ARTICLE V.-IS THE DOCTRINE OF ANNIHILATION TAUGHT IN THE SCRIPTURES?

Christ our Life; the Scriptural Argument for Immortality through Christ alone. By C. F. HUDSON. Boston: James Munroe. 1860.

Human Destiny; a Critique on Universalism. By C. F. HUDSON. New York: Rudd & Carleton.

THE object of Mr. Hudson in these works, whose titles we have placed above, is to show that immortality is obtained only through Christ, and that annihilation is the everlasting punishment threatened in the word of God. The term "destruction," or the phrase "to perish," would more nearly express his views, but he means the annihilation of the finally wicked. He says in the preface of "Christ our Life,"-the book that we shall have especially in view, in the criticisms that we propose to make,-"in so grave a question, any plain verdict of the oracles of truth ought to be easily made out," and yet, he "doubts if an exclusively scriptural argument will prove satisfactory to very many," because "any long received doctrine (as the one opposed to his) gathers round itself much extra-Scriptural support."

We agree with him that, "in so grave a question, any plain verdict of the oracles of truth ought to be easily made out," and we will add, we should expect that those oracles would bring the great mass of men to a like understanding of that

plain verdict." Accordingly, if ever in our lives we were fearful lest some giant error should uproot all the firm belief of the Christian world in the leading doctrines of the Gospel, or should wholly subvert the meaning of the Scriptures and displace the true faith by falsehood, we some time ago lost that solicitude; we believe the Scriptures, as to their general meaning, are quite well understood, and will continue to be so through all the ages. Let any candid, thoughtful person

take some such work as Hagenbach's History of Christian Doctrines, and trace the faith of Bible readers through all the centuries, and he will be profoundly impressed with the fact that, notwithstanding all the perversion and hatred of enemies, and all the weaknesses and follies of friends, the sacred word has steadily maintained its course, obliging all its hosts of readers to hold the same general views concerning God, the human soul, the way of salvation, and the future destiny of man. Errors rise, but they fall again. Perversions occur, but they are corrected. One while infidelity supposes it has got the Bible now safely under its iron heel, but anon it is out again, and the same hated doctrines are spreading through the hearts of the people. Therefore, if so important a doctrine as that of the annihilation of the finally wicked is taught in the Scriptures, it is a matter of wonder to us that it was not long ago found out by the mass of Bible readers, and that among them there have always been so few to doubt the commonly received view. It is strange, too, that we find that there has been only now and then one to advocate this doctrine, for we think that "in so grave a question any plain verdict of the oracles of truth ought to be easily made out," and we should think would long ago have been made out, to the general apprehension of the Christian world.

We are more than willing to accord to Mr. Hudson the credit of being intentionally a candid and fair writer, of never knowingly misrepresenting his opponent, never jesting with sacred. things, and seldom or never treating those who have criticised him with any taint of bitterness. He has evidently made himself well acquainted with the whole literature of the subject; scarce a scrap of all that has been written pertaining to it seems to have escaped his eye. And yet there are marked defects in his book, besides the erroneous conclusion to which he has come :-defects which relate both to the manner and the matter of his arguments.

First. His authorities on many points of interpretation and history are not the most reliable for the use that he makes of them. By very diligent investigation he has gathered up a mass of opinions from a great number of authors, which,

though in many things worthy of credit, we do not deem by any means conclusive. He rarely brings authorities who sustain his main view, but by using the admission of one writer here and another there, where they are not so well qualified to speak, he seems, without scrutiny on the part of the reader, to make a more weighty case than rigid investigation will warrant. Besides, we object to Transcendentalists and Jewish Rabbis, as not the most reliable interpreters of the word of God, because not knowing the truth through the "

obedience."

organ of

Secondly. The manner of Mr. Hudson's quotations from various authors, though not intended to blind his readers, and not likely to mislead the learned, is yet, we think, fitted to make an untrue impression, as to the authority for his views, on the minds of most who are not widely acquainted with books. Commenting on the terms of Scripture describing the unhappiness of the lost, he says, "There is no reason for saying that, because the soul is immaterial, all words applied to it must be taken in a metaphorical sense;"* and quotes Cudworth in proof: "To allegorize this fire into nothing but remorse of conscience would endanger the rendering of other points of our religion uncertain also." To the common reader Cudworth's testimony, thus given, would favor our author's view that the "fire" that is never quenched, and the "worm" that dieth not, indicate the annihilation of the souls of the lost, when the fact is, Cudworth means something very different; viz, that the "fire" and the "worm" do not get their full meaning simply by remorse of conscience, but in part by the suffering of "a certain subtile and spirituous body, still adhering to the soul" between the time of death and the resurrection. Speaking of the "second death," he quotes Calvin, wherein he says of the soul in that state, "In short, it performs no one function of life."+ The ordinary reader might begin to think from this, that Calvin was, wittingly or unwittingly, committing himself on the side of annihilation, instead of making a strong expression concerning the total loss of all the

normal and Christ-given functions of the soul among those suffering the second death.

Thirdly. Much of both books are given to irrelevant and unimportant discussion, to the answering of false interpretations, erroneous views, and weak positions which have here and there been carelessly or ignorantly taken. In this way the works are credited by superficial readers with more learning, logic, and importance than they really merit, and the faith of many in the commonly received doctrine of immortality is undermined with no sufficient cause. It requires great labor to establish doctrines, and but little effort to throw ominous doubts upon them. Whately remarks, "Unthinking people are apt to fancy that the difficulty is itself diminished, if the thing is diminished, about which the difficulty arises." This he applies to the superficial opinions of those persons who, because they can "explain away great part of the supposed amount of evil in the universe, conclude they have explained away some part at least of the difficulty presented by the existence of evil."* So, some persons, selecting a large number of authorities, interpretations, and arguments on the opposite side of a given subject, if they can satisfactorily answer a considerable part of them, conclude that the rest can be disposed of in the same manner, and on that supposition proceed to settle themselves snugly down in their favorite opinions. Mr. Hudson may not himself do this, but we conjecture that some of his readers do it, as they see him overthrowing some of the weak positions of opponents. In general it may be said, that one may take the authorities on which he relies in part to prove his doctrine, and by skillful selections may more thoroughly disprove it. Fourthly. The author sometimes quotes a writer only partially, either in language or idea. Fully quoted, his design in the quotation would be defeated. He quotes Dr. Dwight on the sentence of death in Eden: "Annihilation could not have been the thing threatened, because it was certainly no part of the design of God in the creation of Adam," and replies, "Neither was eternal misery, nor any sin or evil that man has

*Future State, pp. 175, 176.

incurred, part of God's design."* This, to many readers, will seem to put Mr. Hudson very advantageously against Dr. Dwight. But the latter had little or no occasion to write against annihilationists; he had previously spoken of the soul as immortal, and here assumed it; he held that God exercises a righteous moral government over men, and that this is inconsistent with annihilation, so that God in his design to govern men when he created the race had no design to make their existence a blank. Dr. Dwight would admit that God did not create men primarily to punish them, but he would say that in his design to govern was included the design to punish when necessity compelled it. He quotes from Richard Watson: "That the soul is naturally immortal is contradicted by Scripture, which makes our immortality dependent on the will of the giver." The author then asks, "Will it (immortality) be given to those unworthy of it?" And then, as though it were in point, he quotes from Peter, where he speaks of the gifts which make the saints "partakers of the divine nature."+ But Watson spoke simply of the soul's constant and eternal dependence on God for existence, and held that even "those unworthy of it" receive continued existence just as the sun shines and the rains descend alike upon the evil and the good. The author, to accomplish his object, must first show that immortality is a gift to those only who believe-the very thing to be proved, before using the statement of Watson.

Fifthly. Our author commences his first chapter thus: "The question is often asked, wherein consists the redemptive work of Christ?" He thinks it difficult to answer the question on the supposition of the immortality of the finally wicked, and carries the reader through a long series of questions which, he supposes, indicate the difficulties, and which doubtless will seem to some to put him a great way on in his argument, and to give the highest presumption in his favor. We reluctantly conclude, from his various queries on this point, that he does not himself well understand the simple plan of redemption, as it is repeatedly put in the Apostolic Epistles. In one sense, all men are