WHAT IS THE TRUTH

AS TO

EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT?

PART II.

a

AS TO

EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT?

PART II.

BEING AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE WITNESS
AND WEIGHT OF CERTAIN ANTI-ORIGENIST COUNCILS.

IN REPLY TO

DR. PUSEY'S LATE TREATISE

"WHAT IS OF FAITH AS TO EVERLASTING
PUNISHMENT?"

BY THE REV.

F. NUTCOMBE OXENHAM, M.A.

MAY 1FR2

SODLEIAN

LONDON:

KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., I, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

1

INTRODUCTORY.

What has been already done in this controversy-Testi-
mony of the early Fathers shown to be uncertain

Propositions already proved, viz. :—

(i.) Use of ambiguous Scriptural phrases by early writers no

proof that they meant what controversialists now mean—

Nothing to show that early writers had faced this controversy.

(ii.) Endless punishment not commonly taught till middle

of third century, and then on false grounds.

(iii.) The language of the Fathers inconsistent, and some-

times contradictory.

(iv.) Some of the greatest of the Eastern Fathers denied

the doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, and were never
blamed.

(v.) The larger hope taught in the three great schools of

divinity in the East.

(vi.) None of the General Councils acknowledged by the

Church of England condemned this " Hope."

(vii.) At the first three, and probably at the last, of these
General Councils, those were received with honour who on
this point agreed with Origen.

(viii.) History of first five centuries proves-(1) That end-
less punishment was by some not believed, by others held as
an opinion; (2) That, as an opinion, it was held on false
grounds; (3) That it was never laid down by any General
Couneil, nor by any Local Council, whose decrees were
generally accepted.

This last historical question now to be considered ...

II.

...

a 3

2