“Then shall He say… ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'”
Mt. 25:41
“…and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:”
Rev. 14:10
“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”
Rev. 20:14
.
.
Subsections
Degrees of Punishment in Hell
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 6+
Quote 1
Necessity of 1
Duration of 5
On Universalism 1
Latin 3
.
Articles
1500’s
Viret, Pierre – Dialogue 5, ‘The Hells’ in The Christian Disputations… Dialogue-wise tr. John Brooke (d. 1571; London: East, 1579), pp. 210-60 Index
.
1600’s
Perkins, William
A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)
55. Of the State & Condition of the Reprobates when they are Dead
56. Of the Condemnation of the Reprobates at the Last Judgment
57. Of the Estate of the Reprobates in Hell
. A Corollary
The Foundation of Christian Religion, Gathered into Six Principles an appendix to A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)
6th Principle: Estate of Men after Death
6th Principle Expounded
Bucanus, William – 40. ‘Of Eternal Death’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 494-501
From whence is death derived?
How manifold is death?
What is eternal death?
If the soul and body of the reprobates shall have a being and shall live forever, why is their future estate not called a life, but a death?
What are the epithets of eternal death?
What be the causes of eternal death?
For whom is eternal death prepared?
What place is ordained for eternal death?
What is Hell?
Where is Hell?
When shall the punishments of Hell begin?
Shall the torments of the damned be perpetual?
Shall the condition of the damned be alike as touching the very measure of eternal torments?
To what end is Hell?
What is the use of this doctrine?
Who are they that resist this doctrine?
Ames, William – ch. 16, ‘The Consummation of Death’ in The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1, pp. 125-27
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Walaeus, Anthony – 52. ‘On Life & Death Everlasting & on the End of the World’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 3, pp. 582-625
Maccovius, John – ch. 22, ‘On Condemnation’ in Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological & Philosophical Distinctions & Rules (1644; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), pp. 285-89
Maccovius (1588–1644) was a reformed, supralapsarian Polish theologian.
Leigh, Edward – ch. 3. Of Hell or Damnation in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 10, pp. 864-68
Turretin, Francis – 7. ‘Is there a hell? And what are its punishments—whether only of loss or also of sense? We affirm the latter.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 20th Topic, p. 604 ff.
.
1700’s
Mather, Cotton – The Valley of Hinnom. The Terrors of Hell Demonstrated & the Methods of Escaping the Terrible Miseries of the Punishments on the Wicked there, Declared. In a sermon preached in the hearing, and at the request, of a man under a sentence of death for a murder; just before the execution of the sentence; and upon a text by himself assigned for the sermon to insist upon (Boston, 1717) on Mt. 10:28 55 pp.
Edwards, Jonathan – Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Deut. 32:35 (1741) 38 paragraphs
.
Quote
1600’s
Andreas Essenius
‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’ Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653), Appendix Latin
“II. Do the damned in hell sin by despairing of their liberation? Negative.”
.
On the Necessity of Hell
Dabney, Robert – Vindicatory Justice Essential to God (1881) 17 pp.
.
On the Duration of Hell
See also ‘Is Vindicatory Justice Essential to God?’
.
Order of
Articles 2
Quotes 2
Annihilation Possible by God’s Nature
.
Articles
1600’s
Barlow, Thomas – Exercitation 1, in which that… question, Whether it be more eligible to be annihilated, or not to be at all, than to be miserable, is discussed: as also Durandus’s reasons are considered, who asserts that it is better, and according to the rules of right reason, more preferable to be miserable, than to be reduced to a simple non-entity in The Genuine Remains of… Thomas Barlow... (d. 1691; London: Dunton, 1693), pp. 470-520
Conclusion 1. That annihilation, or [Greek], non esse, (to speak in absolute terms) includes no goodness in it at all; nor taken by itself (without relation to any other thing) can ever be the object of a man’s appetite, nor move him to the desire and prosecution of itself.
2. In respect of the manifestation of God’s glory, it is better and more eligible to be punished than to be annihilated, to be miserable than not to be: or (which is the same thing) the glory of God is more manifestly declared in the inflicting just and deserved punishment on a sinful creature than in reducing the same to its primitive nothing by the interposition of his omnipotent hand.
3. It is beyond all controversy that in the judgment of the miserable man himself, it seems better to him to be annihilated than to be eternally tormented with such insupportable and exquisite torments.
4. It is certain and undoubtedly true that to enjoy the goodness of existence, or bonitas essentiae (which the eternally damned possess), while taken by itself and without respect to any annexed evil, is better than to be annihilated.
5. It is better, and in conformity to right reason, more eligible to be annihilated than to be eternally tormented, notwithstanding that existential good that the damned possess.
6. In the state of annihilation there is no evil at all, but only a simple and bare negation of good.
7. It is better, and in conformity to right reason, more eligible to be annihilated than to undergo the evil of punishment (though separated from the evil of sin) that the damned are tormented withal.
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald A. – Universalism False & Unscriptural: an Essay on the Duration & Intensity of Future Punishment (1851) 104 pp.
Here is an example of Alexander’s polemics against the rising tide of his day that denied the eternity and retributive nature of Hell.
.
Quotes
1800’s
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
“The eternal punishment endured by the sinner can never be finished, as the infinite punishment endured by Christ was; it will ever fall short of legal acquital.”
.
Charles De Koninck & Maurice Dionne
‘The Question of Infertility’ (1965)
pp. 2-3
“In the case of man, the ‘good of the offspring’ (bonum prolis) comprises three things: a) the mere existence of the child; b) the feeding and clothing of the child and satisfaction of its other bodily needs; c) finally, the upbringing and education of the child. Of all these, it is plainly the last which is primary in importance, albeit the first remains the most basic and necessary, as being supposed by the others.
For it need scarcely be pointed out that no creature is good by virtue of mere existence. Such existence, termed by Saint Thomas ‘substantial and absolute’, confers, as he says, only relative goodness (cf. Q.D. De Veritate, q. 21, a. 5), a ‘goodness’ compatible with supreme and even eternal misery (cf. In IV Sent., d. 50, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 3).
Hence, existence, along with food, clothing, shelter, are measures towards the chief good of the child; they stand as things which, in the order of execution, precede that which comes last, in this case training and instruction.”
.
p. 4
“This is the principal value of the remark made by Saint Thomas that ‘if generation followed upon the emission of sperm, where a suitable upbringing was impossible, this would be similarly opposed to the good of man” (Contra Gentiles, III, c. 122). When one is divorced from the other, the good of the offspring must vanish. Saint Thomas had just observed:
“It would be vain to beget a man if there were no assurance that he could be fed; for the offspring in this case could not survive. Hence the emission of sperm must be so controlled that there will follow both the production of a new life and the upbringing of him who is born (ibid.)”
.
Annihilation of Sinful Creatures is Possible in God’s Nature & Power (or at least its Impossibility is Uncertain), though God has not Ordained it
Intro
There is a distinction between God’s absolute power, given his omnipotent nature and everything He could do, versus what God has ordained and chosen to do.
Herman Witsius (1636-1708), a major Dutch reformed divine, in his intricate discussion, says he knows that God has not ordained to annihilate sinful persons, that is, from what Scripture reveals. “But whether it be necessary,” that is by God’s nature and power, “that God should preserve forever the sinful creature in a state of existence,” in contrast to annihilating him, Witsius says, “I own I am ignorant.”
That is, for Witsius, eternal torment in Hell is what God has in fact ordained, and hence it must surely come to pass, though it could have been otherwise.
.
Quote
1600’s
Herman Witsius
The Economy of the Covenants Between God & Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity (d. 1708; NY: George Forman, 1798), vol. 1, bk. 1
ch. 4, Promises of the Covenant of Works, p. 103 Latin
“22. On the other hand, I can scarce satisfy myself in my attempts to remove some difficulties. For since (as we before proved) God does, by virtue of his natural goodness, most ardently love a holy creature, as the lively image of Himself, how can this his goodness destroy that image and undo his own work? “Is it good unto thee that thou shouldst despise the work of thine hands” without deserving such treatment? Job 10:3. If it was good and for the glory of God to have made a creature to glorify Him, will it be good and for the glory of God to annihilate that creature who thus glorifies Him; and thus in fact to say, ‘Thou shalt not glorify me forever?’
Besides, as God Himself has created the most intense desire of eternity in the soul, and at the same time has commanded it to be carried out towards Himself as its eternal good; is it becoming God to frustrate such a desire, commanded and excited by Himself?
Further, we have said it was a contradiction to suppose God addressing Himself to a holy soul in the manner following: ‘Hunger after me, but thou shalt not enjoy me.’ Yet in the moment we conceive the holy creature just sinking into annihilation, it would, in consequence of that divine command, hunger and thirst after God without any hope of ever enjoying Him again. Unless we should choose to affirm, that God at length would say to that soul:
‘Cease longing for me any more; acquiesce in this instance of my supreme dominion, by which I order thee to return to nothing.’
But I own it surpasses my comprehension how it is possible a holy creature should not be bound to consider God as its supreme good, and consequently pant after the enjoyment of Him.”
.
ch. 5, Penal Sanction of the Covenant of Works, pp. 134-36 Latin
“39. Moreover, it might be here inquired whether the eternity of punishment ought to be derived from this natural right of God; or, which is the same thing, whether a punishment justly equivalent to every sin ought necessarily to be eternal, according to God’s natural right; so that to maintain the contrary would be unworthy of God and consequently impossible. A difficult question this, and the rather because to determine concerning this absolute right of God in special cases, seems to be above human reach. God is greater than man; He gives not an account of his matters. (Job 33:12-13) Let us, however, try whether from the consideration of the divine perfections, we may not gather what may in this case be worthy of God.
40. I now presuppose that there is in sin committed against the infinite majesty of God, a malignity in its measure infinite, and therefore a demerit of punishment in its measure infinite also. I fay that there is in sin a malignity only in its measure infinite. For it cannot be called infinite in an absolute sense. If you confider the entity of the act in itself, an act infinitely intense cannot be elicited by a finite creature: if the irregularity, and the privation of moral good adhering to the act, it is a privation of a finite rectitude, such as can be competent to a creature: if, in fine, you confider the whole complex, namely, sin in the concrete, as they speak, neither in that case is its malignity absolutely infinite. For all vicious acls are not equal, but there is a great disparity among them; which could not be unequal, if they were infinite.
However, the malignity of sin is in its measure infinite: 1. Objctively, becaufe it is committed against an infinite good. 2. Extensively, in respect of duration, because the blot or stain of sin endures forever, unless it be purged away by the blood of Christ. And therefore there is in Him a desert of punishment not absolutely infinite as to intenseness of torments:
(1) Because such a punishment is absolutely impossible; for a finite creature is not capable of infinite torments.
(2) Because it would follow that God could never satisfy his justice by inflicting condign punishment on the wicked, seeing they are incapable of this punishment. Now, it is then absurd to say that any punishment is of right due to sin, which God could never inflict.
(3) Because it would follow that an equal punishment was due to all sins, or that all in fact were to be punished alike: which is an absurdity and against Mt. 11:22, 24. The reason of this consequence is because there neither is, nor can be any disparity between infinites.
Nevertheless there is in sin a desert of punishment in its measure infinite; namely, in the same manner that the malignity of it is infinite. That is:
1. Objectively, so as to deprive man of the enjoyment of the infinite good, which is God.
2. Extensively, so that the punishment shall last forever.
And thus I consider this desert of eternal punishment so far only as to conclude that God does nothing contrary to equity and justice when He punishes the sins of men with eternal torments both of soul and body. Which the event shows, as I have made appear above, sect. 17.
41. But I know not if it can be determined whether this eternity ought necessarily to consist in the punishment of sense or whether the justice of God may be satisfied by the eternal punishment of loss in the annihilation of the sinful creature. This, I apprehend, may be said with sufficient probability and sobriety: If God shall be pleased to continue in existence forever the sinful creature, it is necessary (without a satisfaction) that He forever inflict punishment on him, not only the punishment of loss, but likewise that of sense.
The reason is because not only the guilt of sin always remains, but also the stain with which sin, once committed, infects the soul and which can never be purged out but by the blood of Christ. But it is impossible, as we proved, sect. 22-24, that God should admit man stained with sin, to communion with Himself: and it cannot be that a rational creature, excluded the enjoyment of the divine favor, should not feel this indignation of God with the deepest anguish. Conscience most severely lashes the wretches for having squandered away the chief good. Which with no small care we have alfo shown, sect. 13 and the following sections.
42. But whether it be necessary that God should preserve forever the sinful creature in a state of existence, I own I am ignorant. May it not in its measure be reckoned an infinite punishment if God should please to doom man, who was by nature a candidate for eternity, to total annihilation, from whence He should never be suffered to return to life? I know God has now determined otherwise, and that with the highest: justice. But it is queried whether, agreeably to his juftice, He might not have settled it in this manner: ‘If thou, O man, sin, I will frustrate thy desire of eternal happiness and of a blessed eternity, and, on the contrary, give thee up to eternal annihilation?’ Here at Ieast let us stop.”
.
On Universalism
Article
1500’s
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (London: Veale, 1573), The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1 Abbr.
section 1, tract 3, On Hell
section 2, tract 6
On the Separated Soul of the Damned (Place & Punishment)
1. Of the State of Eternal Death After the Judgment (in General, as to the Soul, Will, Intellect & Body)
2. Of Hell (Existence, Place & Situation, Hell-Fire, Whether there is Infernal Refreshment?)
Appendix: On Hell & the State of the Damned (in General & Before & After the Judgment)
.
.
.
“There is nothing but Christ between us and hell; and, thanks be to God, we need nothing else.”
“It is death to be separated from Christ for a moment.”
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
.
.
.
Related Pages
On the Renovation, New Heavens & Earth & Believers’ Eternal Home
On Purgatory, Indulgences & on the Limbos of the Fathers & of Infants