(^LxYwobe

T"*""

l&lBc

*'" ' - ^wirm*

Future Retribution;
IS IT ETEENAL?

The Question Examined from the Standpoint of
Scripture, Philology, History and
Human Speculation.

BY,"

REV. G. CAMPBELL,
Vice-President and Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy ;
in the
University of Minnesota.

MINNEAPOLIS :
Tbibunb Steam Job and Book,, Pbintiko Establishment,
1878.:'

Compliments of G. Campbell.

IS IT ETEENALP

The Question Examined from the Standpoint of
Scripture, Philology, History and
Human Speculation.

BY

REV. G. CAMPBELL-,
Vice-President and Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy
in the
University of Minnesota.

MINNEAPOLIS :
Tbibune Steam Job and Book Printing Establishment,
1878.

Future Retribution;
IS IT ETEENALP

The Question Examined from the Standpoint of
Scripture, Philology, History and
Human Speculation.

BY

REV. G. CAMPBELL,
Vice-President and Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy
in the
University of Minnesota.

MINNEAPOLIS :
Tiubune Steam Job and Book Printing Establishment,
1878.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Minneapolis, Minn., March 18th, 1878.
PROF. G. CAMPBELL,
Dear Sir: — Believing your sermon on Future Retribution, delivered at
the First Congregational Church, the 3d inst., and repeated by request at the
Westminster Presbyterian Church last evening, to be a Scriptural and convincing
presentation of the doctrine, and that the wide circulation of the same would do
much good, we solicit a copy for publication.
'J. S. PILLSBUEY. O. V. TOUSLEY.
W. W. McNAIE. E. J. THOMPSON.
H. P. Van CLEVE. JABEZ BROOKS.
E. F. SAMPLE. H. G. SIDLE. ¦
J. B. GILFILLAN. E. V. PABODY.
EDWAED M. WILLIAMS. G. C. CAMPBELL.
P. M. WOODMAN. T. E. NEWTON.
ELIJAH MOULTON. WM. W. KEYSOE.
EICHAED CHUTE.

Governor PUkbury, Hon. W. W. McNair, General H. P. Van Cleve, Rev. R. F.
Sample and others, —
Gentlemen : — Your courteous offer to publish my discourse, to which
you refer in appreciative terms, is just received. I hereby place the manuscript
at your disposal. It is my sincere hope that its publication may assist others in
finding the Truth.
With best wishes, I am, Gentlemen, '•¦ Truly Yours,
G. CAMPBELL.

University of Minnesota, )
March 20th, 1878. )

Future Retribution.

" O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord." — Jeremiah xxii ; 29.
" They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." — Luke xvi ; 29.
Wherefore does the prophet exclaim "O earth, earth, earth" ?
What information so all-important is to be revealed by " the
word of the Lord" ? To what truth is " earth " so disregard-
ful that she requires a thrice-heralded petition — so indicative
of alarm — " earth, earth, earth," before she will give ear ?
Let us look at the context.
The prophet has been uttering the curses of Jehovah upon
the wicked sons of the Kings of Judah. "As I live, saith the
Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet
upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence." There
upon, in the following chapter, the Lord God pronounces
his woes upon the false prophets. And why does he threaten
them, even with "everlasting reproach" and "perpetual
shame ?" Because they " walk in lies," and " strengthen the
hands of evil-doers ;" so that the wickedness of the people
is " as Sodom "and "as Gomorrah." These false prophets
fail to proclaim the wrath of God against iniquity, the "griev
ous whirlwind " of his fury that " shall fall upon the head of
the wicked." What do they speak ? " They speak a vision
of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord."
They make transgressors " vain ;" declaring " the Lord hath
said, Ye shall have peace ;" assuring " every one that walketh
after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come
upon you." " Woe be unto the pastors" " that smooth their
tongues and say, He saith." " Is not my word like as a fire,

6 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in
pieces ?" Such was the emergency under which the prophet
proclaimed, " O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the
Lord." This was not the only instance in which the Lord God had
made unmistakable declaration as to the danger of sin.
Through his servant Moses (Deut. xxxii) he proclaims to
Israel : — " Give ear, O ye heavens, and hear, O earth ;" because
the children of men have forsaken me, moving me to anger
and abhorrence by their vanities and abominations ; " O that
they were wise, that they understood this, that they would
consider their latter end." Mark also the eloquence of the
prophet Isaiah (chap. I.) : " Hear, O ye Heavens, and give
ear, O earth ; for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and
brought up children, and they have rebelled against me."
" Ah ! sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity !" Re
fusal and rebellion will bring your ruin. Through Isaiah,
again, the Lord commands, " Cry aloud, spare not ; lift up thy
voice like a trumpet ; show my people their transgression and
the house of Jacob their sins." " Woe unto the wicked ! it
shall be ill with him,''
What wonder, after the mighty Jehovah has summoned the
heavens and the earth to give audience repeatedly, to his
denunciations of the ungodly, that he should here condemn,
with the most unsparing indignation, those false prophets
who, with smooth tongue, claim to speak what " He saith,"
and yet prophesy to the workers of iniquity, " Ye shall have
peace." " No evil shall come upon you !"
Have we not here general illustration of the method of the
prince of darkness ? He smoothes the way, belittles the con
sequences of sin ; thus ensnares men.
In the Garden of Eden, God said, " The ¦ day that thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
" Ye shall not surely die," says the serpent. You over
estimate the penalty. There is a more consistent interpreta
tion. Don't judge God by what He says ; let me tell you

FUTUEE RETRIBUTION. J
what He means. "God doth know that * * * * your
eyes shall be opened." Sin is merely a " process of develop
ment," an eye-opener. Increasing in knowledge, you shall be
advanced to the rank of the Gods.
The serpent wins the day. Eve eats. She carries fruit to
her husband, and says, Adam, I have just heard a beautiful
sermon from the text, "Thou shalt surely die," and the preacher
tells me, God means just the opposite of what he says. So
Adam " did eat," — and our first parents were sold under sin
and death.
When the human heart has once chosen error, there is en
gendered thereby a strange infatuation for error instead of the
truth. God appears to Adam and Eve after their sin, and
they hide themselves. So " men love darkness " when " their
deeds are evil." The evil-doer " hateth the light."
The nearer the truth approaches the brilliancy of heavenly
day, the keenness of a sword, the strictness and immutability
of law divine, the more repulsive it is to the natural heart.
Said Christ to Nicodemus, " If I tell you earthly things and
ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly
things," — where all is immaculate perfectness ? As Christ in
formed his disciples that he must lay down his life in order
that men might believe,— Strange that men will not believe !
Peter exclaims, Never, Lord; "far be it from thee." But
Christ rebuked him, — " Get th§e behind me, satan ;'' thou
savorest earthy things, not divine.
The apostle Paul foretold a time when men " will not endure
sound doctrine ; after their own lusts shall they heap to them
selves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn
away their ears from the truth." Who is prepared to say
the apostle was a false prophet ? Indeed, he saw the verifica
tion in his own day ; saw men changing God's truth into a lie,
their " foolish heart darkened" ; not liking to retain God, God
gave them over to reprobacy ; they delight in heinous sins, —
nevertheless, forewarned that the penalty is death.
The rich man in torments is a picture of astonishment. He

8 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
had not anticipated such a penalty ; and his brethren, still
upon " earth," do not believe. What shall be done ? Hear
Abraham's answer ringing across the gulf, — " They have
Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them."
Lest we, too, be disbelieving and neglectful, and lift up our
eyes when it is too late, shall not we in faith, while still walk
ing the " earth, hear the word of the Lord?"
I. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT.
Let us turn, then, to the scriptures, and inquire what is
there taught concerning the nature and extent of future pen
alties. What does " the word of the Lord" declare ?
.Inasmuch, however, as Christ pointed to " Moses and the
prophets " as providing all-sufficient information, it will, of
course, be proper first to " hear them." It is not difficult to
discern that the Old Testament is adapted to the youth, the
New Testament to the manhood of the race. The Bible sur
passes all other books as illustrative of the progress of human
ity. In the old dispensation, individuals and nations seem to
have been sent to school. By severest discipline, men were
taught "the laws" of things. The flood, the fire, the cloud,
the thunder, the sword, were object-lessons illustrating the
on-goings of the Almighty. The Lord Jehovah rises by
gradual revelation from a visible person, walking an earthly
Eden, to the un-beholdable God, existent " from eternity to
eternity," whom " the heaven of heavens " cannot contain.
The soul of man, at first regarded as a mere breath which
comes and vanishes, was found to be destined for unending
time. Some persons incline to under-estimate the teachings of the
old Scriptures. Their position suggests that of the man who
wound his time piece regularly every day for thirty years, then'
finally discovered he had an " eight-day " clock. Such, un
mistakably, will be the discovery of those who belittle the
majesty of these primal revelations.

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 9
We must distinguish between the comprehension of the
men and the comprehensiveness of the truth. The truth, but
partially revealed and understood, was robed in such wonders
and signs as drew men on to the mysteries beyond. Christ
came to enlighten what had already been stated. With what
unerring finger he points to the words " spoken by the
prophet !" How the face of the old Scriptures begins to
shine ! In splendor, the risen sun bursts forth from behind
the clouds ! How things which bore the image of the earthy
grow radiant with the image of the heavenly !
If, now, there is one sentiment in the Old Testament, all-
conspicuous and all-pervading, it is the wrath of God revealed
against iniquity. God's thunders roll from law-giver to
prophet ; his lightnings flash incessantly. If at first these
thunderings seemed only to reverberate to the gates of the
grave, gradually, gradually, the clouds of the unseen world
were lifted, and these same thunders were heard recoiling
from the boundless sky of eternity. From the first, God has
declared that he who sins loses everything.
In the Book of Job, most ancient and wonderful, the old
patriarch bewails that the ungodly live on unmolested, and
the good, evidently, unrewarded. He exclaims in sorrow,
" Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty
in power?" With what ominous earnestness the Lord God
converses with this ancient saint ? He chides the assumption
of the mere man, and displays with corruscations of eloquence
his own eternal purpose and power As to the glorying of
wicked men, God asks : " Have the gates of death been
opened unto thee ?" Dost thou comprehend what is yet to
come ? Job at length is satisfied. He beholds the unveiled
vista of a future life. Beyond the grave he " shall see God."
With the opening of "the gates of death," all the mysteries
dissolve. The Psalmist also (Psalm, lxxiii) describes his agony over
the same problem. He saw the wicked flourishing ; he was
envious at their prosperity. He beheld them, haughty and

IO FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
strong. Why is this ? He almost slipped. But he "went into
the sanctuary of God." Ah, the vision ! He understood their
end, — " they are utterly consumed with terrors," — " perish at
the rebuke of Thy countenance." But the righteous man, God
receives into glory — is his portion forevermore.
David and Job were by no means solitary in beholding
visions of the eternal world. When the Sadducees, who ig
nored a future life, questioned our Lord concerning it, He
directed them to Moses, who taught that Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob still live and walk with God.
Let us now observe a few passages which expressly describe
the penalty of sin as set forth by " Moses and the prophets."
Having previously declared, " my spirit shall not always
strive with man," God announces himself to Moses as " The
Lord God, merciful and gracious," but who " will by no
means clear the guilty." (Exodus, xxxiv.)
Isaiah (chap, lvii.) testifies : " The wicked are like the
troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire
and filth. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked."
And the Psalmist echoes the refrain, " The way of the ungodly
shall perish."
In Proverbs (chap I.) God's " wisdom crieth without ; turn
you at my reproof. Because I have called, and ye refused ; I
have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded ; I also will
laugh at your calumity ; I will mock when your fear cometh."
" Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer." " For
the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the pros
perity of fools shall destroy them. "They (Deut. xxxii.) shall
be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and
with bitter destruction." "For a fire is kindled in mine anger,
and shall burn unto the lowest hell."
Isaiah the prophet declares (chap. I.) " The destruction of
the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and
they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed." " And the
strong shall be as tow and the maker of it as a spark, and

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. I I
they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them."
" And (chap, lxvi.) they shall go forth and look upon the
carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me ; for
their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ;
and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." " For (chap.
xxx) Tophet (Gehenna) is ordained of old ; yea, for the King
it is prepared ; he hath made it deep and large ; the pile
thereof is fire and much wood ; the breath of the Lord, like
a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it." "Hear, (chap, xxxiii)
ye that are far off; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites ;"
they " shall be as the burnings of lime ; as thorns cut up shall
they be burned in the fire." " Who among us shall dwell
with the devouring fire ? Who among us shall dwell with
everlasting burnings ?"
" And (Daniel xii.) the multitude of them that sleep in the
dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and
some to shame and everlasting contempt."
"For (Malachi iv.) behold the day cometh that shall burn
as an oven ; and all the proud, yea all that do wickedly, shall
be stubble ; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith
the Lord of Hosts, — that it shall leave them neither root nor
branch. These are merely samples of prophetic teaching ; the im
port is obvious. Here are set forth the j udgment day, Gehenna,
brimstone, the undying worm, quenchless fire, and everlasting
burning and contempt.
Let us turn now to the New Testament and inquire whether
the words " spoken by the prophet " are there corroborated.
As to the nature of future retribution, we find it described
in unqualified terms as "outer darkness", "death", "perdition",
"ruin", "destruction", "damnation", "chains of darkness", "fire
and brimstone", the "wrath of God without mixture"; the
wicked are "accursed," "lost", "cut asunder", "cast out", and
"in hell".
The duration of their ruin is portrayed in most unmis
takable language as "everlasting chains", "everlasting fire",

12 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
"everlasting punishment", "the blackness of darkness forever,"
"the mist of darkness forever", "eternal damnation", "everlast
ing destruction from the presence of God". They are "tor
mented day and night forever and ever"; "the smoke of their
torment ascendeth up for ever and ever and they have no
rest, day nor night." The eternity of the ruin is farther shown
by concomitant facts. "The wrath of God abideth"; "their
worm dieth not"; "the fire is not quenched"; nay, indeed, it
is "fire unquenchable." The salt having "lost its savor" is
"cast out"; the bad fish "thrown away"; the barren tree "hewn
down." Furthermore, we are definitely taught that the period of
probation is confined to our earthly life. The rich man is re
minded of what happened in his "lifetime"; against that, his
future condition was balanced. "It is appointed unto men
once to die; and after this, the "judgment." Paul informs us
that when all appear before the j udgment seat of Christ, every
one shall receive according to "the things done in his body"
— while he is in the body.
The foolish virgins bought their oil too late ; knocking and
calling, "Lord, Lord, open to us"; they are answered, "Verily,
I know you not." For them, "the door was shut." Many
will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord". Then will come
the answer, "I never knew you ; depart". The master had
already "risen up and shut to the door."
Jesus says to certain Pharisees, "Whither I go, ye cannot
come". Why ? The same verse explains; — because ye "shall
die in your sins." The rich man, ushered into the future
world, is informed that now "there is a great gulf fixed"; over
it you cannot pass, this way or that way. At the marriage
of the King's son, a man appears unprepared — with no "wed-
ing garment." What does the King say i Is it, get ready,
get ready. Nay. "Bind him hand and foot, cast him into
outer darkness ;" ah, to "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
No hope expressed for him. "The night cometh when no

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 1 3
man can work." "Behold, now is the day of salvation." Now
is the day ; to-morrow is the night.
Furthermore, certain offences are designated as positively
unpardonable. "It is impossible for those who were made
partakers of the Holy Ghost, if they shall fall away, to renew
them again unto repentance". The same is repeated — Heb. x.
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the sin against the Holy Ghost
is characterized in similar terms ; it "hath never forgiveness".
Indeed, in Revelation we are told repeatedly that the con
demned "repented not." How could they be pardoned?
Finally, of Judas it is said that "it were good for that man if
he had not been born." This could only be asserted of a per
manent ruin. An eternity of joy would more than atone for
any limited penalty whatever, and prove it well for him, after
all, that he had lived.
These passages give a clear idea of the plain, unqualified
•teachings of "the word of the Lord" ; indeed, even of one who
has risen from the dead. In our case the rich man's request
is fulfilled. And what said the risen Jesus ? Were his words
attractive to the carnal heart? Nay, verily? "He that be-
lieveth not shall be condemned." The utterance of lips that
spake from the dead ! Condemnation for unbelief !
II. PHILOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
But it is asked, Are there not other interpretations which
explain these teachings in a milder form ? Does not a^ true
exegesis undermine the supposed meaning. Let us pi^ceed,
then, to the inquiry, What is the legitimate interpretation of
the words mainly involved in the doctrine of eternal retribu
tion ?
Objection has often been urged against the severity ascribed
to the revealed penalties. It commonly takes the form of a
double denial, namely, hell, is not a locality ; therefore, future
punishment is not by fire literally, ' With regard to these
negations we may note that they are both in the interest of

14 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
unbelief. Their aim is to cut down or varnish over the con
sequences of sin. But the assumptions are groundless. Even
supposing it true that these expressions are figurative, does
that slacken the intensity of their import ? Was our Lord an
exaggerator ? Did his descriptions overleap the truth, like
circus show-bills or quack advertisements ? Perish the
thought ! It is the purest infatuation to imagine that, when
severe terms are found to be figurative, their severity as a con
sequence disappears.
Concerning the nature of the fire in which lost souls suffer,
the query, Is it literal ? loses its significance when we reflect
that no sensible person can claim that something less fearful
is predicted.Hell, Gehenna, is said to mean literally the valley of Hin-
nom ; but I have never heard any one teaching that the wick
ed are to be punished in that valley. The Christian world has
never maintained that Gehenna was used in its literal sense.
Still, who has proved that the abode of the outcast and repro
bate has no existence in space ? That it is somewhere and
nowhere and everywhere, indiscriminately and at once ? And
is Heaven too dissipated in illimitable ether ? Where is the
proof? As to the word translated "hell" in the description of Laza
rus and the rich man, it is Aides (Hades) — from the Greek a
and ides, unseen — and signifies the unseen world in general,
the home of the departed dead, whether good or bad. The
use pf the term Hades is therefore most appropriate, the scene
of tWts sublime and awful dialogue being neither Heaven nor
hell, much less earth, but the unseen world in general, where
both speakers consistently appear. Inasmuch as there is no
doubt concerning the region of Hades the rich man occupied,
I should prefer the literal rendering, namely, In the unseen
world he lifted up his eyes. Aye, he sees now ; he believes
now. Still, at first, he does not fully comprehend that there
is "a great gulf fixed"— the saddest fact of all.
The question has also been raised as to the import of the

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 15
word punishment, in the sentence "these shall go away into
everlasting punishment". The Greek word is kolasis, which
is said to imply a reformatory penalty, as distinguished from
timoria, the dispensing of justice or vengeance. Now, the word
punishment, meaning the future penalty of sin, occurs in the
New Testament but twice ; once it is kolases, and once timo
ria ; therefore no argument can be based on one of the words.
There are also two instances in which the verb of similar im
port occurs. It is kolazo in only one of the cases. Even the
noun kolasis does not uniformly mean "punishment." Oc
curring twice in the New Testament in Matthew, it is render
ed "punishment", in Jdtth, "torment." Indeed, the usual word
for "torment" is employed in Matthew in the Syriac version.
To these facts as to usage must be added the significant one
that, in the Septuagint and Apocryphal scriptures, the kolasis
is death in a majority of cases. As a rule, then, no reform
was possible.
Concerning the word itself, what is its inherent significance ?
Kolasis means a cutting off, — as, for instance, a branch is cut
off. Whether a tree is improved by a cutting-off will depend
upon what the excision is. To cut off the live branches, and
leave the dead, would not improve the tree. So whether the
kolasis will improve man will depend upon the question, what
is cut off? If it is found that the man's head is cut off, you
would scarcely say the man is improved thereby, (although
society might be.) What, then, is cut off? Is it not the "life
eternal". The righteous go to everlasting life, but the wicked
to an everlasting "cut-off" therefrom. Could anything be
more expressive ? Is not this cutting-off denominated "the
second death".? Should it not be compared to the guillotine
which cuts off the head and takes the life — all the life that is
really worth* the having ? Kolasis as a penalty is here synono-
mous with death, ruin, destruction. And, where is the ray of
hope in such a punishment, in such a cutting-off as that ? It
is not, then, so much the Read alone, as the whole man that
is doomed — the whole tree hewn down. Yet this is the argu
ment from kolasis.

1 6 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
In general as to human speech, let us bear in mind that no
word whatever is absolutely invariable. Chiefly for rhetorical
effect, words are bent from their appropriate meaning. The
desire for strong language renders this particularly true of.
strong words. The more exalted the term, the more liable it
is to be degraded, even profaned. Hence such words as "eter
nal" and "everlasting" are often applied to temporal/even
trivial, matters. Dr. Blackie, a great author and scholar, speaks
of "the eternal whirl and fiddle of life". Such expressions
as endless talk, everlasting confusion, eternal vigilance, are
common. Yet nobody thinks that these words have lost their
real import ; although, indeed, it miftht possibly be shown,
that in a majority of cases they were" subjected to such deg
radation — subjected, indeed, because of their strength.
In view of this fact, we have attempts, from time to time,
to explain away the higher signification of words and reduce
them to some merely colloquial rank. The words God, soul,
heaven, hell, immortality, have in turn been arrested, as, from
time to time, it might appear desirable to dissipate the idea of
a God, of a soul, of a heaven, of a hell. The attack is now
in progress upon the word "eternal." The mode of procedure
is simple. It is this : — Cull out from the Greek writers enough
instances where it is employed in a modified sense to found a
claim that this is usage, and the thing is done.
With the same facility one might fish from the works of
Shakespeare, Dickens, and others, a sufficient number of in
stances to prove that the English words " eternal " and " ever
lasting " do not refer to endless time, only to limited periods.
It is not at all unlikely that two or three thousand years
hence, when the English tongue shall have lost its present
form, some interested ax-grinder, by a Very simple play of
sophistry, will be able to go through the existing. English
literature and prove not only that " eternal " and " everlasting"
do not regularly refer to eternity, but that it is extremely
doubtful if we, in the old-fashioned nineteenth century, pos
sessed any such idea as eternity at all. Such is the ease with

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 17
which language can be wrested about when any great interest
is involved. It has been asserted, perhaps incorrectly, that no attorney
could so state the will of a millionaire that no other attorney
could break it. As regards God's will, with so vast a case
and so much at stake, I believe it would be utterly beyond the
power of human language to express it so that it would not
be subject to the machinations of men.
The proper Greek word for eternity is aion ; as such it
holds its place in Greek literature and philosophy. Of
course, Plato employs it when he calls time a moving image
of eternity. In definition of the word, Aristotle says, " The
duration or full period of the whole heaven and the full period
which comprehends infinite time and infinity is aion, having
received that name from the fact that it always is". "This",
he adds, " is the name divinely given it by the ancients." The
fact that it expresses what always is, is seen in the composition
of the word, aei-\-on, always existing. When Plato distin
guishes time limited from time unlimited, he says " chronos
ho aei on " namely, " time, the always existing". In this way,
the substantive ho aion, eternity was evidently formed. The
root aei appears in the Latin aeternitas, and in our eternity ;
also in aye, ever, and everlasting — not to speak of the German
Ewigkeit. In fact we, in common with the Romans and Ger
mans, depend upon this Greek root to form a word which
shall express what is eternal — to say eternity. The pedigree
of the word, then, is unexceptionable.
In the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Old Testa
ment, aion replaces the Hebrew olam. As to olam, Gesenius,
our standard Hebrew lexicographer, insists upon confining
its meaning strictly to " eternity," which, according to Moses
Stuart, is its import in an " overwhelming predominance " of
cases. It would appear that this word, olam, was confined
even more sacredly to its lofty meaning than the correspond
ing Greek word. It is clear that aion and olam were respec
tively the most competent words the Greeks and Hebrews had

1 8 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
to express the longest duration conceivable, namely, endless
time. But here we are met by an objection, that this is depending
too much upon one word. One word cannot be trusted to
carry so much responsibility.
Well, this is strange logic! An objection to" one word
would admit an objection to any word. If, then, any word
signifies eternal, it can be ruled out. Then no word can be
allowed the responsibility 01 meaning eternal. But if one
word may be disfranchised, so may two, so may three ; in
short, such tyranny over speech would make it inadmissable
for language to express what is everlasting. Such an objec
tion refutes itself.
It is proposed, however, to coin a new word, namely,
aeonian, and let that express the duration of future retribu
tion; in short, stand for aionios. Aeonian will mean " for the
aeon" and will be specific. No objection to this. If man is
immortal, his aeon is eternity.
Let us look at the proposition. Everlasting life is aeonian?
Yes. God's glory is aeonian? Yes. His throne is aeonian?
Yes. His life is aeonian? Yes.
But is not God immortal ? Yes. Then is not his aeonian
life eternal ? Yes. And is not his aeonian throne eternal ?
Yes. And is not his aeonidtf glory eternal ? Yes. And is
not the aeonian blessedness of the righteous eternal ? Yes.
In these cases aeonian must mean eternal. It must. Unless
aeonian does absolutely mean eternal, God's throne, his glory,
and all the promisecLbliss of heaven, " like the insubstantial
pageant of a dream " will pass away. The question is merely
shifted, but not changed. This patent word affords us no
relief. Aeonian is nothing less than a fully-fledged aionios ;
and aionios confronts us still. For if aionios has back- bone
sufficient to support God's throne eternally, to sustain glory
and blessedness forevermore, would it not also support ruin
and a curse ? Why not ?

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 1 9
Ah, everlasting aionios ! " What have we to do with thee",
aionios ? Why dost thou " torment us before the time", aion
ios ? Cannot science, Modern Science, betray thee and crucify
thee and lay thee away in the tomb, roll her infallible rocks
against the door, and seal them with evolution omnipotent,
aionios ?
Nay, nay, call not on the rocks to cover it. Aionios is eter
nal ; and you may buffet it, and spit upon it, and stab it with
spears, and crown it with thorns ; but the breath of eternity
is in it, and you cannot beat it out. " The word of our God
shall stand forever."
Still, however powerful and irrepressible any one word may
be, it \s nonsense to claim that the case hangs on but one.
In Jude, the " everlasting chains " are aidios ; — this word also
means eternal. Should aionios come short, aidios will supply
the missing link; and, with these chains eternal, the penalty
is eternal.Furthermore, the different words expressing unending time
are so combined and repeated that they seem to overdo, or
overstate, rather than come short of definiteness. For in
stance, we have eis ton aiona, forever ; eis tous aionas, forever
and ever ; and eis tous aionas ton aionon, forever and ever and
ever. Here forever signifies precisely as much when it stands
alone as when coupled with ever, or ever and ever. Such
repetition is common in all languages, and indicates an irre
sistible effort to overcome any possible weakness of human
speech to express the idea of what is boundless and endless.
Of the phrases just mentioned, allow me to quote the defini
tion from the lexicon of Sophocles, whose dictionary of the
Greek of our Saviour's time is our very highest authority.
The definition is this : " Time without end ; forever ; forever
and ever ; per omina saecula saeculorum" the latter definition
being the strongest phrase in the Latin tongue for the ex
pression of infinite duration.
Says Dr. Angus of London, author of the "Bible Hand
book," and a conspicuous member of the present conimission

20 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
to revise the Bible, "Every form of words employed in Scrip
ture to denote everlastingness, our Lord and his Apostles em
ploy to describe the state of those who die in sin and unbe
lief." Says Moses Stuart, who, in exegesis, stands at the head of
our American scholars, "If the Scriptures have not asserted
the endless punishment of the wicked, neither have they .assert
ed the endless happiness of the righteous, nor the endless glory
and existence of the Godhead."
Dr. Boise, of the University of Chicago, who is second to no
Greek scholar in the country, says of the word aionios : "If,
then, the meaning of this word is not fixed in the New Testa
ment, I don't know any word whose meaning is fixed; nor do
I know how it is possible to fix the meaning of any word in
any language." As to the phrase eis tous aionas ton aionon
(which I would translate forever and ever and ever), he adds,
"I cannot conceive of any word, or any combination of words,
in the Greek language, or iri any other language, which will
convey the idea of eternal duration in the future, with more
freedom from ambiguity and misconception, or with more
solemn emphasis, than this one. If this phrase is a failure,
then all human language is a failure — and of all languages, the
Greek is acknowledged to be the most perspicuous."
And to what climax of rejection does all this refer ? The
strongest possible words in the" clearest and best language in the
world are crucified! like God 's son ! !
Who would have imagined that unbelief could go so far ?
Is it not saying, "Thou shalt surely die" means "Ye shall not
surely die"?
III. HISTORICAL ARGUMENT.
But it is frequently asserted that our Lord's disciples and
the people generally, understood these words in a different
sense. In addition, then, to these direct arguments from
revelation, let us examine the historical question. What was,

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 21
and has been, Christ understood to teach concerning the eter
nal ruin of the ungodly ?
First, since Christ pointed to " Moses and the prophets,"
what were they understood to teach ? From the Jewish
Targums it appears that there were a few among the Jews who,
thinking eternal punishment too severe for sinners who may
not be incorrigible, imagined there would be, aside from the
righteous and the wholly wicked, a " middle class " who
should spend but a short time in Sheol. Now, although this
sect was so small as not to attract the notice of the ordinary
Jewish historian, it does provide by this denial unmistakable
evidence that the remainder, — the great mass of the Jewish
people, — did understand their Scriptures to proclaim the un
ending perdition of the wicked.
To this fact, Josephus bears the most direct and unim
peachable testimony. He describes the Essenes and Phari
sees, who constituted the large majority of the nation, as teach
ing the eternal, yes, the " immortal ", punishment of the
ungodly; while the Sadducees, or Jewish skeptics, denied
endless retribution, only implicitly, by rejecting the doctrine
of a future life altogether. And we find that the Jews of to
day fully accord with their forefathers that the Old Testament
pronounces the rewards and penalties of the future never-
ending. The learned Rabbi of the Jewish Synagogue in New Haven
was recently asked, "What did the Jews believe about future
punishment at the time when Christ lived ?"
His published answer is as follows : "With the exception
of the Sadducees, who were few in numbers and regarded as
infidels, the Jews believed that the punishment of the wicked
was endless."
To the second question, "Can it not be made out that they
believed in some form of Universalism ?" he replied, "No ; it
would be a falsification of history."
As to what the Jews to-day declare, and always have de
clared, the teachings of Christ himself to have been on this

22 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
matter, allow me to quote from a recently-issued address by
Dr. Kohler, Rabbi of the Jewish Synagogue in Chicago. Dr.
Kohler testifies, that there is no fact of the whole New Testa
ment history as certain as that the "Nazarene Messiah taught
that those who refused to follow him as their Saviour were to
remain in hell forever and aye!' "This,"' he adds, "was the
foundation stone of Christianity. To renounce the belief in it
was to part with the entire salvation scheme."
No one can study the writings of the Christian fathers who
preceded the Nicene council without finding abundant proof
of their acceptance of the doctrine under discussion. Among
them, however, Origen, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, are some
times claimed as its opponents, and I have read their writings
with special care.
Origen is a theorizer ; but he is quite particular to distin
guish what he finds taught in the Bible from his own fancies.
The importance of these fancies has been much over-esti
mated ; and it is a clear proof of the evangelical spirit of the
times, that he was set aside quite as much on account of them
then as he would be to-day. I can but agree with the state
ment, made in the introduction to his works by his transla
tion, Professor Crombie of St. Andrews, namely : " There
seems, however, after all, no adequate reason to doubt the
substantial orthodoxy of our author."
Irenaeus and Justin Martyr have been counted as annihila-
tionists, but I cannot find satisfactory proof of it. Here is a
fair sample of the teaching of Justin Martyr : ' " Each man
goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the
value of his actions." Irenaeus also repeatedly asserts that
the wicked will continue to exist in misery forever. Even if
Irenaeus were, an annihilationist, which he is not, he would
make two points against the restorationist ; first, future retri
bution is not reformatory ; second, being death, it is claimed
to be eternal.
I am unable to find among the Fathers a single one who
treats either Restorationism or Annihilationism as if he really

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 23
believed it himself or was persuaded that the Bible teaches it.
On the subsequent history of Christian belief I need not and
cannot dwell. There is no doubt as to the prevailing creed.
In fact, the general criticism of medieval theology is that it
emphasized too strongly the certain perdition of the enemies
of God. Coming down to the present day, we recognize the
same prevalent reception of the plain word of the Lord.
As a matter of course, all through the past centuries there
has been antagonistic teaching. The revealed statements have
been opposed and denied. So long as evil influences exist,
evil will have its percentage of success. This percentage, as
representing those who deny the everlasting doom of the wick
ed, has not varied greatly. There may seem to be a tempo
rary outcry, which the daily press has constantly exaggerated,
and as often corrected, but it is my conviction that the Christ
ian commonwealth contains no larger proportion of those who
are deceived by illusive appeals than in former times — not
larger than may be expected, while mere human feelings are
so utterly unreliable. The dust has been in the atmosphere
constantly— the sunlight of our age may render it more per
ceptible. It was my province recently to travel up and down Eng
land, Scotland, Germany and France. Frequent association
with ministers gave ample opportunity to ascertain the current
beliefs. English Congregationalists are claimed for Restora-
tionism. Not one did I meet, or hear of, among their pastors
in 1871.
Concerning the prevalence of this doctrine among the Scot
tish people, Dr. Pulsford, pastor of the leading Congregational
church in Glasgow, said to me, "The restorationists have made
several attempts to form a church in Glasgow, unsuccess
fully." He added, "Their logic is not adapted to Scotland."
In France the Bible is recognized as teaching the eternal
retribution of the wicked. But its authority has been rejected.
Does not French civilization display the result of removing
the fear of God from the hearts of men and women ? In Ger-

24 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
many little trace was found of Restorationism. So far as I
could judge, it was the current belief among German scholars
that the language of the Bible cannot be made to shorten fu
ture penalties without shortening future joy.
In our own country this has also been the prevalent doc
trine; — here, even Parker and his followers may be included.
The late T. Starr King, one of their well known preachers, left
witness as follows : "I freely say that I do not find the doc
trine of the ultimate restoration of all souls, clearly stated in
any text or in any discourse that has been reported from the
lips of Christ."
The American Unitarian Association in a recent report on
this subject testifies, — "It is our firm conviction that the final
restoration of all men is not revealed in the scriptures."
Where is the commentator of eminence who can construe
the Bible to teach restoration ? Olshausen is claimed. Let
Olshausen speak for himself. Under I Cor. xv ; 28, he says,
"Neither here nor in any other passage of the sacred Scrip
tures is the final recovery of all evil men expressed openly and
in a definite form."
Washington Gladden has been hailed as an advocate of the
belief in question. But Mr. Gladden has recently published a
letter in which he says he does not believe that the reinvesti
gation of this whole subject will result in the establishment of
Universalism. Mr. Farrar is considered a fresh convert. But in his recent
sensational sermon he uses these significant words : "I can
not preach the certainty of what is called Universalism." This
of course indicates his belief that the Bible does teach the
doctrine of eternal retribution. In regard to some extravagant
statements he did make with unusual assumption of learning,
I cannot do better than quote from the published opinion of
one of our most eminent linguists. Refering to the Canon's
assertions, he says, " If the words attributed to him were
actually uttered in Westminster Abbey, or in any other place,

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 2$
he said what the ablest and most thoughtful scholars in all
lands and all ages, with few exceptions, would condemn as
false." As a result, then, of this historical inquiry, we find irrefut
able testimony that the Jews, from first to last, have understood
the Old Testament to teach the everlastingness of future pen
alties; that this was the belief of the great majority of their
people at the advent of the Messiah ; that the Jews then un
derstood, and still declare, that Christ put forth the same
doctrine in the most unambiguous terms ; that the apostles
and fathers, with great unanimity, and the christian churches
with equal unanimity, have believed and taught the same.
If, now, upon the fullest evidence, it is clear that the Jews
who believed in any future life at all maintained that a soul
that is lost for earth is lost forever ; if Christ was fully aware
of that fact — and who could show that he was not ? — why in
the name of truth and humanity did he not correct the mistake ?
Why do not his denunciations of such a terrible doctrine ap
pear on every- page and in every chapter of his gospel ? Why
was he so recreant to truth and fairness as to fail to utter a
single syllable which the combined scholarship of the world
could interpret as opposed to such a prevailing belief?
Why, on the contrary, did he surpass the prophets them
selves in his denunciations of sin, and out-do every apostle in
proclaiming that the wicked shall be cast down to hell, to
suffer in unquenchable fire ?
He could speak with authority ; and spake " as never man
spake." Where others tremble, he proclaimed ; — yet some
times weeping ; ah, he was " acquainted with grief."
Nay, on this very point, did he not speak as never other
man ? I am unable to find the writings of one of his noted
followers, down through the nineteen Christian centuries, that
bristle with so frequent declarations, in every form and figure of
speech, concerning the inevitable ruin of wicked men, as are
found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,

26 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
If Christ did not teach the everlastingness of future retri
bution, it were easy to make out the fathers did not. Nay,
more ; — If Christ's words do not announce it, how can those
of Augustine, or Luther, or Edwards ? If Christ has not
taught it, who did teach it ? What language can declare it,
what words express it ? To what would such logic inevitably
lead us ? It would make out that the doctrine never was
taught, ana human speech is incompetent to give it expression.
IV. SPECULATIVE ARGUMENT.
We come now to a final inquiry. Even if the Bible plainly
declare it, and exegesis and history show that God's book has
been and must be so understood, ought not the doctrine to be
rejected as in itself inconsistent ?
Well, what does reason say ? Directly, nothing whatever.
Depending merely upon inference or analogy, what does "na
ture" suggest ? What, if anything, can human speculation
deduce from practical life and inductive science ? What is the
condition of the race ?
Professor Maurice walks the streets and lanes of London
and says, "So far as I can see, nine-tenths of the human family
ought not to have been born."
Michael Angelo carves beneath his statue of Sleep on the
tomb of the Medici "Sleep is sweet; but still more sweet it is
to be of stone, while shame and misery last."
Through his hoary sage, a Scottish poet sings : —
" Iv'e seen yon weary winter's sun
Twice forty times return ;
And every time has added proofs
That man was made to mourn."
One of our own prominent writers referring to the preva
lence of poverty, disease and distress, says : " It is this, that
makes the phenomenon of the world such as to stagger strong
men, and make impossible to many, faith in the loving, self-
sacrificing nature of God."

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 27
Pessimism, a form of philosophy only too prevalent, assumes
to prove that the condition of the world is the worst possible.
The culminating strain of this philosophy has been produced ,
I think, by an English poet :
" Were I made as he
Who hath made all things, to break them one by one ;
If my feet trod upon the stars and sun
And souls of men as His have alway trod^
God knows I might be crueler than God.
*****
Is not his incense bitterness, his meat
Murder ? His hidden face and iron feet
Hath not man known, and felt them on their way
Threaten and trample all things-and every day ?
*****
Him would I reach, him smite, him desecrate ;
Pierce the cold lips of God with mortal breath,
And mix his immortality with death."
Such are the expressions of men who look upon the world
as it is. Without heaven's light, they fail to behold that God
is even just — much less, loving ; they rebel ; they threaten his
very existence. Practical life, then, brings no counter-proof.
But does not science bring a counter-argument ? Science
is too prone to claim she does not find a God at all, to find
only arbitrary, immutable law — to deny that God would
change law even to save a race. Man breaks a law and pays
the penalty.
Our nearest neighbor's son danced, disobediently, on the
fragile ice. We could have excused him. Nature could not.
He was drowned. Cold, cruel nature ! — from our standpoint.
My friend's leg was struck off by a cannon ball. In the field
of nature, it is lost forever. Up to a certain point, nature
kindly heals ; beyond this point, she only hastens destruc
tion. Do we, then, thus control our eternal destiny ? We may injure
our bodies permanently, even destroy them. May we not in
jure our souls for all time — destroy them, practically ? What

28 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
would be the effect of a permanent injury to an immortal
soul ?
When the whale is smitten with the harpoon he dives so
rapidly the line passing over the boat takes fire. Suppose it
passed so swiftly that no time was -occupied in the transit,
would it not be a stream of flame from end to end ?
Now let a man mar himself permanently. From day to day,
he feels the burning disgrace. Let him enter eternity and be
hold all time at a glance, would not his shame become a line
of flaming fire ? Nature here affords no counter-argument.
If we examine the mind itself, we find corroborating proof.
Man is fearfully made. As, a moral agent he has three factors ;
unlimited freedom, unlimited capacity to know, unlimited ca
pacity to suffer.
With limited power to know, freedom would be unharnessed.
With limited power to suffer, knowledge would be unguarded.
Unlimited suffering involves an unlimited time. Moral agency,
if responsibility is complete, embraces eternity. .Now, to all this,
the mind shows its fitness. Memory has no power to dismiss
its images. Conscience can never say that wrong is right.
Yes, conscience contains the possibilities of an endless hell ,
— a worm that gnaws forever — a fire you cannot quench. And
she is making up her account — silently — surely. Men may
mock at her, and boast themselves in reprobacy ; with the
shadows of the night may cover her, and exclaim With Shake
speare's Richard : —
"Why, I can smile and murder while I smile ;
Can cry content to that which grieves my heart,
Can wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And form my face to all occasions."
Nay more, —
"When we in our viciousness grow hard,
* * the wise gods seal our eyes,
In our own slime drop our clear judgments, make us
Adore our errors, laugh at us while we strut
To our confusion."

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 29
But conscience is immortal. She awakes ; and Richard
testifies, —
"My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain."
Yes, the mind itself shows all the adaptations. Some per
sons assert that conscience is the whole of hell. I know not
who informed them. Here, certainly, it is inevitable. Who
can prove it is not fixed elsewhere?
But, will not the very punishment of wicked men tend to
reform them ? Well, is punishment — not to insist upon calling
it ruin — an absolute reformative, or is it not ? If the answer is
affirmative, why, then, did not the Mosaic dispensation suc
ceed ? Why did God himself recommend capital punishment,
in face of such absolute principle ? Why did not Pharoah
improve ?
Two barristers in Dublin fell -into a quarrel. The one
struck down the other, exclaiming, " I'll beat the gentleman
into you." " Stop, stop," said the up-scrambling son of the
law, " beating never made a gentleman." Would any amount
of beating, or compulsion, ever make a goat a sheep ? — a
moral goat, a saint ?
An old convict, instead of being reformed, is he not a
marked man ?-From statistics of .prisons in Europe, it appears
that, in case of a crime, the chances against the old convict are
more than forty to one, as compared with the ordinary citizen.
Force makes men rebellious rather than submissive. A pen
alty that will not prevent fails to reform.
If, now, the reply is, Punishment reforms except in hopeless
cases ; we would say, Those are just the cases that are lost —
the dead cases. Satan supposed affliction would make Job
curse God. He had doubtless seen its effect on the wicked.
But he mistook his man ; Job was righteous.
Again, it is frequently asserted with great emphasis that
the eternal punishment of the wicked is a " heathen doc-

30 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
trine." Indeed ! How did the heathen come to have a word
that would express it ? Could the Egyptians and Romans
say eternal with reference to retribution, and yet the Jews
could not, — God's chosen, specially inspired children ? And
could the Greek's describe eternal penalties in their own re
ligion and yet fail in a word to assert them in the christian
system ? Did aionios enter upon a moulting season and cast
its feathers^ at Christ's advent to establish his everlasting
kingdom ? Sheer nonsense ! The Jews were directly in
spired. The fact that the heathen also are informed shows
the abounding mercy of God, in giving the fact a universal
proclamation. That sin ruins everything has been in the
consciousness of the race from Eden downward — always and
everywhere. To the farther assertion that the dispensations
and penalties of the Old Testament, while often called eternal,
were really temporary, it must be asked, Were they not ever
lasting in their highest, their moral, their only vital, import ?
Were not characters formed for eternity under Moses and the
prophets ? Though their material flames have long since dis
appeared, are not Sodom and Gomorrah, in reality, "suffering
the vengeance of eternal fire "?
But, says DeQuincey, to make evil aeonian would " insult
the Deity." Aeonion here evidently means eternal. Correct
for once. But does not every evil-doer insult the Deity?
Yet God made him. Now cauld not God make a being capa
ble of insulting him forever > Without a doubt. Would it
not insult God to say he could not ? Then does not the in
spiration of the opium-eater lead him to insult the Diety?
Add to this the declaration that aeonian punishment cannot
be eternal, from the very nature of punishment ; its aeon must
be limited. But who has proved that ? Who has shown that
the punishment of an immortal cannot be endless ? The as
sumption is unwarranted, and begs the whole question. Even
the quibbling De Quincey will not claim that aeonian ever
signifies limited duration.
The question is, Will all moral agents ever cease to do evil ?

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 3 1
Man, left free, has the opportunity to sin eternally. Further
more, sin, like disease, perpetuates itself. Hereafter, as here,
will not a man become linked to his associates ? And they
will be the worst possible, — what ? The angels that sinned, the
beast, the false prophet, sorcerers, dogs, whoremongers, idola
ters, liars, the fallen, the refuse of the universe. It may be
that the wills of the lost are enslaved by evil choices, — dead
in sin, — so that they could not permanently choose the good,
— simply under the " prince of darkness." It may be they
will blindly rebel and freely choose sin (Rev. xvi : 1 1.). It may
be, though not choosing sin, they are, nevertheless, impenitent.
It may be that they are penitent, but still unholy. In any of
these four cases they could not enter heaven, even if the door
were still open. If unholy or impenitent, choosing sin or
chained in sin, the lost one is still irrecoverable. Situated as
he is, under the very law of association, — its " everlasting
chains" — how could he become holy ?
Is, then, God just, if he punishes- eternally ? Such punish
ment, says James Freeman Clarke, " takes away his highest
glory." Let us see. Sin and suffering are here ; does that
impair his glory ? Which would display his glory most, sin
permitted and triumphant, or sin checked and punished?
Christ's kingdom and glory are not complete, victorious,
until all things are under his feet. Does not the argument
prove the reverse ? Will not God's glory, in days to come,
be brighter than now, — when Christ's heel is on the serpent's
head, on the serpent's craft, the. serpent's logic? Surely,
God's glory will be brighter then.
Some people argue, if sin and suffering are of short dura
tion, we can excuse them. Look at it ! They would excuse
God to-day, if he'll be a good boy to-morrow.
God's empire embraces both eternity and the universe.
And does not the logic of eternity "apply now ? If to-day,
why not to-morrow ? Why not ? Can we prove that no free
beings will need to be kept in check ? Have we measured
man's capacities ? — the image of a God — made to subdue the

32 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
earth — perhaps competent to subdue other worlds. Who
knows the limit of his strength ? Like lost angels, men
might range from world to world, scattering sin and woe —
might besiege the very citadel of God, and plant confusion in
the heavenly Eden.
Will wickedness ever cease to be a terror ? Does not sin
against an infinite being, infinite perfection, require an infinite
resource? God is infinitely lovable and infinitely terrible.
Does not the one some way require the other. Heaven must
be kept immaculate forever. But, after all, in God's govern
ment, is it the main question whether he ' can make strong
knees and bend them at his will ? Of course he could. God's
laws execute themselves. The law and the penalty are
attached. And when man breaks God's law he only breaks
himself. Man holds his eternal destiny in his own hands. Fear
fully solemn trust ! And some men spoil themselves; society
counts them spoiled, and launches them out of time. Is
there a more awful thought than this, God will leave you free ?
Your free will stamps you as his image. If you will not,
God will not.
And has God left man uninformed ? Nay, verily. He has
repeated over and over and over : The soul that sinneth dies.
As I live, I have no pleasure in its death. My way is equal
— your way is unequal. Turn ye, turn ye. Why will ye die ?
Turn ye ; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Yea, God has even transcended human belief in the magni
tude of his mercy. He sent his own divine Son to warn and
plead. But men would not believe he was a God. They
slew him ; and now He exclaims : " What could have been
done more to my vineyard? " What more ? What more ?
A few months ago a banker in this city showed me his
safe clock. He sets it at night, and nobody in the world, not
even the owner, can open it before morning. If he did, he
himself would have to burst the safe. It is secured for the

FUTURE" "KETRrBUTION. 33
night. The time-lock of human responsibility is set. The
hand of that free will sweeps through all time. God himself
cannot change it — I speak with reverence — God himself can
not change it without bursting the safe — without shattering
his moral universe. Over the abode of God's rebellious, lost
children may be placed this inscription, We refused. Is not
God just?
Suppose a fly should alight on Bierstadt's painting of
Vesuvius and turn its eye upon a tiny, in itself ugly, lump of
paint. The fly is disgusted. Behold, it swells itself and
waxes eloquent, yes worse, — I swear by Raphael, Rubens,
and Correggio that the producer of this painting is no artist.
If Bierstadt hath done this, he must be the devil incarnate.
I cannot worship the devil.
Ridiculous fly ! With more ideas you would be less
profane. A painting hath both light and shadow. The
shading, properly viewed, but adds to the beauty of the light.
Finally, we come to the familiar query, Could we be happy in
heaven if our friends were lost? The question springs from
unbelief. We doubt God's competency to make heaven happy.
Are any lost through our unfaithfulness, how vast the cause
of grief. In such a case, could we, indeed, gain heaven our
selves ? It's the "good and faithful servant" —enters what ? —
the joy of the Lord. Would that even this world — even this
world — had less power to dissipate our sympathy ! Too
remiss, — too happy, — and yet the "lost" are here.
Oh, would that we might weep over the perishing, as God's
son wept ! For what higher end could tears be made ? For
what more fitly could they fall ?
Here is "the word of the Lord" In my ears echoes the ex
postulation, " Earth, earth, earth." I know only what He
hath spoken. Heaven forbid that I should soothe with soft
ened phrases ! Deep, too deep, is my conviction that, if to
any one before me, shall come the sentence, "Depart, * * *
ye cursed," — your misfortune will be greater than it is in the
power of language to express. To me, the prospect of a fu-

34 FUTURE RETRIBUTION.
ture probation stretches away like outer darkness. If I have
one hearer who thinks to take his chance beyond the grave,
one word to you. My friend, I wouldn't risk it for ten thou
sand worlds.
Christ's soul travailed in agony. But he saw and was sat
isfied. The redeemed no man can number. I doubt not
when we too see, we shall be satisfied. What means that
promise ? "God shall wipe away all tears." Does it not cover
the case ? Methinks there will be minor chords in heaven's
music ; deep bass that rolls its undertone trembling through
the celestial courts ; but, over all, uniting all, controlling all,
the completed harmony of transcendent bliss, — unmeasured
joy- Does it appear that Lazarus was distressed ? Abraham
only defended his God. And can it be true that we shall
greatly esteem those who deserve our Father's curse ? Shall
we not rather array ourselves by his side ? — despise and ab
hor iniquity ? Will not sin itself create a gulf that separates
the sinner ? I know a mother who will not look at her son.
Sin did it. I know a father who shuts out his daughter. Sin
did it. There's not a bond on earth that sin will not dissolve.
Still, though broken households, ruined hopes, and death
itself abound, if duty is done, even here, even here, we may
find peace, sweet peace. So, I can trust, that up yonder, as
we walk hand in hand with God, though we behold the dark
back-ground of his glory, — glory made transcendently glori
ous by the triumph of righteousness ; if we can say, "Father,
we did what we could" — "around our incompleteness" will flow
God's goodness, — "round our restlessness, His rest," — and I
have full faith that not a heart-throb of heaven's happiness will
be marred.

'ALE LMlKHSiTV LIBRARY

3 9002 08540 2213