BRIEF SKETCH OF ESCHATOLOGICAL OPINIONS IN THE CHURCH. THE Scriptures reveal indeed a future state of retribution, but are-when competently interpreted in the light of modern criticism-absolutely silent as to "endless torture"; or, if this be not conceded, they at least seem to express with the utmost possible plainness a view of Final Restitution which cannot be reconciled with the ultimate and all-but-universal perpetuity of sin. Hence the language of the Fathers, who freely adopted both sets of phrases, is frequently self-contradictory. In the earliest of them-Justin Martyr and Irenæus—are some well-known passages which seem clearly to imply either the ultimate redemption or the total destruction of sinners; and though they also use language which may be interpreted in accordance with a belief in endless torments, it is by no means clear that the phrases they adopt may not be meant in the same sense in which we believe them also to be used in Scripture. It was in answer to the bitter taunt of Celsus, that the God of the Christians kindled a fire in which all except Christians should be burned, that Origen first argued that the fire should possess a purifying quality (κalápotov) for all those who had in themselves any materials for it to consume; any wood, hay, stubble in their thoughts and theological systems. All, he said, even Peter and Paul, must pass through this fire (Is. xliii. 2), and ordinary sinners must remain in it till purged. It is in fact a baptism of fire, at the second resurrection, for those who had not received effectually the baptism of the Spirit (Пepì ȧpxŵr, i. 6, C. Cels. vi. 26; Hom. in Psalm iii. 1; in Jerem. ii. 3; in Ezek. i. 13). It was not a material fire, but self-kindled, like an internal fever. It was in fact remorse for remembered sin, a "figurative representation of the moral process by which restoration shall be effected." The English Church, which condemned in Article 22 the "Romish" doctrine of Purgatory, never condemned these merciful opinions, which have always been more or less prevalent in the Greek Church. Clemens of Alexandria (Strom. vii. 6) had already spoken of the fire as a sort of spiritual fire (πûρ þрóviμov), which does not burn the flesh, but purifies the soul. And though he does not express himself with perfect distinctness, yet the whole drift of his remarks proves that he could not have held an unmitigated doctrine of endless punishment, but only of a punishment which would necessarily cease when its remedial object was attained (see Baur, Dogmengeschichite, i. 718). And Clemens, like Origen, seems to imply an ultimate amendment of every evil nature (Strom. i. 17, § 86; vii. 2; Pædag. i. 8—10) in something of the same spirit as the modern poet "O wad ye tak a thocht and men', I'm loath to think upon yon den E'en for your sake." Satan, in the opinion of Origen, is "the last enemy;" but his "destruction" means that he ceases to be an enemy. God, he says, made no being irreclaimable, but all for a good purpose, and creatures thus produced cannot be annihilated. The final reconciliation will be universal. (On this esoteric doctrine of restitution see Orig. De Princip. 1 It is, I think, demonstrable that this opinion of the salvability of devils (a question which I set aside as beyond our range) gave far deeper offence than the peculiar universalism of Origen as regards mankind (see Jer. adv. Pelag. i. 9). For the views of Clemens on the purifying intelligential fire, see Strom. vii. 6, ad fin. ; on the hope beyond the grave (ἐπεὶ μηδείς τόπος ἀργὸς εὐποιΐας Θεοῦ), id. iv. 6, § 37; vi. f. 638, 639; on the intention of punishment as a benefit (πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον) both collectively and individually to those who are punished, Pædag. i. 8, passim, Strom. vii. 13, 14, 16, and a striking passage in the Fragm. in 1 Joh. (ed. Pott, p. 1009, cf. Theodoret In Ezech. vi. 6); on Christ's preaching to the dead, see Strom. vi. 6 (cf. Hermas. iii. 16). The remedial fire of the Alexandrians, &c. (πῦρ φρόνιμον, καθάρσιον, σωφρονοῦν) differs from purgatory, because it is (i.) after the resurrection, and (ii.) not instead of Hell (Bishop Harold Browne, Articles, pp. 498—450). 111. 6, 6; i. 6. 3; ii. 8, §§ 4-8; c. Gels. vi. 26; Neander, ii. 437; Hagenbach, i. 242.) That these particular views have never been condemned by any decree of the Universal Church is certain. Neither the Fifth nor any other Ecumenical Council, nor even the "Home Synod" of A.D. 541, ever condemned the tenet of a hope for the lost even beyond the grave. (See Cave, Hist. Liter., p. 548; Hefele, Concilien-Geschichte, ii. 759–764; Dean Stanley, Essays on Church and State, pp. 137, 318; F. N. Oxenham, Letter on Everlasting Punishment, pp. 17-25.) The views of Gregory of Nyssa were (Or. cat. viii.; and xxxv. and Пepì ¥vxîs, Opp. ii. 12; iii. 226-229, &c.: ed. Paris, 1630), that the soul, having an affinity to God, must ultimately return to God; and that the anguish it must suffer is necessarily caused during the separation of good from evil, not from any desire on God's part to torment. Hence all evil will ultimately disappear. Virtue is in this life the purification of the soul. and |