FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
BY
SAMUEL C. BARTLETT, D.D.,
PROFESSOR IN CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.
BOSTON:
CONGREGATIONAL PUBLISHING SOCIETY,
CONGREGATIONAL HOUSE,
BEACON STREET.
I875.




COPYRIGHT:
CONGREGATIONAL PUBLISHING SOCIETY.
1875.
BOSTON:
STEREOTYPED BY C. J. PETERS & SON,
73 FEDERAL STREET.




INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
THIS brief discussion was prepared at the request of
the editor of "The Congregationalist," as a series of articles for that journal. The length of the articles was
prescribed in the application. No thought was then entertained by the writer himself of embodying them in a more
permanent form. But the request has come from  the
same quarter, as well as from other sources, that they
should be so gathered up. They have accordingly been
revised for the purpose, with modifications here and there,
intended chiefly to make portions of the argument more
complete, and some of the points more obvious. It was
not thought best materially to increase the length of the
argument. There are advantages, and there are disadvantages, in so brief a discussion. The chief advantage,
and the one which preponderated in the present case, is
the greater probability of being read. It is eminently important at the present time, that the Church and the community should have access to some compact statement of
the Scripture teachings on this solemn subject, and the
reasons why those who accept the binding authority of the
Scriptures are constrained to the belief they hold.
3








CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGR
THE BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE.                          7
CHAPTER II.
ITS RELATIONS TO THE GOSPEL SCHEME....   14
CHAPTER III.
THE DIRECT PROOF.                                 23
CHAPTER IV.
OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.   -..  35
CHAPTER V.
ETHICAL OBJECTIONS.. 50
CONCLUSION....                                66








FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
CHAPTER  Io
THE BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE.
T is not surprising that the question of future retribution should come up anew from time to time.
In any great uprising and conflict of religious opinion,
it is very sure to rise to the surface, not alone by
reason of its intrinsic magnitude, but because the
mode of solving it indicates the character of the religious system. This one bone tells the nature and
habits of the whole body.
Great suffering is not only terrible to endure, but
painful to contemplate. The Saviour wept when he
pronounced an irrevocable sentence on Jerusalem.
God said to certain rebellious sufferers, "Oh that
thou hadst hearkened!"
Let, now, that. great suffering be endless: let it
be a penalty: let it be a penalty which at some
time impends over every member of our race: and it
is not strange, it is rather to be expected, that a
large part of the race would, at all hazards, resist both
7




8            FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.
the fact and the announcement. That so many men
who have the strongest inducement to set it aside
are constrained to admit the fact, clearly indicates the
strength of the evidence.
The considerations which naturally influence unbelievers, and even some believers, to resist such a
teaching, are obvious enough. And it would be well
to remember what one of the keenest of free-thinkers
has said concerning men's rejection of unwelcome
truth. "I doubt not," says Hobbes of Malmesbury,
"if it had been contrary to any man's right of dominion, or to the interest of men that have the dominion, that the three angles of a triangle should be
equal to two angles of a square, that doctrine should
have been, if not disputed, yet by the burning of all
the books of geometry suppressed, so far as he whom
it concerned was able." And a greater than Thomas
Hobbes has said, "This is the condemnation, that
light is come into the world, and men loved darkness
rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
Whatever, therefore, might be the proof of so formidable a doctrine as this, it was absolutely sure to
be strenuously resisted. We could confidently anticipate all possible opposing theories: that John Murray
should maintain the final restoration of all men;
Thomas Whittemore, their immediate blessedness
after death; H. L. Hastings, the complete extinction
of the wicked; one obscure writer, their everlasting
decay without complete extinction; Thomas Starr
King, the entrance of all men on much the same
condition hereafter that they left here. It is not sur



THE BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE.            9
prising that all these theorists should make some
reference to the Scriptures. It is not strange, also,
that some should have said sturdily, with the late
Theodore Parker, " I believe that Jesus Christ taught
eternal torment: I do not accept it on his authority;"
nor that others should have declared more circuitously, that "the letter of the Scriptures" asserts eternal
punishment, yet their "spirit" contradicts it. And,
if there be any other mode of denial, we might confidently look for that also. Indeed, we have' been
earnestly warned by a: large class of writers, that this
one supposed teaching of the Bible is the chief reason
why the Bible is' rejected by many sceptics, -by
"millions," says Mr. Jacob Blain. We can easily
believe it.  Nothing is more natural and probable.
The doctrine is too portentous to make its way, except against more strenuous opposition than almost
any other truth encounters. And whenever a "new
departure" is made in religion, whether by rationalists on the Continent, "advanced thinkers " in England, or American rejecters of a redemptive work by
Christ, we always know that this doctrine of endless
punishment will be among the first to go overboard.
Let it be conceded, and remembered too, that, in
the present condition of the race, a vast amount of
human sympathy and human interests set against the
doctrine. With many men it has no chance of a
hearing. C. F. Hudson declared that the assertion
of it "tends to a rejection of the Bible;" while others
of his school pronounce it an impossibility, and everi
a sin, to believe it.




10           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
How, now, shall this matter be settled? The inquiry admits but one answer: the fate of the wicked
is a simple question of fact; all questions of fact are
determined by evidence; that evidence must be either
direct knowledge or competent testimony.
It is of no avail, therefore, to appeal to our sympathies, feelings, anticipations, wishes, predilections, or
prejudices, even though we may dignify them by the
name of " impulses of the heart," " divinely implanted
instincts," " holiest emotions of the soul," or what not.
The unbending course of fact in the universe, under
the government of the wise and holy God, is daily
travelling athwart these so-called "impulses," "instincts," and "emotions."
The fact in question, too, is one which involves the
decision and action of God himself, and that in apparently the most complicated subject, and greatest
emergency, of his realm. It would seem futile to the
last degree for any man or men to attempt to settle
by speculation, inference, or instinct, what, in that
unfathomed and portentous emergency, will be God's
action.
No man so knows even his fellow-man. Great
Caesar could not know one hour in advance the deed
either of the "envious Casca," or the "well-beloved
Brutus." The combined wisdom of Europe could not
anticipate the doings of the first Napoleon, whether
upon the whole continent, or on the battle-field; nor
could he, up to the hour of his overthrow, fully anticipate the fate that crushed his "destiny."  Or, take a
case just at hand. A distinguished preacher, who has




THE BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE.           I 
lived in the gaze of the nation for a quarter of a
century, is suddenly arraigned before the nation.*
On any theory of his case, is there a man in the
nation who is not amazed at some admitted facts of
his course, and who would not have pronounced them
"impossible"? If we cannot speak for our fellowmen, how idle to speak for God, and in the emergencies of his kingdom! It would seem as though no
language could express the folly of such a claim.
The only testimony that can determine what God
will do must be God's own testimony. All other is
worthless.
That testimony, we believe, is found in God's word,
the Bible. Leave that out of account, and no man
can tell, for no man living knows, the slightest fact
concerning the untried future. It is to all men alike
what John Sterling called it, - the "great darkness."
To' the Scriptures, then, we go. With those who
do not admit the Scriptures, it is useless to argue.
We might indicate how the race generally has apprehended penalties hereafter for sin; but that is not
evidence. The positive argument is essentially and
only a Scripture argument. It is noteworthy how
many of those who deny endless punishment openly
or virtually bid farewell to the Scriptures, or lay
down principles which wholly override them.
What, then, will constitute a clear proof from the
Scriptures?  Perhaps the following conditions fully
cover the case:* The trial of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher was in progress -as these articles
appeared.




I2          FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
I. The proof should not rest upon forced or
strained constructions, but upon declarations obvious
to "plain people," and taken in accordance with the
common laws and usages of speech.
2. It should be found not in one or two, but in
repeated, and it may be numerous, assertions.
3. It should be expressed not alone in some one
mode of speech or phraseology, but in several and
diverse forms of statement.
4. Besides incidental allusions, it should rest upon
direct and principal utterances, in which this topic
constitutes a chief matter in hand.
5. In addition to particular declarations, it should
be sustained by the general implications and concurrent'tenor of the system of truth in which it is
found.
6. It should be opposed by no passages which do
not admit of an easy explanation without conflicting
with this doctrine.
7. It should encounter no objections of principle
which do not lie equally against the manifest order
of things in the present course of nature.
It will probably be admitted that a showing from
the Scriptures, which should meet all these conditions,
would form as strong a case as is ever made on a
question of law, constitution, history, or, in fact, any
question that rests upon a documentary basis. Such
an argument might recognize the existence of some
difficulties and objections, and still remain unanswerable.
Do all these conditions hold good concerning the




THE BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE.        I3
Scripture doctrine of endless punishment? We
think they do; and we invite the reader to judge for
himself, as we proceed to indicate the nature of the
proof.
2




CHAPTER II.
ITS RELATIONS TO THE GOSPEL SCHEME.
IT has been shown already that this subject of
future punishment, being purely a question of fact,
must be determined either by personal knowledge or
by testimony. But since no man has knowledge, or
can- give testimony, God is the only witness. His
testimony is in the Scriptures. We have indicated
the points of an unanswerable argument from the
Scriptures. One of those points was, that the direct
declarations of the doctrine should harmonize with
the general tenor of the system in which it is taught,
so that it finds there a legitimate and consistent
place.
The doctrine of future endless punishment has
often been attacked and defended as an isolated doctrine. The express testimony of the Scriptures,
clear and strong as it is, fails of its proper impression
when viewed only in this way.
How, then, does- this doctrine stand.related to the
whole New-Testament system of truth? Does it
stand there as an " excrescence," as some have pleased
to term  it?  Or does it fully comport with the other
high and solemn utterances of God to man?
I4




ITS RELATIONS TO THE GOSPEL SCHEME.  S1
It closely links itself to all the other cardinal
points of that system, as they are taught in express
language, and comes re-enforced with all their weight.
They hold together and bind each other like the
stones of an arch. The Scripture moves on in one
consistent, unbroken stream, from beginning to end,
in its view of God, his character, government, and
requirements; of man, his duty, his sin, his opportunity, his danger, and his doom. - It is not a matter
of single texts and sudden turns, but a steady march
of portentous truth in one solemn strain to a mighty
issue.  The inconceivable gravity of the sinner's case
is never lost sight of.
I. The -character always ascribed to God gives
weight and point to his threat. God is holy. Evil shall
not dwell with him. He hates all workers of iniquity.
Without holiness no man shall see the Lord. The
pure in heart shall see God. Our God is a consuming fire. He says "Depart from me, ye workers of
iniquity." If we say that we have fellowship with
him, and walk in darkness, we lie. Thus the Bible
labors throughout to impress us with the inconceivable purity of God, and the greatness of his recoil from
sin, and from all that cling lovingly to sin.' And,
even when his glorious attribute of love is presented,
it is never otherwise than the discriminating love that
goes out in sympathy with the holy, and withdraws
from the sinful; nay, which declares that it will protect holiness and the holy by the overthrow of the
sinful. There is not a word in the Bible which conflicts with the summary statement,'The righteous




i6        -:FUTURE PUNISHMENiVT.
Lord loveth the righteous; but the wicked his soul
hateth." It is remarkable how steadily God's assurances of love and blessing for the good, and of opposition and ruin to the wicked, accompany and balance
each other; and the latter is even made the guaranty
of the former. Except by some radical change, it
would seem clear that God and the sinner can never
dwell together in peace.
2. Equally to the point is the Bible estimate of sin
and sinners. Throughout the Scriptures sin is that
which separates man from God, shuts off God's favor,
insures his displeasure and indignation, and entails his
heavy punishments. The sacred volume reverberates
with God's "wrath" against sin and sinners. It uses
no mincing words nor hesitant phraseology, makes no
palliations, admits no excuses for sin; but pours out
upon it one long and steady rolling fire of reprobation
and abhorrence. God and sin are at eternal antagonism. Forgiveness is never hinted at except on abandonment of sin. Sentimentalism shudders at the
stern speech with which the Bible denounces sin, and
thinks it bitter and fierce. Noon and midnight are
not more opposite than God's view of sin as an evil
and bitter thing, and the view of Theodore Parker,
that it is but " an incident of development," or any
view that treats it lightly. So long as that quality
exists, God's displeasure toward it, and those who
practise it, will continue. The full expression of that
displeasure at last, in whatever mode, will be heavy
pressure on the sinful soul.
Nor will it avail to say that this displeasure is only




ITS RELATIONS TO THE GOSPEL SCHEME.  17
towards the sin, and not the sinner. No such separation is made in the Bible, nor can be made, in fact.
It is not the iniquity, but the " workers of iniquity,"'
against which God's threats are directed; not wickedness, but " the wicked, shall not be unpunished." In
truth, sin has no separate existence: it is the act
and quality of the sinner' sinning, and nothing else.
Sin can be dealt with, whether by God or man, only
by dealing with the sinner.
3. Entirely in harmony with the doctrine of penalty, is the Bible estimate of the greatness of human
ruin. It represents fallen man to be dead in sins.
He is at enmity with God. He is a child of wrath.
The wrath of God abideth on him.  He is without
God, and has no hope.  He cannot see the kingdom of heaven without a new birth, a birth from
above.  Such words seem  to very many persons
harsh words.  But that only shows the difference
between divine and human estimates. For these are
all Bible words, and some of them Christ's words.
Indeed, the Saviour spoke, if possible,- still more
strongly. He told some of his hearers that they had
both seen and hated both him and his Father, —hated
him without a cause. He told others, "Ye are of
your father the Devil." In one recorded instance,
after four times pronouncing a " Woe unto you," charging them with being full of hypocrisy and iniquity
and of all uncleanness, he closes with this startling
address: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how
can ye escape the damnation of hell?" These things
may not tally with popular notions and sentimental
2*




318         FUTUR E PUNISHiMENT.
pictures of Christ, any more than does the doctrine
of final retribution; but they show how the Scriptures in this respect fully harmonize with themselves,
-how they recognize a class of persons between
whom and God there is utter and hopeless conflict.
The two cannot get on together in peace.
4. The greatness and strangeness of the remedy
provided for that ruin points with equal distinctness
to the greatness of the danger, and the fearfulness of
the impending fate. Slight evils demand slight precautions. Great impending calamities call out mighty,
and sometimes almost superhuman, efforts of escape.
But, to deliver men from the woe of sin, the Scriptures allege not merely a superhuman, but a superangelic device. They present an effort to save, so
stupendous and unparalleled that it wholly transcends
many men's belief.  They pronounce it incredible,
impossible, - the same men usually who deny the
doom. It is indeed a procedure so amazing, that, had
the whole human race been challenged to devise a
remedy, it is not supposable that one of them should
have thought of this; or that, thinking of it, he
should have dared to propose it, - the astounding
humiliation of the Son of God.  But the remedy
renders credible the doom, and the doom the remedy.
They go together. How can a man who accepts the
marvellous method of redemption set forth in the
Scriptures for a moment doubt the terrible magnitude of the fate for which the Scriptures declare this
the only remedy? Here, again, the word of God is
consistent with itself.




ITS RELATIONS TO THE GOSPEL SCHEME.  19
5. Entirely in keeping with the declarations concerning the doom of sin, is the extreme urgency with
which this redemption is pressed upon sinners. These
utterances seem to many just as strained and extravagant as those concerning God, sin, ruin, redemption,
and punishment. The Saviour closed his Sermon on
the Mount with a series of solemn warnings to beware
of the broad way that leads to death, the guidance of
false prophets, the doom of the corrupt tree, the final
rejection of false professors, and the fate of the
foolish builder.  He charged men to sacrifice the
dearest objects, — foot and hand and eye, -rather
than be cast into hell-fire. He asked with startling
emphasis, "What is a man advantaged, if he gain
the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? "
Men must be willing to abandon every thing, lose
their life even; and never fear those that could
destroy only the body, but him who can destroy both
soul and body in hell. And he sent his followers
forth to lives of toil and suffering and certain martyrdom, like his own, that their fellow-men might be
saved. They, in turn, counted not their lives dear,
but held themselves ready to be offered. It was their
steady strain, "As though God did beseech you by
us, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled
unto God;" "How shall we escape if we neglect so
great salvation?" " Knowing the terrors of the Lord,
we persuade men."  " Be thou faithful unto death," is
the injunction that has come down the whole history
of the Church, around which have gathered countless
sufferings and deaths, and matchless toils and self



20           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
denials, for human salvation. If, now, the consequence
of unrepented sin be what the same Scriptures
declare, we can understand the intense urgency of
these words and deeds. Such wholesale sacrifices of
life and every thing that this life holds dear, and the
universal requisition to be ready to do likewise for
the salvation of ourselves and our fellow-men, would,
seem justified only in view of some most appalling
alternative. And, in fact, those who deny the alternative have, in general, seemed little inclined to make
the sacrifices.
6. Entirely corroborative of the same view is the
constant exhibition of two great and startling contrasts of human condition and relationships. There
is no penumbra here. The word of God knows but
two alternative spiritual conditions of mankind.
"We are of God," says John, "and the whole world
lieth in wickedness."  The entrance of faith into a
sinful soul is the introducing of an element wholly
wanting before, creating a revolution of moral affinity.
The one condition is light, the other darkness; the
one life, the other death. The one is spiritually minded,
which is life and peace; the other carnally minded,
which is death. The only alternatives in prospect
are to be saved, or to be lost.  The gospel itself
becomes to some a savor of life, to others a savor of
death. The chief corner-stone is made also a stone
of stumbling. This great dividing-line is indicated
in a variety of modes: such as, on the one hand, sons
of God, heirs of God, children of God, vessels of mercy
prepared unto glory; and, on the other hand, children




ITS RELATIOiVS TO THEE GOSPEL SCHEME.  21
of this world, children of disobedience, children of
wrath, even " children of the Devil," vessels of wrath
fitted for destruction. No words could more strongly
express God's view of the gulf that separates them.
Now, all these phrases and assertions seem to many
persons very harsh.  They dislike them, and they
deny them; and they very naturally deny the opposite retributions which go along with these opposite
spiritual states and relations. They are consistent in
their way. And the word of' God is entirely consistent with itself in its very different way. It asserts
two fundamentally, and in many cases permanently,
opposite characters, and two fundamentally opposite
destinies corresponding with them.
7. To the same effect is the constant Scripture
limitation of eternal life, - doubly restricted. First,
there is no rescue, no help or hope for man, except
through Christ's work. "There is none other name
under heaven, given among men, whereby we must
be saved;"  "By His blood he obtained eternal redemption for us."  And, now  that redemption is
procured by this. Lamb of God, another limitation
perpetually restricts its saving effect to the believer.
God "gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting. life." This is the key-note of the New Testament.  One class only shall be saved: "He that
believeth shall be saved." All others are expressly
excluded: " He that believeth not shall be damned."
And this limitation and exclusion steadily appear as a
finality. The one class " have their fruit unto holiness,




22           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
and the end everlasting life," while " many walk whose
end is destruction."
Such, briefly indicated, is the harmony of the whole
scheme of the gospel with its doctrine of retribution.
Those who are dissatisfied with this doctrine are
quite apt to be ill content with other of the characteristic features of the gospel; and, when they begin
to reject one, they or their successors quite commonly find it necessary to reject or question or
remodel the others. Abundant examples, both genieral and individual, could easily be given, were it
necessary.
But in all these things the word of God is self-consistent.  Its doctrines concerning the holy God, the
evil of sin, the greatness of human ruin, the strangeness of the divine remedy; the urgency of its appeals
and methods, the two grand alternatives in human
condition and prospects, the rigid limitation of eternal
life, - all point to a doom of sin great and terrible,
inconceivably terrible.
And here comes in the more explicit teaching that
this doom is endless.




CHAPTER  III.
THE DIRECT PROOF.
W 5,tE have found it to be the firm and steady tenor
of Scripture, that the consequence of rejecting
Christ is to the last degree disastrous. All its chief
teachings converge to this point. But, furthermore,
its direct assertions pronounce that doom to be endless.
Probably there are few persons, if any, who have
not at some time wished it were otherwise; who
would not rejoice to learn that the infinite Sovereign
had provided, or would provide, some method whereby
he could secure all the ends of his government, and
the highest interests of his realm, without that penalty.
They accept the doctrine simply because he has clearly
and positively revealed it. They have no option in
the case. They hold themselves bound to submit to
God's government, and to deal honestly with his
word. They see also, that, if all men were willing to
obey God, then this doctrine would have no terror.
They may, or may not, perceive some of the necessities of God's government. But they fully confide in
his wisdom, his righteousness, and his love; and they
equally confide iv /zis truth.
To present in full God's testimony on this subject,
23




24           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
cannot be attempted in so brief a.discussion. It will
suffice to indicate the line of evidence, and point out
its validity. The testimony will be seen to be plain,
abundant, various, fundamental, and uncontradicted,
either in the Scriptures or in nature. It is assumed
that the punishment consists in conscious suffering;
a view against which nothing has been urged but a
forced interpretation of certain figures, and single
words or phrases, which is inconsistent with the ascertainable meaning of these figures, words, and phrases
elsewhere in the Scriptures. And, for the present
purpose, it is unnecessary to distinguish between the
fate of lost men and of lost spirits, inasmuch as the
New Testament (Matt. xxv. 41) expressly couples them
together.
The main features of the evidence have been recognized (they could not be mistaken) by the Church in
all ages. The facts are not new.
I. In some five different passages at least (Rev. xiv.
9-II, xix. 3, xx. IO; Jude I3; 2 Pet. ii. I7), the
punishment is "for ever," or, in an intensified form,
"for ever and ever." The attempt has been made to
embarrass this testimony by citing certain other different uses of one part (aio-n) of the compound phrase.
This does not touch the case. Without spending
time to trace out all the uses of the single word (which
in Plato and Aristotle includes strict eternity), it is
enough to say that the phrase, as a whole, has a settled meaning. Its shortest and essential form is Eis
aizona, sometimes with the article, sometimes in the
plural, sometimes (in the New Testament) reduplicated




TRE DIRECT PROOF.                    25
for emphasis. I think no scholar will deny that this
phrase, whether in classic Greek (Diodorus, Lycurgus,
Lucian, &c.), or in New-Testament use, is substantially
identical with, and as unambiguous as, our English
phrase "for ever," or, as Passow also gives it, "to all
eternity." It would be of no avail to say that the separate word " ever" has other uses (e.g. " ever faithful;"
"do you ever go"), that the whole phrase may be
sometimes misapplied (e.g. " he is for ever meddling "),
or that its intent is sometimes frustrated by the course
of events, as a conveyance to one's " heirs and assigns
for ever " may fail to find heirs and assigns in the next
generation. Just so no other relations of the separate
word aion, and no inadequate or frustrated applications
of the whole phrase, can unsettle the undoubted meaning of the Greek phrase, which corresponds as nearly
as possible to our "for ever," and "for ever and ever."
As matter of fact, the duplicated form (for ever and
ever) occurs twenty-two times in the New Testament,
eighteen of them relating to the continuance of the
perfections, glory, government, praise, of God and
Christ (thus " the wrath of God, who liveth for ever
and ever," Rev. xv. 7), one to the happiness of the
righteous, and the other three to the punishment of
the wicked. Any man can see the force of such a
fact.* The shorter phrase (for ever) is used thirty* That the reader may see for himself, the passages are subjoined. References to God and Christ: Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; I Pet. v. II;
i Tim. i. I7; 2 Tim. iv. i8; Heb. xiii. 2I; I Pet. iv. II; Rev. i. 6, I8, iv.
91 fo, V. 125 Vii. I2, x. 6, xi. I5, xv. 7.
To the happiness of the righteous: Rev. xxii. 5.
To the punishment of the wicked: Rev. xiv. II, xix. 3, XX. IO.
3




26             FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
five times; eighteen of them concerning God, Christ,
and the Comforter, (thus "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever"); nine concerning the
blessedness of the righteous; five miscellaneous, with
the manifest idea of unlimited duration; and three
times concerning the punishment of the wicked.*
This also is intelligible to every capacity.
2. In one of the passages referred to above, the
positive assertion is exchanged for a sweeping, eternal
negative. The blasphemer against the Holy Ghost
(Mark iii. 29) "hath never forgiveness," or, exactly,
hath not forgiveness for ever.  With a noticeable accumulation, the same verse also declares the penalty
" eternal;" and the parallel passage in Matthew draws
it out in detail, " neither in this world (aion), nor in
the world to come."
3. Equally unambiguous, whatever may be insinuated to the contrary, are those instances in which the
punishment is pronounced "eternal" (aionios, Matt.
xviii. 8, xxv. 4I, 46; Mark iii. 29; 2 Thess. i. 9.)
Attempts have been made to throw doubt upon the
meaning of aiinios (eternal). But, to go no further,
the very intelligible fact meets us, that, of seventy-one
instances of its use in the New Testament, fifty-one
relate to the life and blessedness of the righteous; two
* Applied to God and Christ, &c.: Rom. i. 25, ix. 5, xi. 36, xvi. 27; 2
Cor. xi. 31; I Pet. i. 25; 2 Pet. iii. i8; Luke i. 33; John viii. 35, xii. 34,
xiv. i6; Heb. v. 6, vi. 20, vii. 17, 21, 28, xiii. 8.
To the prospects of the righteous: John v. 24, vi. 51, 58, viii. 51, 52,
X. 28, Xi. 26; 2 COr. ix. 9; John ii. I7.
To the punishment of the wicked: Mark iii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. I7; Jude 13.
Miscellaneous: Matt. xxi. 19; Mark xi. 14; John xiii. 8; I Cor. viii. 13;
2 John 2.




THE DIRECT PROOF.                            27
to God and his glory; six to miscellaneous subjects,
with the seemingly plain meaning " everlasting; " and
six, or perhaps seven, to future punishment.* Three
instances referring to the past (Rom. xvi. 25; Tit. i.
2; 2 Tim. i. 9); are understood by Alford, Ellicott, and
Cremer to indicate  past eternity; by others, the  past
ages of the world. But, in its future references (some
sixty-eight), there is no instance in which it can be
shown to have a limited meaning. It is everlasting
(Jude 7, and Philem. I 5 are probably no exceptions).
Indeed, in some cases this meaning is expressly unfolded; as in Matt. xviii., where aiognios is found, while
in the parallel passage, Mark ix. 47, 48, the doom is
described in detail as one that never ceases.
4. In   one  well-known   and   remarkable  passage
(Matt. xxv. 46), the same epithet (aio3nios) is applied
in immediate succession to the punishment Qf the
wicked, and the life of the righteous. They are coeternal. Several ingenious efforts have been made to
escape the pressure of this'fact. Perhaps the least
successful is one of the latest. It has been said, that
"in  its  scriptural  and  philosophical meaning'' the
* Applied to the life and blessedness of the righteous: Matt. xix. i6, 29,
xxv. 46; Mark x. I7, 30; Luke x. 25, XVi. 9, xviii. I8, 30; John iii. 55, i6,
36, iv. I4, 36, V. 24, 397 Vi. 27, 40, 47, 54, 68, x. 28, xii. 25, 50, xvii, 2; 3;
Acts xiii. 46, 48; Rom. ii. 7, v. 21, Vi. 22, 23; 2 Cor. iv. 17; Gal. vi. 8;
2 Thess. ii. i6; I Tim. i. i6, vi. 12; 2 Tim. ii. Io; Tit. i. 1, iii. 7; Heb. v.
9, ix. I21 I5; I Pet. v. Io; 2 Pet. i. II; I John ii. 25, iii. T5, V. 11 I3, 20;
Jude 21.
To God: Rom. xvi. 26; I Tim. vi. i6.
To future punishment: Matt. xviii. 8, xxv. 41, 46; Jude 6; and probably Heb. vi. 2.
Miscellaneous uses: 2 Cor. iv. i8, v. I; Heb. ix. I4, xiii. 20; I John i.
2; Rev. xiv. 6. These last six cases all seem to carry the meaning " endless."




28           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
word eternal "has nothing to do with time at all, is
outside of time, is simply spiritual; the idea of duration is not connected -with it" (Rev. Y. F. Clarke).
If this be intended as a statement of fact concerning
the usage of this term (aionios), nothing would seem
to be more arbitrary-and erroneous. For (I) the notion of duration, onflow, seems peculiarly inherent in
the word. Thus Liddell and Scott (sixth edition) give
only these definitions: "lasting for an aio-n, perpetual,
everlasting, eternal."  Passow gives only, "long-continuing, everlasting, eternal;". and Cremer assumes
that aion "denotes an age from the point of duration." (2) In one of the highest of Plato's " philosophical" discussions ("Timaeus," p. 38), amid whatever
metaphysical difficulties of expression and conception,
he repeatedly uses aizonios interchangeably with aidios
(everlasting); and Jowett translates both alike "eternal."  (3) The Scriptures speak of "eternal times"
(Rom. xvi. 25; 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2). (4) The word
(as in Matt. xviii. 8) is interpreted in parallel passages as strictly involving duration.  (5) The objector
may be safely challenged to produce one instance in
the New Testament in which he can show that the
idea of duration is excluded from aieonios or aion.  No
doubt the things that are eternal also have other qualities, as this is true of the eternal God, the everlasting
gospel, the eternal life, the everlasting covenant, the
eternal Spirit, everlasting praise, eternal redemption,
an eternal inheritance, everlasting habitations, an
eternal weight of glory; but the attempt to displace
the idea of duration from the word has no more legiti



THE DIRECT PROOF.               29
mate foundation in the Greek aionios than it would
in the English "eternal." If it be said that the word
is "intensive," we answer it is also extensive.
When, on the other hand, Rev. T. S. King affirms
(" Two Sermons," p. 28), "I have not the least faith
that the passage from which this text is taken [Matt.
xxv. 4I-46] points at all to a future world," he also
shows how difficult and opposite are the devices to
escape the obvious meaning of a plain passage.
5. Still another word for "eternal" (aidios) is used
in Jude 6 (" reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day"); in regard
to which two things may be observed: (I) that such
lexicons as Passow, Liddell and Scott, ascribe to it
no other meaning than " everlasting;" (2) that its only
other usage in the New Testament is concerning " the
eternal power and Godhead" of Jehovah (Rom. i. 20.)
So in Plato's " Timaeus," "the everlasting gods"
(aidioi). The fact is singular and startling.
6. In some instances the statement is further varied by declaring that the punishment will never end.
In' Mark ix. 43 we read of the "unquenchable fire"
in " hell;" and again, in verse 48, it is, in reduplicated figurative phraseology, "where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched."
7. In other passages we read of complete and final
exclusion from the life of the righteous and the presence of Christ. "He that believeth not the Son
shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on
him" (John iii. 36). "Ye shall die in your sins:
whither I go ye cannot come" (John viii. 21). They
3*




30           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
"that obey not the gospel" are to "be punished
with everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord when he shall come to be glorified with his
saints" (2 Thess. i. 7-Io).
8. It is repeatedly and' pointedly declared in the
most absolute terms, that certain classes of men,
comprising in general "the unrighteous," shall not
inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor. vi. 9, Io; Gal. v.
I9-2 I; Rev. xxi. 27).
9. At another time the condition of the wicked
after death is pronounced irreversible, and his joys are
past. The utterly selfish rich man who "died, and
was buried, and in hell lifted up his eyes being in
torment," is told, "In thy lifetime thou receivedst
thy good things: now thou art tormented; and, besides all this, between us and you there is a great
gulf fixed, so that they which would pass from hence
to you cannot, neither can they pass to us that would
come from  thence" (Luke xvi.). It is difficult to
see how any distinction made between hades and
gehenna can break the force of this plain statement,
that the doom of the wicked after death is irreversible and hopeless. Indeed, that distinction, should it
be -pressed, only makes the case more formidable;
for if even in hades, before the resurrection and the
judgment, all help and hope are so utterly excluded,
how shall it be in geehenna, after the resurrection of
the body, " the res.urrection of damnation," and the
final judgment?
Io. In one remarkable passage, restored by modern
textual criticism, we find asserted the eternity of the




THE DIRECT PROOF.                      31
sin or guilt that attends the doom. " Hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of [subject to, held by] an
eternal sin," (Mark iii. 29). This is the reading
adopted in the four great critical editions (of Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf) as well as
by such expositors as Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth,
Lange.  " Eternal," says Meyer, " in reference to its
guilt; " or, in the words of Alford, "unremitted  forever." *
I. The final condition of the wicked becomes
thoroughly hopeless.  "It were good  for that man
[Judas] if he had not been born" (Matt. xxvi. 24).
"An  expression," says Olshausen, "of the deepest
abandonment, of utter perdition, - so strong that it
intimates the exclusion of every hope; for the winning of eternal life, no matter how late, must assuredly render it a blessing to be born." Again: in a
certain case "there remaineth no more sacrifice for
sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries"
(Heb. x. 26, 27).
I2. An end of opportunities to gain the friendship
and blessing of Christ is very positively asserted.
There comes a time when they that are ready go in to
the marriage, and the door is shut (Matt. xxv. IO);
when the Lord's money is called for, and the un* This passage cannot safely be quoted as asserting the eternity of the
process of sinning. That would be unambiguously expressed by a different
construction, the use of a verb. It is thought not best, however, to encumber
this brief discussion with further remarks on this point, and some others
related to it. Enough that the text, should it mean more, cannot mean less,
than we have indicated above.




32           FUTURE PUNISHMEN7T
profitable servant is cast into the outer darkness
(verse 30); a time when the master of the house
rises, shuts the door, says, "Depart from me, ye
workers of iniquity; and there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves
thrust out" (Luke xiii. 24, 30); a time of separation of the sheep from the goats (Matt. xxv. 3 ), of
the tares from the wheat (xiii. 30), of the good fish
from the bad (xiii. 48), of all that do iniquity from
the kingdom of God (verse 42), of the wicked from
the midst of the good to cast them into the furnace
of fire (verses 49, 50); a time to cut down the bad
tree, and cast it into the fire (Matt. vii. I9); a time of
destruction from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess.
i. 9). Many will seek to enter in, and shall not be
able (Luke xiii. 24); and there is reason to "fear"
and to "labor," lest, a promise being left, any man
should come short and fall (Heb. iv. I, 2). The rich
man's brethren were to be warned while on earth, lest
they come into the place of torment (Luke xvi. 29).
Many other equally explicit statements could be
cited.
I3. Finally, not only is there no hint that probation
is unlimited, but there are positive assertions of its
termination. The destiny of men is declared to be
decided in this world. "Whosoever shall deny me
before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven" (Matt. x. 33). "Whosoever shall
be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous
and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of




THE DIRECT PROOF.             33
man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his
Father with the holy angels" (Mark viii. 38). "We
must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,
that every one may receive the things done in the
body, whether they be good or bad " (2 Cor. v. Io).
"It is appointed unto' men once to die, but after
this the judgment" (Heb. ix. 27). The judgment is
steadily spoken of as a finality-: it is "the day of
judgment and perdition of ungodly men" (2 Pet.
iii. 7). The resurrection is but twofold, -a "resurrection of life," and a "resurrection of damnation"
(John v. 29).
Not the least significant circumstance in regard to
this array of testimony is, that many of these strongest assertions were made by the Lord Jesus Christ in
person; and they were made in the presence of men
who as we know, and as he well knew, believed in
future punishment. His words could make on them
but one impression. If all men are saved, which was
he, deceiver, or deceived?
The reader, who will now cast his eye thoughtfully
over the lines of proof here indicated in outline, may
judge whether they do not fulfil the specified conditions; namely, that the evidence is found in declarations which (I). require no forcing or straining, but
are plain and obvious; (2) which occur not in one or
a few, but in numerous instances; (3) which are made
in many and diverse modes of statement, resting on
no particular word or set of words; (4) and which are
direct and principal utterances upon the theme in
hand. We had previously found (5) that they are in




34           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
entire harmony with the system of teaching of which
this doctrine forms a part.
It does not often happen, surely1 that a proposition
resting on documentary evidence presents a chain of
testimony so full and explicit. If the Book itself be
valid authority, it would seem that little could be
added to the strength of the case. What forms of
speech can state it more expressly? An honest
believer in the binding force of the Scriptures would
seem to be bound to accept this doctrine, unless met
by equally explicit counter statements from the same
book, or by insuperable objections or impossibilities
outside. One would almost think, too, that objections
weighty enough to disprove this doctrine must go
further, and shake our confidence in the authority, or
at least the intelligibleness, of the Scriptures themselves. We will look at the objections, scriptural and
ethical.




CHAPTER  IV.
OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.
THOSE- who deny the doctrine of endless punishment have labored more to disparage the positive evidence of the Scriptures than to advance
counter statements. The alleged scriptural objections
may be divided into two classes: first, declarations
cited as though bearing directly on the subject; second,
general references to what is called "the spirit of the
Scriptures." The second class being really no other
than ethical objections, the present article will confine
itself to the former.
There has been considerable fluctuation in the
citation of passages for universal salvation. In I840
Thomas Whittemore presented a hundred "scriptural evidences."  But they included a multitude of
texts which only declare, in a general way, God's love
and mercy, and which require no attention in this
discussion. Comparatively few  passages are now
cited by the more skilful advocates of universal salvation; and some of them, as we shall see, admit that
no specific passages clearly assert their view.
We will, however, look at a few texts that have
been, or might be with most plausibility, cited, or that
35




36           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
might possibly raise a question in an inquiring mind.
They are few and vague. In most instances hardly
a word of comment is needed to show how entirely
they fail to meet the precise point made.
It is necessary only to allude to those'passages in
which Christ is called generally the Saviour of the
world, or in which his coming is ascribed to God's
love for the world; since the actual results of his salvation are, often in the same passages, restricted to
those who. believe on him. The redemptive work is
ample, the offer universal; but obviously "all men
have not faith."
Similar is the passage, " God, who is the Saviour of
all men, specially of those that believe" (I Tim. iv.
Io). The passage carries its own explanation. As
Olshausen puts it, God has opened to all the possibility of eternal life, but in believers alone is the
purpose accomplished; offered to all, accepted by
believers. In like manner, Christ was a ransom for
all, tasted death for every man, and was a propitiation
for the sins of the whole world: in other words, the
provision is amply sufficient for the whole race. This
is all that is here said.
Another text cited expresses God's desire, or
choice, in the matter: "Who will have all men to
be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth"
(I Tim. ii. 4). The Greek for "will" is /zelei — wishes,
desires, or chooses, even. Probably we cannot overstate the strength of God's desire and choice, that all
the wicked should break off their sins. God "has no
pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the




OB7ECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.           37
wicked turn from his way, and live."  He has "no
pleasure in the death of him that dieth," that actually
dieth (Ezek. xviii. 32, xxxiii. I I). The Scriptures thus
compel us to recognize the distinction between even
God's strong preferences, and his executive determinations. That all men will be saved, is another thing.
They certainly do not all come to the saving "knowledge of the truth."
Some have referred to John xii. 32: "And I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."
But this is too brief and unexplained to build any definite theory upon. It certainly says nothing explicit,
either of conversion or final salvation. Is the " drawing" that of conversion, or of religious privilege, or
only of absorbing attention and interest such as we
now witness in both believers and unbelievers? And
is the "all" here a strict universality, or as in the
statement "all men seek for thee" (Mark i. 37), "all
Judea," "all Jerusalem"? Or is it (with De Wette
and others, from the connection) Gentiles as well as
Jews, or (with Lange) the totality of the nations in
antithesis to the firstlings of the Gentiles.? The rationalist De Wette very properly adds to his exposition, "But we must here understand those who are
susceptible."
Rev. James Freeman Clarke has selected the five
following passages from the New Testament. The
reader will observe how the strongest of them lack
in definite bearing upon the question at issue.
In Eph. i. 9, Io, we read of God's purpose, that in
the "dispensation of the fulness of times he might
4




38           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
gather together in one all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in
him."  The word is to "sum  up," or as some say,
more questionably, bring under one head. The subject is the whole creation (ta panta), "all things and
beings," say the commentators. Christ is to be the
centre of all; "but," says Bengel, "of every thing
according to its nature." And Alford adds, "The
Church [will be] subordinated to him in the highest
degree of conscious, joyful union; those not his
spiritually, in mere subjugation, yet consciously; the
inferior tribes of creation, unconsciously; but, objectively, all are to be summed up in him."  This is
not only all that the passage demands, but including,
as it does, "all things," it is all that it admits. There
is not a word of the conversion and final salvation of
all men here, although Christ shall be the glorious
central object of the universe.
Somewhat akin to this is Col. i. 19, 20, where we
are told, " It pleased the Father that in him should all
fulness dwell, and, having made peace through the
blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto
himself; by him, whether they be things in earth, or
things in heaven." If this passage affirmed that all
sinful beings would actually be reconciled to God by
Christ, it would precisely meet the case. But it
announces the Father's pleasure or design to place
all fulness in Christ (the previous verses dwell emphatically upon -his greatness), so that he should be
the centre and source of all reconciliation in the universe. The detailed results of this great reconcilia



OB7ECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.           39
tion are not given, except as, in the following verses,
the apostle declares it to have taken effect on the
Colossian Christians, but on this condition: "if ye
continue in the faith."  Olshausen (whom Mr. Clarke,
for obvious reasons, prefers to quote) says that this
statement "must be understood of the tendency of the
atonement. That resistance is made to the comprehensive design of grace by a portion of the creatures,
is a point which is not here regarded by the apostle."
And here it is proper to introduce this commentator's remarks also upon Eph. i. io. Mr. Clarke
("Truths and Errors of Orthodoxy," p. 387,) quotes
him in part, as saying that the defenders of universal
restoration "understand  the harmony of the universe seriously, in its literal meaning, and seem, according to that, to be here in the right." But
Olshausen goes on thus: "Certainly, taken in their
isolation, the two passages cannot be explained otherwise. But the interpreter has the task not merely of
explaining isolated passages, but also of elucidating
the separate passages from the general tenor of the
ideas of the writer (of course, without encroaching
on his individuality), in connection with the expressions of the primitive Christian doctrine in all the
writers of the New Testament. According to this,
it may perhaps be affirmed that Paul is the writer in
the New Testament, who touches on the doctrine of
eternal damnation most rarely, leaves it most in the
background, and contains most expressions, which,
considered per se, seem to teach a general restoration.
Still we cannot say that he teaches that doctrine de



40          FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
cidedly; partly because he nowhere enunciates it outright, but always in such a way that we are only led
to it by inference; partly because other writers of the
New Testament, and especially in the Gospels our
Lord himself, so expressly maintain the contrary.
Now, as regards the two passages (Eph. i. IO; Col. i.
20), it might be the most simple plan to make the
meaning we obtain from  them harmonize with the
general doctrine of the Scriptures, by putting prominently forward in the infinities dvaozepTa~olocoaagoal,
aoox a,,,XXcOSc  (the purpose of God), which, in the establishment of that redemption which is furnished with
infinite power, tends to the restoration of universal
harmony, and to the recovery of all that was lost; so
that the sense would be the same as in the passages,'God will have all men to be saved,'' He has given
himself a ransom for all.' But, that through the unfaithfulness or wickedness of man, this purpose is not
fulfilled, and that many men are not benefited by it,
is a subject which the apostle has no occasion to put
forward." We have quoted at length, to show how
fully Olshausen  concedes that not even in these
favorite passages, and "nowhere" does the apostle
" enunciate outright" universal redemption.  But
Olshausen had been selected for quotation, evidently,
because of his bias towards the doctrine of a final
restoration of all men. Meyer, holding close to the
phraseology, understands this passage to mean, that
at Christ's coming all anti-Christian natures will be
separated out of "heaven" and "earth:" (into hell,
as he says elsewhere), so that thenceforth nothing in




OB7ECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.           41
"heaven and earth" will be excluded from this gathering together. Nothing in the language forbids this
interpretation.
Another passage is Phil. ii. 9, Io, where Christ is
to be so exalted that "at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in
earth, and things under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
Paul uses almost this identical language to describe
the triumph of Christ, when "all shall stand before
the judgment seat of Christ" (Rom. xiv. IO-12). It
designates, therefore, his complete ascendency over
all things and beings, whether willing or unwilling.
Olshausen (or Wiesinger) remarks, "Jesus is not
here acknowledged as Mediator, but as Lord; and the
true interpretation of this passage, as also Rom. xiv.
i i, shows that it is not a willing acknowledgment of
Jesus that is here spoken of."
Another text cited, similar but more indefinite, is
I Cor. xv. 28, where "all things are subdued unto
him " and " put under him."  Says the author who
cites it, "This cannot mean a forced submission."
Why not? especially when, three verses before, the
writer makes this very transaction include "putting
his enemies under his fret."
Another of the five texts is I Cor. xv. 22: "As in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive." No passage, perhaps, has been so often cited
to confute the steady assertions of eternal punishment in the Scri tures, as this: we will therefore consider it a little more in detail.
4*




42           FUTURE PUNISHMRNT.
The sole plausibility of the objection so elicited
lies in isolating the passage from the context, severing it from the argument, and forcing an unnecessary
and here unwarranted meaning upon the words.
It is a principle of judicial, as much as of scriptural interpretation, that, in case of ambiguous or
uncertain phraseology, the context and the scope
must decide. But (I) no intelligent reader (or unintelligent) can fail to see that the whole argument that
includes this passage (verses 12-23) solely concerns
the resurrection of the body. Mr. Barnes says, beyond
the seeming possibility of contradiction, "That is the,
main, the leading, the exclusive point. He is demonstrating that the dead would rise.  His argument
therefore requires him to make a statement on
that point, and that only."  (2) To the same effect
also the very last words of the preceding context,
"since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead." Then follows the specific
justifying statement of the text concerning this death
(decease), and this resurrection or " making alive," -
how the two take place. (3) This is all that the language itself requires, or naturally carries. The Greek
word " make alive " is applicable indifferently to a physical or a spiritual restoration of life, but is actually
applied in the New Testament more commonly to the
former. Thus Cremer: " For the most part in the New
Testament [it is used] of raising the dead to life." Instances of the physical meaning are to be seen in Rom.
iv. I 7, viii. II; John v. 2I (twice); I Cor. xv. 36;
apparently I Tim. vi. I3; I Pet. iii. I8.




OB7ECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.           43
Not only, therefore, can no man insist on finding
here the spiritual restoration of all men, but, on the
contrary, the great current of opinion among the chief
expositors and lexicographers unhesitatingly asserts
that only the resurrection is spoken of in this text.
"Life and death," says Alford, "are here physical
death, and the rescue from physical death." So also
Meyer, DeWette (" probably "), Olshausen, Bloomfield, Lange, Barnes, Bengel, Calvin. So the lexicographers Schleusner, Robinson, Wilke, Cremer.
The only consideration that seems to have perplexed some minds is that the resurrection should be
connected with Christ.  But this is in accordance
both with the constant general reference of the whole
economy of this world to the charge of Christ as king,
redeemer, judge; and with the special statement that
all that are in their graves " shall hear the voice of
the Son of man, and shall come forth " to their twofold resurrection (John vi. 28, 29). As death came
"in [connection with] Adam" (De Wette), so even
the resurrection " in [connection with] Christ."  " The
wicked shall be raised by the power of Christ as their
Lord and judge, the righteous by virtue of their union
with him as their head " (Valpy).
The utmost, then, that is required, or perhaps even
permitted, to find here, according to the great body of
eminent expositors, is the simple assertion of the general resurrection.
But we may go further. If with Hodge, Rueckert,
and some others, we were to understand (contrary to
the connection) spiritual life and death (as in Rom.




44          FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
v.), even then two important considerations would
prevent our finding here the doctrine of universal salvation. (I) The whole chapter confines itself to the
case of Christians. The prospect of the unbeliever
does not for a moment come within the apostle's purview. Here is no word of hope for him. (2) Another
restriction lies in the very terms of the comparison.
In the Greek, as in the English, and more clearly, the
apostle in this verse makes the enmphasis of the correlation rest upon the " as " and the " so," - the method
or agency, Adam and Christ. As Adam is head and
fountain of the whole line of death, so Christ of the
whole line of life. As to all his children Adam brings
death, even so to all his children Christ brings life.
Indeed, the special emphasis upon the mode, or agency,
makes the "all" so subordinate and comparatively
unimportant, the two " alls" might be the very same
parties as affected respectively by their relations to
Adam and to Christ.
If we now look still further at this "as" and "so,"
and ask, How is it? there is nothing here for Universalism. Admit, for argument's sake, that the death and
making alive are the deeper death and life. But /how
do men reap spiritual death in Adam? Only as they
personally participate in sin (" for that all have
sinned," Rom. v. I2). " Even so "- by personal participation in Christ's work through faith - shall men
be saved, and so only.  Here is nothing whatever
to conflict with that utterance, "He that believeth
not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of.God
abideth on him."




OB7ECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.             45
It hardly admits of doubt, that the former exposition
is the true one; but in either case, so far is this text,
when fairly treated, from implying universal salvation,
or offering any relief from the doctrine of endless
punishment. And, to prove directly that no such
thought entered the apostle's mind, we have but to
look three verses farther along (I Cor. xv. 25) to find
him describing this risen Saviour as reigning " till he
hath put all enemies under his feet."  Enemies, then,
will still exist, and that too in a condition of overthrow
and abject humiliation; for such is the only scriptural
meaning of the phrase, "put under the feet."  (See
Josh. x. 24; Ps. cx. I.)  And this is to be the state
of things in "the end when he shall have delivered
up the kingdom to God, even the Father'" (verses
24, 25).
Olshausen, after affirming. that " it cannot be denied,
that, if the restoration is sanctioned in any passage, it
is in this," finds himself constrained honestly to warn
"the defenders of the doctrine" in his next sentence,
"that neither here nor in any other passage of the
sacred Scriptures, is the final recovery of all evil men
expressed openly, and in a definite form."
The same writer who cites these five texts (Mr.
Clarke) thinks, however, the parable of the prodigal
son "perhaps the strongest evidence of a universal
restoration." This would seem to us a confession of
the entire absence of such evidence from the Scripture; for the reader will search that parable and the
context in vain for one hint of any rescue of the
sinner after the present remedial disoensation. It




46           FUTURE PUNISHIMENT.
simply sets forth and justifies, in answer to the
"murmuring" Pharisees, the. Saviour's joyful readiness in this world to receive "publicans and sinners"
on repentance.
In addition to these passages, some writers appeal
to I Pet. iii. I9 (the preaching to "the spirits in
prison "), as intimating a probation after death. But
(I) when and where was the preaching? in the prison,
or at the time of Noah? (2) What was the preaching? the offer of forgiveness? (3) What was the
effect? universal repentance? (4) Will. the transaction, whatever it was, be repeated? Here every thing
that would bear on the question is left strictly unknown.
Some other passages perhaps might be added;
but it will probably be admitted, that, if the statement
of universal salvation, or restoration, is not found in
these, it is not found anywhere.  But surely it is not
here; not in any one nor all of them. The precise
thing sought is precisely the thing not found. They
are perfectly consistent with the opposite doctrine.
They do not require the slightest pressure to make
them  conform.   Nothing is adduced which for a
moment permits us to accept the theory of universal
salvation against the plain, explicit, numerous, and
varied assertions of eternal punishment. If the case
be weak, the Scriptures make it so. The explicit
statements, and that too in great numbers and variety, are all on one side.
As matter of fact, the wisest and most scholarly
advocates of universal salvation seem to surrender the




OB7ECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.             47
point so far as direct teaching in the Scriptures is
concerned.  The American Unitarian Association in
their annual report for I853 (p. 28), while avowing
that the majority hold Restorationist views, also say,
" It is our firm conviction that the final restoration of
all men is not revealed in the Scriptures, but that the
ultimate fate of the impenitent wicked is left shrouded in impenetrable mystery so far as the total declaration of the sacred writers is concerned:" it is with
them " a warranted inference from  the cardinal principles of Christianity, as well as from  the  great
verities of moral science." In I858 Rev. Thomas
Starr King said in his printed discourse (p. 5), "I
freely say that I do not find the doctrine of the ultimate salvation of all souls clearly stated in any text,
or in any discourse, that has been reported from the
lips of Christ." He only finds that the received
doctrine is " opposed to the principles of the religion
of Jesus;" and deems it necessary to re-enforce his
position still further by the statement that "the New
Testament is not given as a full and accurate theological chart for human thought."   The scholarly
De Wette, who asserts (on Matt. xxv. 41, 46) that
"the hell-punishment occasioned by sin cannot be
eternal," adds that "the eternity of it lies in the literal sense" of the passage. And again (on Matt. xii.
3I, 32) he remarks, "That the eternity of hell-punishment is asserted in our text, will be admitted only
when we are obliged to take the declaration of Jesus
with verbal exactness." These are grave admissions.
One of the most recent advocates of Universalism




48           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
constantly states the opposing argument as an appeal
to "the letter of the Scripture."
The reader may now judge whether the condition
(No. 6) of this discussion is not fully met, - that " the
doctrine of endless punishment is opposed by no
passages of Scripture which do not admit of an easy
explanation."
It may not be improper to show in what spirit the
testimony of the Scriptures is sometimes approached.
Rev. James Freeman Clarke writes thus: "If all the
churches in the world tell me that Jesus teaches- everlasting punishment inflicted by God for the sin of men
in this world, and produce chapter and verse in support
of their statement, I reply, If I have learned any thing
about God from the teachings of Jesus, it is that your
assertion is impossible. We should hold it less dishonorable to God to deny his existence than to believe
this doctrine concerning him" ("Truths and Errors
of Orthodoxy," p. 364). Rev. T. S. King says, "It is
utterly impossible for a man to believe in an infinitely
perfect Ruler of the universe, if he believes that a
never-ending penalty has been established by that
ruler for all those who pass out of this life unreconciled to his will" (sermon, p. 7.) He quotes Dr.
Dewey thus: "This system  [endless punishment]
cannot be proved to be true, till nature and life and
consciousness are all proved to be false." These assertions from such writers render it needless to quote
still more intense statements from men less favorably
known.
But when we approach any matter that rests on




OB7ECTZONS FROM SCRIPTURE.          49
evidence, declaring in advance that the thing "is
impossible," "cannot be proved," and that sheer
atheism is preferable to the reception of it, where are
we? What, then, is reasoning or reason? Surely we
then but play with dice, and the dice are loaded.
5




CHAPTER V.
ETHICAL OBJECTIONS.
MANY who are constrained  to admit that "the
letter of the New Testament," that is, its express
declarations, teach endless punishment, yet contend
that "its spirit" contradicts the assertion. When
they explain themselves, they appear to mean the
paternal character of God, who is revealed in Christ
as a God of love.  To this, it might be enough to
reply, that the Father and the Son are competent to
speak for themselves, and especially in the very volume from which alone we learn the brightness of the
Father's character, and the fulness of Christ's love.
If their teachings are valid for the one, they are valid
for the other. It is vain to say (as did Mr. King), that
the Gospels are "fragmentary" and "poetic," and the
epistles "passionate and rhetorical."  They contain
Christianity as Christ and his disciples taught it, —
all the Christianity there is.
But some men have taken ground that this doctrine
is so repugnant to God's character and our moral
sense, that it cannot be proved; it is impossible to
accept it; atheism is better.
Now, to say that this cannot be proved, is to talk at
50




E THICAL OB07ECTIONS.              5 
random. Nothing is impossible to prove by competent testimony, unless it conflicts with self-evident
truths. -A self-evident principle is one which men
are obliged to recognize or to assume. That no such
principle resists this doctrine, is clear from the fact
that such multitudes of the best men - shall we not
say the majority? - have steadily received it. That it
does not conflict with any necessary inference from
first principles, is seen in the fact that such a mass of
the best reasoners, as well as'best men, have held it.
All assertions of the " impossibility" of proving it, or
accepting it, must be set down. as declamation. The
American Unitarian Association, in I853, were much
wiser in saying only, that their theory of universal
restoration was to them "a consistent speculation of
the reason, and a strong belief of the heart," "a glorious hope which seems to them a warranted inference from the cardinal principles of Christianity, as
well as from the great verities of moral science,"
although it " is not revealed in the Scriptures."
But we cannot accept even this mild form of statement. The real question is this: the Scriptures themselves being our authority on " the cardinal principles
of Christianity," and our clearest light on " the great
verities of moral science," has this teacher of the
verities proved so unveracious, or so self-contradictory, that we are obliged flatly to put down its
direct and steady assertions of future punishment, by
force of its general principles? For we are not making " inferences" in the absence, but in the presence
of the Scriptures. Are we compelled to " restrain any




-52          FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
passages,"- as Hosea Ballou, Senior, said he " should
feel justified " in doing, -compelled violently to "restrain" one great class of utterances, in order to
save the righteousness and truth of this great teacher
of righteousness and truth?  Must we save the
Bible from itself by rejecting its statements?
We are so far from being brought to this dilemma,
that, when we examine the objections in detail, we
find, that whether men recognize the Bible, or a God
without a Bible, or a mere " course of things," their
objections against eternal punishment cannot be
maintained.  They are clearly invalid, because in
conflict with admitted facts and unquestioned principles.
The paternal character of God is announced in his
own word, side by side with the steady declaration,
that after this life he will sit as judge, and will certainly restrict the blessings of eternal life to his
loving "sons."  And, when appeals from future punishment are made to the loving heart of Christ, they
encounter the formidable fact, that the Saviour not
only dealt forth the' severest woes upon sinners, but
that he is confessedly the person who has uttered.
this doctrine of eternal punishment in the sternest
forms.
Do we say that any paternal heart would relent in
sight of such protracted misery, even though  it
accompany equally protracted sin, we assume not
only that God values happiness more than holiness,
and that even God can make sin happy, -which is
more than we know, - but we overlook the most obvi



ETHIICAL OB7ECTIONS.             53
ous state of things. In this world there are sufferings which so overcome the heart of a human father,
that he would arrest them instantly if he could.
Yet such sufferings as make us faint and sick to see,
God sees in millions of instances all the time; and he
has been looking upon them for several thousand
years. They are largely, some would say wholly, the
fruit of sin.  Now, whether men assert this to be
because God will not,'or cannot, or cannot consistently, prevent it, the argument founded on God's
paternal feeling is, in either case, clearly destitute of
foundation. A principle that does not hold good in
this world is worth nothing for the future world.
And especially the belief, that suffering will cease till
sin ceases, is in direct contradiction to our experience of God's doings here.
It may be affirmed that the sin will cease. Some
men declare that God's omnipotence will insure it.
This, again, is talking at random. Other men, with
equal positiveness, aver that it does not fall within
the sphere of omnipotence to change all human wills.
At all events, the Bible intimates that omnipotence
will not change all human wills; and the solemn fact
steadily meets us, that, so far as we can trace men to
the verge of the other world, it actually does not. If it
be alleged that all men will of themselves repent, this,
again, is not only a gratuitous statement, but it contradicts known present facts and tendencies. Many men
grow manifestly less inclined to repentance and obedience, the longer they live. So far is it from being
true, that penalty always breeds penitence, that very
5*




54           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
often, the more completely the misery of sin accumulates, the more desperate becomes the sinner. The
incapacity of repentance, so to speak, increases with
the sin. No valid evidence can be found to show that
it will not continue to be forever as when men
" gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the
God of heaven because of their pains and sores, and
repented not of their sins." Remorse and repentance
are very different things.
Some writers insist that the eternal continuance of
sin and suffering is derogatory to God; it limits his
sovereignty, his love, his wisdom. If that were true,
then the condition of things for several thousand
years already has been derogatory to God.  The
inexplicable, confounding fact is the admission of sin
and suffering at all into this universe, when God is on
the throne. Plainly there must be some good reason
for it, although the objectors would doubtless have
pronounced it "impossible," but for the plain fact.
And since, in spite of all possible objections, there is
good reason for its permission, that man must claim
more than omniscience who affirms against Scripture
that there can be no good reason for its continued
permission. Dr. Whately well says, "Those who set
at defiance the plain and obvious sense of Scripture
by contending for the final admission to eternal
happiness of ll men, in order to get over the difficulty by this means, and to reconcile the existence of
evil with the benevolence of God, do not, in fact
after all, when they have put the most forced interpretation on the words of the sacred writers, advance,




ETRZCAL OB7ECTIONS.              55
one single step toward the point. For the main difficulty is not the amount of evil that exists, but the
existence of any at all. I will undertake to explain
to any one the final condemnation of the wicked,
if he will explain to me the existence of the wicked.
The thing cannot be explained. All we can say is,
that, for some unknown cause, evil is unavoidable."
The impossibility of denying its existence in the
past and present creates an impossibility of denying
it for the future.
To this consideration, one very peculiar reply has
been made. " Limited and finite evil in this world or
the other is no philosophical difficulty, and for this
reason: that finite evil, when compared with infinite
good, becomes logically and mathematically no evil."
(y. F. Clarke.) A reasoner must be hard pressed
when he finds himself compelled to deny the intrinsic
evil of sin; a position equally in conflict with God's
word, and with fundamental morality.
Are we told that a good reason will justify its permission many thousand years? Then, we say, a good
reason will justify its permission indefinitely. Is it
replied, there can be no good reason for its permission
forever? This is to assert wholly in the dark, -and
the more so that sin is permitted now, and we know
not why. Such assertions are purely worthless. They
deserve no respect.
Is it still affirmed to be inconsistent with justice,
that such dire and permanent consequences should
follow a short life of sin, often thoughtless and simply
heedless?  Bishop Butler long ago answered this un



56           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
answerably. The complaints must be brought not
alone against the Bible, nor indeed against God, but
against the actual course of things, in which just such
methods constantly and abundantly find place. Short
transgressions sometimes bring lifelong disadvantages and sufferings. Slight-seeming sins cause huge
disasters.  Reckless, and even merry acts are attended with the gravest and saddest of issues. Opportunities of recovery pass irretrievably. One sin
drags others, sometimes a whole train of sins and
miseries, not seldom a lifelong final fall into sin and
misery. The first free choice of vice often has determined a permanent free choice — and yet slavery —
of vice, on~ which all dissuasions were lost. To insist
that what has constantly thus taken place will be
abolished at all hazards hereafter, is to talk without
reason.
Two things also are to be remembered which are
sometimes overlooked: first, that the sin continues
coeval with the doom; and, second, that sinning will
still be the sinner's determined choice. Just as here
a vicious sufferer desperately clings to his evil course,
notwithstanding all its penalties, actually accepts the
situation, positively and sometimes angrily resisting
all efforts to reform his character and his lot, so will
it be substantially there. And without assuming, with
some reasoners, that it is not even a function of omnipotence to revolutionize a human will, one thing,
doubtless, may be safely said, -that the opponents of
God may, and probably will, become so opposed to
his wishes, that they would with all their power resist




E THICAL OB_7ECTIONS.            57
and resent the effort of omnipotence to make them
holy.
It is sometimes alleged, as an argumenturn ad hominemn, that the knowledge of sin and suffering would
mar the happiness of heaven. Individuals peculiarly
related are asked, " Could you be happy in heaven if
this or that friend were cast out? " But the solution
of this problem is not difficult. And, first, we must
admit that God's perfect happiness is not now imbittered by the sight of the inconceivable sin and woe
which he sees. Clearly, then, could we be brought to
view these things just as God does, it would not
imbitter our existence. And God will bring his
children into full harmony with himself. But, further
and more particularly, the difficulty can be removed
by the well-known facts of human life, some of them
certainly sad enough. (I) Human happiness is not
necessarily destroyed by the knowledge of others'
misery. Nothing could be more untrue. The world
is full both of happiness and of known misery, contemporaneous. (2) It often and abundantly happens
that the known sufferings of men's former intimate
friends do not poison their happiness. Separation,
indifference, coldness, entire and final estrangement,
or even bitter enmity, often gradually, sometimes
suddenly, replace intimacy. Can it be necessary to
give examples, when the newspapers are filled with
them in their extremest form, -divorces between those
for whose fondness language had been insufficient,
bitter and fatal feuds between near relatives and once
dear friends? But, still further, when the one party




58           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
holds fast his integrity, and the other, against all love,
entreaty, and warning, with obduracy and perhaps
at length with harshness, bitterness, and injustice,
breaks away in settled, hopeless sin and suffering,
how often has it been the case that the long-suffering
wife, father, or mother, after having exhausted all
possible efforts in vain, has turned resolutely and
calmly forward in the path.of duty, and found it still
the path of peace! Regrets still follow the wanderer,
but the life's happiness is not blighted forever. We
have known cases in which the final withdrawal of the
obdurate transgressor from.the scene of life has
brought rather relief than additional anguish to the
exhausted heart. Even in this life the love of right
and the sense of justice can, and do, rise high enough
to overcome every personal consideration arrayed
directly against them. Here, perhaps, is the clew to
the whole solution. It is no doubt a sad solution.
But sin is an evil and bitter thing.
The singular trial * now before the country and the
world is a marvellously apt illustration.  I have nothing to say of the merits of a pending case.  God
defend the right! For lessons of instruction, the case
is public property.
See, then, the intimacies that lie wrecked before
the world. The pastor and his favorite disciple, who
loved him "next to his own father," stand in deadly
struggle day after day. The trusted, God-sent friend,
who had in his hands documents apparently for the
defendant's more perfect safety, produces them for his
The trial of Rev. H. W. Beecher.




ETHICAL OByECTIONS.              59
ruin. The husband and wife, whose published letters
of love are almost beyond precedent for intensity of
expression, are not only, to appearance, separated
forever, but the one sits quietly by day after day,
while the other, of set purpose and plan, goes over all
the past history of their relations, including even the
narrative of whatever was once most delightful, in
the full knowledge that this voluntary and determined
testimony of his, if accredited, will destroy the whole
earthly prospects of his friend, and the whole earthly
welfare of his wife.  Now, whether this be mere
malignity and recklessness,.as his opponents would
claim, or the stern necessities of his situation, and the
paramount demands of right and justice, as he and
his friends would. claim, it is a lesson never to be
forgotten. It shows how the most sensitive souls at
length rise triumphantly above all merely natural
sympathies and personal considerations. And, when
the alleged demands of justice to himself and his
dependent children can co-mpel the husband and father
to vindicate himself by crushing his nearest friend
and his once beloved wife, let the men that justify
such a course pause, and consider what the righteous
exigencies of a dependent universe may compel the
holy God to do to his perpetual, persistent, and open
foes. To some men this ought to be a revelation, if
they accept no other.
It may be said that the fear of punishment is
not a high motive. Certainly not. Nor is it a
wrong motive.  It is in moral character indifferent; but it is a great restraining power, and a




60          FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
motive of which both God and man seem necessitated
to make use. The reason is, that some men will
not respond to high and strictly holy motives, and
therefore cannot be  addressed  by them.  And
furthermore, whether the motive be high or low, the
fact itself is one of such tremendous import that the
wrong of concealing it would equal the folly of
disregarding it.
The foregoing are the chief outside objections
-which are urged against the Scripture doctrine of
endless punishment. But we trust it has been sufficiently shown that there are none of them which
do not press with equal force against the present
order of things. That is, we actually and inevitably
pursue our life and lot under just those conditions
which the objectors complain are inadmissible;
under just such a God, or just such laws, or just such
forces (whatever they please- to call it), as they pronounce impossible. The solid and solemn facts of
existence crush out their theories. The universe, out
of which there is no escape, allies itself with the word
of God against them. Not an objection is raised
which can stand before the facts and principles of our
common lot.
Here arises a question, however, which sometimes
almost assumes the form  of an opposition to the
Scripture teachings, -the question, How will God
punish?  Literalist,- or, rather, materialist notions
have passed away, and ought never to have arisen.
The variety and incomnpaibility of the physical




ETHICAL OB7ECTIONS.              6 x
images whereby the doom of the wicked is described
would almost seem purposely intended to prevent any
such literalism. Outer darkness, a lake of fire, cutting asunder, and then receiving one's "portion,"
drinking the wine of wrath, undying worms, cannot
all be literal, for they cannot go together; but they
can all shadow forth something terrific. Just the
same reason (and no more) existed for taking them
literally, as for understanding heaven as a feast, a
wedding, a supping with Abraham, and the like, - an
error which no one commits. These images all represent great realities, but are not the realities. This is
now universally admitted.
But there is, meanwhile, a growing tendency to
represent all future punishment as consisting merely
in the natural consequences of sin. Yet neither Scripture nor reason sustains this opinion, unless among
the natural influences we include the nature of God
himself.
The Scripture steadily ascribes this punishment to
God's agency, both in general and in detail. The
constant tenor of its teachings may be summed up in
its assertion that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the
hands of the living God."  Thus (Rom. ii. 6) "God
will render to every man according to his deeds;" to
the wicked there shall be (verses. 8, 9) " indignation and
wrath, tribulation and anguish;" that is, as the words
mean, the inner displeasure of God (" indignation ")
and its outward expression (" wrath "), an outer pressure upon the sinner (" tribulation), and a correspondent suffering (" anguish ").
6




62           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
There is nothing to prevent the belief, that God
will proceed both by natural consequences and by
more direct -inflictions, even as punishment takes
place in this life. The two things are entirely compatible, and seem to be implied in the sacred Word.
The same Scriptures which affirm that " evil shall slay
the wicked," and that " sin when it is finished bringeth forth death," also declare that "it is a fearful
thing to fall into the hands of the living God," and
that " our God is a consuming fire."
It is not difficult for the thoughtful observer of
human life to see how even sin left to itself, and with
all hinderances and present alleviations removed, must
work out misery. We need not speak of vice and
crime, for their ultimate and often terrible retribution
is proverbial. But simple selfishness contains the
germs of unlimited wrong and woe, as is proved
through all history and society, from the petty selfishness that in its humble sphere works out perpetual
annoyance without and within, up to the stupendous
career of the great emperor who carried desolation
into all the homes of Europe, and dragged out the
remainder of his own life in the bitterness of disappointment and complaint. So, too, the unsatisfied
desires and baffled strivings of the heart are capable
of most exquisite misery. The fact is recorded everywhere, in the disappointed ambitions, the wounded
prides, the writhings of the impoverished rich and of
the struggling poor, the fierce rivalries, bickerings, and
jealousies throughout civil and social life, the blasted
hopes of every kind, that leave such an ever-increasing




ETHICAL OBRECTIONS.               63
multitude of souls heartsick and disgusted with life;
from the Wolseys and Charles Fifths down to the
poor creatures that rush into suicide, or that live in
darkness and.despair. The torture of the malignant
passions, jealousy, hatred, and revenge, when once
fanned into flame, it has taken the world's master
artists to delineate. The wreck of human intimacies
and affections that sin is making all the time, on a
gigantic scale, between the nearest and the dearest
neighbors and friends, parents and children, husbands
and wives, are sad prophecies of what it can do when
it "is finished."  The pangs of remorse, when its time
has fully come, have required a Dickens or a Shakspeare to depict, in the villain Sykes or the Lady Macbeth; while yet the Christian minister has not seldom
seen the long-slumbering conscience so thoroughly
wakened as to bear a testimony equally terrible
against the great central, fundamental guilt of rejecting the holy and the loving God. Philanthropists
have even deemed it needful to protest against the
cruelty'of shutting up the criminal alone with himself for years together in solitary confinement, as a
punishment greater than human nature can bear.
Let, now, all these appalling forces set in at last
finally and forever; every grasping desire to rage on
without a possibility of gratification; selfishness itself
defeated in all its schemes; concealment, respect,
self-respect, and hope extinguished together; the
sweet sympathies and intimacies of life crushed out
by evil passions that even here fought hard against
them, and often overcame; the malign emotions, no




64           FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
longer held back by interest and hope, now bursting
forth; the soul made at length to see the unspeakable
wrong of contending against God, the hopelessness
of the struggle, and the stupendous folly of its own
choice; let all the hinderances, restraints, and alleviations of this life be forever.withdrawn, - the pleasures
of sense in all their various forms, the scenes of
amusement hallowed or unhallowed, the cares and
callings of life, the office and shop and workshop, all
the ambitions, excitements, schemes, gnd expectations
that buoyed up the spirits, and cheered on the struggles, -let these inevitable changes come, and it is not
difficult to comprehend that the intensest figures of
God's word but shadow forth the true penalty of sin.
"How terrible is sin," said Channing, "hereafter to
work its own misery.! and how false and dangerous it
is to argue, from the present power of escaping its
consequences, that you can escape them forever!"
But, besides all these natural and appointed laws,
the Scripture asserts, as we have seen, some direct
agency of God. And reason would confirm the interpretation. For, as God is true to himself, he must
entertain displeasure towards sin. As he is also true
to himself, he must in some way express that displeasure. That expression, in whatever mode, must
constitute a positive mighty pressure upon the sinful
soul.
The same remarkable trial to which reference has
already been made illustrates this subject well. The
influence which has driven the plaintiff and his prin



ETHICAL OB7ECTIONS.              65
cipal witness to their extraordinary series of procedures, was, as they allege, the simple, but prodigious
and terrible, pressure of human public sentiment.
The thing, too, which the defendant most shrinks
from, and shudders at, is not a money penalty, but the
awful stress of that same public sentiment, threatening
him with ruin and "despair."
If, now, the calm but deliberate condemnation of
men can breed such dismay, what are the resources
of our offended God?
6*




CONCLUSION.
THIS discussion has been compressed within the
briefest possible compass. It is but an outline
of a large theme. But it may serve to indicate the
basis on which the evangelical churches rest their
views of this sad subject. We have endeavored to
meet the several conditions specified in the first article,
as constituting a clear case.
It has been shown that the proof of this doctrine, -
I. Does not rest upon forced or strained constructions, but upon declarations obvious to -" plain people,"
and taken in accordance with the common laws and
usages of speech.
2. It is found not in one or two, but in repeated and
numerous assertions.
3. It is expressed not alone in some one mode of
speech or phraseology, but in several and diverse
modes of statement.
4. It rests upon direct and principal utterances in
which this topic constitutes a chief matter in hand.
5. It is sustained also by the general implications
and concurrent tenor of the system of truth in which
it is found.
6. It is opposed by no passages of Scripture which
do not admit of an easy explanation without conflicting with this doctrine; and,66




COvNCL USION.              67
7. It encounters no objection of principle which
does not lie equally against the manifest order of
things in the present course of nature.
And now we may confidently ask whether stronger
positive evidence can be found in the Scriptures
for any other doctrine whatever, attended with a
feebler show of adverse declarations within, or a
more baseless array of objections without, the sacred
volume. What more can be asked in the line of evidence? How can a believer in the veracity of God's
word - yea,'in the truth of the Redeemer - deny or
question this teaching?
This being the case, those who honestly rest their
faith upodn the Scriptures will undoubtedly continue
to receive this solemn truth, as the Church has always
done, notwithstanding all passionate declamations
against it. Those who hold that "the New Testament is not given as a full and accurate theological
chart for human thought," or who blindly insist that
this teaching is " impossible" and " cannot be proved,"
will probably maintain another gospel on this matter,
and on others also. But, though they should even prefer atheism to acceptance of the doctrine of eternal
punishment, they will find no relief from the fundamental difficulties till they dispense not only with
God, but with the actual course and tendency of
human events.
Meanwhile, those who choose to submit to God in
faith and love and true obedience will have no reason
to fear, or wrangle against, this momentous fact in
God's government. It has to them no more of terror or




68          FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
concern than has the knowledge of a state's prison to
the honest citizen. And one of the most extraordinary things in the history of a ruined race is, that, instead of joyfully accepting help and salvation, so many
of them persist in sin, and spend their strength in
complaining of the God who earnestly seeks to save
them, and of a penalty with which they need have
nothing to do. For God is calling after them, " Why
will ye die?"  The Saviour stands and cries, "Come
unto me."  "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.
And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him
that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take
the water of life freely."