“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
Annihilationism & Universalism 4+
History 2
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 Annihilationism & Universalism
Article
1500’s
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (London: Veale, 1573), The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
.
Books
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald A. – Universalism False & Unscriptural: an Essay on the Duration & Intensity of Future Punishment (1851) 104 pp.
.
1900’s
ed. Cameron, Nigel M. – Universalism & the Doctrine of Hell (Paternoster, 1992) 330 pp. ToC
This has chapters for and against Universalism, and on the history about it.
.
Works of Annihilationists & Universalists
Books
1700’s
Burnet, Gilbert – A Treatise concerning the State of Departed Souls (1720)
Burnet (1643–1715)
“Also inspired by the Cambridge Platonists, and being well acquainted with More and Cudworth, was Thomas Burnet. Burnet was a Priest, a fellow of Christ’s College, and an influential thinker with many friends in high places, which is how he became the Chaplain to King William III and Clerk of the Closet. Burnet wrote ‘A Treatise Concerning the State of Departed Souls,’ where he argued for universal reconciliation and strongly repudiated the traditional view of eternal damnation.
He intended his Treatise to be read only by friends and acquaintances, as he held the opinion of many covert universalists that the doctrine should only be taught to those who are more educated… However, against his wishes, Burnet’s Treatise was published posthumously in 1720… Burnet did not deny that there would be a judgment for those who reject Christ or fail to repent of their sins, but he did not believe this judgment would last forever.” – Devereux
Newton, Thomas – A Dissertation on the Final State & Condition of Men in The Works of… Thomas Newton (London: John Francis and Charles Rivington, 1782), vol. 3, pp. 702-41
“…Bishop Thomas Newton, who was the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral in London, and the Bishop of Bristol from 1761 until his death. In a collection of his works, which was published in 1782 and reprinted five years later, the final work is ‘A Dissertation on the Final State and Condition of Men.’ In this dissertation, Bishop Newton taught that while both sinful humans and angels will go to hell, all will eventually repent and be saved. Newton argued for this on the basis of the Scriptural texts already cited and the teachings of fathers like Gregory of Nyssa, who explicitly taught universalism… Newton thus believed that his universalism had a Biblical as well as patristic basis…
Newton expanded on Burnet’s argument that if repentance in hell is impossible, then one’s eternal punishment there is unjust. Since repentance “is not impossible even in hell” every creature will eventually repent “because it is impossible for any creature to live in eternal torments.”…
Newton thus affirmed that “the devil and his angels will at last be saved”… Until this point, no Anglican writer had so brazenly and openly espoused not only their belief in universalism, but also their distaste for any of the alternatives, nor had any so deftly utilized patristic and Biblical evidence and logical arguments to that end. Commenting on this work, historian E.H. Plumptre said:
‘There are, I imagine, few stranger facts in the history of English theology than that such views should have been published in the eighteenth century by a bishop of unimpeached orthodoxy, and that, so far as I have been able to trace, no notice seems to have been taken of their publication. I have not come across any sermons, or pamphlets, or treatises against them. There does not appear to have been any outcry of alarm. And in the [dissertation] itself there is a noticeable absence of any consciousness that what was written was likely to startle or shock men’s minds. He writes calmly, as one unconscious of reproach.'” – Devereux
.
1800’s
Whatley, Richard – A View of the Scripture Revelations Concerning a Future State 4th ed. (London: B. Fellowes, 1837)
Farrar, Frederic W. – Eternal Hope 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan & Co, 1878)
MacDonald, George – Unspoken Sermons, 3rd Series (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1889)
Plumptre, E.H. – The Spirits in Prison & Other Studies on the Life after Death rev. ed. (NY: Whittaker, 1894) 465 pp. ToC
This includes significant historical sections also.
Allin, Thomas – Universalism Asserted as the Hope of the Gospel on the Authority of Reason, the Fathers & Holy Scripture 6th ed. (Weston-Super-Mare: Lawrence Bros, 1895)
“…one final work continues to be read and admired as one of the pinnacles of all English works on the subject of universal salvation: Reverend Thomas Allin’s ‘Universalism Asserted as the Hope of the Gospel,’ which was published in 1885, and by 1905 had been republished nine times. Allin’s work sought vigorously to prove that many of the greatest eastern church fathers were universalists and expanded the arguments of [George] MacDonald. Allin believed that if in heaven we rejoice at the suffering of the damned, we have failed to love them as Christ commands; if we grieve their suffering, we are not perfectly happy…
One of its most unique arguments was that universalism is the only coherent way of understanding God’s plan of salvation, since Allin believed both the Arminian and Calvinist understandings were unworkable. Allin agreed with Calvinism, and its doctrine of eternal security, that God does not merely issue invitations, rather “He saves all whom He wants to save. His will must prevail. His Son sheds no drop of blood in vain. All for whom He dies are in fact saved.”… God wants to save everyone and will save everyone.” – Devereux
.
History
All History
Whittemore, Thomas – The Modern History of Universalism, 2 vols.? (Boston, MA: Abel Tompkins, 1860)
Plumptre, E.H. – The Spirits in Prison & Other Studies on the Life after Death rev. ed. (NY: Whittaker, 1894) 465 pp. ToC
.
On the Post-Reformation
Article
Devereux, River – ‘A History of Alternative Views of Hell in the Church of England’ (2025)
“When Thomas Cranmer drew up his Articles of Religion in 1553, there were Forty-Two of them, not the eventual Thirty-Nine, and its final two articles condemned those who sought to restore the doctrines of millennialism and universal restoration. However, when the Articles were revised, they were omitted for reasons not entirely clear. As a result, there is nothing in the Articles of Religion that requires a belief in eternal conscious torment without the hope of repentance, which is something that later universalists would come to point out.”
“…universalism soon arose in England among independent churchmen who were open to questioning the status quo. Between 1649 and 1653, Gerrad Winstanley, Richard Coppin, and three anonymous authors, had works published which advocated for universalism…
No doubt inspired by these authors, universalism rapidly spread among a highly influential group of theologians, comprised of both conformists and non-conformists, known as the Cambridge Platonists. This group had a special appreciation for the writings of Origen, the retrieval of whom dated back to Erasmus in the previous century, and their universalist ideas were inspired by him. Of this group, we know that at least Peter Sterry [Westminster Divine], George Rust, and Joseph Glanvill affirmed universalism, and Henry More, John Smith, and Ralph Cudworth likely did as well, though they were more coy about it.”
“In 1661, Bishop Rust’s ‘A Letter of Resolution Concerning Origen and the Chief of his Opinions,’ was published anonymously with the support of his fellow Cambridge Platonists. This treatise is a bold defence of Origen’s teachings about the pre-existence of souls and the salvation of all God’s rational creatures… the influence that it and the Cambridge Platonists had on the flourishing of universalism in the following century was enormous. If the sixteenth century provided the fertile soil, it was the seventeenth century which sowed the seeds.”
“As for annihilationism, the first Anglican cleric to publicly show an openness to the idea was none other than the illustrious Bishop Jeremy Taylor. In his sermon ‘Christ’s Advent to Judgment,’… Taylor explains at some length that church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus believed that God would eventually annihilate the damned, since immortality is not intrinsic to human nature… Taylor… cannot bring himself to be certain of annihilationism. He settles only for its possibility… No controversy or backlash ever followed Bishop Taylor’s questioning of eternal conscious torment.”
“In 1690, John Tillotson, the Archbishop of Canterbury, preached before Queen Mary II on the subject of hell where he showed an awareness of annihilationism and the arguments used by its proponents. While Tillotson ultimately defended eternal conscious torment, he left the door open for other possibilities…”
“The first notable universalist work of the eighteenth century was ‘The Restoration of all Things,’ posthumously published in 1712 and written by Jeremiah White, a nonconformist minister and chaplain to Oliver Cromwell.”
“Thomas Burnet… was… an influential thinker with many friends in high places, which is how he became the Chaplain to King William III and Clerk of the Closet. Burnet wrote ‘A Treatise Concerning the State of Departed Souls,’ where he argued for universal reconciliation and strongly repudiated the traditional view of eternal damnation… Burnet’s Treatise was published posthumously in 1720… Burnet did not deny that there would be a judgment for those who reject Christ or fail to repent of their sins, but he did not believe this judgment would last forever.”
“As White and Burnet’s works grew in influence, and the Methodist minister James Relly began preaching universalism in London, two key Anglicans came to publicly and boldly teach the universal salvation of all. The first of these was William Law…
The second key figure in this century to openly espouse universalism was Bishop Thomas Newton, who was the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral in London, and the Bishop of Bristol from 1761 until his death. In a collection of his works, which was published in 1782 and reprinted five years later, the final work is ‘A Dissertation on the Final State and Condition of Men.’ In this dissertation, Bishop Newton taught that while both sinful humans and angels will go to hell, all will eventually repent and be saved. Newton argued for this on the basis of the Scriptural texts already cited and the teachings of fathers like Gregory of Nyssa, who explicitly taught universalism, saying that eventually:
“The complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last — some having at once in this life been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary periods been healed by the Fire.” (On the Soul and the Resurrection, NPNF2 5:859-866)”
…He [Newton] believed that “in the end all must be subdued, so that their punishment may more properly be called indefinite than infinite.”…
The lack of any backlash against Bishop Newton, and the popularity of White and Burnet’s works, suggests that there were many people in this period who believed in universalism, even if quietly, which is supported by its remarkable rise in popularity in the following century.”
“While belief in annihilationism was rare before the nineteenth century, it eventually rose exceedingly, although it was still less common than universalism… the fact that universalism was a popular belief among educated Victorians in general… In a world without lawful torture, constant public executions, and severed heads on display across London Bridge, people began to question the portrayals of hell as an eternal torture-chamber that were ubiquitous in the Middle Ages. Thus, there were dozens of universalist Anglican thinkers in this period…”
“…one of the most well-known of all universalist thinkers started attending in 1866, after converting to Anglicanism, the great George MacDonald. MacDonald had an enormous influence on C.S. Lewis, who harbored universalist sympathies and called MacDonald his “master,”… MacDonald is still considered by many to be the greatest of all universalist writers in the English language.”
“For most, holding to those beliefs was not motivated by a rejection of the Bible, rather, they—rightly or wrongly—believed these things on the basis of Scripture, tradition, and reason, and often argued for the impossibility of the contrary.”
.
Book
Walker, D.P. – The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (University of Chicago, 1964) 280 pp. ToC
.
On the 1800’s to 1900’s
Article
Harelson, Nicholas – ‘The Salvation Theology of C.S. Lewis’ (2021)
.
Books
Rowell, Geoffrey – Hell & the Victorians: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Theological Controversies concerning Eternal Punishment & the Future Life (London: Oxford University, 1974)
Kelly, David – The Treatment of Universalism in Anglican Thought from George MacDonald to C.S. Lewis PhD diss. (School of Graduate Studies of Ottawa University, 1989)
Powys, David – “The Nineteenth & Twentieth Century Debates about Hell & Universalism” in Universalism & the Doctrine of Hell, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Paternoster, 1992), pp. 93-139
.
.
History
Middle Ages
Book
Wright, Thomas – St. Patrick’s Purgatory: an Essay on the Legends of Purgatory, Hell & Paradise current during the Middle Ages (London, Smith, 1844) 200 pp. ToC
.
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