Section III.

The Same Subject Continued-The Penalty of the Law is Not Annihilation with Conscious Suffering.

Is annihilation, with suffering, the penalty of the law, or the proper punishment for sin We take the negative of this question, and assign the following reasons in support of our position:

1. It is liable to the first objection urged against the former position, that annihilation, under the circumstances, cannot be a punishment. We need not repeat the argument farther than to show its applicability to this point. The object of the annihilationist, in combining suffering with annihilation, is to escape the two objections urged above, viz: first, that annihilation without suffering does not admit of degrees, and, secondly, that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of positive conscious suffering as a punishment for sin. If then the law inflicts pain, fitly represented by "the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched," and which produces "weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth," annihilation must be a relief and cannot be a punishment; it must be an advantage, and cannot be an evil under the circumstances. For more ample reasoning on this subject the reader is referred to what has been said under the head of annihilation without suffering; only we say enough to show that the position under consideration is liable to the objection there urged. But this position is subject to additional objections not urged against that, some of which shall be noticed.

2. To suppose that the punishment of sin consists of suffering in part, and of annihilation in part, renders annihilation exceedingly insignificant as a punishment, supposing it to be a punishment in any degree. Supposing it to be, in part, the penalty of the law, it follows that it must be inflicted upon all who are punished in any degree. We cannot suppose a sinner to be half annihilated; hence, he must be absolutely and entirely annihilated, if annihilation be any part of the penalty of the Divine law. Take the case of two sinners, one guilty in the least degree that a person can be, and still deserve punishment, and the other guilty to the greatest extent that a sinner can be, and, so far as annihilation is concerned, they must both be punished alike. The excess of punishment which the greater sinner receives or the less guilty sinner, must be made up in actual suffering, and this must constitute its principal portion, so that annihilation is a mere tittle. One dies as soon as he is capable of knowing right from wrong-his first act of sin is his only one, and that involves as little guilt as any wrong act can, and yet for this he must be annihilated. Another lives to be a hundred years old, and fills up the entire period with crimes of the deepest dye, and goes to his retribution as guilty as a sinner can make himself in one hundred years, and he can be no more than annihilated. It is said that he suffers for his greater guilt before he is annihilated. Granted; but as there is almost no comparison between his guilt, and that of the one less guilty, who is also annihilated, so there is almost no comparison between the suffering he must endure; and annihilation; his suffering constitutes nearly the whole of his punishment. In proportion to the amount of suffering a sinner has to endure, is annihilation rendered less fearful, or rather more to be desired; and the more guilty a sinner renders himself, the less does he lose, or the more does he gain by annihilation. Such absurdities and contradictions are involved by supposing the penalty of the Divine law to be composed, part of suffering, and part of annihilation. The penalty of the law is an evil, a curse, and yet this view supposes that one part of the curse of the Divine law renders the other portion desirable.

3. To suppose that the punishment of sin consists of suffering in part, and of annihilation in part, represents the penalty of the Divine law to be indefinite, confused and heterogeneous. If annihilation be the penalty of the law, even in part, it must be inflicted in every case of punishment. As shown above, the least of sinners must deserve annihilation, if it be the penalty of the law, for less cannot be deserved or received in kind, and t must be inflicted on the smallest sinner; otherwise he cannot receive all his sins deserve. This being the ease, annihilation must be threatened in the Scriptures, in every text, where any degree of punishment is threatened. If the Scriptures are true in fact, when they threaten sinners with punishment, they threaten just what they deserve, both in kind and degree. If then the Scriptures, in any case, threaten punishment without threatening annihilation, sinners may deserve and receive punishment for sin without deserving or receiving, annihilation, and the conclusion must be irresistible, that annihilation is no part of the penalty of the law. What confusion must it introduce, to be compelled to understand annihilation in every denunciation against sin. A few examples will be sufficient to show the absurdity of the thing.

Matt. viii. 11, 12: "Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be east out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." This text must mean annihilation, if that he the final punishment for sinners. And yet every one knows that there is not a word in it that suggests the thought of annihilation. Nor does it express two things, suffering and annihilation, but one thing, being cast into outer darkness. This expression cannot mean both suffering and annihilation.

Matt. xxii. 13: "Take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." This must mean annihilation, if that be the final punishment of the wicked, and yet, like the former text it expresses but one thing, and that has no relation to annihilation.

Matt. xxv. 46: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Here are two words used to express the entire punishment of sinners, "everlasting," and "punishment." These two words must express the whole penalty of the Divine law, in this instance. Does either of them express annihilation by itself or do they both together express it Let us see. This is a proper text on which to test this question, as it relates most clearly to the final punishment of the wicked.

(1.) Is the idea of annihilation, or non-existence, contained in the word "punishment" As an English word it certainly does not mean annihilation. Dr. Webster defines it thus: "Any pain or suffering inflicted on a person for a crime or offence, by the authority to which the offender is subject, either by the constitution of God or of civil society." This settles it so far as this word is concerned. But Dr. Webster derives it from the verb to punish, and this he defines, "to pain, to afflict with pain, loss or calamity, for a crime or fault. To chastise.

To reward with pain or suffering inflicted on the offender." There is then nothing in the English word, punishment, to denote annihilation or loss of existence. "To afflict with loss," does not imply the loss of existence, but the loss of possession or privilege. A person annihilated, would not, in any proper sense, lose his possessions, but his possessions would lose him. The very idea of loss supposes the existence of the loser. Suppose a person to possess much property, wife, children, friends, and everything that can make a man happy, but he meets the fate of all men; he dies. And in reporting his death, will you say that the man has lost his property, his wife, children, and all his friends Surely not; the term loss, is applied only to those who survive; they have lost him who is now dead.

Let us then look at the Greek word which is here rendered punishment, and see if that conveys the idea of annihilation. The Greek word here used is kolasin, and is defined thus: "Punishment; chastisement, torture, the rack; a punishing or infliction of punishment; a check, restraint, hinderance; pruning, lopping." (See Grove's Greek and English Dictionary.) Here it is seen that the word has no signification which indicates annihilation or loss of existence.

(2.) Is the idea of annihilation or non-existence found in the word "everlasting" This cannot be, for more reasons than one. First, the word expresses perpetual duration; hence, it proves the endless existence of whatever it is applied to, rather than its annihilation or non.

existence. Secondly, the same word is applied to the life of the righteous in the same verse, rendered, eternal. The word in the original is aionion in both cases. "These shall go away into [kolasin aionion,] everlasting punishment, but the righteous into [zoen aionion,] eternal life."

Everlasting, and eternal, then mean the same thing in this text, and hence, if the word everlasting, as applied to the punishment of the wicked, contains the idea of annihilation, the same word applied to the righteous would make an end of their hope. Thirdly, if the punishment be annihilation, then the word everlasting, applied to it, cannot express annihilation. If the punishment is merely ceasing to exist, it is necessarily everlasting, for when a being has ceased to exist, is not, such state of non-existence is necessarily endless, unless existence can spring from non-existence: and hence to apply the word everlasting to non-existence is to talk of everlasting nothing; for there is nought but nothing to be everlasting after annihilation. We see then that the word everlasting does not express annihilation.

(3.) Do the words" everlasting" and" punishment," associated as in the text, express annihilation Certainly they do not, and cannot. Keep in mind, that "everlasting punishment," in this text, expresses the entire penalty of the law, involving all the punishment that sinners will ever receive under the Divine government. The word everlasting is an adjective, and punishment is a noun, and the adjective expresses nothing concerning the nature or quality of the punishment, more than its simple duration. It simply determines that the punishment will be everlasting in point of duration, whatever it be in kind and degree. We have seen that the word punishment does not express annihilation, but only the idea of suffering of some sort, and the addition of the word everlasting, cannot add the idea of annihilation, but only the idea of the perpetuity of the suffering previously expressed.

But we are proving that the penalty of the law can not consist of suffering and annihilation, in part of each, and we have reached a point where we may clinch the argument. Everlasting punishment here expresses the whole penalty of the law, the entire penalty inflicted for sin; and if punishment includes suffering and annihilation, then the word everlasting, being applied to the punishment, must qualify the suffering as much as it does the annihilation, and the suffering is affirmed to be everlasting just as clearly as is the annihilation. Thus is God's law made to contradict itself, by threatening sinners with a complex penalty, the parts of which are made to contradict each other. The argument of annihilationists is, that the punishment of the wicked is made up of suffering and annihilation, and that it takes both the suffering and the annihilation to constitute the entire desert of sinners; and we have shown that if it be so, the suffering must constitute far the largest portion of the sum total, as the punishment for all sin beyond the smallest offence must consist of suffering, since the

smallest offence involves annihilation, if it be the penalty of the law in part or in whole. Now, this punishment is not this annihilation, but the punishment, the greater part of which is suffering, is declared to be everlasting, which involves an absolute contradiction and impossibility. We therefore conclude that the penalty does not consist of suffering and annihilation, in part of each, and insist that our proposition is sustained, that to suppose the punishment to consist of suffering and annihilation, each making up a part of the punishment, represents the penalty of the law of God to be indefinite, confused, and heterogeneous. It makes the single word, "punish," express two things at the same time, which are entirely dissimilar in nature, and makes the penalty of the law to consist of two things, which have no affinity in nature, which cannot exist together, insomuch that the very presence of the one involves the absence of the other. This is certainly making confusion confounded out of the penalty of the Divine law.

(4.) To maintain that the curse of the law, or the proper punishment of sin is both suffering and annihilation, is to suppose that all the righteous suffer the penalty of the law once, and that the wicked endure it twice. The theory we oppose maintains that man has but one element in his nature, which is matter; that he has no spiritual nature or soul, which forms no part of his material organization, that when he dies the whole man ceases to exist, in the same sense, and to the full extent which we know the body ceases to exist when it dies, and decomposes or is burned up. This is what we call annihilation, it is an entire dissolution of being, a ceasing to exist, a loss of existence. According to this theory, Adam, Abel, Moses, Aaron, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not; they are now in a state of non-existence as much as the wicked ever will be, and some of them have been so nearly six thousand years, and all from the date of their departure out of this world. This loss of existence they insist is the punishment of sin; all the dead therefore have suffered the penalty of the law once, inasmuch as they have once died, which is a dissolution of their being, a loss of their existence.

But they have not only lost their existence, but have also suffered all that is necessary to accomplish the dissolution of being, and have endured all the suffering and tortures that humanity can endure without being dissolved. If this loss of being then is the penalty of the law, as is maintained by the theory we oppose, all, saints and sinners, who are dead, have suffered the full penalty of the law once.

But the theory we oppose insists that at the resurrection, God will recall all these from their state of nonexistence, and cause them once more to exist; that he will then render the righteous immortal, and again take away the existence of the wicked; burn them up, root and branch, so that they shall have no existence, more than they had before the resurrection. Thus do the wicked endure the penalty of the law twice, and many of them in the same way. The people of Sodom were burned up in the days of Abraham and Lot, and according to this theory, they are to be brought into existence that they may be burned up again. Much has been said and written against capital punishment, but this theory represents God in the attitude that government would be in, should it, having the power so to do, hang men, and then bring them to life for the sake of the privilege of hanging them again.