118 



to teach eternal punishment, but lie would not 

 accept it upon his authority." 



All statements of this character disclose the 

 " cloven foot," and are not used to any extent as 

 argument. 



Those who do accept the doctrine of future 

 punishment, and accept, as expressing the proper 

 opinion on the subject, Matthew 25:46, "And 

 these shall go away into everlasting (alimag— aionios) 

 punishment: but the righteous into life eternal 

 (aiwwof— aionios)," are also divided, not as to fact, 

 but as to the mode and ultimate of the fact. 



Those who receive the dogma of eternal pun- 

 ishment, and yet depart from the established 

 orthodox position, hold that eternal punishment 

 is extinction of being, and is variously expressed 

 by such scriptural terms as " cut off," " the end 

 of the wicked," "destroy," " perish," etc. They 

 claim to have discovered, practically, a difference 

 between eternal punishment as the wages of sin, 

 and conscious eternal misery. In other words 

 they are Annihilationists. That such an opinion 

 finds support from writers of liberal ability 

 could hardly be conjectured. The very idea of 

 punishment involves the necessity of conscious- 

 ness. Unconscious punishment is unthinkable 

 and unscriptural. 



Lastly, there are those who hold to the or- 

 thodox doctrine combated by Annihilationists, 



