and religious immaturity of the majority of men at death, the diminution of the happiness of heaven involved in the knowledge of the endless suffering of others (Schleiermacher), the defeat of the divine purpose of righteousness and grace that the continued antagonism of any of God’s creatures would imply, the dissatisfaction God as Father must feel until His whole family is restored. It has been argued that the term “eternal” has reference not to duration of time but quality of being (Maurice); but it does seem certain that the writers in the Holy Scriptures who used it did not foresee an end either to the life or to the death to which they applied the term. The contention should not be based on the meaning of a single word, but on such broader considerations as have been indicated above. The doctrine of conditional immortality taught by Socinianism was accepted by Archbishop Whately, and has been most persistently advocated by Edward White, who “maintains that immortality is a truth, not of reason, but of revelation, a gift of God” bestowed only on believers in Christ; but he admits a continued probation after death for such as have not hardened their hearts by a rejection of Christ. According to Albrecht Ritschl “the wrath of God means the resolve of God to annihilate those men who finally oppose themselves to redemption, and the final purpose of the kingdom of God.” He thus makes immortality conditional on inclusion in the kingdom of God. The doctrine of universal restoration was maintained by Thomas Erskine of Linlathen on the ground of the Fatherhood of God, and Archdeacon Wilson anticipates such discipline after death as will restore all souls to God. C. I. Nitzsch argues against the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked, regards the teaching of Scripture about eternal damnation as hypothetical, and thinks it possible that Paul reached the hope of universal restoration. I. A. Dorner maintains that hopeless perdition can be the penalty only of the deliberate rejection of the Gospel, that those who have not had the opportunity of choice fairly and fully in this life will get it hereafter, but that the right choice will in all cases be made we cannot be confident. The attitude of theologians generally regarding individual destiny is well expressed by Dr James Orr, “The conclusion I arrive at is that we have not the elements of a complete solution, and we ought not to attempt it. What visions beyond there may be, what larger hopes, what ultimate harmonies, if such there are in store, will come in God’s good time; it is not for us to anticipate them, or lift the veil where God has left it down” (The Christian View of God and the World, 1893, p. 397).
Although in recent theological thought attention has been mainly directed to individual destiny, yet the other elements of Christian eschatology must not be altogether passed over. History has offered the authoritative commentary on the prophecy of the Parousia of Christ. The presence and power of His Spirit, the spread of His Gospel, the progress of His kingdom have been as much a fulfilment of the eschatological teaching of the New Testament as His life and work on earth were a fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, for fulfilment always transcends prophecy. Even if the common beliefs of the apostolic age have not modified the evangelist’s reports of Jesus’ teaching, it must be remembered that He used the common prophetic phraseology, the literal fulfilment of which is not to be looked for. Some parables (the leaven, the mustard seed) suggest a gradual progressive realization of His kingdom. The Fourth Gospel interprets both judgment and resurrection spiritually. Accordingly the general resurrection and the last judgment may be regarded as the temporal and local forms of thought to express the universal permanent truths that life survives death in the completeness of its necessary organs and essential functions, and that the character of that continued life is determined by personal choice of submission or antagonism to God’s purpose of grace in Christ, the perfect realization of which is the Christian’s hope for himself, mankind and the world.
Bibliography.—In addition to the works referred to above the following will be found useful: S. D. F. Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality (4th ed., 1901); R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity (1899); L. N. Dahle, Life after Death and the Future of the Kingdom of God (Eng. tr. by J. Beveridge, 1895); J. A. Beet, The Last Things (new ed., 1905); W. G. T. Shedd, Doctrine of Endless Punishment (New York, 1886); F. W. Farrar, The Eternal Hope (1892); E. Pétavel, The Problem of Immortality (Eng. tr. by F. A. Freer, 1892); E. White, Life in Christ (3rd ed., 1878); also the relevant sections in books on biblical and systematic theology. (A. E. G.*)
ESCHEAT (O. Fr. eschete, from escheoir, to fall to one’s share;
Lat. excidere, to fall out), in English law, the reversion of lands
to the next lord on the failure of heirs of the tenant. “When
the tenant of an estate in fee simple dies without having alienated
his estate in his lifetime or by his will, and without leaving any
heirs either lineal or collateral, the lands in which he held his
estate escheat, as it is called, to the lord of whom he held them”
(Williams on the Law of Real Property). This rule is explained
by the conception of a freehold estate as an interest in lands held
by the freeholder from some lord, the king being lord paramount.
(See Estate.) The granter retains an interest in the land similar
to that of the donor of an estate for life, to whom the land reverts
after the life estate is ended. As there are now few freehold
estates traceable to any mesne or intermediate lord, escheats,
when they do occur, fall to the king as lord paramount. Besides
escheat for defect of heirs, there was formerly also escheat
propter delictum tenentis, or by the corruption of the blood of the
tenant through attainder consequent on conviction and sentence
for treason or felony. The blood of the tenant becoming corrupt
by attainder was decreed no longer inheritable, and the effect
was the same as if the tenant had died without heirs. The land,
therefore, escheated to the next heir, subject to the superior
right of the crown to the forfeiture of the lands,—in the case of
treason for ever, in the case of felony for a year and a day.
All this was abolished by the Felony Act 1870, which provided for
the appointment of an administrator to the property of the convict.
Escheat is also an incident of copyhold tenure. Trust
estates were not subject to escheat until the Intestates’ Estates
Act 1884, but now by that act the law of escheat applies in the
same manner as if the estate or interest were a legal estate in
corporeal hereditaments.
ESCHENBURG, JOHANN JOACHIM (1743–1820), German
critic and literary historian, was born at Hamburg on the 7th
of December 1743. After receiving his early education in his
native town, he studied at Leipzig and Göttingen. In 1767 he
was appointed tutor, and subsequently professor, at the Collegium
Carolinum in Brunswick. The title of “Hofrat” was conferred
on him in 1786, and in 1814 he was made one of the directors of
the Carolinum. He is best known by his efforts to familiarize
his countrymen with English literature. He published a series
of German translations of the principal English writers on
aesthetics, such as J. Brown, D. Webb, Charles Burney, Joseph
Priestley and R. Hurd; and Germany owes also to him the first
complete translation (in prose) of Shakespeare’s plays (William
Shakespear’s Schauspiele, 13 vols., Zürich, 1775–1782). This
is virtually a revised edition of the incomplete translation
published by Wieland between 1762 and 1766. Eschenburg died
at Brunswick on the 29th of February 1820.
Besides editing, with memoirs, the works of Hagedorn, Zachariä and other German poets, he was the author of a Handbuch der klassischen Literatur (1783); Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften (1783); Beispielsammlung zur Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften (8 vols., 1788–1795); Lehrbuch der Wissenschaftskunde (1792); and Denkmäler altdeutscher Dichtkunst (1799). Most of these works have passed through several editions. Eschenburg was also a poet of some pretensions, and some of his religious hymns, e.g. Ich will dich noch im Tod erheben and Dir trau’ ich, Gott, und wanke nicht, are contained in many hymnals to this day.
ESCHENMAYER, ADAM KARL AUGUST VON (1768–1852),
German philosopher and physicist, was born at Neuenburg in
Württemberg in July 1768. After receiving his early education
at the Caroline academy of Stuttgart, he entered the university
of Tübingen, where he received the degree of doctor of medicine.
He practised for some time as a physician at Sulz, and then at
Kirchheim, and in 1811 he was chosen extraordinary professor
of philosophy and medicine at Tübingen. In 1818 he became
