Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
INTRODUCTION
FORMS OF THE DENIAL OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT
IN entering upon a subject like the present, it will be
desirable in the first place to get as clear a view as possible of what is
involved, the questions it is proposed to answer. The denial of eternal
punishment has two main forms, that of annihilationism, or, as some prefer to
call it now, "conditional immortality," and that of the final restoration and
salvation of all men. Of these two there are again several modifications, and
even (contradictory of one another as they may seem) amalgamations. Each of
these we must briefly notice.
I. Annihilationism is at the
present moment very widely spread, and there are perhaps few Christians who
have not in some shape or other already met with it. It is a dish dressed up by
skilful hands to suit very different tastes. From Dr. Leask and the various
writers in the "Rainbow" to the editor and contributors to the Christadelphian;
from Mr. Morris, late of Philadelphia, to Miles Grant and the Adventists of
various grades, it is found in association with very distinct and very opposite
systems of doctrine, from Trinitarianism down to the lowest depths of Socinian
and materialistic infidelity. But, on this very account, it will be well to
look at it, not only in itself but in its associations, To lead the minds of
those who, meeting it in more decent form, may be in danger from its plausible
sophistries, to apprehend what it naturally connects itself with and prepares
the way for; and, moreover, to arouse the minds of Christians in general to a
sense of the practical bearing and results of an evil which is spreading
rapidly, and lifting up its head in unlooked for places.
This may be my
justification, if I should lead my readers into the examination of points which
for the Christian may be deemed unnecessary, and speak too of things which
rightly shock his sensibilities as such. Moreover, I do it because upon any
point whatever, where Scripture is appealed to, it is due to those whose minds
might be injuriously affected by the mere seeming to decline such an appeal. My
desire is, God helping me, to meet the honest, need of minds unexercised in the
subtleties presented to them, too often with a skill which, alas, shows in
whose hands these poor annihilationists are unwitting instruments. And if, in
so doing, the very foundations of our faith should have to be examined (and
they can sustain no harm by it), it may at least (I repeat) serve to convince
my readers of what is brought in question by a false system, which is helping
to ripen fast the predicted evil of the later days.
To come now to the
point in hand. We have a number of steps to take before we reach the lowest
level of so-called Christadelphianism. Materialism is indeed its inevitable
tendency; yet a large number of those now holding it are by no means
materialists, as Edw. White, Heard, Maude, Morris, Dobney, etc. On the other
hand, Mr. Constable is the leader of a very pronounced materialistic section of
this school (which we may call the Trinitarian school of annihilationism), and
with whom, though differing in many ways, General Goodwyn finds his place. The
"Adventist" school, on the other hand, with some exceptions, are not only
materialistic but anti-Trinitarian also: to these belong Hudson, Hastings* and
Miles Grant. Christadelphianism is all this and more, a system in which no
element of real Christianity remains behind. They have rightly, therefore,
given up the name of Christian. *Messrs. Hudson and Hastings are to some extent
exceptions.
The psychological question is that upon which these writers
differ most among themselves. Some believe in a true trichotomy of body, soul
and spirit, as Mr. Heard; some are dichotomists, believing the spirit to be
superadded in the case of the regenerate, as Morris of Philadelphia; most are,
as already said, materialists wholly.. I shall notice briefly the main
distinctions on these points.
1. And first as to the spirit of man. Mr.
Heard in his "Tripartite Nature of Man" maintains its substantive existence in
all men, as that which implies "God-consciousness," which the brute has not. In
the unconverted it is deadened and inert, but quickened by the Spirit of God
when we are born again. With him, as to the latter part of this, Mr. White
agrees, although he can speak of "the royal qualities of spirit, whatever they
may be" (!) in a queen bee, "which incite or enable her to take the lead in
migrations or swarmings" (!!) so that for him it, can scarcely imply what it
does for Mr. Heard, and its possession or not by man would seem to be of very
small account.* He allows it to be, however, in him "of a superior order, as
‘the candle of the Lord; he has more wisdom than the beasts of the field;
nevertheless he. shares spirit with all animated natures."†
Mr.
Morris, on the other hand, believes that the new nature communicated in
regeneration is alone "spirit" in the proper sense. The word is used as to the
unregenerate only for the "motions and emotions of the soul." In Eccl. xii. 7
thinks ruach should rather be "breath," or if not, "it may be used to
signify the motion of the soul in passing away and passing into the custody of
God!"‡
Passing downwards towards the naked materialism in which this
doctrine ends, we find General Goodwyn also maintaining the addition of the
spirit to man in regeneration only.§
*Life in Christ, p. 18. †P.
94. ‡What. is Man? pp. 18, 19. §In his. "Holokleria."
Mr.
Constable’s doctrine, gravitating evidently towards "Christadelphianism,"
is that the "spirit" (ruach or neshamah) in man is the Spirit of
God, yet it is identified by him also with the "breath of life;" the cause of
animation to the body.* God withdraws this at death, and the man breaks up and
dissolves away. This view Mr. Warleigh (whom Mr. White styles "an able and
resolute thinker") has adopted, differing only in this - that in the case of
Christian believers, the Spirit, which he describes as the Spirit of God,
becomes according to him a distinct individual spirit of thee man separable
from the soul; and he thinks that this "Spirit," with all the attributes of an
individual mind, survives in paradise till the resurrection, when it rejoins
soul and body at the Lord’s coming.†
Not many degrees below this
comes the materialism of a certain class of Adventists, who may be fitly
represented by the editor of the "World’s Crisis," Miles Grant, of Boston,
Mass. He denies that the spirit is other than the breath in man, and that it is
"the thinking accountable part, or that it ever did or ever will think."‡
And this leads him to the denial of the personality of the Spirit of God also.
He says :§ "The word spirit is used to denote an influence proceeding from
a being. Hence we read of the Comforter or Holy Spirit, that ‘it
proceedeth from the Father.’ In mesmeric operations there is a spirit
proceeding from the operator to his subject, by means of which he controls him.
All men and animals exert this influence more or less."
All Adventist
annihilationists are not as gross as this. Messrs. Hudson and Hastings, for
instance, are not materialists to this extent evidently, although in the same
boat with those that are. Messrs. Ellis and Read, in a book which has gone
through at least six editions, on the other hand, are as out-spoken as Miles
Grant. They lay down these propositions :
(*In his treatise on Hades."
†Quoted from "Life in Christ," p. 208, n. ‡Spirit in Man, pp. 31, 32
§Ib. p. 1. ?Bible vs. Tradition, pp. 13, 84-87. )
"First,
we shall prove from the Bible the corporeal being and mortality of the soul,
and the nature of the spirit of man, which spirit, not being a .living entity,
is neither mortal nor immortal.
"Ruach (spirit, is derived from ruah,
‘to blow,’ and nesme,* to breathe’ (I) primarily signifies
‘wind, air, breath’; but it is sometimes used to signify a principle,
having some relation to electricity, diffused through universal space, a
principle that stimulates the organs of men and animals into activity, and
which is used by the animals themselves to control their voluntary Motions . .
. This principle, being the principle of life in all creatures, is in the hands
of God and controlled by Him, hence in Him we live and move and have our being;
and God is the God of the spirits of all flesh; when God taketh away His Spirit
and His breath - i. e., God’s spirit and God’s breath - then man
returneth to his earth and his thoughts perish."
From this it. is scarcely
a step down to Christadelphianism, the system of the late Dr. Thomas and his
followers. Their views have been little, if at all, noticed by any who have
taken in hand to reply to annihilationist doctrine;† yet there is reason
to believe they are spreading, not only in the United States, but also in
Britain, where indeed, their first originator had birth. The system is
acknowledged in the title page of a book that lies before me, by Mr. Roberts of
Birmingham, England, their present leader, to be "opposed to the doctrines of
all the names and denominations of Christendom" They adopt professedly an Old
Testament basis, and deny almost all that is distinctive in the New: the deity
of the Son, the personality of the Spirit., a personal devil, and the heavenly
portion of the saints. To quote from Mr. Roberts’ book,‡ they believe
that "the Father is eternal and underived, the Son has his origin in the
creative fiat of the Almighty as Adam had; the Holy Ghost is the focalization
of His will power, by means of His ‘free Spirit,’ which fills heaven
and earth." They believe in "a Lamb of God, guileless from his paternity, and
yet inheriting the human sin-nature of his mother." But, being free from actual
sin, "He could meet all the claims of God’s law upon that nature, and yet
triumph over its operation by a resurrection from the dead." God "raised Him
from the dead to a glorious existence, even to equality with Himself." "And now
life is deposited in Him for our acceptance, on condition of our allying
ourselves to Him, yea, on condition of our entry into Him." "Baptism in water
is the ceremony by which believing men and women are united with Christ, and
constituted heirs of the life everlasting, which He, as one of us, has
purchased."
(*There is evidently a lapse here. They mean neshamah is
from nesme as they put. it. †Mr. Clemance has put forth a reply, but from
the standpoint of semi-Universalism. ‡Twelve Lectures, pp. 130, 140, 145.
)
In this, its suited home, annihilation flourishes. "Spirit" is,
according to Dr. Thomas, an element of the atmosphere, existing ordinarily
combined with nitrogen and oxygen. "These three together, the nitrogen, oxygen,
and electricity, constitute the breath and spirit of lives of all God’s
living souls"* Mr. Roberts asks: -
"What is that which is not matter? It
will not do to say ‘spirit,’ if we are to take our notions of spirit
from the Bible, for the Spirit came upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost
like a mighty rushing wind, and made the place shake, showing it† to be
capable of mechanical momentum, and therefore as much on the list of material
forces as light, heat and electricity. Coming upon Samson, it energized his
muscles to the snapping of ropes like thread; and, inhaled by the nostrils of
man and beast, it gives physical life."‡
The questions as to the
spirit are, therefore, its being or not an actual living entity in man; its
functions; and, connected with this, the personality of the Spirit of God.
2. As to the soul there is still considerable variety of doctrine.
Messrs. White, Heard, Morris, Maude and others believe very much according to
common orthodoxy of the soul and of its survival too. Mr. Hudson also* admits
its immateriality, although he supposes it to be "dependent on embodiment for
the purposes of active existence." Mr. Dobney recognizes the probability of the
soul being in nature distinct from the body, but denies "a purely disembodied
condition."†
(*Elpis Israel, p. 30. †Or the place?
‡Twelve Lectures, p. 31 )
Ordinarily, for common materialism, the
soul is the animal "life," as with Mr. Constable‡ down to Miles
Grant.§ It is a view which has the merit of simplicity at least, and a
partial foundation in Scripture also; but in this application, as in so many
others, a mere partial truth may he an absolute falsehood.
3.
General Goodwyn differs from this, and his view seems peculiarly his own.
The soul for him is "that combination of parts of the inner man, which is the
seat of the mind and affections, and, having the breath of life, gives action
to the outer members of the body." That is, the soul is apparently the lungs
and heart and their connections!
A fourth and a final view (very
near akin to Goodwyn’s) is common to Messrs. Ellis and Read, and the
Christadelphians alike. With these soul and body are one. "A living soul with
Dr. Thomas is "a living, natural or animal body¶ "The word soul," says
Roberts, "simply means a breathing creature." "That which it describes is
spoken of as capable of hunger (Prov. xix. 15); of being satisfied with food
(Lam. i. 1l-19); of touching a material object (Lev. v. 2.) of going into the
grave (Job xxxiii. 22—28); of coming out of it (Psa. xxx. 3), etc. It is
never spoken of as an immaterial, immortal, thinking entity. . . It is not only
represented as capable of death, but as naturally liable to it," etc.**
The questions as to the soul are sufficiently plain in these quotations.
( *Debt and Grace, p. 250. †Scripture Doctrine of Future
Punishment, pp. 93, 141. ‡Hades. §The Soul. #Truth and Tradition.
¶Elpis Israel, p. 21 **Twelve Lectures pp. 39 40. )
3. As to the
future state of the wicked, these writers have the merit of almost complete
harmony. The wicked are to be "burnt up," to be "extinct," "destroyed utterly"
in this sense of it, "blotted out of existence," etc. The whole vocabulary of
Scripture terms they appeal to as affirming this. "Eternal life" is eternal
existence, and this alone the righteous have. "Immortality" is conditional to
those that seek for it by patient continuance in well-doing. The rest, with the
devil (for those that believe in one) will finally - it may be after protracted
torment in the lake of fire - perish and come to an end. Evil will be
extinguished, and suffering be over forever; the whole universe left free from
its incubus, and the restitution of all things be at length effected.
These writers differ as to certain points, however. Some affirm the
resurrection of all men; some even deny it as to any of the wicked: but these
must be excepted of course from the number of those just spoken of. This denial
of any real retribution seems spreading, and from a writer among
annihilationists themselves has come forth a book against it.
The
followers of Thomas believe in a partial resurrection from which infants,
idiots, and the heathen are excluded; and new birth for them is entry into the
resurrection state.
Other differences scarcely require to be put forth in
an introduction. We must now turn to the opposite views of those who believe in
or hope for universal salvation.
II The Restorationist views are
more uniform, and will require a much briefer notice here. Those who hold them
are divided into two main schools of thought. The first is that of the large
Universalist denomination, almost identified with the Unitarian denial of
Christ and of atonement. With these we shall have little to do as far as the
Scriptural inquiry is concerned, as they have virtually given up Scripture,
wherever it would interfere at least with entire freedom of thought. The
ethical question is the question of main interest and concern with them, and
there we may have to do with them. The second school is mainly a German
importation, where it can boast the names of Bengel and Neander, of Tholuck and
Olshausen. Through Maurice and others it has grown into notoriety in England,
and Dr. Farrar’s well-known sermons in Westminster Abbey, now published
under the title of "Eternal Hope," have put them before the masses in a way to
attract almost universal attention. His book has little in it that is original,
however, being in large part a reproduction of one by Mr. Cox, of Nottingham,
in which the three words "damnation," "hell" and "everlasting" are challenged
as mistranslations in the same way as they are by Canon Farrar. A third, book,
from which Mr. Cox himself confessedly got much, is that of Mr. Jukes, more
broadly heterodox than either, even to denying in the Swedenborgian manner the
resurrection of the dead.* Atonement is also set aside by his work on
restitution; an unsaved man in Gehenna becomes his own sin-offering,† and
rises up to God, while as to every one saved, he is saved by present death and
judgment,‡ not Christ’s bearing these for him. These statements
Messrs. Cox and Farrar do not indeed reproduce, but the thought of atonement is
not in their books,§ and it is fair to infer that it is not in their
minds. Saintly souls for Dr. F. their saintliness secures; but for sinners, nay
the poor in spirit, praying, striving, agonizing to get nearer to the light,
there may be no remedy but æonian fire.# True, it is the fire of
God’s love, though in Gehenna, but Christ did not die that they might have
that.
( *Mr. White is my authority for this (Life in Christ. p. 380).
†Restitution of all Things, p. 127. ‡See pp. 72-74. §Comp
Salvator Mundi, pp. 156-158. And again, 169: "The historical Cross of Christ is
simply a disclosure within the bounds of time and space of the eternal passion
of the unchangeable God; it is simply the supreme manifestation of that
redeeming love which always suffers in our sufferings, and is forever at work
for our salvation from them." See "Eternal Hope," p. 86, etc.
These three
books, "Eternal Hope," "Salvator Mundi,"* "The Restitution of All Things," may
be fairly taken as representative of this rising school. Of these Canon Farrar
will not allow himself to be classed as a Universalist.† Two or three
difficult passages stand in his way, although these may only "represent the
ignorance of a dark age," so that he may still indulge a "hope" for all. It is
a hope that may make ashamed, no doubt; but he can at least indulge it. When
Scripture is so elastic, there are few hopes we cannot.)
The
principal texts urged by writers of this school have to do with the doctrine of
the "restitution of all things," which is a Scripture phrase, clipped‡ to
look broader, and represent a theory of the restitution of the universe. They
urge God’s being the Saviour of all, and His will that all men should be
saved. Eternal fire is not really eternal, and is purgatorial, not penal nor
simply retributive. The phrases for eternity are mostly reduplicative
expressions, as "ages" or "ages of ages," and which speak of periods however
long, yet finite, and in which, according to Messrs. Jukes and Cox, redemptive
processes are continually going on.
They all unite of course in opposing
the doctrine of a fixed state after death, and find in the everlasting mercy of
God a hope, if not quite definite, of all receiving mercy.
III
There is a third school of opinion upon these points, which is in its main
thought a revival of the views of certain rabbins, and which unites the ideas
of annihilation and restoration. The founder is a Mr. Henry Dunn, and he is
finding followers among former leaders of pure annihilationism. Mr. Blain, at
eighty years of age, has recalled his "Death not Life," to replace it by
another entitled "Hope for our Race," in which he advocates Mr. Dunn’s
theory. From it I learn that Mr. Dobney has also given in his adhesion, and
that Mr. Hudson accepted these views before his death. Mr. Storrs also, writer
of the "Six Sermons," is at present advocating them in a paper entitled "The
Bible Examiner."
(* I have quoted little directly from Mr. Cox’s
book, its arguments being really met in meeting those of Mr. Jukes, his master,
or of Canon Farrar, his disciple, both better known. †Mr. Clemance also
refuses the term. ‡In Acts iii. 21, it is literally "all things of which
God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets." This is not the
universe at all. See chapter xxv. of this book. )
Mr. Dunn advocates
(quite rightly) the pre-millennial coming of the Lord, but wrongly connects
this with a general resurrection; after which Christ will be again presented to
the wicked by the elect church, and then received by almost all. For those
remaining obstinate there is the lake of fire and annihilation.
A recent
tract, now being circulated in the United States, modifies this statement by
confining the number of those evangelized to those who had not heard the gospel
in their former life on earth, and adds the conjecture (startlingly suggestive
in view of Matt. xxiv. 26) that Christ may already be upon earth now, and only
be waiting the moment to manifest Himself to His people.
IV In
conclusion I need only allude to Mr. Birks’ view, which I have examined at
some length in a separate chapter. He does not deny eternal punishment, but he
does reduce it to the minimum; and his views have found an expositor and
popular poet in the author of "Yesterday, Today. and Forever," as the
Restorationists have found theirs in the present poet laureate.
Thus
serious, and thus multiform, are the questions raised. They cannot be for many
really met without patient, protracted examination of the whole subject from
the standpoint of Scripture; which, if it be God’s word, is finally
authoritative; if it be something less than this we are at sea and in darkness,
without rudder and without compass.
Blessed be God, amid the multitude of
conflicting statements, one assurance may be the stay and comfort our souls:
"He that will do God’s will, shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of
God."
Go To Chapter One
Home | Links | Literature