248 duces materials furnished to him in various ways, Professor Menzies does not say that he himself the adding to them, no doubt, in many passages, some believes it was St. Paul who converted simple arrangement and colour of his own, but in the family meal of St. Mark into the Lord’s Supper. passage before us giving surely the exact words of He says it is the view that has found best support his source. St. Paul, on the other hand, comes in Germany, and he quotes Weizsacker, Jiilicher, that it is a view before us as a Church statesman, who has practical and Spitta in its favour. He says has ends to serve in the Churches he has founded, and surrounded with great difficulties, and that he that who holds very strongly a doctrine which he not yet determined to adopt it. But he says have regards as the one and only gospel.’ St. Paul, in any case this controversy will never any therefore, makes certain changes on the original influence on the celebration of the Lord’s Supper tradition. The changes are made in the line of in our Churches. Whether the Lord founded the his doctrine, and in the interests of a fuller church ordinance consciously or unconsciously, whether service. The words took,’ ’ ‘ blessed,’ ‘broke’ are the words, &dquo; Do this in remembrance of Me,&dquo; here, but he omits the word ‘bave’; for the proceeded first from on earth or from Christ worshippers are not required to carry their in heaven, He is the founder of the ordinance, and thoughts back to the Galilaean disciples. ‘ A we shall use these words.’ cup’ is changed into ‘ the cup,’ and it is placed after supper, for it is no longer a part of the common meal, but a separate religious rite. More But he also says that inasmuch as the New important, Take, this is My body’ becomes This Testament lays down no strict ritual of the Lord’s is My body for you,’ a doctrinal change in accord- Supper, those Christians who appeal to the New ance with ‘my gospel.’ And most important of Testament as the standard of their religion, ’ are all, the words This do in remembrance of Me’ free themselves, and must allow liberty to others, are added, whereby the simple family meal of St. to connect with the acts done in the ordinance Mark, in which no repetition or commemoration such views and doctrines as appear to them most was thought of, is converted into a memorial true and most in accordance with the spirit of observance on the part of the Christian Church their Master, so long as due regard is paid to after the pattern of the Passover. reverence and order and charity.’

Dr+ Petavel on Immortality+ BY THE REV. FRANK BALLARD, M.A., B.Sc., HULL.

IF one should rush to interfere between two such steps seem to some of us necessary, before Dr. disputants as Dr. Beet and Dr. Petavel, there would Petavel’s standpoint could be reached, that just appear just cause for indictment on the ground of now, when many and vigorous attempts are being presumption. Inasmuch, however, as the letter made to revive a heresy which the consensus of addressed by the latter to the former was avowedly Christendom long ago dismissed as unworthy, any an ’open’ one, it may be assumed that every one may be forgiven a sincere attempt to contri- Christian teacher at least was also desired to bute to truth upon a question of such grave ponder its contents. I trust, therefore, that no importance. apology is necessary for venturing to differ from The whole question of Conditional Immortality some of the findings of the esteemed Continental is confessedly too vast to be taken in hand in a divine who thus publicly asks an English professor few pages of a magazine. So inevitable was the to go ’one step further.’ So many backward reaction in the popular mind from the ghastly

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 4, 2016 249

monstrosities which formed a large part of evan- On p. 409, then, of this magazine for June, we gelical appeals during the last century, that one are told that separated from the source of life, the cannot wonder at the number of those in almost sinner is advancing by a slow and funereal march all the Churches to-day, who think that they have towards eternal ,’ that is, ‘ deprived of essen- found relief from the dire mysteries of eschatology’s tial immortality, the soul cannot but eventually dark side in the doctrine of ’Life in Christ’ as cease to be.’ This is said, moreover, to be a ’ main interpreted by Conditionalism. I have the greatest distinction’ between ‘the essential immortality of sympathy with such reaction, having felt it intensely the soul and the ultimate of the lost.’ myself years ago. It is only because close and It is difficult to appreciate. Assuming the writer’s prolonged examination proved the fair promise to perfect knowledge of English, it rather concedes be but a mocking mirage, leading to a drearier the main point at issue. For we cannot conceive desert of contradiction and despair, that I am of any man’s being ‘deprived’ of what he did not constrained to utter my respectful but profound ; already possess. Whence it must follow that the amazement at the total surrender of his case against sinner was in possession of ’essential immortality,’ Conditionalism by one of our best known exegetes. and was only deprived of it, as Washington was When Dr. Beet avows, I do not find, either within deprived of his hatchet, for his persistent sinful- or without the Bible, any clear disproof of, or ness. But it would certainly seem to be the serious objection to, Dr. Petavel’s teaching,’ I can affirmation of the writer everywhere else, that a scarcely credit the sight of my own eyes. To sinful man does not possess essential immortality. many minds the serious objection’ to Dr. Petavel’s lVhich of these avowals is true ? If the sinner is teaching is emphatically twofold. (r) The absence not ‘essentially immortal,’ (the word ‘essential’ is of positive proof, as Dr. Beet rightly says. But not mine) then he cannot, even gradually, be ’de- when he concedes with this the absence also of prived’ of immortality. If, however, he can be disproof, he appears to me to overlook the most deprived of it, then he already possesses it, in spite influential of all reasons for declining Conditional- of his sinfulness. It will require a powerful ism, viz. : (2) the presence of disproof so manifest microscope to discover the distinction between and weighty, that, in spite of the estimable names such loss of essential immortality and ultimate which cluster around the doctrine of Mr. White, extinction. and the sincere vigour of the propaganda now But these words demand further consideration, proceeding on its behalf, it remains an insoluble for they are fairly typical of Conditional fallacies. problem how any trained Christian intelligence ’Separated from the source of life, the sinner can for a moment entertain it. I slowly advances towards eternal death.’ It is I mus~ask pardon for suggesting that the posi- necessary to know what we mean. V’hat ‘ life ’ is .tion of Dr. Beet in his reply is not logically de- this, and what ‘death’ ? What ‘separation’ is fensible. He has found in the Bible no serious involved, and what does this ‘slow march’ be- objection to Dr. Petavel’s teaching,’ and yet, ’on token ? Such questions must be plainly asked these matters the Scriptures as I read them give and definitely answered. That this life’ cannot no decisive judgment.’ I fancy this will not ; be physical existence is manifest. The sinner is satisfy Dr. Petavel. For it is the very soul of no more separated from God, as the Author of his his ’teaching’ that the Scriptures do give a being, than the saint. If, however, we are here to ’decisive judgment,’ and that on behalf of final understand spiritual life, as distinct from physical annihilation. Surely it is a serious objection to existence, then also the death to which its loss refuse to acknowledge the main contention of an ; leads, must similarly be spiritual death. To call opponent. At all events here, in a few words, / it ’ ‘eternal,’ and signify thereby the extinction of without pretending to embark upon the whole qualitybeing, is a pure personalpetitiopl-iiici extinction Spiritual is the life is a theme of Conditionalism as represented by its I quality of soul ; personal extinction is the cessation recent advocates, I wish to express my serious of a quantity of consciousness, utterly irrespective objections to some of the statements and attitudes of quality. It is therefore necessarily fallacious to adopted by the esteemed Professor who calls upon argue from the one to the other. U5 to follow him in the direction indicated in his Yet again. How can one who is ’separated 4 open letter.’ from the source of life’ advance in any direction ?

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 4, 2016 250

If he be separated from life, he is dead. If he be acteristic of that endless existence,’ is but an living enough to ’advance,’ then he is not separated assertion all too typical of Conditional methods, from life. T hat he should be already separated unwarranted by the text, unsupported by the con- trend of New from the source of life, and yet only gradually and text, and contradicted by the whole cease to is one of the Testament This to reduce the eventually be, illogical I teaching. attempt assumptions with which Conditionalism abounds. robust antithesis of the apostle to a mere skeleton is ‘ It is only a question of time,’ says Dr. Petavel. of continued colourless existence, sufficiently But it will a time than even I rebuked the of the same term in require longer eternity I by employment supplies, to develop cessation of being out of that the same chapter, as well as in other places, Into spiritual depravity the very essence of which is the use, for instance, of this term ~,~~EC in VV.27. 28 persistence in the misuse of being. read the sense : Nothing but the ontological notion Dr. Petavel endeavours to prove his contention of duration,’ and what is left us of the maturest source of the New Testament ? the by metaphors. ‘Separated from its the I thought’ Apply 15. 1&dquo;. river cannot but dry up ; separated from the tree same to the next chapter, vv. 2B or to such the branch cannot but wither: both the river and passages as Jn i41o.17 and 154-1°, etc. It is a the branch are gradually brought to nought.’ Now strange gospel indeed which has to establish itself on the next page Dr. Petavel strongly objects to Dr. upon the mere shells of benedictions which are Beet’s metaphor of a ’ ruin ’-’ because it is inade- essentially rich and full. quate, being taken from the domain of architecture, In the next paragraph we find a still more mis- while man belongs to the organic and spiritual leading assertion. It is certainly well that we world.’ May we ask, then, if a river belongs to the should have from Conditionalism the acknowledg- organic world, or a tree to the spiritual ? If not, then ment that no doubt the only immortal God can these metaphors of Dr. Petavel are quite as unsafe render imperishable anyone or anything He pleases,’ and inadequate’ as he insists that of a ruin to be. but I scarcely know how respectfully to characterize On p. 409, again, second column, Dr. Petavel what follows. The writers of the New Testament affirms that a possibly indefinite perpetuation of the have taken express care to limit His promise of existence’ of human souls is against the positive doing so to those who &dquo; seek immortality.&dquo; ’ The teaching of the New Testament.’ He adds that, calm question-begging tone of this is only equalled ‘ according to the explicit declarations of the by the falsity of the exegesis. That the writer well Apostle Paul, God only is immortal (i Ti 616, Ro knows the Greek term in Ro 27, we may, of course, 123).’ Is this, however, either what Paul said, or assume. Is, then, Dr. Petavel prepared to assert what he meant, in these passages ? I submit that that the d§0apulav found here, is neither more nor it is not. In i Ti 6Hi 6 p6vos ËX(¡Jv aBavao-iav is not less than a synonym for the d0ai,aulav of i Ti 610 ? adequately rendered by ’God only is immortal.’ ’ If so, let us try it in Ep 624, where the same word Nor is the inference at all warranted that because occurs. Grace be with all them that love our Lord God only hath immortality, therefore men are only Jesus Christ in ’-everlasting existence ! Even the mortal. That this is a definite fallacy of the old version ’sincerity’was better than that, but the consequent, may be learnt even from the preceding Revised more exactly renders ‘ uncorruptness.’ verse, where the apostle speaks of God as 6 p61,os Are we reminded of I Co I5 ? I am most willing ’1’hat no man is or can be a that the word should there be 8vvao-r,~s. ‘potentate,’ , I faithfully interpreted would be just as fair an inference as Dr. Petavel’s. by the total manifest meaning of the apostle in Again, in Ro i’-’3 £§1£pTo7~ warrants no inference as ’ VV.:J5-52. But if Conditionalism insists that it is to the exclusion of human immortality by reason raised in incorruption’ means simply imperishable, of the Divine. The likeness of an image of cor- seeing that ‘immortality’ is asserted as the rendering ruptible man’ rather, by contrast, suggests the in Ro 27, I can but point out once more that this ’ let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ of settles the whole case against the Conditionalist, Gn i’-’~. But if Dr. Petavel will have it that u~BupTOv inasmuch as a few verses below we are categorically means simply possessed of everlasting existence, I I told that the dead, i.e. ’all that are in the tombs,’ must remind him that then Conditionalism is flatly &dquo; shall be raised-‘ immortal.’ That, therefore, ends contradicted the Paul in i Co the by Apostle i ,I controversy. where he afiirms that the dead shall be raised/ However, in order to do utmost to Dr. I justice a~8aproc. How universal is the resurrection in- Petavel, let us proceed. The next passage re- tended, we learn unmistakably, not only from the ferred to is 2 P n. Here again we are definitely apostle in the context, but also from Christ’s own given to understand that to ‘ become partakers of words in Jn 5~8. the Divine nature’ is to become immortal. But The statement that in i Jn 217 the Greek word why does Conditionalism quote the first half of a p4l/« ’brings out nothing but the ontological sentence to suit its purpose, and leave unnoticed notion of duration, in contradistinction with a the other half, which is not only inseparable but blessedness which is only an attribute or a char- . manifestly intended by the writer to make clear

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 4, 2016 251 what he meant by the former half? ’Having But about this universal law of decay,’ which we escaped from the corruption which is in the world have seen is only by false analogy universal enough by lust.’ Can any words of human speech show to include the human soul? Decay of what? If more unequivocally that the writer was thinking of sin be decay at all, it is, according to Scripture, moral and spiritual quality, and not at all of dura- moral and spiritual decay. By what right does tion of existence ? Nothing would be easier than I~r. Petavel represent such as gradual diminution to confirm this from the rest of the New Testa- in the quantity of being? With all respect, it ment. But it is surely superfluous to show that seems to me that the on-iis probandi rests with’ the likeness to their Master which Christians arc him to justify an assumption which is contrary ever urged to cultivate, is likeness in character, not alike to logic and to Scripture. continuation in being. I affirm deliberately that A little lower down on the same page (4 1 1, first there is not one single passage which can honestly column) we read : ‘ Its remains are no more a struc- be interpreted as meaning the latter, whilst we all ture than the ashes of a bank-note that has been know that the ‘new creation,’ with its accompany- entirely burnt up are a bank-note. Passing now ing spiritual change, is insisted on everywhere. from the metaphor to the human relics, of which it Again, p. 410, ’ All other beings are subject to is a symbol, what is there in the nature of things the universal law of decay.’ By way of illustrating to prevent their ruin from becoming similarly the this, we are reminded that it is said of the heavens, end of their existence ?’ I answer, in the writer’s ’ They shall perish, they shall wax old as a gar- own words, this, that the metaphor employed is ment.’ If, however, the thought of the writer here ‘unbiblical, defective, inadequate, misleading.’ A was that ‘perish’ simply meant annihilation, it is ’bank-note’ it seems, is so utterly similar to a hard to see how that which was annihilated could human soul that the degradation of the latter, at the same time wax old.’ Moreover, seeing through sin - that is, through wilful choice of how emphatically the metaphor of a ‘ruin’ has known evil--must be on all fours with that which just been rejected by Dr. Petavel, it is somewhat happens to a bank-note when it is burnt to ashes ! remarkable to find him endeavouring to substan- As to ’ the nature of things,’ it is not a question of tiate the annihilation of human souls by appeal to things at all, but of the nature of the human soul. ‘ architectural ruins.’ The truth of the case is, It is pure assumption to liken the moral ruin of a that neither the heavens nor architectural ruins human spirit to the consumption of a bank-note. yield any fair analogy to human souls. Whilst as Again, we are asked why ’the wisdom of the to ’all other beings,’ the Bible contains no hint Creator’ should maintain the existence of useless whatever of any comparison of them to men. So human ruins ?’ ‘ How can you reconcile with the far as that moral and spiritual world with which wisdom of God the endless maintenance of a the Bible deals is concerned, there might as well worthless being ?’ Here we pass from assumption be no other beings’ at all. To say, therefore, to presumption. It is going equally beyond revela- that ‘human souls are not exempt from the opera- tion and the range of our faculties, to assert that tion of this universal and invincible law of decay’ impenitent souls hereafter will be ’useless’ and is after all only sheer assertion of the thing to be ’ worthless.’ Moreover, it certainly is not the valid proved, under the guise of a false analogy. test of that we should be ever Again, we are told that their ultimate extinc- able to reconcile this or that with the wisdom of tion must be hastened if they are left to be preyed God. A gnat bent on settling the quadrature of upon by sin as by a deadly disease.’ Here once the circle would be a fair parallel. Has Dr. more it is quietly assumed that sin is an ontolog- Petavel reconciled with the wisdom of God the ical disease affecting the quantity of a man’s being, existence of evil at all, or the dreadfulness of this whereas everywhere in Scripture it is regarded as world’s present mystery of pain ? a spiritual malady degrading its quality. This It does not follow that if human wrecks remain might suit the modern materialist whose creed is conscious hereafter ‘ thus would be restored the ‘ Ohne Phosphor kein Gedanke,’ but it is in no endlessness of torment.’ For it is not ‘ torment,’ sense Christian. in the old cruel repulsive sense, that a man should ’Considering the universal law of decay, want of reap what he has sown ; and the absolute endless- proof as to immortality is presumptive evidence ness of such reaping is beyond the vista of what of ultimate annihilation.’ This want of proof,’ is revealed to us in Scripture. That which can be again, is simple assertion. It may be perfectly revealed to the limited human mind concerning sincere on Dr. Petavel’s part, but why should he the nature and will of the God of the whole thus sweepingly assume that, e.g., all’ that Dr. universe, is not sufficient, nor ever can be, to Welldon has just written is absolutely false and make us dogmatically sure of the possibilities of worthless ? To say nothing of the deep and strong literal eternity. convictions of scholars and thinkers throughout One wonders, indeed, that ‘ so judicious and Christendom who cannot be quoted for number. penetrating a mind’ as Dr. Petavel’s, ‘should be

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 4, 2016 252

content with an untenable position.’ Doubly and ’ intellect,’ we can but pronounce it an utter fallacy trebly untenable it is in very truth. For whilst the of the consequent, to infer that, therefore, sin must ’ figment of an inherent and indefeasible immor- also issue in the annihilation of the human soul. tality,’ that is manifestly, a self-endowed and Not only does the logic limp, but the analogy absolutely indestructible potentiality of being, is , brcaks down. but a figment of the writer’s imagination, disowned But as to the production of evidence by quota- by all reasonable orthodoxy and set up only to be tion from Scripture, is it of any avail ? I have cast down, it is utterly illogical to argue the case of before me, as I wnte, a carefully examined list of human souls in the infinitely distant future from a not less than a hundred and twenty passages where forced analogy to rivers, architectural ruins, and are found the Hebrew and Greek terms correspond- bank-notes. Whilst it is Conditionalism alone ing to the notion of destruction, such as are ren- which really makes into a ‘lie’ the original warning, / dered ’ ‘ destroy,’ perish,’’ utterly destroy,’ devour,’ ‘ In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt ’ ’ consume,’ ’cut off,’ ’blot out,’ etc. But when surely die.’ For even if, to oblige those Condi- one is informed that an ’ array of quotations is a tionalists who appear to be pledged alike to verbal skein easily unwound when begun at the right end inspiration and the literal acceptance of the open- of the thread,’ one knows that the significance of ing chapters of Genesis, we take that-first narrative all sucli passages is settled to begin with. It is, as simple history, the one thing clear above all else therefore, useless to allege them. An example is is that those who then sinned did not then, die, in Isupplied us in the reference to 2 Thes 1 (I. This, the Conditionalist sense, inasmuch as they con- I we are told, is slightly pleonastic, in order to tinued to live. )i accentuate the idea of an abiding and endless The rest of the open letter’ with which we are I result, an unrestricted destruction. It is, therefore, dealing, concerns itself more especially with the a perfect synonym of our dialectical word annihila- well-worn theme of the significance of the words tion.’ The meaning of the apostle is thus brought ’destroy’ and ‘death,’ with their cognates. The I out by reading annihilation in. Is this justified, calm way in which Dr. Petavel, after the fashion of even upon a prima fade Exan71nat10I1 ? V’e are Conditionalism, asserts that Paul did not believe given to understand emphatically that oJ~e9pon in the essential immortality of the soul’ and adds means extinction. It is equally insisted that a ’therefore,’ would be amusing if the theme were I dt(Li,toi, means everlasting, or endless. The mean- only less serious. But to track out every fallacy in ing of the two terms together, therefore, is ’ ever- these paragraphs would require many more pages I lasting extinction.’ But I submit that this is not than are at our disposal. When we attempt to even thinkable. If the destruction be everlasting, .summarize, the first thing to be noted is the con- it is not extinction. If it be extinction it cannot cession that the word destruction does not always be endless, seeing that the very essence of the mean total and final extinction.’ It is interesting notion of extinction is an end. To speak of it as to find this illustrated from the letter of a French a pleonasm, to aver that it is the result of the ofhcer, who wrote: ’ If we are destroyed, I shall keep destruction ’ that is endless, is but a verbal evasion even beyond death the regret of our failure.’ This in order to avoid a logical consequence. may be commended, with Dr. Petavel’s imprimatur, Very much the same applies to the employment to Conditionalists of the Constable school. But of the term death.’ Only here the fallacies of the question to be settled is whether the term, as Conditionalism become even more conspicuous, by applied to the future of the impenitent, means, or reason of the clear force of the antithesis with the does not mean, total and final extinction. All theI term ‘ life,’ as applied to human salvation through interesting distinctions into ’comprehensive and I Jesus Christ. relative,’ ‘culminative and putative’ are in a sense I Here again, however, it would be unavailing irrelevant. And we must be permitted to decline to produce a catena of texts. I, too, with Dr. the new commentary which asserts that the pro- Petavel, ’have taken into minute consideration digal son was not ‘lost,’ it was only a case of / every passage of the Bible in which the words supposed loss or death.’ Also that Paul meant relating to death occur, and have classified these simple annihilation in I Co 1 S18. Or that the passages.’ My conclusion is the exact opposite &dquo;lost sheep’ of the House of Israel were ‘rather of his. But as two only are here noticed, we will misled than lost.’ Nor may we acknowledge that confine our attention to these. ’ the a withering of corruptible crown cannot but In Ro 623 we are told that the meaning is bring the crown to an end in time’-therefore- ’absolutely unrestricted and exhaustive. just as the human soul must be withered to an end in the physical death puts an end to all the sensa- And eternity. when it is remarked that ‘sin has tions and all the activities of the body, so the a to tendency extinguish even the intelligence of perseverance in sin will ultimately put an end to perverted men,’ and that ‘ folly is only a few all the feelings and all the activities of both soul degrees remote from a complete extinction of the and body.’ That is to say, perseverance in evil

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 4, 2016 253 must issue in the loss of the power to do evil. I indeed here, but is perfected hereafter.’ If, how- Is this either Scripture or moral philosophy ? ls ever, it be possible in human speech to make it either experience or observation ? I affirm that clear and fix for ever the true significance of any it is contrary to all four. We are told just above by expression, one would have thought that, for all the Doctor that there is for man a physical and spir- who acknowledge the authority of the Gospel and itual death.’ With this we shall all perforce agree. Epistles of John, the significance of the apostolic Now, however, we are given to understand that phrase in Ro 6::3 had been put past controversy. there is a third death-’ absolute death,’ the essence Amongst the last and most emphatic words of of which is extinction, ‘ whereof the physical and Christ recorded by the beloved disciple, we have spiritual death are only forerunners.’ But see- (Jn 1 iJ) these : ’That whatsoever Thou hast given ing that we do know that neither physical nor Him, to them He should give eternal life. And spiritual death mean human extinction, (for it is this is life eternal, that they should know Thee quite another thing to say that physical death the only true God, and Him whom Thou didst puts an end to the activities of the body), we have I send, even Jesus Christ.’ Nor can there be any to ask where and how this ontological change is ’ doubt that it was with this in mind and heart wrought which makes the third death absolutely that the apostle wrote also in his Epistle ( Jn 5 20) : different from its ‘forerunners.’ As a matter of fact, ‘The Son of God is come, and hath given us an it is the purest assumption to read this significance understanding, that we know Him that is true, into the apostle’s words. The rest of the chapter and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son is quite sufficient witness to the unwarrantable- Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal ness of the attempt to drag in here the notion life.’ With these words as an incontrovertible of extinction hereafter. The death contemplated starting-point, it would be easy to arrange all the is spiritual, and the consequences are spiritual. I occurrences of this potent phrase under four Sin is indeed never a bodily act; the body is but heads : (i) those which speak of eter nal life as a the tool of the spirit, and the wages of sin must I present reality and possession, with no reference at ultimately be spiritual. If we are sure of any- all to continued existence after death ; (2) those thing from modern science, we are that physical which signify a definite, qualitative, soul reality, in death was in this world before human sin, even which quantitative immortality, or everlastingnes~, as we also know that many of those who are least is both secondary and assumed ; (3) passages with sinful, and-if there be any value in Christian the double significance, the present spiritual life faith at all, are actually forgiven-succumb, when in Christ being always the main assertion ; and we want them most, to a premature physical death. I (4) occurrences which, whilst manifestly future in To avow that ‘the physical life has no more their reference, yet undeniably assume all the any existence if its feelings and activities have present reality of spiritual possession. If the absolutely ceased,’ is somewhat of a truism. But combined force of all these does not suffice to to infer that ’in a similar manner the life of a show by antithesis what is the New Testament soul will exist no more when the second death significance of ’eternal death,’ further discussion shall have put an end to all its energies’ is a seems useless. double fallacy. For the last half of the sentence In conclusion, therefore, it is not the name assumes the very thing to be proved, whilst the I ‘ Conditional Immortality’ to which we object. It first half assumes that the life of the soul is in all is that the doctrines thereby signified are not true, respects similar to the life of the body. Which it so far as that can be decided by full and fair is not. exegesis of the New Testament. We may have, But let us turn to the other passage quoted, in verily, quite as strong a revulsion of feeling against order that the truth may be elucidated by antith- the ghastly things which have been said and esis. It is not a question of gradualness at all, taught under the doctrine of ‘eternal torments’ as but of essence. Love may die gradually, even as ~ Dr. Petavel. But how he or any Conditionalist a tree may. It does not follow that they are the can find ‘relief’ afforded, or any ‘punishment tem- same in essence. By contrast we may learn from pered with mercy,’ when the actualities and conse- Paul what he means by death-‘ but the gift of quences of annihilation are faced, is past com- God is eternal life.’ Is it a true interpretation to prehension. render this as everlasting existence? I, for one, One might also be permitted to defer judgment earnestly protest that it is not. The passage until we know which really is Conditionalism, that quoted (i Ti 61~) is unfortunate, to say the least. represented by Mr. iilhite in his well - known To regard the life which is life indeed’ as mean- i book, or that of Mr. Constable and others, which ing merely, or even mainly, that ‘they may make directly contradicts Mr. «’hite in matters most sure of everlasting existence’ is but a travesty of essential, and was by him definitely stigmatized the ideal intended. Much more truthfully does to me years ago as a ’crazy school.’ Before men Ellicott say, ’That life in Christ which begins can take the step further’ which Dr. Petavel so.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 4, 2016 254 earnestly and doubtless sincerely desires, they ‘seem to forget that Christ has called Himself must know whether they are to accept Mr. Con- the Bread of Life, the Water of Life, which are stable’s dictum, that by having a soul, or being a symbols not of enjoyment, or even of holiness, living soul, in the case of man, the very same but of ontological maintenance and support,’ we thing is meant as in the case of the lower crea- can but marvel that it should be possible to one tures.’ Or again, in other words, we affirm that so able and so good, to come contentedly to a the soul of man is nothing more or less than that conclusion which, the New Testament being its animal life which he shares in common with the own witness, reduces the promise of present, beasts.’ It will, moreover, certainly be necessary fullest, and highest life to mere prolongation of to decide which is right-for they are diametric future existence, eviscerates the doctrine of Chris- contradictions-for the assertions of the Constable tian holiness, puts man-whom even the Old Cove- school that death is the annihilation of man, his nant declares to be ‘ little less than God’-on a hopes, his thoughts, his life, himself,’ so that level with the beast, and instead of relieving the after death the state of man is ’ one of loss of all dark mysteries of eschatology, makes them lurid and existence, both of soul and body’ ; and during the I even ghastly with anticipations of Divine wanton- the soul of every man. has ness and despair worse than mediaeval travesties. no existence’-or the emphatic denial of all this i NN-e agree with I)r. Petavel that a ‘reformed in chap. xxi. of 1’Ir. lVhite’s book, summarized eschatology’ is urgently needed for a more suc- as it is in his own conclusion that the general cessful advocacy of the Christian faith, but as to ’ doctrine of the Bible, that a spirit survives in Conditionalism-llo.1l tali alo:ilio nee defenso~-rhus man’s death, seems to outlast all the attacks of i isis. Many, many steps, and those retrogres- its opponents.’ When this is settled, we shall be sive, will have to be taken before the Christian in a position to estimate the logical consequences world will be brought into line with those who, of either doctrine as regards ultimate annihilation. though moved by the best intentions, would To know Mr. White was to revere him ; nor can jettison the dignity of manhood, contemning its anyone read the concluding sentences of Dr. deepest and highest instincts; would belittle the Petavel’s ’open letter’ without being touched by character of God ; and make the creation of our the tender sincerity which glows in every line. But race to have been only a Divine mistake, which in our present state of being, at all events, neither redemption vainly endeavoured to retrieve. Our sincerity nor zeal can ever be the test of truth. I Conditionalist friends, therefore, must forgive us Some of the most mischievous mistakes and deadly if, while we ‘bear them witness that they have a errors in all religion and philosophy have been ’ zeal for God,’ we add that it is ‘ not according to sincere. And when we read our venerable friend’s knowledge,’ and decline to take even one step’ in avowal, that those who believe in human immortality such downgrade direction.

Requests and Replies+ I have read with interest, in the last number of The I’, archaeology, is by the other declared to be still Expository Times, Professor Hommel’s article on perfectly open. Can any of your readers tell me the newly published list of early Babylonian kings, how I may reconcile these apparently contra- and his vindication of the biblical chronology, dictory opinions?-INQUIRER. which he connects with it. I am at a loss, to I - . however, how reconcile his view with a I) statement of Professor Sayce’s in The Expository The following is Principal Rainy’s reply (published Times for January, p. 172. According to Professor with his permission) to a private request of an old the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Hommel, Ameno- pupil for guidance towards the best literature on phis II. (c, 1461-1436 i3.c.) ; according to Professor I the Lord’s Supper :- Sayce, the question has been set at rest by I FOR and Dr. Naville’s excavations on the site of Pithom,’ the patristic mediaeval views, which are that Ramses I I. (1324-1258 was the Pharaoh not perhaps essential to your object, but with which of the Oppression, which would make his suc- still one should be acquainted, I don’t know that cessor, Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. one need go beyond Gieseler, who is reliable. But Thus in the date which they assign to the I understand want to to the Reforma- Exodus, these two authorities differ by just two you keep centuries; and a question which one affirms tin and post-Reformation discussions. For what to have been ‘ set at rest’ by the progress of , precedes that, Baur’s Do~meszgesclaiclate may be

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 4, 2016