalty of the law, for that is an evil, a curse. Those who contend for annihilation, as the only means of relieving the mind of the horrible conception of attributing the infliction of endless misery to a benevolent Creator, as all do who advocate the doctrine at all-we must admit that by annihilation the sinner is saved from more misery than he is deprived of happiness; so that, as a whole, he is relieved rather than injured by it. To contend for annihilation to save God from the imputation of inflicting endless misery, and maintain that it is worse than such supposed endless misery, so that it is a loss, a punishment, is too great an absurdity to be embraced by a sane mind. Annihilation, then, cannot be a punishment; it cannot be the penalty of the law; for the simple fact that punishment or a penalty inflicted, involves suffering or loss, but annihilation under the circumstances of the case, cannot be a loss, but must be a relief. There are but three conceivable states; existence with happiness, existence with misery, and no existence or annihilation. God will never annihilate a happy existence, or an existence which would be happy but for such annihilation; and annihilation, to a being who would otherwise exist only in misery would not be a punishment or loss; and therefore annihilation cannot be the penalty of the law, the punishment due to sin; otherwise the curse of the law, to those who are alone exposed to it, ceases to be a curse, and becomes an actual benefit, and the sinner's only hope of deliverance from a more dreadful calamity, a miserable existence. Take what view we please, annihilation cannot be the penalty of the law.

2. To suppose that the penalty of the law is annihilation without conscious suffering, would not admit of any degrees of punishment. There can be no degrees in annihilation; each and all who are annihilated, must be punished, if it be called punishment, precisely with the same amount or degree of punishment. If the penalty be annihilation, none can be punished less than what amounts to annihilation, and annihilation admits of no degrees.

Some have sought to avoid this difficulty by making the degrees of punishment, consist in the different degrees of loss sustained by different persons, according to their respective degrees of capacity to enjoy happiness. This would have some force in it, did annihilation stand opposed to a happy existence, but it does not, but is urged only in opposition to endless suffering, as shown above. Taking this view, as the mind that is capable of a larger degree of happiness, must also be capable of a greater degree of misery, instead of sustaining a greater loss by annihilation, he is only saved from a greater amount of suffering.

It is clear then that there can be no degrees in punishment, if it be annihilation without conscious suffering, and this of itself must be fatal to the theory. Reason teaches us that some are greater sinners than others, and justly deserve more punishment, and hence if annihilation be the punishment, some must suffer more than they deserve, and others must suffer less than they deserve. Moreover, the Scriptures teach that there will be different degrees of punishments. Christ said to the Scribes and Pharisees, for a certain cause, "Therefore shall ye receive the greater damnation." Matt. xxiii. 14.

"So he that knows his Master's will and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes, while he that knows not his Master's will and does it not, shall be beaten with few stripes." See Luke xii. 47, 48.

3. That the penalty of the law is not annihilation without suffering, is further proved by those Scriptures which teach directly that sin is punished by suffering, or conscious pain. These constitute a numerous class, but we need quote but a few.

Matt. xxv. 30: "And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Luke xiii. 28: "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out."

Luke xvi. 23: "And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments."

Rom. ii. 8, 9: "Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile."

Luke xii. 47: "And that servant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

These texts prove beyond a doubt, that sin is punished with positive inflictions, and hence, the penalty of the law cannot be annihilation without conscious suffering.