Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1878-04-19
FrOW tnB NnlIsNIdH z tH1V
The Problem Of the Future.

| pnuosopny proposes any S'hehe VI itin
tion without repentance it is not whethe
there is a tendency in evil habits to harde
into an evil character, no Christian philo'
ophy sees in the human soul here or here
after a self-recuperative power. 1t is, firstly
whether We see on earth the final limits
the power of Gods mercy. or whether in tn
future life that mercy works on by neN
methods to a diviner consummation; and
secondly, what is the final fate of the IRE
claimable, if any utterly irreclaimable ther
be, endless suffering or an endless sleep.
| |. This problem is a most serious an
solemn one. Ii is not settled by the word
eternal and everlasting, applied in our Eng
lish Scriptures to future penalty. Fo
though the word aionios may be so rendered
it need not be. No good Greek scholar vii
deny that it sometimes signifies simply lon
period the best Greek scholarship recognize
that it generally represents an indefinite, no
an endless period, time whose end is not seen
not time without end. Certainly when s.
eminent Greek scholar as Tayler Levi
thus interprets it. no English reader will
consider it conclusive Of the question. N,
great truth can be dependent on the doubt
ful translation Of single word. Nor is i
determined by any general consensus OF th'
church in the past. Such a consensus to bt
conclusive must nave been reached after the
fullest discussion. with the largest liberty
and in the clearest moral light. The genera
consensus of the church sanctioned the papa
authority till Protestantism issued its declar
alton of independence. 1t sanctioned the
theory Of creation wrought in six litera
days till the science of the present century
compelled profounder study of the Mosaic
| cosmogony. There has never been time
since the days of Origen when the doctrine
| of endless sin and suffering has not been
questioned by devout Christian men =; but
there has never been period when it has
been freely, frankly and candidly discussed
within the Church of Christ. No general
consensus can be conclusive except one
which follows such discussion. Nor is the
problem settled by the dogmatic assertion
that denial of the common belief will de-
stroy the sanctions of religion and morality.
A doctrine which has in fact destroyed the
sanctions of religion and morality We rightly
reject, however plausible the reasons which
seem to sustain it. But the doctrine which its
opponents think will prove thus demoraliz-
ing is not to be condemned upon their mere
prophetic instinct. The facts of history
have too often proved the ialsity of such
prophecies of i'll. Nor, finally, can this dues-
tion be settled by simply saying that 1t Is
wise to take no risks. This is legitimate
argument to address to the guilty soul that
goes on in sin and hopes to escape its dread
consequences But it is not BY such nor for
such that the question of to-day is raised.
The only son of his mother has 0ied an
,fa, Inaf hu hot xrntI md
or in a railroad disaster. What answer
shall the minister Of Gods mercy make to
her agonized cry as she peers out into the
darkness into which the soul she loves has
fled? An honest unbeliever refuses to reyer-
ence God, because the God of his imagina-
tion serenely contemplates the everlasting
wailirg and gnashing of teeth Of portion
OF his creatures What answer shall the
teacher make to his sorrowful perpleIity :?
The question concerns the eternal principles
of justice and of mercy, and it cannot be
disposed of By a single text or a striking
epigram.
Concerning this. as yet, unsolved and pos
sibly insolvable problem, three views have
been presented to our readers.
First, the theory of an eternal state of sin
and suffering. This theory projects the
present into the everlasting future it rests
philosophically upon the apparent perma-
nence CT moral character, the accelerating
power of evil, and the torturing power Of
what seems to be purely primitive remOrse.
1t rests tbeologically not upon isolated texts,
but upon the general testimony of Scripture,
which seems to represent this life as period
Of trial. and the judgment as final decision
nT it, Tho ng
life and Scripture, interpreting each other,
certainly possess a terrible significance.
Nevertheless, the soul which realizes the
terrible doctrine aalts appalled, before it.
The question recurs again and again. unsi-
fenced by argument, Shall not the Judge
Of all the Garth do right? And Is it right
that an infinite Father should launch into
being myriads OF human souls, leave them
with little or no comprehension of either
their own character or their environment,
bcstow on them, by inheritance, weakened
moral natures and strong passions, subject
them to fiery and almost invinciblc tempta-
tions, and then doom them to endless penal
ties for their fall? The question is not an
swered by denying the reality of a literal
fire. To the morally sensitive, everlasting
sin is infinitely more uncomfortable than ever
lasting torment. Against such a prospect
nature revolts, either with the impassioned
earnestness of Canon Farrar, or with the
subdued and perplexed rathOs OF Mr..
Barnes.
IL. A second theory anticipates time in
the lar iuture when every SIN Will cease be-
cause every sinner VIII DC reclaimed. ms
theory does not deny the tendency oi
EVIL to permanence IN character but It builds
It's nope on the counteracting anu retaining
grace oil pOu. IL does not antiel-
pate redemption without repentance but 1t
hopes ior repentance 10 De wrought ont In
lnture ages by uous overmasterlng love
This theory rests philosophcally upon the
fundamental iaith that perfect God will
not tire nor faint so long as any sentient
being remains estranged from him. Theolog-
really 1t rests upon promises. not numerous,
but certainly comprehensive, OF a time when
every knee shall bow and every tongue shall
confess Jesus to be Lord, to the glory OF God
the Father.
Every Christian heart looks yearningly
toward this hopeful view. Ii is pleasanter
to build even an un lefined hope on these
vague but spiritually resp!endent promises
than to sacrifice it for definite but appal-
ling belief. Nevertheless there are difficult
ties, beth philosophical and exegetical. in
the way of this opiniop of the most serious
character. 1t assumes the omnipotence of
Gods grace. But have we anv reason to
asser. that even infinite love can conouer A
resolutely re.ellious will? That the Father
will do all that he can to reclaim the urod
igal VIC must believe; what he can do we
have no means of knowing. If the doctrine
of the certainty of endless suffering of all
who are unredeemed at death putsa too mar
row limit on the mower of Gods grace. the
doctrine of the certainty of final restoration
nut a two narrow limit on the power of
mans will. Nor has this hopeful theory
vet adequately e,nl,ined tho terr;hIe wan,
ings of Gods Word. Mr.. Jukes's interpreta-
ticn of the metspbor of death is certainly
inyenious and nerbans sniritn.
alIv nroE,und Rut :. lost :, .s nerisbcd ;,
- DESTROYED. !" remained unexnlained and
what of all Scrinture 10 more ,orr;bIv s;,nic'
icant its sentence of banisbmept from God