Twelve Discussions
1873
"Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures."—MATT.
22.29.
By Henry Smith Warleigh,
Rector Of Ashchurch, Gloucestershire.
Author of
"Ezekiel's Temple,"
"Garment of Praise,"
"Mental, Moral, and Industrial Training,"
"Portrait of Antichrist,"
"Early British Church,"
"The 144,000 of Revelation 7 shown to be the
Ministers of Christ,"
"Words of Counsel,"
"Baptismal Regeneration Examined,"
"England's Future Safety,"
"The Distresses of the Poor Disclosed,”
London: Elliot Stock, 62, Paternoster Row.
THE following letter and conversation will show why
this book is sent forth to the public.
DEAR W.
A few days ago I was talking with Lord M— about our
discussions on the extinction of evil. He was so much interested that I shall
bring him to-morrow by the mid-day train, on the chance of finding you at home.
Be in the way, if you can without inconvenience, as that is our only day at
liberty.
Believe me,
Yours very truly,
H. DUNCAN.
D. I am glad we have caught you. I have been telling
M. what I recollected; but he wants to hear more, though we have not much time.
M. A doubt has long beset me whether the popular
doctrine of endless misery can be true; it seems so unlike the known character
of God, and so unlike what we should do to our children, even if we had the
power.
vi PREFACE.
W. Have you mentioned your doubts to any?
M. O yes, to a good many; and I find numbers are in as
much perplexity as myself. Some tell me, however, that it is infidelity to
doubt it; for that the Bible declares it to be true, and that all the orthodox
believe it, and teach it. Others say, we cannot understand the question, and
must leave it with God. But D. says, you have shown it is not in the Bible, and
therefore is not the true faith; and, if so, it cannot be infidelity to doubt
it; but rather to believe it. Moreover, he says, the subject is understandable;
for that the Bible often speaks about it in simple clear language. Now of
course all this perplexes my mind, and I just want to know what is the truth,
and so get it settled.
W. It is true, the Bible knows no more of endless
torments for the wicked, than it does that the world is square.
D. I tell him that it is the greatest possible
mistake. In fact, I consider it ought to be classed among the popular delusions
of the world; and how it is that it has so long held its way is a marvel. Dr.
Lee, one of the most learned and able professors of Cambridge in my day said,
"Rare indeed is the penetration, and much more rare the power, which is
able to discover the existence of error in fashionable opinions, and to free
itself from their thralldom."
M. Well, then, let me hear something further about it.
W. But you will see the impossibility of compressing
eleven days' discussion into a short conversation, and the inexpediency of
going over the same ground again, even if we had the time.
D. That is just what I said on our way, and I want to
ask if the discussion could not be published. You took notes of objections, I
think; could you not write out your own answers?
W. There would be no difficulty in putting it all to
paper. It would be but a little labor. But if it were published, who would read
it? People do not like to have a long cherished belief disturbed, nor to be made
out in the wrong.
M. Have you faith in your own doctrine?
W. The firmest and most unhesitating; for it is
founded simply upon the best of all books, as everybody might see, if he would
let the Book speak for itself, and not hear it through the medium of tradition.
M. Then, don't you see, there must be a beginning in
proclaiming a new doctrine.
W. It is not a new doctrine. It is as old as the Bible
itself, and was fully received in the primitive Church; and, moreover, our own
Church receives it.
M. Is that much known? If not, the greater is the
reason to give it publicity.
W. I have already published on some of the points, and
others have done the same.
D. Yes, but I think we all pretty fully plied you with
difficulties and objections; the consequence was, the discussion embraced every
possible point; so that, if published, it would be comprehensive. Besides this,
I really think it is your duty. You have evidently given long and serious
thought to the question, and therefore, you can easily write about it—in fact,
write just what you said, and as you said it.
M. Our vicar said the other day, that " if anyone
could show from the Bible, that there shall be an end to sin and sufferings,
every humane and Christian man would thankfully accept the proofs."
D. There is another point that has most feelingly
struck me. If endless sufferings are not true, then it is a libel on the
character of the good God to propagate it, and I cannot help firing up against
my former self, and at ethers who will continue in the error, rather than fully
and fairly go into the matter. Now I hesitate not to say, that the discussion
completely overturned that dogma, and you ought to try and vindicate the
character of your God and Master, and lift the incubus from the minds of men.
M. I would do it if I could. Who would not uphold the
good character of even an earthly friend?
W. Very well; that is an irresistible motive, and if
God gives health and strength, the discussion shall see the light.
M. You will doubtless meet with difficulties. Although
the possession of property is sometimes unjust, yet, they say, it is nine
points of the law. Endless torment has, somehow, got possession of the public
belief, and the unthoughtful will fancy that nine-tenths of truth. Besides, strange
to say, the wrong, even in belief, has always been more prevalent than the
right.
D. Yet Buxton was true, when he said in the House of
Commons sometime since, that endless torments was a "ferocious
superstition." You will be hauled over the coals by the critics pretty
severely I expect, as was Feramorz by the Great
Chamberlain in "Lalla Rookh."
W. As my sole object is to elicit the truth, they may
be as severe as they please provided they are, unlike Fadladeen,
fair, and just, and candid. If what I say is not the truth, and they would take
my texts and arguments as they are, and truly grapple with them, and overturn
my position, none would be more grateful than myself. I do not argue for a
side, but for the truth. Let them do the same.
M. When at my brother's I see a good deal of the
religious press, as it is called. It is plain enough, most of them write for
party, and argue, as a lawyer does for his client. Excuse me, Duncan.
D, There are as many honest lawyers as there are
honest reviewers of books; and it is as plain, that many so-called reviewers
are no better acquainted with the books than—as it is alleged—some are with
their briefs.
W. And there are honest reviewers. I could tell you of
one who conscientiously reads a book three or four times, if necessary, before
writing a line.
M. Well, it would be but honest if all did it; for
they do not profess to give account of the subject, but of the book?
W. Perhaps the real deficiency is not so much a
question of honesty, or dishonesty, or even of partisanship, as it is a system
and a presumption engendered by the fact that they have—I do not say popular
thoughtfulness—but popular opinion in this point on their side; and they fancy
that it is not necessary to give themselves trouble about the question. So,
instead of meeting argument by argument, they too often give the writer bad
names, and lament his alleged infidelity. Then think how, in the present day,
the tables of the reviewer groan with loads of books and pamphlets. If his day
and night were forty-eight hours, instead of twenty-four, he could not do
justice to them all.
D. Then let him return them, not sell them. Of the
many things that require reform, the system of reviewing is one.
W. I think you will soon hear of something in that
direction; and depend upon it none see the need of it more than the best
reviewers.
M. Justice and truth should be the aim of everyone,
and if this is not the case at present, let us all labor to bring it about. I
am not a reviewer, but when the book is out I shall read it with as close
examination and criticism as if I were. Seeing I was not at the discussion, I
am the more anxious to get a report of it.
D. Have you seen Dr. Pusey's sermon on eternal
punishment? If so, what do you think of it?
W. I have read it with attention, and he is one of
those alluded to in No. 42. The conviction forced itself upon my mind that he
had never really considered the subject on Bible grounds; for, if he had, he
has too much piety, learning, and knowledge not to have seen the entire fallacy
of his own observations, I cannot call them arguments. He entirely ignores the
vast and varied amount of conclusive evidence, such as was given at the
discussions, and he falls into the usual errors of making eternal punishment to
mean the same as eternal sufferings, and of supposing that when it is proved
that aionios may mean endless, that, therefore, these
sufferings are also endless. You are aware that my view does not, in the
slightest degree, rest upon any limited meaning of the word aionios;
but that I take it as signifying absolute endlessness; and also that I contend
for eternal punishment, though I reject the non-natural meaning engrafted upon
it, an eternal act or process of punishing. His quotation from Tremens is not
to the point, though he leaves his readers to believe it is. There was enough
in the second discussion to show this. His sermon is rhetorical and impressive
to the feelings, but it offers nothing to the earnest mind enquiring for truth.
It has no doubt lent support to a serious error, and a deep responsibility
rests upon the author. I pray he may see his error and retract it. I fully
expect to be taken to task for speaking thus of one who is deemed a giant. I
shall be ever grateful to him for his lectures on Daniel, but I grieve over
this sermon.
M. Have you observed that many of those who advocate
the retention of the Athanasian Creed, do so, partly, on the ground that it is
one of the bulwarks of the dogma of endless sufferings for the lost?
W. I have; but how much they are misled, you will see
when you read the discussions. They make the words "perish
everlastingly" to mean an endless process of perishing, but never
perished; whereas "perish" signifies an accomplished act of punishment,
and "everlastingly" shows that the accomplished act will never be
recalled or reversed. When a man has perished, he is out of living existence,
and is a man no longer. As to the words "everlasting fire" they have
engrafted upon them the comparatively modern meaning of a fire endlessly
flaming, and to this they have gratuitously added the equally modern thought
that the victim shall be endlessly burning in it, but never burnt up; whereas
the primitive meaning of the phrase is a fire which shall inevitably burn up
the victim like chaff, without the slightest chance of rescue or of a living
existence any more. You will find the proof of this in the discussions. The
creed tells conclusively against universalism, but it falls in exactly with
extinction.
M. There is nothing in this creed then that you wish
to alter?
W. Nothing whatever. I take it as it 'is, in its
literal grammatical meaning and force.
D. My mind has been much impressed with the thought
you threw out respecting the effect of worshipping a God, who takes endless
vengeance, and who holds his victims in sensitive life in order that they may
be able to feel his wrath. I begin to question whether we do not worship an
ideal god of our own, and not the God of the Bible.
W. I will not shrink from saying that it ought to be a
matter of serious impartial reflection, whether our Lord's solemn words may not
as much apply to Christians in the present day (especially to the teachers) as
to the scribes of old. "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men."
M. I wish the ministers of Christ would awake to their
responsibility and go back to the old paths.
W. If they knew the evil they do, and the good they
hinder, they would stand aghast, and repent in sackcloth and ashes.
D. Ah! there is the rub. It is most difficult to make
any body of learned men see that their past teaching has been erroneous. We
must look for amendment in the coming generation, and this will, no doubt, be
the result of the present wide, earnest, inquiry into this subject.
W. I earnestly hope and pray it may be so. The
question is one of immense importance, and one in which we cannot hold a middle
course. The dogma of endless torments is true, or it is not true. If it is, let
those who believe it stand up in its defense. I allege against it that it is
not scriptural nor primitive; that it is God-dishonoring and hinders the
salvation of souls; that it is not of the Christian faith, and, therefore, that
it should be speedily abandoned. If it is the truth, it is capable of being
established, by Scripture test and sound exegesis. Let it be attempted by those
who know the difference between assertion and proof, between taking a thing for
granted and a patient candid search. Above all let it be done in the spirit of
serious prayer for light from above, and in the remembrance that when fair and
sufficient opportunity is given to acquire a truth, we are responsible for what
we believe, as well as for what we do and teach.
The above promise is here redeemed, and in sending
forth the work I humbly pray the Father of lights to graciously grant His
blessing, that it may tend to overthrow error and establish truth; and I
respectfully beg my fellow-Christians, especially my fellow-ministers of
Christ, to read it with impartiality and prayer, and if they find me right, I
further beg that they will join me in the bold faithful duty of upholding the
truth.
I would now only thank, most heartily, a Cambridge
Professorial friend for allowing the sheets to pass under his scrutinizing
logical examination, and for the amendments and additions he has kindly
suggested.
1. General Objections
2. Extinction As Taught In The Primitive Church
3. Extinction In The Church Of England
4. Psychology
5. Psychology Continued
6. Pneumatology
7. Consideration Of Miscellaneous Texts
8. Death And Destruction
9. Destruction Of The Devil And His Works
10. Why Evil Was Permitted
11. Universalism
12. The Intermediate State
1. Mr. Alford. I have called upon you early in the
day, and have brought our mutual friend, Mr. Burnett, in the expectation that
you will allow us to hold a friendly conference with you on the subject of
endless torments; on which you have lately put forth strong and decided
opinions; and on which indeed you invited friendly discussion with your
brethren.
2. Mr. Warleigh. I highly
and gratefully appreciate your brotherly proposal, and I know none with whom I
would rather hold a discussion than with yourselves.
3. Mr. Burnett. It should in candour
be said at once that if Mr. W. allows the conference to go on, we shall not
spare him. We shall be obliged to say some things which may be disagreeable to
him, and which will lessen his confidence in his own arguments. If he can
submit to this, the conference may be of service to him; if not, time and
energy will be thrown away.
4. W. I accept your terms; and I am sure you intend
them to apply to both sides. I will submit to anything reasonable for the
truth's sake, whether this be for or against me. I know, Mr. A. to be learned,
logical, and liberal; three qualities not always conjoined, and we shall
contend, not for the mastery, but for the truth, as revealed in the Holy
Scriptures.
5. B. We judge you precipitate in publishing such
strange and new opinions. Your course would have been wiser, if you had taken
the advice of Horace, and had kept your manuscript " for a length of time,
yea for years. So long as it is safe under lock and key, you can make
alterations and amendments, but what is spoken cannot be recalled."
6. W. I practically followed it for a quarter of a
century. Soon after my ordination my mind was drawn to the subject, in
consequence of the kind of teaching I heard from the vicar, whose curate I was.
He insisted strongly on the decrees of God, the utter helplessness of man, and
endless torments. It often struck me that he put the dogmas of Christianity
into opposition with its morality; and that he made Divine justice (which he
took as equivalent to Divine wrath) to be inconsistent with Divine love. For
years doubts respecting this doctrine were treated by me as the temptations of
an infidel spirit, and I held fast what had ever been taught me as the truth of
God's Word. The longer I read the Bible the more was my mind distressed with doubts.
On this point that holy book appeared to say one thing and received opinion the
opposite. Whilst reading it, rays of light often darted, unbidden, into my
mind. Still I refused assent to what it seemed to teach; for I feared it would
be the first step to infidelity. At last I could resist no longer; so clear was
the light, and so conclusive was the evidence; I then saw that, in reality,
what on this point I had received was infidelity, and that what I had resisted
was part of the faith. Even then I kept the conviction to myself, knowing' the
consequences if I avowed my opinion. My spirit, however, could not rest. In my
own estimation I was a coward, ashamed of my Master's truth; and my conscience
accused me of putting the light under a bushel, and of hiding the Lord's
talent. I yielded this point also; and, in teaching the ultimate extinction of
all' evil persons and things, regained tranquility of mind.
7. A. We must, I see, withdraw our charge. Mr. B. was
not aware how cautious and deliberate you had been. We must deem your
convictions honest and sincere; but we do not think you the less erroneous on
that account. The difficulties in the way of your doctrine we judge to be
insuperable.
8. W. But they are not intrinsic to it when viewed by
the simple light of the Bible; they are grafted upon it; they do not grow out
it. Are there no difficulties on your side?
9. A. Certainly there are; and we acknowledge them to
be serious; but they all may be resolved by that reverent expression of
Abraham, " shall not the Judge of all the earth do right."
10. W. Most assuredly He will. We may rely on that
with perfect confidence. Let me remark, however, by the way, that Abraham
applies his observation to the fact that God "will not punish the
righteous with the wicked." You apply it to your doctrine that He will,
not only terribly, but endlessly punish the wicked, as if in your favor; though
the "right" may possibly be against you. Your application of the text
has a reverent appearance, but I submit that it can have no weight in argument.
But will you mention the difficulties which you allow to be in your way?
11. A. I can best do this in the words of our
respected Diocesan:—"It does seem all but inconceivable that when GOD is
All in All there should be some dark spots in the universe where, amid
endlessly self-inflicted suffering, or in the enhancements of ever enduring
hate, rebel hands should forever and ever be raised against the ETERNAL FATHER
and the GOD of everlasting love." I agree with this except that the pains
of the lost are self-inflicted. The Bible represents God Himself as the
inflictor of those just punishments which the wicked shall ever receive.
12. W. You appear to me quite correct in the latter
point; and your own difficulty is indeed immense. Still if God says that the
wicked shall be so punished, and ever live to hate and blaspheme the Good and
Loving Father of the universe, this with us will settle the point. It appears,
however, to me that He says the opposite.
13. B. But if so, is it not a surprising thing that
only you, and a few others, see and believe it. You surely cannot have weighed
the fact that your doctrine is new, and whatever is new in theology cannot be
true. This stubborn fact is an argument you can never satisfactorily answer.
"The old paths" are enough for me, and I intend to cleave to them.
14. W. I cannot allow, in point of fact, that my
doctrine is new. Still, for the nonce, let it be allowed; yet do I not admit
that what is to us new in theology, or in any other science, cannot be true.
Such a notion would bar all progress, and imply that in theological science, we
are already perfect. The physical sciences are perfect in themselves, yet who
will say he perfectly knows any one of them? Who does not hope to make fresh discoveries,
and see greater wonders? So theology is, in itself, perfect; but are we perfect
in our knowledge of it? Have our investigations exhausted all its phases, or
even all its subjects? And is it impossible for us, as good scribes, to bring
out of the inexhaustible treasures of God's Book "things new as well as
" old?"
15. B. Yes; but ought not the scribe to be specially careful that his new thing be in exact accordance
with our standard of theology, the Word of God.
16. W. In this we are entirely one; but does not what
has been said show that what is new in theology is not on that account untrue?
Besides, what is new to us, may not be new in itself, nor new to others.
17. A. As we expect you to be candid, and to yield to
any strong argument we may advance, I at once say that, even in theology, a
thing may possibly be new, and yet true. Still, that does not prove that your
new doctrine is true.
18. W. True. But I now advance a step further, and say
that the doctrine of the extinction of all evil persons and things is not new.
It is as old as Christianity itself, and much older.
19. B. You will find it hard to substantiate that; and
you cannot deny that you are in a very small minority, comparatively indeed
insignificant; and that we have the vast majority who believe with us that the pains
of the wicked are endless. This majority, includes all sects and parties; men
of all ranks and grades; men of large intellect, extensive learning, and sound
piety, living in every generation; men who were venerated in their day, and
whose memories we venerate. They have all held and distinctly taught the
eternity of hell torments, and used them in warning sinners to flee from the
wrath to come. Were all these wrong, and you alone right? It may be barely
possible that it has been left for you, and a few others, to discover they were
all in error—that in fact the whole Church is, and has ever been, in error on
this point. It is, I say, barely possible; but is it likely? is it credible?
Would God, who has given His Spirit to His people have allowed error to live so
long and in so much vigor? Surely there is no mistake here.
20. W. I painfully feel that we are indeed considered
a handful, and for years this fact kept me from receiving what I now deem to be
the truth; and, doubtless, it influences thousands of others. But I would
submit whether you can successfully, and from facts, argue that when a doctrine
is received by the few it must be wrong, but if held by the many it is a sign
that it is true. Christianity was once vastly in the minority, and its
adherents were but an insignificant few. Its opponents were the many, and these
were as much esteemed for learning, talent, and piety, as are our Christian
fathers and teachers. The doctrines of the Reformation were for years in the
minority, and the majority used against them the very class of arguments you
employ against me. The doctrines of inward regeneration by the Spirit, and of
justification by faith only, were, not many years since, in the minority, and I
am much mistaken if either of you would allow the force of your argument in any
one of these cases. In all these examples—and there are several others—you
would say, the many were wrong and the few right. Is it impossible that your
own majority may be a similar instance? The fact is, that ever since the
fall—ever since " the spirit of error " has ruled in this world,
right faith and right practice have been so constantly in the minority, and
wrong faith and practice so constantly with the great majority, that it makes
rather against a thing when held by the many, and for a thing when held by the
few. Besides this, though it is mysterious to us, yet in point of fact God has
allowed errors to exist for thousands of years.
21. A. I must own there is much truth in what you say.
The difference between us should be argued on other and more certain grounds
than these.
22. W. Still, as the objection carries great weight in
the minds of the many, as well as in Mr. B.'s, it was as properly, as it was
forcibly, urged by him; and I freely acknowledge that when any doctrine is held
by the few among Christians, it is an additional reason for exercising
increased caution and diligence while investigating it. Permit me to add, that
this is the course I have endeavored to follow.
23. B. I am glad you admit this force to be in my
argument. Remember, however, that I do not use this argument by itself; but in
conjunction with others, that altogether constitute a kind of cumulative proof,
which to me is irresistible.
24. W. Your remark deserves attention. Many an
argument is inconclusive when isolated, but powerful in combination.
25. B. Well, then, I next urge that your doctrine is
dangerous. If believed, it would encourage sinners to continue in the sins
which they love, and for which they are willing to run a considerable risk. It
would prevent them from putting a restraint upon their passions, and would even
add to their fury. "Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." Fallen
mankind are moved more by terror than by love; and when we show them that
endless torments are reserved hereafter for the unrighteous, it must make them
pause, and perhaps bring them to repentance.
26. W. Your objection shall be treated with all the calmness
and seriousness which it deserves, and if I present you with some lengthened
considerations, I beg to be excused, and to bespeak your patient forbearance.
(a) I much question whether the doctrine of endless
torments has practically such a deterring efficacy as you attribute to it. Is
it not John Newton who sings, " Law and terrors do but harden!" Your
doctrine has been freely and frequently urged for fourteen or fifteen
centuries; but with what effect, the lives of all Christians in all Christendom
fully declare. Let us look around among Protestant Christians, whether in the
Church of England or out of it, and especially among the congregations, and in
those parishes where the pastor insists the most upon the fierce terrors of
endless tortures. Are there more conversions among them than elsewhere? Is
there more devotion, more seriousness, more holiness, more spirituality of mind;
less worldliness, less luxury? Can you name any sinners who have been
frightened from their sins by the terrors of endless pain? I have known strong
feelings produced, but in proportion to their intensity have they been
evanescent, and therefore inefficacious.
(b) I must question, too, whether the human mind is
fitted to be moved by endless torments. In order for the penalty of a broken
law to be efficacious and deterring, it must not only be just, but it must be
able to recommend itself as just to man's conscience. You want to move a man
who, as you say, is yet in his sins, yet unenlightened. You try to move him by
the consideration of penalties; and the question is not only what is a just
penalty, but what can recommend itself to the auditors as such so as to move
their minds? Say not that this is submitting the justice of the Creator to the
judgment of a fallen creature. It is not so. This is not the point; but it is
the deterring and converting efficacy of threats of endless misery on an
unenlightened man who is in love with his sins. Now, I say, that to such a
one—and this is the natural condition of all men—a threat of this kind cannot
have any converting deterring effect. All men, especially those in Christendom,
have a sense of justice. Say it is natural, or that it is acquired; they have
it in some way or other. Now, they know that they have an existence which they
did not ask for, and towards which they contributed nothing; that they are.
born with sinful propensities which they could not prevent, and that they are
surrounded by temptations which they cannot avoid. We rightly tell them that
they are helpless against the world, the flesh, and the devil; and that they
have no natural power to do, or even to desire, the good. All this, and much
more of the same kind, is to them a matter of experience. They well know it,
though perhaps they may not deplore it. Now, when you threaten these men with
endless torments for being what they could not help, and doing what you tell
them, they could not avoid, without God's preventing, converting grace, which
you tell them also they are destitute of—when, I repeat, you try thus to move
them, you must fail. You have no fulcrum for your lever, and so far as your
threat is concerned, they remain as they were. They believe the thing
threatened is unjust, but they believe God to be just, and therefore what they
cannot but deem an unjust penalty does not move them. Mix with your people; set
them at their ease; get them to open their minds to you, and you will, perhaps,
be surprised at the extent and depth of these thoughts amongst the thoughtful.
If any are thoughtless, then their very thoughtlessness is a bar against the
efficacy of your threats. Thus, either way, where is the saving benefit of your
teaching? The thinking man is confirmed in his opinion by a deep conviction
that the sins of a short life do not justly deserve an eternity of indescribable,
inconceivable, pain. Then-
27. A. Excuse the interruption; but sin is committed
against the infinite God, and therefore deserving of infinite penalty; which
must be borne either in degree or duration; and as a creature cannot bear it in
the former sense, he must in the latter.
28. W. Can you advance a text which proves that a creature's
sins are infinite, because committed against an infinite God?
29. A. After trying to find a passage, I must own that
I cannot recollect one.
30. W. I believe no such text can be found in the
whole Bible. Can you then advance any reason or consideration which would
support such a mode of estimating the degree of guilt to be attached to human
sins?
31. B. There is analogy; sins against a king are more
severely punished than the same sins against a fellow subject.
32. W. Do you extend that rule to all offences
committed against a sovereign? In a well ordered and just community, would a
theft against a king be punished with greater severity than when committed
against a common person?
33. A. In such a case as that, No; because it is
really the law which rules, not a person. The ruler is the executor of the law;
and a theft, on whose property soever it was committed, would be judged simply
on its own demerits, according to the law.
34. W. Then the severer penalties on sins against a
king must be restricted to those committed against him in his official
capacity; and to those because they affect the whole community. The
application, therefore, of the rule is very restricted in the case of an
earthly king; but in that of the Supreme Heavenly Sovereign there can be no
such restriction. All sins, you say, are against the infinite God, and
therefore possess infinite demerit. Where then is your analogy?
35. B. These, no doubt, are part of the terrors of the
Lord; but if these are powerful, how much more so would they be if you could
add that the wicked must endure his indignation forever and ever.
36. W. I cannot think so; for, as I said, the threat
of endless torments has nothing to rest upon in the human mind. Thoughtful
persons do not believe in them, and the thoughtless do not heed them. Indeed it
may be questioned whether the structure of the human mind can any more imbibe a
real belief in endless torments, than it can a real belief that there is no
God. Let anyone carefully and impartially analyze his mind with respect to this
point, and see whether his belief in endless torments, inflicted by the God of
love and Father of all men, is of the same kind as his belief that he is a
sinner, and that Jesus is the Savior—that is in fact whether it is belief at
all.
37. A. But surely you do. not question the sincerity
of the great majority of Christians who hold the doctrine?
38. W. Very far indeed from that. Let me explain what
I mean. From our infancy we have been told that it is true, and the religious
atmosphere in which we are brought up is filled with it. The great majority of
us grow up without any earnest, serious reflection upon the subject. If any of
these are questioned about it, all the answer .they can give is, that they
suppose it is true, that they have always heard it was true, that everybody
says it is true, and that therefore it must be true. Who can say that my
description is exaggerated. But solemnly I ask is this faith?
39. A. Suppose we allow what you say with respect to
the many; for I fear they do not seriously reflect upon this or any other
Christian doctrine; yet this can by no means be said of all. Many in all ages
have written on the subject, and therefore reflected on it.
40. W. There are many such, and I revere most of them
for learning, piety, and good works; but will you forgive me if I add, that when
studying their books with, I hope, a sincere, earnest desire to find the truth,
the thought has forced itself upon me, that in their productions there is a
much greater indication of a foregone conclusion, and of following in the usual
track, than of independent, deep, and patient investigation; and, honestly
speaking, it has struck me whether this can be called faith; founded, as faith
must be, upon the revealed Word of God.
41. B. But speaking of the efficacy of our doctrine,
let me observe that you have forgotten the most important thing connected with
it. Of course the efficacy of this, or any other doctrine, depends upon the
enlightening work of the Holy Spirit. If He gives His blessing to the
enunciation of this doctrine, then it is blessed to the hearers, not otherwise.
42. W. Just so. Permit me, however, to observe that
there is a question, prior to any concerning the efficacy of your doctrine, or
of mine; namely this, Is it true? If not, it can have no saving efficacy; it
can receive no blessing from heaven. It appears to me, therefore, to be but a
begging of the question to say that my doctrine is dangerous, and to imply that
yours is savingly efficacious. If mine is true, it cannot be dangerous; and if
yours is not true, it cannot be efficacious. On which side the truth maybe I
trust will be elicited by our discussion.
43. A. But if our doctrine is not deterring, how can
yours be so.
44. W. Because mine has the fulcrum, which I have
ventured to say yours lacks. Mine appeals to man's most powerful instinct. God
has given to him, and to every living creature, the love of life, and a dread
of death. "Everything that a man hath will he give for his life." Now
here is something to appeal to, when we say, according to our commission,
"O wicked man thou shalt surely die"—the living existence to which
thou clings with so much tenacity shall come to an end, if thou dost not turn
from thy sins; and thou shalt be as if thou had never been (Ob. 1:16), and this
thou shalt be made to suffer in the lake of fire, which is the second death.
Men know the penalty of sin, "The soul that sinned it shall die," and
they cannot dispute its justice. And when, through a blessing from on High, the
man's feelings are stirred, his mind moved, and his conscience alarmed, he will
pray, "O Lord, correct me, but with judgment—with the rule of right, not
in thine anger lest thou bring me to nothing." This kind of threat, too,
has this further advantage, that it is plainly and palpably God's own penalty
which He has threatened, and therefore one to which He can give His blessing,
to make it efficacious. If our people had been trained in this, instead of the
other, we should have found it the most telling deterrent to those who are yet
in love with sin.
45. A. How does all this apply in the case of a
suicide?
46. W. Your question is not to the point, and yet it
is. It is not, because it is as much your care to answer it as it is mine. Your
threat does not deter him, though he has often heard it. How can you know that
mine would not have deterred him, if he had as often heard it? The case of the
suicide, however, seems to me to tell powerfully against your doctrine. You
often say that man is immortal; that the knowledge of it is an instinct of his
nature. Now, if he knew that the consequence of his crime would be to live
forever in endless, untold, and untellable misery, I hold that his instinct of
self-love would prevent his act. On my system all we can say, whether of
gradual or sudden suicide is, just what Wisdom Himself says, " All they
that hate me love death." On the precise point before us all we can say
is, that neither your deterrent, nor mine, is universally successful. But I
must repeat, yours has been urged, mine has not. Yours has been tried and
failed, mine has not failed, for it has not been tried.
47. B. Before we finish to-day, let me state another
general objection. You appear to us daringly to intrude into the secret things
of God, about which we can form only conjectures. Is it not better, wiser, and
more reverent, to leave all with God, till in the great day, when He may be
pleased to explain all to us, when we shall clearly see this and all other
matters?
48. W. Nay, brother, how can you say this—unless,
indeed you say it also of yourselves? You hold that the torments of the lost
are endless; I, that they are not so.
Where is the intrusion on the one side more than on
the other? In His Book He has revealed His mind on the point before us. I
humbly and reverently read it, to learn what it does say; not to fancy what it
does not say. I am not content to learn a part; I ardently desire to learn all
that He reveals, and I dare not be satisfied with less. How else, as one of His
ambassadors, can I declare His whole counsel? I believe, too, His word is a
revelation; not an obscuration, as it would appear some make it. If "He
has brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel," surely the
subject is not so much in the dark as you seem to indicate. If it is in the
dark, it is because we have drawn a cloud before it; and, in that case, it is
we who are in the dark, not it. Let me assure you that my sole desire, pursuit,
and practice are, just to learn what God has revealed, and neither more nor less.
49. A. I frankly own that you have more sound reason
on your side than I thought. I think, perhaps, I may have begun to read your
pamphlet with the firm belief that you were certainly wrong, and that, on this
account, I may not have weighed your statements. Do not forget, however, that
we have been only in the outworks. When we come to the citadel, you will find
that impregnable. When the Bible has settled the precise point, then all
general considerations will come to nothing.
50. W. If we continue our discussion, had we not
better fix some plan of procedure, lest we become disorderly and desultory?
51. B. You said awhile back that your doctrine was not
new, but as old as Christianity itself. Suppose we discuss that at our next
meeting?
52. W. By all means. What proof will you expect and
think satisfactory?
53. A. A catena of quotations from the early fathers.
That is, we must look into the history of the question, and this will lead the
way to the consideration of the Scriptural argument.
56. A. We have brought with us to-day our friend, Mr.
Duncan, who is much interested in the subject of our discussion. You will not
object, I am sure; and, I fancy, the fact that he is a layman will render him
the more acceptable to you. I must tell you, however, that he objects to your
views.
57. W. I am most happy to see him, or any other you
may choose to bring; and ever ready shall I be to weigh his objections.
58. D. I do not profess to understand the subject. I
am come to hear and learn.
59. B. We are to-day to consider the history of the
question; and it will be incumbent upon you to show that your doctrine of the
extinction of evil persons and things is not new, but as old as Christianity.
60. W. No doubt, Mr. B., you have formed an opinion on
the matter; will you please say what it is?
61. B. The very opposite to yours. I hold a strong
persuasion that your opinion is new, and that it was not held by the early
Church. Among the moderns, I will give you Socinus, if you can be enamored with
him, which I presume you cannot be.
62. W. With many of his opinions most certainly not.
But he was a man and a brother; and, inasmuch as he was willing to suffer for
his opinions, I esteem him as an honest man. If in any point he was right, I do
not see why I should be the less willing to receive it because he held it. I am
aware that he believed in the final extinction of the wicked; and I think him
right on this point, just as I think him right when he believed in the unity of
the Godhead, and that it is our duty to love the Lord our God with all our
heart. But you, Mr. A.—does your opinion on the subject for to-day accord with
that of Mr. B.?
63. A. Not exactly. I believe there were some in the
ancient Church who held your doctrine, but they were, it is said, so few in
number that I am not surprised that they were overlooked by Mr. B., especially
as they were not men of renown, and have not left an enduring impression. But
let us hear your evidence.
64. W. A learned friend, who is better read up in this
department than myself, has supplied me with this heap of extracts. They are so
numerous and so full. that they form materials for a history amply sufficient
for any purpose. I will read them in the order in which he arranged them for me
many months since.
65. B. Hermas and Barnabas,
I believe, are of no value to us, as their writings contain nothing decisive on
either side. Besides, are they genuine?
66. A. Jerome and Eusebius thought them forged. Still,
they are allowed to be very early writings, and so highly were they esteemed
that they were read in public Christian assemblies. If they contain any
passages at all to the point, they will be worth our notice.
67. W. Here are a few with which my friend supplied me
from Hermas
"All who will not repent have lost their life,
and they shall die by means of death.”
"[The wicked] are like withered trees in the
vision, which show no life in the spring, and, like them, shall be burnt up. .
. . [The wicked], becoming withered, and like a desert, destroy their own
souls."
The following are from Barnabas
"Who is there that would live forever? Let him
listen to the voice of my son (c. 9).
"The way of darkness is crooked and full of
cursing. In it is the way of eternal death, with punishment. In this way are
the things which destroy the soul (c. 20).
"He who prefers evil shall be destroyed together
with his works (c. 21).
"The day is at hand in which all things shall be
destroyed, together with the wicked one."—Id.
68. B. What can Barnabas mean by eternal death except
eternal pain, for is it not pain to die? Is not death the painful penalty of
sin, and does not this writer say that this painful death shall be eternal? As
to the word destroy, we do not allow the meaning you give it, "to bring a
person to an end," but to put him in a state of ruin and misery.
69. W. But the works of the wicked are also said by
Barnabas to be destroyed. Will not these come to an end? and can these be said
to be brought to rain and misery? Will the loathsome practices of the drunkard,
for instance, not come to an end, but be continued in the place of torment? In
the opinion of Barnabas, the same fate that awaits the works of the wicked
awaits also their persons.
70. A. The language used by these writers is the same
as that found in the Bible; and by eternal life, we mean endless happiness; and
by eternal death, we mean endless conscious misery.
71. W. Whether their language can bear that
interpretation will appear in the course of the controversy. If, however, they
had intended to convey your meaning, they possessed words which meant just that
and no more; and as this is the case, it is marvelous that they should use
language which, on your theory, is unnatural and inapt, as well as illexical, instead of other language which they had, and
which would have been exactly appropriate, and have conveyed the precise idea
of your interpretation. We come now to Clement of Rome "How blessed and wonderful,
my beloved, are the gifts of God: life in immortality, splendor in
righteousness, truth in perfect confidence, faith in assurance, self-control in
holiness (c. 35)."
Here Clement enumerates some of the free gifts of God
to His people, and one of these is the gift of immortality; and if a gift, then
not an intrinsic quality in man. As, too, Clement did not and could not speak
of the other saving gifts as in possession of the wicked, so he could not
intend to indicate that immortality was in their possession, as is now so often
affirmed.
72. A. But why should we not understand him to mean a
happy immortality?
73. W. Simply because that is not the force of his
words, and if that had been what he intended to express, he was not lacking in
clear definite words to convey it. He says immortality is a gift of God which
He restricts to His people; not an innate quality, whether in the righteous or
wicked.
74. A. Clement's second
epistle is clearly a forgery. I suppose you will not quote from that.
75. B. But there is another passage from his first
epistle which must not, by any means, be overlooked. It tells for us, and I
have it here.
"The Jews, acting contrary to God's will receive
the death appointed for them; but we incur as much greater danger, as we have
been favored with greater knowledge Cc. 41)."
Here the disobedient Jews incur death; but more
favored, disobedient Christians incur a greater danger. Now what can the
greater danger than death be, but endless pain?
76. D. As it seems this father does not himself say
what it is, can this passage be fairly made to suggest more, than that there
are various degrees of punishment? Must the greater danger be necessarily
extended to endless ages? I know nothing of Clement except what I have now
heard; but I cannot see that the passage, as read by Mr. B., at all serves his
purpose. Excuse the interference.
77. W. Really, Mr. D., I shall hope to have a
coadjutor in you, not an opponent.
78. D. It will depend entirely upon the evidence.
Judges and magistrates are supposed to be impartial, and to decide merely by
the evidence produced in court.
79. W. All three of us heartily concur in what you
say, and if you will hold the balance evenly between us you will do us all a
favor. We want only to find out the truth. We come now to Ignatius, an
acquaintance of some of the apostles, who was martyred about A.D. 107, and
whose testimony will be valuable on one side or the other.
80. B. But you have omitted another passage from
Clement, which is very strong and altogether on our side. Here it is, in his
eleventh Homily:—
"The soul, even of the ungodly, is immortal; for
whom it would have been better were it not incorruptible; for, being punished
by quenchless fire, by endless torture, and not dying, it can, to its loss,
find no end."
81. A. There is no dubiousness in that language, and
none can misunderstand it.
82. W. No, indeed! And if it were a quotation from the
true Clement, I would at once yield the controversy on the point now before us;
but the work in which it is found is a forgery. All the Clementines, as they
are called, part of which this Homily is, are acknowledged to be forgeries.
Among other competent authors this has been pointed out by the well-known
James, a late librarian of the University of Oxford, and by Burton in his
Ecclesiastical History. I do not admit it therefore to be of any authority in
our discussion.
83. B. But if the Homily was not Clement's,
you will acknowledge that it was written in early times, and that therefore it
expressed the opinion of the time.
84. W. As far as I am aware none can tell when it and
the other Clementines were written; but it could not have been till after the
time of Tertullian, and I allow that after that period many began to hold your
doctrine. If, however, I can show that my opinion was held by the Apostolic
Fathers, and by others after them, this will be sufficient to prove it is not
new, but as old as Christianity. But suffer me to add that Mr. B.'s quotation
is a most useful one in the controversy, for it indicates the sense of two or
three important words employed in it.
85. A. Pray point this out.
86. W. Here is a very early writer, as Mr. B. says,
who taught the doctrine of endless torment. He affirms that the soul of every
man is immortal, which, in his vocabulary, is the same as incorruptible. This
he explains as the soul not dying; and this he further explains as the soul not
finding an end. Plainly, therefore, if not dying means not finding an end, then
dying is finding an end. If, too, not dying is the same as immortal and
incorruptible, then dying is mortal and corruptible. .Now, seeing this false
Clement, whoever he may have been, was an ecclesiastical writer, and he uses
all these words in what you would call an ecclesiastical sense, it must follow
that if we read in the Bible that the soul of the wicked shall die, it must
mean that such a soul shall find an end, and is mortal and corruptible.
Further, he is speaking of the ungodly, not in their present state, but in
their future state in hell.
I am sure you will extend your kind forbearance if I
beg you to ponder on this. Shall we now return to Ignatius? In writing to
Polycarp he says:—
"Watch as an athlete of God: the prize is
immortality and eternal life (c. 2)."
In his epistle to the Magnesians, he writes:—
"Let us not be insensible of His goodness, for if
He reward us according to our works, we are no more (c. 10)."
87. A. I suppose he refers to Ps. 37, where the same
kind of language is found: "the wicked shall not be." If so, he
cannot mean more than the psalmist; and David means that they shall be no more
on this earth.
88. W. Nay. David refers to the future state, not to
the present state; for wherever the wicked shall be no more, there " the
inheritance of the righteous shall be forever;" and I know you do not
believe that the righteous shall be on the earth in the present state forever,
though, perhaps, you do believe, with many others, that after "the
restitution of all things," and when this earth shall have been renewed,
then the meek shall inherit it forever. We will not, however, forget that we
are not referring to these, or any of the fathers, as if their dictum would
decide the truth or error of the doctrine in dispute; we are merely tracing its
history, and incidentally looking at the meaning of some words as we go along.
In my own judgment, the language of Ignatius is as decisive as it is strong.
My friend leads me, in the next place, to Justin Martyr,
and I will read but a few specimens of his extracts:—
"I do not say, indeed, that all souls die, which
would truly be a fortunate thing for the wicked. What then? That the souls of
the pious remain in the better place, while those of the wicked and evil are in
a worse awaiting the time of judgment. Thus some, appearing to be worthy of
God, do not die at all; but the others are punished as long as God wills them
to exist, and to be punished."—Dialogue with Trypho.
89. A. I was looking at Justin last night, to refresh
my memory, and I am surprised you should quote this passage as Justin's, when
it contains the words of flora preceptor whom Justin happened to meet.
90. W. You are fresh from Justin; will you kindly
relate how he met with this preceptor, and what was the result of his teaching?
91. A. It was when he was a young heathen philosopher,
and bewildered with the speculations of Plato, that, while walking alone on the
sea shore, an aged stranger, of a most venerable appearance, joined him, and
entered into conversation with him. After awhile,
Justin told him his mental distress and perplexities; and the wonderful
stranger recommended to him the writings of the Hebrew prophets as more ancient
and infinitely wiser than all the works of heathen philosophers. He then
unfolded to Justin the evidences and principal doctrines of the Gospel; and
when he had done this, he disappeared, and Justin saw him no more. But it
issued in Justin's conversion. "A Divine flame," says he, "was
immediately kindled in me, and I felt a sincere affection for those prophets
and excellent persons who were the friends of Christ." It was while
discussing Christianity with Philo the Jew, that he related his conversion, and
gave the words of the venerable preceptor as just quoted.
92. W. A most interesting account. I understand, then,
that Justin quoted the words of his heaven-sent preceptor with approbation, and
that he thus made them his own. Here is another passage quoted in the same way
from the same source:—"The soul partakes of life, since God wishes it to
live. Thus, then, it will not partake of it when God shall not choose that it
shall live; for as the body does not keep company forever with the soul; but
when it is needful that the connection should be severed, the soul leaves the
body, and the man is not, so also, when it is needful that the soul should no
longer exist, the vital spirit departs from it, and the soul exists no longer,
but it also re-turns to the plane whence it was taken."
Here are a few extracts from his first apology, and
they are, therefore, his own independent opinions:—
"Those who show themselves worthy of it become
incorruptible, and free from suffering; for as God made them at first, when
they were not, so we believe that they who choose the things agreeable to Him
shall be accounted worthy of incorruptibility and fellowship with Him (i. c. 10).
"We have been taught that those, only shall
attain to immortality who live holly and virtuously near to God."
All this language is really too plain to need any
comment; and, as he says "we have been taught," it indicates that he
was uttering, not his own sentiments only, but also those of his predecessors,
and, as it would seem, the sentiments of the whole' Church.
93. B. I, too, have been reading, if not Justin
himself, yet an author of acknowledged ability. Bishop Kaye speaks of Justin as
one who believed in the eternity of punishment, and in eternal consciousness on
the part of the wicked. The Bishop quotes these strong and decisive words:—
"God raises the bodies of all men who have been
born; and those of the worthy He clothes with immortality; but those of wicked
doers, He sends, in eternal sensibility, with wicked devils, into eternal
fire."
How can we mistake these words? Justin not only says
that the wicked shall be sent into eternal fire, but that they shall so live in
it as to feel it, and that eternally.
94. A. I, too, have a passage from Justin to the same
effect:—
"Christ will punish the wicked . . . with eternal
punishment, and not merely for a thousand years (1 Apol.
c. 8)."
95. D. If such contradictory testimony were produced
in court, we should say that the evidence was worth nothing on either side.
Justin contradicts himself.
96. W. Supposing for a moment that this is true, still
his evidence is sufficient to prove that my doctrine is not new. I should be
slow, however, to admit that a man so sensible, learned, and logical as Justin,
could, or would, contradict himself; and I think, if we could have him here and
cross-question him a little as to his meaning, he would not find it difficult
to harmonise the apparent contradiction. We bring
modern thought to his words; he would explain them according to ancient
thought.
97. D. Well, we are here to try a cause. Let us hear
what you have to say.
98. W. The language which I have quoted will not admit
of two meanings. He says that the holy only attain to immortality, that the
wicked shall be punished as long as God wills them to exist and to be punished;
that, as when the soul leaves the body the man exists no longer, so when the
vital spirit leaves the soul, it exists no longer. Now, this is language which
would not and could not be used by the advocates of endless torments; for if
the holy alone attain to immortality; if the wicked are punished only as long
as God wills them to exist; if, for any purpose, a needful time comes when the
vital spirit shall be separated from the soul, as the soul is from the body;
if, when the soul leaves the body, the man exists no longer, and when the vital
spirit leaves the soul, then this soul exists no longer—if all these things,
taught by Justin and his heaven-sent preceptor, be true, then there is no room
for endless torments. On the other hand, the phrases, eternal punishment,
eternal fire, eternal condemnation, and the like, which he frequently uses, do
admit of a meaning very different from that afterwards put on them—so
different, indeed, as to make all the difference in this discussion. To my
mind, it can be shown that, by eternal fire, he did not teach an endless
process of burning; nor, by eternal punishment, an endless process of punishing;
nor, by eternal condemnation, an endless process of condemning; but, in each
case, an endless, inevitable, irretrievable result. This, indeed, appears to me
to be the natural meaning of his language. And that this is the meaning of Justin
in Mr. B.'s quotation seems evident, for even there, where he speaks of God
sending the wicked with devils into eternal fire, he clothes only the worthy
with immortality. In the following passage from his first Apology (i. 21) we can scarcely avoid this way of harmonizing him:—
"We have been taught that those only attain to
immortality who live holily; and we believe that those who do wickedly, and do
not repent, are punished in everlasting fire."
99. A. But why may we not interpret Justin as meaning
a happy immortality for the worthy?
100. W. Because he did not, as you do, ascribe
immortality to the good and the bad alike. He restricted immortality to the
good. If he, like yourselves, had ascribed a miserable immortality to the bad,
he could not so often have used this word by itself to express the state of the
saved; he must, in this case, have used the phrase, happy immortality, as you
do. But he nowhere uses such a phrase; he denies immortality at all to the
wicked, and says that the soul of such comes to an end when needful, according
to the will of God.
101. D. Can you, in this way, account for the
quotation of Mr. A., in which eternal punishment is contrasted with a thousand
years?
102. W. Yes; I think so. Justin had been referring to
the punishments which the wicked heathen are said, by Plato, to endure at the
hands of Rhadamanthus who, on account of his known impartiality and justice,
was said to have been made one of the judges of hell; but whose punishments
were only for a time, and longer or shorter according to the amount of guilt.
Then come his words:—
"We say that Christ will do the same, but with
everlasting punishment, and not only for a thousand years."
Evidently Justin was not in favor of universalism,
afterwards introduced by Origen. He held that if the wicked were once lost,
they were lost forever, and that they would not be restored to holiness and favor
after they had " suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by
God's justice." In fact, Justin believed in the final extinction of the
wicked, and this is sufficient to harmonize the whole writings of Justin on
this subject. Read him on this supposition, and all will be clear.
103. D. Well all this throws
light upon the question, .and certainly, if what you say is true, Justin does
not contradict himself. He is a good witness after all.
104. B. But what do you say to the eternal sensibility
to pain which Justin attributes to the wicked?
105. W. That circumstance is not inconsistent with _
the doctrine which I have shown was Justin's nor with my own. I believe that
the finally impenitent will be punished, some with few stripes and others with
many, as appointed by God's justice. I hold, moreover, that different degrees
in punishment imply shorter or longer periods during which it shall be
inflicted; but that no period shall be endless. As long, however, as the
punishment shall last, the sinner will be conscious of it.
106. B. You have ignored the point of my argument.
107. W. I am coming to it. Justin could not have meant
an endless sensibility, seeing he restricted immortality to the righteous, and
denied it to the wicked; seeing he kept them alive only as long as God saw fit
for the purposes of justice, and then brought -them to an end. Now you all know
the way in which aionios is used, both in the
classics and in the sacred writings, and that it denotes the whole period of
the thing or person to which it was applied. With Justin it meant no longer
than the justice of God willed it for the just punishment of the sinner. Justin
might have thought it longer than I think it, and shorter than you think it;
but whether longer or shorter, this word aionios
expressed in his day the duration of it. A Cambridge friend sends me the
following extract from the Epistle to Diognetus,
sometimes attributed to Justin:—
"Then thou wilt condemn the deceit and error of
the world when thou shalt know the true heavenly life; when thou wilt despise
that which here seemed to be death; and wilt fear that which is truly death,
which is laid up for those who shall be condemned to the everlasting fire,
which shall punish, until the end, those who are delivered to it."—Chap. 10.
My friend adds, if the writer does not mean extinction
of life, what can he mean by the death that truly is, in contrast to a death
which only seems to be so, but is not? Again, if he thought that the punishment
would be endless in operation, what is the meaning of "until the end?"
Here is also everlasting fire, which is not endlessly flaming, though followed
by endless effects.
108. A. Do you wish to refer to any other of the early
fathers?
109. W. I do, to one or two more, and then I will be
no further tedious on this part of the subject.
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who died about A.D.
181, is the next witness:—
"But some will say, Was man made mortal by nature?
By no means. Immortal? Neither do we affirm this. If immortal God would have
made him God; if mortal he would have seemed to be the author of sin. He,
therefore, made him neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of both; that if
he were borne to the things which lead to immortality he might, as a reward,
receive immortality, and in this way be like God. But, on the contrary, if he
turn to the works of death, he might be the author of death to himself. God now
[in this life] repairs the evil; for as man brought
death upon himself by disobedience, so, he that chooses may obtain [as a gift]
for himself, eternal life by obeying the will of God. He has given to us a law
and holy precepts by means of which every man who keeps may be saved, and
obtaining the resurrection [of the saints] may inherit immortality."
From Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who suffered martyrdom
A.D. 202, I will select but a few of the many passages which lie before me.
"This is the life of man, to believe and obey God;
his death is not to obey. Man, learning that disobedience is an evil thing
which deprives him of life, should never attempt it; but knowing that obedience
preserves his life, he is bound to obey with all earnestness. He who neglects
this, divests himself, unawares, of all that is human, and kills the real man
himself. How, then can he be a god who has not yet become the man? How [that
is] can he become immortal who, in his mortal nature, did not obey his' Maker?
"—B. iv. 39.
"Those who say that Jesus is only a man are in a
state of death. When ignorant of Him, they are deprived of eternal life, which
is His gift; for by no means could we have attained to incorruptibility and
immortality unless first [He who is] incorruptibility and immortality had
become that also which we are; that thus, [we] the corruptible might be
swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might
receive the adoption of sons."—B. iii. 19.
There is no occasion to proceed further; but permit me
to draw your attention to some points borne testimony to in the extracts:—
I. The writers did not hold the natural innate
immortality of the soul.
II. They restricted immortality to the righteous
alone, and taught that the souls of the wicked would come to an end.
III. They used the words immortality,
incorruptibility, and eternal life, as equivalent terms.
IV. They used the term death as meaning the cessation
of life, and not as the continuance of life spent in misery.
V. They used the phrases, eternal death, eternal fire,
etc., etc., just as we do eternal judgment, as expressing an endless result,
not an endless process, and, therefore, they did not hold the endless
sufferings of the wicked. I trust it will be allowed that my proposition has
been established, that my doctrine of the final extinction of the wicked is not
new, but is as old as Christianity; for I have produced ample testimony from
the earliest Christian writers who lived during the first two hundred years of
the Christian era.
110. A. I am sure no one will think it inappropriate
if I say that we have not yet discussed the truth, or otherwise, of this
doctrine. That can be done only on the ground of revelation.
111. W. By no means inappropriate, and you will bear
me witness that I have not produced the extracts to prove its truth, but to
establish the position just mentioned. If you have a little more time, and do
not object, I should like to read a few extracts from the Apocrypha, by way of
showing what was the opinion of the Jewish Church on the doctrine discussed. I
would venture to recommend that the Second Book of Esdras, The Wisdom of
Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, be read, for they all cast much light upon ancient
Jewish opinion.
FROM SECOND BOOK OF ESDRAS
"But the day of doom shall be the end of this
time, and the beginning of the immortality for to come, wherein corruption is
past, intemperance is at an end, infidelity is cut off, righteousness is grown,
and truth is sprung up. Then shall no man be able to save him that is
destroyed, nor to oppress him that hath gotten the victory. .. . For what
profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas, we
have done the works that bring death. And that there is promised us an
everlasting hope, whereas ourselves, being most wicked, are made
vain."—Chapter 8. 43, 44, 45, 49, 50.
"Like as the husbandman's seed perishes, if it
come not up, and receive not Thy rain in due season; or if there come too much
rain and corrupt it; even so perished man also, which is formed with Thy hands,
and is called Thine own image, because Thou art like unto him, for whose sake
Thou hast made all things, and hast likened him unto the husbandman's
seed."—Chapter 8. 43, 44.
"Though the fruit of Thy law did not perish,
neither could it, for it was Thine; yet they that received it perished, because
they kept not the thing that was sown in them. For we who have received the law
perish by sin, and oar heart also that received it." —Chapter 9.32, 33,
36.
FROM THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.
"For God created man to be immortal, and made him
to be an image of His own eternity. Nevertheless, through envy of the devil,
came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find
it."—Chapter 2. 23, 24.
"Love is the keeping of her laws; and the giving
heed unto her laws is the assurance of incorruption; and incorruption makes us
nearer unto God: therefore, the desire of wisdom bringeth to a
kingdom."—Chapter 6. 13-20.
"Moreover, by the means of her I obtain
immortality; . . . to be allied to wisdom is immortality."—Chapter 8. 13,
17.
"For to know Thee is perfect righteousness; yea,
to know Thy power is the root of immortality."—Chapter 15. 3."
Though there are many more suitable passages, yet, as
these are sufficient, I will trouble you no further; but I will venture a
remark or two. These passages are most useful as a vocabulary, for they show us
the way in which certain words were used, as incorruptibility, immortality,
death, to destroy, to perish. Death is put as the opposite of immortality, and
immortality is spoken of as the lot of the wise and holy alone. The wicked are
said to perish, and to perish in the same sense as seed perishes when it rots
in the ground and does not
grow up; and a sense also in which the law of God does
not and cannot perish. Man, it is said, was intended to be immortal, which is
the meaning of being in the image of God; but they that hold to the devil find
death, which, being the opposite to a state of immortality, must signify the
cessation of life. All these considerations are worthy of our serious notice,
as sincere, impartial seekers after truth.
112. D. I really did not know there were such texts in
the Apocrypha. I shall read and study it, for I see it is important.
3. W. Yes, though we do not use it "to establish any
doctrine." Yet it is most valuable to us as indicating what, on many
subjects, were the prevalent notions among the Jews before the time of Christ,
and as greatly helping us to understand the mode of thought of the New
Testament writers, as also their style and the meaning of their words.
114. B. There is a passage in the Book of Judith (16.17)
which should not be overlooked; it is opposed to the passages already quoted:—
"Woe to the nations that rise up against my
kindred! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment,
in putting fire and worms in their flesh; and they shall feel them and weep forever."
2. A. I am really constrained to say that it is very
questionable whether Judith had any reference whatever to a future state; for
she speaks of the punishment of nations, not of individuals. The mention of the
day of judgment need not by any means refer to the future general great assize,
for, according to the Jewish mode of thinking, when a great calamity came upon,
a nation, it was called the day of judgment to that nation; and when the nation
was destroyed as a nation, it was represented as lamenting forever.
2. W. In my view there would be no difficulty in the
words of Judith, even if we were to apply them to individuals after the future
judgment; for, in the course of this controversy, we shall see that such
language denotes the inevitability and certainty of the punishment rather than
the endless duration of it.
3. D. Anyhow, this one testimony, which is dubious in
itself, cannot, in my opinion, outweigh the clear testimony of the many
extracts that have been read to us from Ezra, Solomon, and somebody else.
118. W. Shall we settle the subject for our next
discussion?
119. A. I should say, let it be the nature of man in
reference chiefly to his soul and spirit.
120. D. Excuse me. If there is anything which has
caused more surprise than another, it is that Mr. IV. should have put forth
notions so different from those held by the bishops of our Church and all the
rest of his brethren. If he can justify himself on this point, I for one shall
be the better prepared to listen to what he may further have to say.
121. W. Let it be so by all means. We will begin with
Mr. D.'s feature of the subject, and then pass on to Mr. A.'s. Carried: all
assent.
122. A. We have brought Mr. Newton with us, who is
much interested in the subject of our discussion, and would like to take part
in it. His leanings, however, are towards the universalism of Origen.
123. W. We shall be likely, on account of both his
help and opposition, to sift the various points more thoroughly, and
consequently the better to elicit the whole truth. I therefore welcome his
presence.
124. D. You are to-day in the first place to justify
yourself as a clergyman, and after that to vindicate yourself as a believer in
Holy Writ. At present we all think that the Prayer Book is against you, and if
so the charge against you may be serious.
125. W. It is no small relief to my mind that I am
about to discuss this point with one who has had a lawyer's training, and who
is constantly engaged in examining evidence.
126. D. But mind! if I am stiff and sturdy you must
not imagine I am unfriendly to you.
127. W. Nothing of the kind. If.my argument should
turn out to be illogical, and contrary to legal facts, I expect you to point it
out, with all your ability and strength.
The proposition which I will endeavor to maintain is,
that though endless torments for the wicked was once a doctrine of the Church
of England, yet that it has been expelled, and declared by competent authority
both ecclesiastical and civil to be no longer a doctrine of our Church, and no
longer incumbent upon either her clergy or laity.
128. B. You take high ground, but if you are able to
hold it, I shall be surprised.
129. W. In the fortieth of the Forty-two Articles
which formed the legalized and established Code of 1552, we twice find the
opinion decisively expressed that souls do not die with the bodies, and it is
affirmed that they who say they do so die, " do utterly dissent from the
right faith declared to us in Holy Scripture." The forty-second of the
same Code declared, in its title, that all men should not be saved at the
length, and the Article itself affirms that " They also are worthy of
condemnation who endeavor at this time to restore the dangerous opinion that
all men, be they never so un-godly, shall at length be saved, when they have
suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by God's justice."
Now these two Articles, taken together, clearly teach the doctrine of endless
torments. The one says souls do not die with the bodies, the other that the
ungodly shall not finally be saved. If, then, souls do not die, and ungodly
souls shall never be saved, the plain inference is that they must live in
endless torments.
130. B. Yes; that is the doctrine held by the bishops
and other clergy to this day.
131. W. It is; but whether rightly or wrongly is the
point. In 1562, ten years after, the whole Synod of the Church of England
revised these Articles, and deliberately expelled these two; and no place is
now found for them with our Thirty-Nine. This is a broad, telling fact.
132. B. But what more can we infer from this fact than
that they were omitted merely because they were no longer needed.
133. W. If such Articles were needed in 1552, they
were equally needed in 1562. Besides, Articles are never framed merely because
they are needed, but also, and principally, because they are true, or supposed
to be so; and when any are abolished it is reasonable to suppose that the
principal ground is because they are not true. Nor can it be supposed that they
were omitted. If they had never been introduced into the Code, omission would
have been the proper word, but after having been once introduced, promulgated,
and subscribed, expulsion is not too strong a word.
134. D. Did the original Forty-two Articles receive
the royal sanction?
135. W. They did; and the royal mandate was issued for
it to be subscribed by the clergy; which was. generally done. Now I ask these
plain questions: Did the subscription of the clergy in 1562 require an assent
and consent to the same doctrine, on this point, as did that of 1552? and could
not persons subscribe ex animo the Thirty-nine
Articles of 1562 who could not so subscribe the Forty-two of 1552?
136. A. Certainly; you, for instance, can subscribe the
Thirty-nine, but with your views you could not subscribe the Forty-two; but
what is there to hinder a person who subscribes the Thirty-nine from believing
on this point the Forty-two also. If consent to the latter implies non-consent
to the former, then most of us clergy are in a sad predicament.
137. W. With that precise state of the question I have
nothing to do. I have only to defend myself, and the position I take is this:
Unless we conclude that our Church wished not to hold, nor her clergy to teach,
anything concerning the future of the wicked, then, after 1562, she held, and
wished her clergy to teach, the opposite, on this point, to that contained in
the expelled Articles; provided she has not in any of her authorized
formularies forbidden such a conclusion. I do not see how anyone can logically
object to this.
138. D. But the opposite to the proposition—souls do
not die with the bodies, is—souls do die.
139. N. And the opposite of, the ungodly shall not be
saved at length, is—they shall be saved at length; which makes for
universalism.
140. W. Very good: let us successively examine the two
opposites. Will Mr. A. or Mr. B. see if he recollects any passage or sentence
in the Prayer Book which affirms or implies that souls are immortal and do not
die with their bodies.
141. A. Considering the distinction you make between
an endless process and an endless result, my memory does not supply me with an
instance. But, as one who has examined the Prayer Book with this view, what do
you say?
142. W. My answer is that our Church nowhere forbids
us to hold the opposite view of the abrogated Fortieth Article. On the
contrary, her teaching appears to me to be in exact accordance with those
extracts we have heard from the earliest fathers, for she teaches that the life
immortal is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ; she awards this gift to the
righteous, and does not award it to the wicked; but she consigns them to
everlasting fire in which they shall be burnt up like chaff in unquenchable
fire.
143. B. Is not that of itself sufficient to prove that
souls will not die, seeing they will be in everlasting unquenchable fire? Souls
are immaterial, and cannot be consumed nor changed in their substance.
144. D. But you must remember that in the future state
the body as well as the soul will, according to you, be tormented in this
unquenchable, everlasting fire. The body is not immaterial, and this can be
burnt up like chaff, and therefore, if your argument is valid, this can and
must come to an end when burnt up. I confess to a difficulty here.
145. B. We hold that the body will be as unconsumable
as the soul, not in its own nature, but that it will be so made at the time of
its sentence in the great Day of Judgment.
146. D. Let me understand you. Do you hold that He,
who alone can, will work a miracle either once for all at the beginning of the
punishment, or hour by hour so as to sustain, in imperishable living existence,
what is naturally and quickly perishable when put into fierce fire; something
analogous, for instance, to what was done for the three Hebrew children in the
burning fiery furnace?
147. B. Yes; I will not shrink from the logical
consequences of my belief.
148. W. However this point may be decided when we come
to discuss it, may I not say that no passage has been produced to show that the
Prayer Book forbids the belief that souls do die with the bodies.
149. A. You will, I suppose, allow that the old
Fortieth Article referred to the first death of the body when it said souls do
not die with the bodies.
150. W. Certainly; but if it held that souls did not
die at the first death of the body, have we any reason to suppose it would
allow that souls died at the second death in the lake of fire, especially as
the Forty-second Article affirmed that all men should not be saved at the
length. The compilers of the old Articles manifestly believed in the innate
immortality of the soul, and the abolition of these two left it to be inferred
it was to be believed no longer, and my point is this, that the Prayer Book, as
it now is, does not forbid a belief that souls do die with the bodies.
151. A. Well, in truth and candor, I must own I cannot
contradict this, as far as fact is concerned, but it is diametrically opposed
to the general thought.
152. D. I really begin to fear that few of us think at
all about it.
153. N. What do you say to my opposite that the
ungodly shall be saved at length?
154. W. That while our Church does not forbid us to
hold the opposite of the Fortieth Article, she does unequivocally forbid us to
hold the opposite of the Forty-second. In the Commination Service, she
declares, that in the day of judgment it will be too late for sinners to be
saved, and that the present is the only time for salvation; that the result of
the everlasting fire shall be final and irretrievable, and she leads us to pray
to be delivered from everlasting damnation and from the bitter pains of eternal
death. The first death of the body is not eternal; for it shall rise again: the
second death is eternal; for there will be no resurrection from that. These are
some of the reasons why I as a clergyman cannot receive universalism.
155. B. I think on this question you are right; but on
the other I cannot at all agree with your conclusion. Can you tell us of any
writer who lived at the time and who believed in the extinction of the wicked?
Did any of the giants of that day teach the opposite of the Forty-second?
156. D. For the vindication of Mr. W. it is not
necessary that there should be such writings. He has to do with the legal
documents of the Church of England, and certainly so far, the evidence is for
him. Have you any more?
157. W. Yes; the question was tried in the case Wilson
v. Fendall, before the Judicial Committee, and given
in my favour.
158. D. What was the precise point tried?
159. W. Not whether universalism or extinction be
true, but simply, whether the Church of England taught that the torments of the
wicked are endless, and the decision given was, that our Church did not hold
such a doctrine, and that therefore her clergy were not bound to teach it.
160. D. Upon what grounds was the decision given?
161. W. Upon two grounds. First, that the doctrine was
not found in the authorized formularies of the Church; and second, that the
Church had formally and legally abolished an Article which taught it. On this
last ground the presiding judge observed, that to affirm the Church did hold
this doctrine would be reinstating the abrogated Article, which they had no
power of doing. It should be added that the two Archbishops, and the Bishop of
London in their judicial capacity, assented to the judgment on this point. The
case is reported in the Law Times of February 20, 1864.
162. B. But that decision did not say that a Clergyman
cannot legally hold the doctrine of endless torments.
163. W. This feature is not the one we are examining,
nor did it come before the Committee. If it did, the decision would be, either
that our Church held no doctrine at all on the future of the wicked, and does
not require her clergy to hold any; or that she held the extinction of the
wicked, and required her Clergy to teach that.
164. D. But you have satisfactorily showed, I think,
that our Church does teach something, and the logical conclusion is, that if a
legal decision were given, it would be in favour of
extinction.
165. W. I have no wish to say more on that point than,
that if such a decision were given, it would legally put our Church into exact
accord with the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Church, as I believe it
already to be, ecclesiastically. It is a most hopeful sign that deep and
serious inquiry is now very extensively being made into this subject by both
laity and clergy; and, judging from evidence in my possession, it appears to
me, that we are on the eve of a great change of public opinion on this subject.
166. D. You have no more evidence I suppose on the
present question?
167. W. There is a little more, and it may be worth
producing. The Forty-first of the old code of Articles was against millennium,
but this also was abolished. If this had not been done, we clergy could not
have held and taught the personal reign and coming kingdom of Christ, when the
will of God will be " done upon earth as it is in heaven." Now,
however, large numbers avail themselves of the liberty and preach the good time
coming. I am old enough to remember that when this ancient doctrine was first
revived it experienced much opposition.
168. D. In justice to Mr. W. I must say that he has
shown us in a satisfactory way that his doctrine has an ecclesiastical and
legal place in our Church, and that he can legally and honestly retain his
present position. He has, too, vindicated himself without condemning
others.
169. W. Shall we then proceed to the other part of the
subject?
170. A. Not to-day. We have already heard enough for
grave reflection. I shall no more blame Mr. W. on Church of England grounds.
171. B. The tug of war is yet to come, when the battle
is fought on Scripture grounds. We have to-day taken some important points for
granted, such as that eternal fire and eternal death refer to an endless
result, not an endless process. A sense of duty impels me to protest against
that.
172. A. We are to-day to carry on the discussion upon
the ground of Scripture, and the subject is the psychological and pneumatology
nature of man.
173. W. As our object is, to find out what the Bible
does say on these points, had we not better read and analyze the various
passages bearing upon them?
174. D. And had you not better also understand the
exact sentiments of each other before you begin the process?
175. B. We believe that the soul is immaterial and
immortal in its own nature, and we believe the same of the spirit; and if there
is any difference between the two, it is that the soul is the seat of the
desires and affections, and the spirit the seat of the intellect.
176. A. We think further that the body is the vehicle
of the soul, and the soul the vehicle of the spirit, and that, though the soul
and spirit can be separated from the body, yet that soul and spirit cannot be
separated from each other.
177. W. My present belief is this, that if the
original words in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, viz., nephesh and psuche, are properly represented by the word soul, then the
soul is not immortal, but expires when the body dies; that the spirit of man is
infused into him by God; and that when the dust returns to the earth as it was,
then this spirit returns to Him who gave it—each substance or part to its
original source.
178. B. As it is your class of opinions that is new.
and ours are the ones usually received, we have a right to expect that you
should take the initiative, and try to establish the statement you have made.
179. W. Do we all take the old division of all things
in nature into matter and spirit.
180. D. There seems a general assent to that, and I
suppose it will be considered that man is composed of both.
181. W. The text we should naturally select as the
first to be considered, and the one, indeed. around which all others might be
grouped, is Gen. 2.7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a
living soul." A few things should here be noticed
I. The human frame was formed of dust, and, therefore,
called Adam; but, though it possessed the finest and most finished organization
yet produced, it had no life, nor had it any power to originate life by the
disposition of its molecules or particles; therefore—
II. God breathed into his nostrils the neshamah or spirit. Breath is a very insufficient word by
which to render the original, for whatever that may be which we breathe out,
and which we call breath, the breath of the Lord Gad is more than that. His
breath is His own Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, Who is " the
Lord and Giver of Life."
III. God breathed more lives than one into man's frame:
the Hebrew is literally the spirit of lives.
IV. The effect of this inbreathing of the spirit was
that the earthly frame, or Adam, sprang into life, and he at once became a
living human creature; and he stood before his Maker in all the integrity of
his tripartite nature. There was a trinity in man, as there was a Trinity in
his Maker.
182. B. Let us dispose of these points in the order
now laid down. I object to your applying the term Adam, or man, to the mere
earthly frame, for it is perpetually applied in Scripture to the whole man, as
he walked and talked and lived on earth, whether he possessed a threefold or a
twofold nature.
183. W. It is often so used, as we might naturally
expect it would be, and, if our object were simply practical, I would let your
remark pass; but, as we are examining into the point minutely and critically,
it will be necessary that I should defend my position. It is the reading of the
passage itself. It calls that Adam, or man, which was formed of dust, and
before life was put into it. In Gen. 3.19, the language is clear and strong:
"Dust thou art;" as is also verse 23: " The Lord God sent him
forth . . . to till the ground from whence he was taken." Job says (27.3),
"All the while my breath is in me, and the Spirit of God is in my nostrils;"
also (33.4), "The Spirit of the Lord made me, and the breath of the
Almighty hath given me-life." “He that is of the earth is earthy,"
says St. John (3.31), and this is put into contrast with the superior state of
the second man, the Son of God: "He that cometh from heaven is above
all." St. Paul does the same (1 Cor. 15.4, 7): "The first man is of
the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." This kind of
language is frequent in the Bible, and, indeed, it does not appear how, even on
your own principles, you can use the phrase, "mortal man," unless you
confine your idea of man to the body; for you say that his soul—the body's
soul—and spirit are not mortal. If any were to read the innumerable texts where
man in the English stands for Adam in the Hebrew, he would be astonished to
find how few passages there are which suggest more than the dying frame. Enosh, another Hebrew word translated man, necessarily
carries the idea with it of 'one sickly and mortal.
184. A. Why do you lay so much stress upon the plural
number of Hebrew for life, and translate lives.
185. W. Because it is plural, chayim,
and because it is so rendered when life is in possession of more than one
person, or when it is intended for more than one. Adam possessed this life, in
common with many others, and it was not peculiar to himself.
186. A. But is not chayim
always used in the plural as panim, faces, which is plural, though often
rendered in the singular?
187. W. If I must be precise and critical, I must not
allow that panim is illustrative of chayim. I am
persuaded that our modern idea of face, as applied to the front part of man's
head, would not embrace all the idea which an ancient Hebrew would have of
panim. His idea would be plural. He would use it as we use superficies, and
therefore we find it applied to the face of the earth, and of the sea. Now none
can see all the face, either of the earth, or sea. There is a face, he can see
in both; but there are faces of the sea, and of the earth all around him, which
he cannot see; and thus, though the earth is one, and the sea one, he would get
our plural idea of superficies; and though we might use it in the singular—as
we say, the superficies of the top of this table—yet it would be plural, and it
had a plural origin. Now an ancient Hebrew would take panim to mean, something
that was turned towards him. When however it was something in man that was
turned towards him, he knew there was something else turned from him, and that
he could not see all the superficies of the man. But what he could see, was the
representative of what he could not see; and as the countenance was what he
would look at, he would naturally apply his idea of whole superficies, to that
one part. The plural panim therefore is not so a parallel to chayan as to enable us to argue, that because the former is
rendered in the singular, the latter must also be so rendered. The more we get
behind the minds of the sacred writers, the more shall we obtain their precise
thought.
188. D. I can see what you mean, and certainly this is
an instance to show, that we cannot bring modern mode of thought to ancient
mode, and then argue as if they were identical, especially on important points.
189. W. Besides this, if, as I have said, and as any
concordance would prove, chayim is, and must be
rendered in the plural, why should we not do it here? especially as the same
word is used in the singular in this very passage, and is so applied—" a
living soul." You will doubtless know that the word is an adjective and it
therefore always requires some noun. It is here associated with the singular
noun nephesh; man became a nephesh chayah. In the
same verse then we have this adjective in both the singular and the plural
form, and why should we not preserve both forms in our translation? I have been
the longer on this point because accuracy seems to require it, and because it
is important, in order to understand the pneumatology of man. Here is Bishop
Wordsworth on the text, and you will see that he fully sanctions my plural
rendering.
190. B. But if God breathed more lives into the human
frame than one, what were they?
191. W.
I. There was animal life—that life which was exhibited
in the activities and motions of the body.
II. There was mental life which is seen in the
discerning, reasoning, discriminating, and determining powers which he has; as
also in the mental desires and affections.
III. Then there was spiritual life, by which all the
operations of the mind and all the actions of the body were rendered holy and
god-like. I apprehend this last is what the apostle calls being
"spiritually minded which is life and peace." Now all these lives can
exhibit themselves only by means of the body. The common motions of the body
show animal life, as do also the existence and exercise of the animal desires.
When a man determines, and acts, and speaks, wisely, deliberately, prudently,
he displays his mental life, as also when he prefers one thing and rejects
another. When a person prefers and loves God, doing all things from love to Him
and for His sake; when the actions and propensities of the body, and the
operations of the mind are in accordance with the laws of God, whether those
laws imprinted on nature or those revealed in His word, then He exhibits his
spiritual life. I add, that in my judgment these lives do not consist in the
mere existence of them, but also, and chiefly, in their respective exercises.
Life must be up and doing. All these lives are the produce of the spirit which
God infused into man's frame. This by your leave, I will further show when we
come to the question of pneumatology.
192. N. What then is to be understood by the living
soul?
193. W. Will you let me propose, that instead of soul,
we use the original word nephesh? for we have such associations of thought with
the term soul, that if we use that, we shall find it very difficult to place
our minds in the stand-point of the inspired writers.. Nephesh is, literally, a
creature which lives by breathing, and it is restricted to creatures which are
of the animal nature. As to the phrase, living nephesh, I do not see that there
can be any sound objection to Kitto's rendering (Cyclo. Bib. Vol. I. p. 659) "a living animal;"
only, as in this case, it is an animal of the " genus homo," I should
prefer the phrase a living person.
194. A. You spoke just now of the threefold nature of
man, does your living person include all these parts?
195. W. Strictly speaking, no; he includes only what
the indwelling spirit constitutes the human frame to be. The body of Adam
became the temple for the Holy Ghost to dwell in; and as long as He was there,
as the "Spirit of wisdom and understanding," there were the
manifestations of intellect; and as long as He was there, as the "Spirit
of holiness," there were also the manifestations of rectitude and love to
God. But when the Spirit took His departure from the body, then it became what
it was before He entered it—inanimate dust. It was a nephesh but a living
nephesh, no longer.
196. A. Then your view is that what is popularly known
as the soul comes to an end with the body.
197. W. It is. And yet I must explain myself. The
popular idea of the soul is that it is spirit, as much so as God's Spirit is:
then making the soul and spirit identical; or, if not identical, so inseparable
as to be reckoned as one; then they infer, that, as spirit is not matter, and
as spirit cannot die, therefore the soul is immortal. Though, however, I hold
that the soul comes to an end, I do not hold that the spirit comes to an end.
198. A. You have rightly represented our notions, and
you have given the foundation which they rest upon.
199. W. No exception can be taken to your inference;
but I do take a decided exception to your premise. If the soul and spirit were
the same, or inseparable, I should hold that the soul is immortal, inasmuch as
spirit essences are immortal; but as there is not a single instance in the
Bible where the two are confounded, and as the Apostle speaks of " the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit," as also of "joints and
marrow," I can by no means allow your premise, and I therefore deny your
inference from it.
200. B. As you put it perhaps you logically may; but
surely you overlook altogether the immense force of the word
"living." Man, Adam—call it the frame, or what not—"became a
living soul," or nephesh. Is not the idea of immortality intrinsically
involved in the fact of living? Consider! it is applied to God Himself in many
places—"the living God." Here is a standard by which to measure the
value and force of the word "living." It is the measure of the life
of the Eternal God.
201. W. Forgive me if I say that your argument is
fallacious. The word is the measure of the life of the being to which it is
applied. In Holy Scripture it is applied, as we shall soon see, to creeping
things, to beasts and cattle, to man, and, as you have shown, to God; but the
measure differs in each case. The only way, however, by which to decide the
question satisfactorily is .to appeal to the Bible, and read a sufficient
number of passages where the phrase nephesh chayah and
nephesh are found, so as to see all the ways in which they are applied. I do
not say "various meanings." I am very jealous of our various
meanings, for they have often been contradictory meanings, and the Bible, in
consequence, has grievously suffered.
202. A. Yes, let us go to the Bible: this, if it is
allowed to do so, will put an end to all strife.
203. W. Our English Bible admirable as it is, will not
be a sufficient guide to us in this matter; because it translates both the
phrase, and the word in different ways. Here is a Hebrew Bible, and our
reference shall be made to that for critical purposes.
204. A. We have no wish to object to that course.
205. W. The phrase nephesh chayah,
applied to man in Gen. 2.7, is found four times in chapter 1. "Let the
waters bring forth abundantly the moving nephesh chayah,"
verse 20. "And God created great whales, and every nephesh chayah that moves which the waters brought forth
abundantly," verse 21. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
nephesh chayah after His kind, cattle, and creeping
thing, and beast of the earth after His kind," verse 24. "And to
every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein is nephesh chayah I have given every green herb for meat." In
chapter 2 we meet with two instances, the one with which we are dealing, and
this, " Whatsoever Adam called every nephesh chayah
that was the name thereof." In chapter 9 there are two instances:
"And I, behold I, will establish My covenant with you, and with your seed
after you, and with every nephesh chayah that is with
you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with
you," verses 9, 10. Aid God said, "This is the token of the covenant
which I make between Me and you, and every nephesh chayah
that is with you, for perpetual generations," verse 12. Two other examples
are in verses 15 and 16; but these will be sufficient to show that the language
so much depended upon to prove the immortality of the soul, is applied to all
sorts of animals, from the lowest to the highest; and, of course, if it proves
the immortality of the soul of man, it must prove also the immortality of the
soul of all other living breathing creatures.
206. B. I see a great difference between the statement
respecting man and the statements respecting brutes. In the case of man it is
said, "The Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;"
it is not so said of the brute creation.
207. D. That relates to the mode of doing it; but the
point in discussion is respecting the result. However it may have been put into
them, the question is, had the brutes this nephesh chayah,
as well as man. That they had, the passages which have been read prove beyond
contradiction.
208. W. It is highly probable that God put life into
man, in a formal manner, as one way of marking him as the highest and best part
of His works. David tells us that man was made a little lower than God, and no
honors and distinctions were too great for him.
209. B. Sometime since, at a meeting of one of our
learned societies, an argument was used with good effect, that the words used
to express the nature of man acquired more and more expansiveness of meaning as
time wore on, and men increased in knowledge, and that, therefore, these words
meant more in the day of Christ than in the day of Adam or Moses.
210. A. Take the word nephesh then as a specimen. How
did he say that would expand?
211. B. He would say, that if nephesh did not at first
carry the idea with it of immortality, yet, when expanded, it might include
such an idea; and the position thus taken was not disputed, but favored by some
of the principal members.
212. W. Pardon me if I say that you had better not
mention either the society or the learned members, for surely, a position much
more baseless could scarcely be assumed. For though the sacred volume contains
books written in different ages, by many writers, yet there was but One
inspiring Author, and the meaning He attached to words and phrases in one age
would be the same that He attached to them in another. He would never use words
in a contradictory sense. I say in a contradictory sense; for if nephesh, chayah, might mean, in one age, that the soul is not
immortal, and in another age, that the soul is immortal, then this is not
expansiveness, but contradiction. Man is now what he was at the beginning, and
so are all mute creatures, and, therefore, as if to provide an argument against
this fanciful law of expansion, God expressly says in Gen. ix. that He makes
His covenant with the mute part of creation, as well as with man throughout all
generations. Animal natures remain what they ever have been, and so does God's
language respecting them, and surely it must retain the same force.
213. D. Well really I don't know what to say, your
arguments seem reasonable enough, and yet they lead to conclusions so different
from those held by everybody else.
214. W. We have not yet examined into the use of
nephesh when it stands alone; shall we now do so? It will be found rendered in
the English version by creature, soul, person, life, dead body, mind, beast,
and fish, and by the personal pronouns. If it is not tedious will you let me
read a few specimens?
215. A. We are here to go patiently, and candidly into
the question. Do not be afraid of being tedious.
216. W. Sufficient instances, where it is rendered
creature, have been already adduced; and instances where it is rendered soul,
will be superfluous, as also where it is represented by life. There are
hundreds of instances of these latter two. Here are specimens of person Gen. 14.21:
"Give me the persons"—give me ha nephesh.
Gen. 36.6, "And Esau took all the persons of his
house"—all the nepheshoth.
Ex. 16.16, " The number of your persons"—nepheshoth.
Num. 5. 6, " And that person be guilty
"—that nephesh.
Deut. 10. 22, " Thy fathers went down to Egypt
with three score and ten persons"—nephesh.
There are many others; but these are enough; and there
is a large number of instances where the English version has souls, but where
persons are meant.
Gen. 46 contains many specimens; as, "she bare
unto Jacob even sixteen souls."
In the following, nephesh is translated dead, and dead
body:
Lev. 19.28, " Ye shall not make any cuttings in
your flesh for the dead"—for the nephesh.
Lev. 24.17, " He that killed any man shall surely
be put to death " —kill the nephesh of any man.
Lev. 24.18, " He that killed a beast, shall make
it good"—that killed the nephesh, of a beast;
Lev. 21.1, "There shall none be defiled for the
dead among his people "—defiled for the nephesh;
Lev. 21.11, "Neither shall he go to any dead
body"—to any dead nepheshoth.
Num. 6.6, " He shall come at no dead
body"—no dead nephesh,
Num. 9.6, "And there were certain men, who were
defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the Passover"—by
the nephesh of a man; also verse 7; verse 10, "If any of you shall be
unclean by reason of a dead body"—by a nephesh. There are many more of the
same kind.
The following are specimens in which it is rendered
mind:
Gen. 23.8, "If it be your mind that I should bury
my dead "—be your nephesh that;
Deut. 18.6, "And come with all the desire of his
mind"—of his nephesh;
1 Samuel 2.35, "Shall do according to all that is
in My heart and in My mind"—and in My nephesh,
2 Kings 9.15, "If it be your mind, let none go
out "—be your nephesh;
1 Chron. 28.9, "Serve Him with a perfect heart
and willing mind"—willing nephesh.
It is thus translated fourteen times in the Old
Testament. In one passage it is rendered beast:
Lev. 24.18, " He that kills a beast shall make it
good; beast for beast"—He that killed the nephesh of a beast shall make it
good; nephesh for nephesh. The clauses in this text—"Make it
good"—"beast for beast"—are expressed by "restore."
Lev. 24.21. "He that killed a beast shall restore
it."
It remains now to read examples where nephesh, stands
for the personal pronouns:
Gen. 37.21, "Let us not kill him"
(Joseph)—let us not kill his nephesh;
Lev. 2.1, "When any will offer a meat offering
"—when a nephesh;
Lev. 11.44, "Neither shall ye defile yourselves
"—your nepheshoth;
Esther 9.31, "As they had decreed for themselves
and their seed "—for their nephesh;
Num. 23.10, "Let me die the death of the
righteous" —let my nephesh die;
Job 32.2, "Because he justified himself rather
than God "—justified his nephesh;
Job 36.14, "They die in youth "—their
nephesh dies;
Ps. 105.18, "Whose (Joseph's) feet they hurt with
fetters: he was laid in iron "—his nephesh was laid in iron;
Isaiah 46.1, 2, scorning Bel and Nebo, says,
"themselves are gone into captivity "—their nepheshoth
are gone into captivity;
Jer. 51.14, "The Lord of hosts hath sworn by
Himself "—has sworn by His nephesh.
As far as I know these are all of the different
applications of nephesh found in the Old Testament. All of them grow out of the
original root idea —viz., a living animal creature. Man is an animal; but he is
much more than a mere animal; he is a person, and hence the second application
of nephesh. But then, it is the body only of the person that can be recognized
by our senses, and hence it is not unnatural to apply nephesh to the body, when
the life is fled. Then a mute animal is as much a nephesh as a man, and he is
kept in life in the same way as a man: hence it is rendered beast; and nephesh
is interchangeable with behemoth—cattle. Out of the personal application of
nephesh would grow its use instead of the personal pronouns. Great use was made
of this application, and it was not uncommon when a Hebrew addressed himself to
say, my nephesh, meaning, myself. As far as I know there is not an instance
where nephesh occurs which may not be brought under one or another of these
applications.
217. A. You have admitted that it is rendered mind in
fourteen places. Now, surely mind is a quality of spirit, and if nephesh is
mind, then nephesh is spirit, and, therefore, immortal; for spirit cannot die.
218. W. I have given the various renderings of
nephesh, and I have briefly justified the chief of those renderings; but I will
venture to say, that mind can never stand for nephesh, if by mind is understood
the intellectual powers of man.
219. D. It certainly does strike one that if dead
body, and beast, and idols, are the correct translation of nephesh, then it can
have no application to the intellectual powers. Lawyers have a way of
explaining the obscure by the obvious, the uncertain by the certain. Can't you
apply some such principle here? What word in the fourteen instances would you
substitute for mind?
220. W. I should say that desire is the idea suggested
in the passages where we find mind put for nephesh; or some word which would
express the bodily appetites. The nephesh is the seat of all animal desire, and
whatsoever can be predicated of the body, is in Scripture predicated of the nephesh;
indeed the nephesh is identical with the body, when the body is in life and
vigor. The nephesh is said to be hungry, to be thirsty, to loathe food, to be
satisfied with it, to be weary, to open its mouth wide and to be polluted with
certain kinds of food. Indeed I might have said before that it is three times
rendered desire. Eccl. 6.9, Jer. 22.27, 44.14, and twice appetite. Prov. 23.2,
Eccl. 6.7, as, "All the labor of man is for his mouth yet the appetite is
not filled"—yet the nephesh is not filled. To do a thing with all the
nephesh, or all the psuche, is to do it with all the
desire.
221. B. But in one of the examples just now given the
words are, with all the desire of the mind, and your explanation would make it,
with all the desire of the desire; not only an awkward phrase but a repetition
of idea.
222. W. You must not forget that this awkwardness and
repetition, do not belong to the original. There it with the desire of the
nephesh, and certainly the desire in this, and in the other thirteen passages,
is not for any mental or spiritual thing, but for earthly things. One who is
dependent upon the English translation might be led astray by the word mind,
but a Hebraist would not.
223. D. But is there no text where nephesh is used for
spirit? I have been taught that this is common.
224. W. I have looked at every passage where it
occurs, and, in my judgment, there is not one. In one passage, and only one,
the English version would lead us to suppose that soul was used for spirit. Is.
57.16, "For I will not contend forever; neither will I be always wrath;
for the spirit would fail before me and the souls which I have made." Here
you would expect to find nepheshoth, the plural of
nephesh; but, instead of that, we find neshamoth—spirits,
which I have made. The language used by the inspiring Spirit is not loose, like
much of that which we employ; and if all could read the Hebrew, I believe they
would find it to be the most carefully and precisely worded book in existence.
225. A. It appears to me that the highest exercises of
our spiritual nature are attributed to the soul or nephesh. It prays to God—"Unto Thee do I lift my soul." It
praises God—"Bless the Lord, O my soul." It exercises faith—" My
soul trusted in Thee." It has knowledge —"That my soul knows right
well." "The soul to be without knowledge is not good."
226. W. With such as you who want to take the meaning
out of the Bible, and not to bring a meaning to it, the seeming difficulties of
these texts will soon vanish. By referring to the various places in the Hebrew
where nephesh is connected with prayer and praise, nephesh does not stand
alone. It has always an appropriate suffix; and with suffixes nephesh is
equivalent to I, myself; you, yourself; they, themselves. In Mr. A.'s examples
it is not nephesh, that is said to pray, praise and trust, but nephesh—my soul;
and its force is, I myself; and with the usage of the Hebrews its proper
rendering would be the personal pronoun I or myself. "Praise the Lord, O
myself. Unto Thee do I lift up myself. I trust in Thee."
227. D. You mean to say that it is a Hebrew idiom, and
should have been so treated.
228. W. Exactly so. The necessity to understand this
language in the way just pointed out, will be the better seen when it is
recollected, that it is used only in composition intended for public Divine
service. The silent, secret praise and prayer of the mere inward spirit, is not
suited for this purpose; but prayer and praise, sung by the living voice of the
living man in the temple, was itself part of public worship, and we thus see
the force and beauty of the language in question.
229. A. But I have shown you that knowledge is
attributed to the soul or nephesh. Now, knowledge can be possessed only by the
intellect, and you have allowed that the intellect is spirit. This you will
allow to be conclusive.
230. W. Pardon me, but I cannot. " My soul knows
right well," is no more, in Hebrew idiom, than " I know right well;
" and it forms only another example of nephesh being used for the personal
pronouns. A Hebrew Concordance would easily show how frequently this idiom is
used in the Old Testament.
231. B. If you are right, I cannot see how it is that
nephesh, is in the Bible applied to God Himself. God is a spirit, and if He has
a soul, then that soul must be spirit.
232. W. I should contend with you that God the Father
is spirit; and I would add that Jesus tells us, " a spirit hath not flesh
and bones." But here again the genius of the Hebrew language removes the
difficulty. The language, " In whom my soul is well pleased," and
" My soul shall have no pleasure in him," is no more than " In
whom I am well pleased," and "I will have no pleasure in him."
The revealing Spirit used the language of man, and He conformed Himself to its
idioms. Those passages by no means teach that God the Father has an animal
soul, or human soul; and if we had learnt our psychology from the Bible, we
should not have supposed it. Permit me to add that most of us have acquired a
psychology, independent of the Book of God, and then we have made the language
of the latter, to square itself with the former. We have learnt from Plato,
that the soul is immortal, and we believe in it as true; and then we take it
for granted that the Bible teaches the same thing. The phrase " immortal
soul " is incessantly in the mouths of theologians; but if this phrase is
so important, as it is alleged to be, and contains so essential a truth, is it
not astounding, that though the Bible uses nephesh, and its corresponding Greek
word psuche, nearly a thousand times, yet in no
single instance, dyes it apply to it the epithet immortal; but that it does in
numerous instances speak of its dying. Popular theology must, on this subject,
be wrong somewhere; and the sooner we reform it the better.
233. B. Some time since I was reading a pamphlet on
this subject, and the writer spoke as if there were no room to doubt that soul
and spirit mean the same thing in the Bible, and that it was only ignorance or
prejudice which would think otherwise.
234. D. Did he give any texts to prove it?
235. B. None; but he took it as the same
unquestionable truth as we take it that Christ is our Savior.
236. A. Then it was an assertion founded upon mere
supposition, not on fact.
237. N. Should you pass over the clause, " All
that is within me bless His holy name." This is parallel to the words
" Bless the Lord, O my soul." Now, whatever is meant by " my
soul " in the one line, that must be meant also, in the next line, by the
words " all that is within me." On W.'s scheme the text is repetition
and nonsense, but on ours it is good sense and consistent with itself.
"Bless the Lord, O my soul," which we say is the immortal principle
within. Then it is added, addressing the same soul, " all that is within
me, bless His holy name." Now read the words on W.'s scheme: " Bless
the Lord, O myself; and all myself that is within me—within myself, bless His
holy name." That is, one myself within another myself. Two myselfs belonging to the one person that is speaking the
words. I repeat that this is making the Bible speak confused nonsense.
238. W. Pardon me if I say it is not my scheme that
makes the passage speak this nonsense, but rather your conception of what my
scheme is. In my judgment my scheme makes as good clear sense of the passage as
you suppose yours does. I cannot hold that the rules of poetic Hebrew
parallelism require that the second line of a distich should be the same in
sentiment and meaning as the first; nor can it be allowed that the words
"my soul " mean the same as the words, " all that is within
Inc." "There is a spirit in man," says Elihu, in the Book of Job;
and, if I may so say, there is the outer man and the inner man; and according
to what you have called my scheme, the Psalmist calls upon his outer man to
bless the Lord, comprehending in this, as it appears to me, that part which can
engage in the formalities of religious worship. But this was not enough to
satisfy his enlightened mind, and he therefore calls upon his inner man also to
praise the Lord. What confused nonsense is there here? And you will please
observe that this explanation falls in with the whole passage. Consistently
with the teaching of the whole Bible, he, in verse 3, attributes iniquities and
diseases to his nephesh — "the body of sin." Then in verse 4, he says
that this, his nephesh, has a life—not is itself the life, as you make it, but
has a life; implying that the nephesh could not be alive without it. The
nephesh is one thing, the life of the nephesh is another. The words are,
"Who redeemed thy life"—the life of the nephesh "from
destruction." It seems to me that my scheme makes the passage harmonious;
that yours makes it contradictory. See Ps. 103.1-5.
239. D. Well, I can't say but that all this is a fair
answer.
240. W. Permit me to read a text or two in which the
pronoun and nephesh are interchangeable. Ps. 6.4, "O Lord, deliver my
soul; oh, save me for Thy mercies sake; " 23.2, 3, " He makes me to
lie down.. . He leadeth me. . . He restoreth my soul; He leadeth me in paths of
righteousness;" 31.9, " Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am in
trouble; mine eye is consumed with grief, yea my nephesh and my belly."
These are but specimens of many. Let me read now a few texts where, with your
views, you could never have written soul or nephesh. Ex. 12.16, " Save
that which every nephesh must eat, that only may be done of you." Lev. 17.11,
14, " For the nephesh of the flesh is the blood, and I have given it to
you upon the altar to make an atonement for your nepheshoth.
For the blood is the nephesh of all flesh; the blood of it is for the nephesh
thereof; for the nephesh of the flesh is the blood thereof . . . whoever eats
it shall be cut off;" 32.11, " If the priest buy a nephesh he shall
eat of it." Deut. 12.15, " Thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy
gates, whatsoever thy nephesh lusted after." Num. 31.28, " Levy a
tribute . . . one nephesh of five hundred, both of the persons [ha Adam], and
of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep." Job 7.15, " So
that my nephesh chooses strangling and death rather than life." Judges 16.30,
"Samson said, Let me die "—Let my nephesh die with the Philistines.
Is. 29.8, " It shall even be as when a hungry man dreamed, and behold he
eats; but he awaked and his nephesh is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreamed,
and behold he drinks; but he awakens and, behold he is faint, and his nephesh,
hath appetite; " 56.11, " Yea, they are greedy dogs—they are strong
of nephesh." Jer. 2.24, " A wild ass . . . snuffed up her wind at her
pleasure "—at her nephesh; verse 34, "Also in thy skirts is found the
blood of the nepheshoth, of the poor innocents;"
40.14, " Dost thou know that Baalis . . . hath
sent Ishmael to slay thee "—to slay thy nephesh. Hab. 2.5, " He
transgressed by wine . . . he enlarged his desire as hell" enlarged his
nephesh as the grave.
241. D. I see plainly, With much regret, that I have
read the Bible far too little. The English Version would have told me much more
about the nature of the soul than I know. But somehow, I took for granted what
I constantly heard about it; for the future I will search for myself.
242. B. I cannot but think there is something worth
notice in the idea I have advanced, that words which describe the nature of man
did gain expansion as knowledge increased; and that we shall find the psyche of
the New Testament to contain and mean much more than the nephesh of the Old
Testament.
243. A. Let us begin, then, at this point, when we
next meet.
244. W. Meanwhile, may I beg you to reflect whether
the usage of soul in popular theology is at all in accordance with the use of
nephesh in the Old Testament.
245. D. If popular theology is right, the Old
Testament must be rewritten.
246. W. Will Mr. B. kindly explain exactly what he
means by the expansion of the words which describe the nature of man.
247. B. I mean this, that as time went on the world
grew in knowledge. Philosophy enlarged people's minds, and increased their ideas;
and they had continually to adjust their opinions according to the new light of
their discoveries. This would necessarily affect their language; and their
words would become more and more comprehensive. Then, as God gave His
revelation a little at a time, in successive ages, He would, in order to be
understood, use the words in their now more comprehensive sense, and in this
way the Bible would, in the successive stages of its revelation, keep up with
the progress of mankind. Supposing, therefore, that the philosophy of Plato
should establish, as a truth, that the soul was immortal, then, after that was
made known, the Bible would use the word soul according to the expanded meaning
put upon it by the progress of philosophical knowledge. I should look upon this
as expanded knowledge, not as new knowledge, contradicting the old.
248. W. I perfectly comprehend your meaning, and I see
the ground upon which you rest your opinion; but I cannot agree, that it has
any legitimate place in our discussion.
I. In order to make your expansion of any weight in
your argument, you must show that in the later ages the words nephesh and psuche meant the opposite to what they did in the earlier
ages. I venture to affirm you cannot do this. The Bible gives not the slightest
intimation that the meaning of nephesh, was expanded or changed between the
time of Moses and Malachi.
II. As I have before observed, the real Author of the
Bible is the One inspiring Spirit. A wise, sensible, human author would not use
any word at different periods of his life in a contradictory sense. Can we, may
we, suppose it of a Divine Author.
III. I deny that ancient philosophers either expanded
the meaning of nephesh or psuche, or gave it a
different meaning to what it before had. They did not put the idea of
immortality into the word psuche, as you suppose, but
they added some epithet to the Word psuche in order
to express its immortality, as you do. You say never-dying soul, or immortal
soul. They made new applications of the word, such as to a butterfly, but its
meaning remained the same. Whether in sacred or profane authors I cannot see
any ground for your expansion.
IV. As far as the Old Testament is concerned the use
and meaning of nephesh, could not have been affected by the progress of the
world's philosophy; for the sacred canon was closed about B.C. 420, and Plato,
the great propagator of the souls immortality, died B.C. 129.
V. Besides all this, is there not something strangely
anomalous in taking for granted the truth of man's philosophy, and then, in
supposing that God's revelations would conform themselves to it? How could
anything be a revelation if it were before known? God's Book was given to correct
the errors of man's books; and it is remarkable that St. Paul, who knew well
what the world's philosophy was, expressly warns us against it. It was the very
mode of reasoning now used by Mr. B. which led some of our Christian fathers to
engraft Platonism upon Christianity. In conclusion, I must express my deep
conviction that the words upon which our controversy hinges have not been
expanded, nor their meaning changed.
249. B. But the New Testament was written when the
civilized world was full of philosophy; and when this philosophy was widely
studied.
250. W. But it did not affect the inspired writers of
the New Testament, and their teaching was not in accordance with philosophy,
but with the Old Testament, and against philosophy.
251. D. That is the point to be worked out to-day, and
had we not better proceed as before?
252. W. In the Septuagint Version, psuche
always represents, nephesh; and we may be certain therefore that the psuche of the New Testament is the same as the nephesh of
the Old Testament.
253. D. Has psuche as many
of what you call applications in the New Testament which we have seen nephesh
has in the Old Testament?
254. W. Not so many; but as far as they go they are
the same as those in the Old Testament. Psuche is rendered
by life, soul, heart, heartily, mind, and by the pronouns, us and you. In two
quotations from the Old Testament psuche stands for
I, myself, and, if I mistake not, in a few other places. It is not rendered
person; but it often stands for what we mean by persons. It will not be needful
to produce specimens of the renderings by life and soul. In the following, psuche stands for the personal pronouns:—
Matt. 12.18, "Behold my servant, whom I have
chosen; my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my spirit upon
Him "—I am well pleased, I will put. The "my psuche,"
of the one clause is the " I " of the next.
Matt. 26.38, " My psuche
is exceeding sorrowful "—I am exceeding sorrowful; " tarry ye here
and watch with me.
Luke 12.19, "I will say to my psuche,
psuche thou hast much goods laid up for many years,
eat, drink, and be merry" —I will say to myself thou hast much goods, eat,
drink, and be merry;
Luke 21.19, " In your patience possess ye your psuchas "—possess ye yourselves.
John 10.24, " How long dost thou make us to doubt
"—make our souls to doubt;
John 12.27, " Now is my psuche
troubled. . . . Father, save me from this hour."
2 Cor. 12.15, " I will gladly spend and be spent
for you "— for your psuchon = souls.
Heb. 10.38, "My psuche
shall have no pleasure in him "—I will have no pleasure.
In the following, it is rendered heart and heartily:—
Eph. 6.6, " Doing the will of God from the heart
"—from psuches.
Col. 3.23, "Do it heartily "—from psuches.
In the following we find, mind:—
Acts 14.2, "Made their minds evil affected
against the brethren "—their psuchas evil
affected (lit. evil affected the persons of the gentiles against the brethren).
Phil. 1.27, " Stand fast in one spirit, in one
mind, striving together for the faith of the gospel "—in one psuche.
Heb. 12.3, " Lest ye be weary and faint in your
minds" —faint in your psuchais = lest ye be
weary, etc.
The following are examples where psuche
is applied to persons, though not so rendered in the New Testament:—
Acts 2.41, "About three thousand souls " =
persons; verse 43, " Fear came upon every soul "—person;
Acts 27.37, "We were all in the ship, two hundred
threescore and sixteen souls "—persons.
Rom. 13.1, "Let every soul "—every person,
be subject to the higher powers.
1 Pet. 3.20, "Wherein few, that is eight souls
"—eight persons were saved by water.
2 Pet. 2. 14, "Beguiling unstable souls
"—unstable persons.
Rev. 6.9, " I saw under the altar the souls of
them that were slain "—the persons of the slain ones;
Rev. 20.4, "I saw the souls of them that were
beheaded . . . who had not received a mark upon their forehead nor in their
hands "—the persons of the beheaded ones, who had not a mark on their
forehead nor in their hands.
255. 4. This list of texts is worth much attention, as
showing the use which the Bible makes of psuche, and,
after all, this is the question—What does the Bible say?
256. W. A few more will complete the analysis. Luke 2.35,
" Yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own psuche
also. Acts 2.31, "He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of
Christ, that His psuche was not left in the grave,
neither his flesh did see corruption." Here soul and flesh are used in the
same sense; and both—or rather one body under two names—went to the grave or
hades, the place of corruption. James 5.20, " Shall save a psuche from death." Rev. 8.9, " And the third
part of the creatures which were in the sea and had psuchas,
died." 16.3, " Every living psuche died in
the sea." In this last passage St. John applies precisely the same
language to the creatures of the sea as the Septuagint employs to render the nephesh
chayah of Moses, psuche zosa, which, as we have seen, is applied to all the lower
animals, and also to man. Rev. 18.14, " The fruits which thy psuche lusted after are departed from thee."
257. D. We have now, I suppose, a thorough view of the
manner in which the Scriptures use the words for which our word
"soul" stands; and no one can help seeing that the soul in our
theology is a very different thing from the nephesh and psuche
of the Bible. We must be wrong somewhere, and I think I shall never again take
against an opinion because it is new to me and to those about me.
258. W. I want to make it manifest to you all, that if
man be by constitution and birth an immortal creature, it is not because he is
a living soul, supposing, that is, that the teaching of Holy Scripture is to be
relied on, which, of course, it is.
259. B. You have admitted that both nephesh and psuche are, in innumerable instances, translated life; and
you have not attempted any reason against such a translation, nor intimated any
dissent from it. Now, if nephesh and psuche are life,
by which I understand the principle of life, how can it die? that is, in
reality, how can nephesh or psuche die?
260. W. Pardon me; I have not admitted that either of
these words expresses the principle, or essence of life. I can perceive a great
difference between chayi life and nephesh life, and
between zoe life and psuche
life. If I am correctly taught, chayi and zoe may be applied to all the manifestations of life, from
the living God down to the lowest living vegetable; but nephesh and psuche are restricted to the various grades of animal life,
and do not express the idea of the essence of life, but the idea of one of the
manifestations of that essence. The essence of life was breathed into the human
frame, and then it was that it exhibited animal life. The essence, principle, neshainah, or, in one word, the Spirit of lives, is the
cause, and animal life is one of the effects which He produces. It cannot be
deemed incorrect if I say that when the cause is removed the effect must cease.
261. B. I cannot help thinking that there are many
texts where psuche occurs, which are wholly
inconsistent with your theory. Take the text Matt. 10.28, " Fear not them
which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him
which is able to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna." The soul cannot
be killed by man, though he can kill the body. God alone can kill the soul, and
it is questionable whether He will do so, seeing the torments of the wicked are
to be forever.
262. W. This passage is a difficulty to me only when
looked at from your point of view; but it is by no means inconsistent with my
theory. You hold the innate immortality of the soul. Christ says God can kill
it, you do not doubt His ability to do this, but you question whether He will
ever exert His power for such a purpose. The drift of the warning, however, is,
that He will exert it for this purpose. On your supposition the warning runs
thus—" He is able to kill the soul; but He will not do it. I give you a
threat, but it will never be executed. The soul will never be killed by God any
more than it will by man." All this is inconsistent with verse 33, which
declares that the denier of Christ shall be, without doubt, denied by God; and
also with verse 39, which declares that " he who finds his soul by denying
Christ, shall certainly lose it." The expressions, kill the soul, denied
by God, and losing the soul, refer to the same final doom of the wicked. Now,
if the soul can be killed, shall be denied, and shall be lost, what becomes of
the innate immortality of the soul, and of your interpretation of the
threatening?
263. A. I have long given up this text as a proof on
the orthodox side; for surely Jesus would never have founded a threat on the destructible
nature of the soul, if it were indestructible.
264. B. But you must observe, that man can do
something to the body, which he cannot do to the soul. There must, therefore,
be something in the soul which is not in the body.
265. W. To my other considerations let these be added.
I. In the discourse contained in this twelfth chapter,
our Lord contrasts the sentence of a judge on earth, with the sentence of the
Judge on the great white throne. He tells His disciples of the persecutions
they should meet with for His sake, and of their consequent danger of forsaking
Him. He assured them of all needful aid, and while He secures to them ample
rewards, if found faithful, He warns them of the final consequences of
unfaithfulness. He reminds them, that the sentence of the human judge can
extend only to this world, that therefore they are not to fear the governors
and kings before whom they may be brought; but rather that they should fear the
Divine Judge whose sentence in the next world should extend to the whole man,
and by the execution of which, not the body only, but the soul or life, should
be killed, or brought to an end by the second death, in the lake of fire, or
Gehenna.
II. As the English Version does, in forty cases,
render psuche by life, it would have been greatly to
the advantage of the reader, if it had been thus rendered in this passage. Psuche is found in this discourse of Christ four times, and
it is twice rendered by soul, and twice by life. One is at a loss to see any
reason for the difference except a theological bias. All the instances are
found in one uniform discourse, and they all refer to the same event and time,
and the word should certainly have been uniformly rendered. The English
translators appear to have thought, that they could not, according to their
idea of a soul, make it stand for psuche in verse 39;
and consistency, therefore, ought to have forbidden them to let it stand for psuche in verse 28; for soul to an English mind suggests a
totally different idea from life. Let us then translate psuche
in verse 28, as it is in verse 39, and see the effect: "Fear not them
which kill the body but are not able to kill the life; but rather fear Him
which is able to destroy both body and life in Gehenna. He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it." To my mind
it is evident, that by destroying body and life in Gehenna, Christ referred to
the final doom of the wicked, which is everlasting destruction.
III. It must not be forgotten that Jesus addressed
this discourse to His disciples alone; and it was their life that the death
sentence of governors and kings could not touch. The execution of the human
judge could have no effect upon their future destiny. Let them be faithful to
Christ, and they shall be true, real, human beings again in the resurrection.
The life of the true faithful disciple is safe with Christ whose sheep can
never perish. This, then, is the contrast: the sentence of a human judge cannot
affect the true disciple; the sentence of the Divine Judge does do this: it
destroys both body and life forever. It will not be out of place to observe
here that this text is utterly opposed to the baseless theory that the living organization
of the body arises from molecular disposition or arrangement. If it were so,
man could kill the life, but it arises from a higher source, quite out of the
reach of man.
266. A. I am now myself satisfied that this passage
does not uphold the immortality of the soul, but the contrary. I really begin
to suspect we have all been wrong, and that no text can be found to prove the
immortality of the soul; and if so, then endless torments may be baseless.
267. W. Have you heard that a reward of Ł1,250 has
been offered to anyone who will produce a single text from the Word of God,
which will prove the innate immortality of the soul? But though it is so often
averred, that there are many such, and that they are easily found, yet no one
has hitherto claimed the reward.
268. A. I acknowledge that I have been accustomed to
found that doctrine upon those numerous texts which affirm the endless torments
of the wicked.
269. B. If it should turn out that we have been wrong,
on the one simple point about the innate immortality of the soul, it may still
be inferred, that the soul shall be kept alive in order that the requirements
of justice may be satisfied.
270. W. But if not innately immortal, and yet kept
alive for purposes of punishment, by whom is it kept alive?
271. B. God alone can do that; and I infer He will do
it; how else can He inflict the punishment of unquenchable fire?
272. D. What if our opinion about that class of texts
should prove as baseless as the others about immortality? Where, in argument,
are we then?
273. W. Let me speak plainly. It appears to me that
you have tried to prove one uncertain thing by another uncertain thing. Two
uncertainties can never make a certainty. The doctrines of the immortality of
the soul and of the endlessness of torments have been assumed, and each has
done duty towards the other, and each has been made to uphold the other, though
both are, in reality, repudiated by the Bible.
274. B. That is not yet proved.
275. W. Will you then allow me to adduce two or three
texts which deny the immortality of the soul. In 1 Tim. 6.16, St. Paul declares
that " God only hath immortality; " and if God only has it, how can
it be innate in any other? Read also 1 Tim. 1.17.
276. B. Well, but does not that mean that God only
hath underived immortality? He is the only fountain of it, and all others
derive theirs from Him.
277. W. The passage does not say that. Still, if there
were any text which undoubtedly taught the innate immortality of the soul, we
should be obliged so to interpret it; but, as it may be safely said, there is
no such text, we must keep to the natural meaning of the words, and regard them
as an absolute declaration, especially as, if we otherwise took them, we should
be driven to absurd, not to say impious, consequences.
278. D. What do you mean?
279. W. Just this; that immortality is an infinite
attribute of the Deity, and cannot be held or sustained by a creature; for the
conditions of a creature are that he is necessarily limited in his nature and
capacities. We utterly oppose the assumed infallibility of the Pope. Do we not
commit the same fault as he, when any of us assume to ourselves innate
intrinsic immortality? Nay, are we not—let me speak the word out—are we not, in
this point, more impious than he? He does not assume innate, intrinsic
infallibility. He says he is infallible because God speaks in him. Some of us
say we are immortal, because we are intrinsically so, and of our own nature.
This seems to me to be making ourselves—fallen sinful creatures though we
are—to be, in this point, equal with God.
280. N. But you hold that true believers in Christ are
immortal. Here, according to your own showing, are others that are immortal;
how, therefore, can it be said in any sense that God only is immortal.
281. W. Excuse me. I do not say that even the believer
is intrinsically immortal. This quality in him is a gift, and he can retain it
only as a gift. I make the immortality of a fallen creature to be of grace
through Christ's redemption. You make it natural to him. In my view he derives
it from his union with God through Jesus Christ, and he can retain it no longer
than that vital union lasts. The context too binds me to this exclusive and
absolute opinion of the passage. It declares Him to be the only Potentate, the
King of kings and the Lord of lords. The two only must have the same force, and
as He is the only Potentate, the only King of kings and Lord of lords, so He
only hath immortality.
282. B. But there are the holy unfallen angels. We
know that they have been living for at least six thousand years, and it is with
good reason we believe they will never die. They surely have immortality.
283. W. They have no intrinsic immortality; and though
they are not fallen, like ourselves, yet their immortality flows to them by
their holy union with God; though in their case it is not as the result of the
atonement of Christ. To them it is a gift from the Creator, kept up by constant
union with Him, which union is dependent on continued obedience. Of all living creatures
it must be said, that they have no life in themselves, and that it is " in
God they live and move and have their being."
284. A. You appear to me to limit the power of God,
for you speak as if it were impossible for a creature to be immortal. In the
infinite variety of His works, why should He not produce one being, or race of
beings, who should be immortal from the constitution of the nature given them
by their Maker?
285. W. If the words of St. Paul just now quoted must
be taken in their absolute natural sense, and if it is true, as it must be,
that immortality is an infinite attribute or quality, then I submit that a
creature cannot, from the very necessities of his being, possess this or any
other infinite attribute. A living creature may be endlessly kept in living
existence if he fulfils the necessary conditions; that is, retains His holy
nature. As long as he is holy he is united to God, and as long as he is united
to God he is immortal through Him; but let the holiness and union with God
cease, then immortality is lost. I fully agree with Theophilus in the extract
which was read to you. If the Creator had made man immortal, He would have made
him a God, possessing at least one infinite attribute, and if one, why not
others, seeing that in this supposed creature there is infinite capacity? Then,
on this supposition, there would be the absurdity of two Gods; nay, a world of
Gods, as many Gods as there are angels and men, and some affirm devils too. The
Bible is as reasonable and sensible as it is wise and inspired, when it
restricts intrinsic immortality to the one only God.
286. D. Your view is, then, that man has forfeited his
immortality by the Fall.
287. W. It is; and that if he ever possess it again,
it must be by a fresh grant; and that this grant must be made, not on the
ground of what he was originally intended to be, nor on the ground of what he
originally was, but on the ground of Christ's redemption, and on the condition
that a man be brought into union with God through Christ.
288. D. I see that your scheme holds together; but are
there other texts which confirm the view you have taken of Saint Paul's words?
289. W. Yes, there are two which to my mind fall in
with this view but are inconsistent with any other. John v. 26, " For as
the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in
Himself." Son here is the same as Son of Man in verse 27, so that Jesus is
here speaking of Himself in His human nature; and He tells us that the life in
Him was not intrinsic, but the gift of God. If as man He had had life in
Himself, He would have had immortality in Himself; but what He had was a gift,
He says.
290. B. But are you not making this verse bear too
much?
291. W. I think not; take it in connection with the
27th verse, " And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also,
because He is Son of Man." Here are two things which the Father hath given
to the Son of Man; to have life in Himself, and to execute judgment. Now we
know that as man He had no intrinsic, or natural authority to execute judgment;
and if He has it at all, as man, it must be by the gift of God. But it must be
noticed that He puts the possession of life in Himself on the same ground as
the power to execute judgment: neither intrinsic, but both extrinsic. Both are
gifts to Him as man, for He would otherwise have been destitute of them; and
this I take to be the force of the words " because He is Son of Man
"—because He was Son of Man He had neither, but because He was Savior and
Judge, the Father bestowed both endowments upon Him.
292. N. I suppose, then, you would say that the Man
Christ was immortal?
293. W. Yes; for He was very God and very man in one
person; and though, as our substitute He died for our sins, yet God's Holy One
could not see corruption. The other text I referred to is John 6.5, 7, "As
the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eats Me,
even he shall live by Me." Christ as man lives by the Father, as much as
He was sent by the Father, and as he that feeds upon Jesus, lives in the same
way; that is, he lives by Christ, in the same way as Christ lives by the
Father. Here, it appears to me, is all I contend for. Let it be observed that
He as man did not claim intrinsic life and immortality.—" He, who did no
sin, neither was guile found in His mouth "—and is it not an amazing
presumption, that we, sinful mortal creatures, should claim it? Ought we not to
know our place and keep it? Let us, as sinners, flee to the loving Savior; let
us wash in His precious blood; let us be renewed by His Spirit; and let us
continue in the same, and our im-mortality is secured; otherwise there can be
no life, but death—eternal death, from which there can be no hope of a second
resurrection.
294. D. I have been accustomed to consider that the idea
of immortality is innate in man, and that his intense and earnest longings for
immortality are a proof of his immortality.
295. W. Does this intense desire prove any more than
the capability of immortality? According to you, man has it already in
possession. How can he long to get what he already has? and, as you say, has
also an innate idea that he does possess it? This intense longing is put into
man's heart, by the Spirit, for the purpose of making him enquire after and
secure what he so much desires; and it thus serves a necessary and most
invaluable practical purpose; but surely a desire for a thing, if it proves
anything, proves that it is not yet possessed.
296. D. Strange! for thousands of years this argument
has been relied on. How passing strange if all these years, all the people who
have lived through them, should have been all misled.
297. W. Well, but I appeal to your common sense and
reason, whether a man can intensely long for a thing which he already has in
possession. He may be thankful that he has it, and he may enjoy it; but how he
can long for it, still less intensely long for it, surpasses my powers to
conceive.
298. B. An opinion, founded upon the universal consent
of all mankind, in all ages, from the earliest times to the present, must have
a foundation in truth.
299. W. Granted for the moment that the opinion is and
has been universally received, still let me beg you to weigh what value ought
to be given to universal opinion as a ground of truth. The effects of the Fall
are universal, and one effect is that our understanding is blinded and led
astray by the spirit of error. If universal mankind had universal knowledge,
and if they were universally correct, the case would be different; but instead
of this, mankind are universally in error, and they have universally embibed sentiments and opinions, as well as practices,
which I am sure you would never endorse. If universal mankind are thus liable
to err, if on very many points they have universally erred, how can we be sure
that their opinion, concerning the immortality of the soul, is not one of them?
300. D. But in point of fact has this opinion been
universal?
21. W. No; very far from it. Some conjectured that the
soul might be immortal, others believed that it was so; but many others
rejected it, and the judgment of these latter was as worthy of our confidence
as the former. You may remember, perhaps, a passage of Arnobius,
in his Athl Genies 2.27, which testifies to this
variety. He is speaking of the nature of souls: " This one, thinks, both
that they are immortal, and survive the end of our earthly life; that one,
believes that they do not survive, but perish with the bodies themselves. The
opinion of another however is, that they suffer nothing immediately, but that
after the form of man has been laid aside, they are allowed to live a little
longer and then come under the power of death." My answer, in short, to
Mr. B.'s argument is this—if the opinion of the immortality of the soul were
universally received this could by no means prove its truth; but it has not
been universally received. I would submit therefore that the argument fails. After
long and patient study, my mind is brought to the conviction, that the innate
immortality of the soul cannot be proved, either from holy Scripture, or from
reason; on the contrary, both appear to me to be against it.
302. N. Still I cannot help saying that if the
evidence is, as you think, so clear on your side, it is marvelous that so few
believe with you.
303. W. Let me give you a powerful opinion on your
side, and then read a few others on my own. " Some have dared to assert
concerning the nature of the reasonable soul, that it is mortal; we, with the
approbation of the sacred council, do condemn and reprobate all such; since,
according to the canon of Pope Clement the Fifth, the soul is immortal; and we
strictly inhibit all from dogmatizing otherwise; and we decree that all who
adhere to the like erroneous assertions shall be shunned and punished as
heretics."—Pope Leo X. in Council of Lateran (Caranza,
p. 412, ed. 1681). I quote this chiefly to give point to this quotation from
Luther: " I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself, and his
faithful; such as . . . the soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions
to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals."—Folio Works, v. ii., p.
107, Wittemberg, 1562. To this I add the following:
" The immortality of the soul is rather supposed, or taken for granted,
than expressly revealed in the Bible."—Archbishop Tillotson, Ser. v. ii.
" As a noun, nephesh has been supposed to signify the spiritual part of
man; or what we commonly call his soul; I must for myself confess, that I can
find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning."—Parkhurst, Heb.
Lex. " That the soul is naturally immortal is contradicted by Scripture,
which makes our immortality a gift, dependent upon the will of the
Giver."—Rev. R. Watson, a Wesleyan Minister, Theological Institutes. More
might be quoted, but these are given to show that I am not quite alone.
304. A. Part of our error has been that we have used
soul as synonymous with spirit. You believe with us, that man has a spirit; and
if it cannot be proved that the soul is immortal, it may be proved that man is
immortal, and this will come to the same thing.
305. W. Let that then be the subject for the next
conference.
306. A. We shall expect you to state your new views,
and defend them. The subject for to-day is pneumatology.
307. W. I will, then, at once lay down the
propositions concerning the spirit in man, which can, in my judgment, be proved
by Holy Scripture.
I. The spirit of man was not made, as was the body,
but was infused into him direct from Jehovah.
II. That this Spirit is the Author and Sustainer of
all the lives which man exhibits.
III. That when man is deprived entirely and finally of
this spirit, he can have no life of any kind in him, and must become extinct.
308. A. Explain what you mean by the words, " the
spirit of man was not made."
309. W. When God made man's frame it was of the dust
of the earth. It pleased Him to take the atoms of dust, and so to arrange them
as to produce, in combination with fluids, bones, cartilages, muscles, nerves,
veins, and blood; and by an adjustment of all these according as His wisdom and
goodness dictated, He formed a wondrously organized body worthy of being the
temple of God. The spirit of man was not made, or formed in this way. Jehovah
breathed into him the spirit; so that man's spirit was part, so to speak, of
the Spirit of the Lord; and it was by the indwelling of this spirit that man
was made a partaker of the Divine nature; so that, as he came at first from the
hands of his Maker, he was as much Divine as he was earthly. His body was made
from the earth; his spirit was infused from God.
310. A. So far we see nothing to which we need object;
still you had better confirm it by Scripture quotation.
311. W. As there are two Hebrew words which stand for
spirit—neshamah and rooach—it
will be convenient to use them, as it will tend greatly to precision and
clearness.
312. D. Is there any difference in their meaning?
313. W. No; but there is a difference in their use. Rooach is applied to God, to man, and to all the parts of
creation where spirit is required; but the use of neshamah
is restricted to God, and to man, God's chief work. There is but one example
which is at all doubtful, and it seems to me that even this is not an
exception. Here are a few texts on the general subject: Job 27.3, " All
the while my neshamah is in me, and the rooach of God is in my nostrils;" 32.8, " There
is a rooack in man, and the neshamah
of the Almighty giveth Him understanding." Is. 42.5, " Thus saith the
Lord . . . He that giveth rooach to the people upon
the earth, and neshamah to them that walk
therein." Amos 4.13, " He that formed the mountains, and created the rooach." 1 Cor. 2.11, " For what man knows the
things of a man, save the pneuma of a man which is in him? even so the things
of God knows no man, but the pneuma of God." Then there is the text so
often referred to: " God breathed into man's nostrils the neshamah of lives." In these passages three points are
made clear:—
I. God did, and does put of His spirit into man's
body. He does not make it out of anything external to Himself, as He did the
body.
II. The body is distinguished from the spirit. The
body is the temple in which the spirit dwells, the spirit is the dweller there;
and it is by means of the body of man that the spirit in man manifests itself.
Daniel speaks of his body as " the sheath " of his spirit (7.15)
within him.
314. D. Rooach and neshamah seem to be used together; is there no shade of
difference between them?
315. W. I am not yet certain, but if there is a
difference, it may be this—that neshamah represents
the Spirit of God and the spirit of man, as He dwells, so to speak, in each; rooach as He manifests Himself in acts and doings. It is
the same spirit, but, if I am right, the one represents it as quiescent, the
other as in operation. Some ground is given for this distinction by the fact
that the primary application of rooach is to the wind
when it is in motion.
316 D. What passage renders it doubtful whether the
use of neshamah is to be restricted to God and man?
317 W. Gen. 7.22, " All, in whose nostrils was
the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died." Now neshamah is used in this place, and as the nostrils
mentioned belong to brutes as well as to man, it would seem that neshamah is applied to them. The passage, however, is peculiar.
Literally the words are, " All, in whose nostrils was the neshamah of the rooach of lives,
died." It appears to me that the word which denotes what was in the
nostrils, is rooach, not neshamah.
Neshamah and rooach are in
what Hebrew grammarians have called " the apposition of
specification," which would enable the passage to be thus rendered, "
All, in whose nostrils was neshamah' s rooach of lives." If I am right, as I think I am, then
there is no example where neshamah is applied to any,
except God and man.
318 D. But why are you anxious to establish this?
319 W. Partly because I take it to be true, and partly
because, as man has many close affinities to the lower part of creation, it
shows that he has as close an affinity with God, inasmuch as one name is
reserved to designate the spirit of both.
320 B. You have implied, if not expressed, an opinion
that God directly puts His spirit into every child that is born. The common
opinion is that'man is propagated in his immaterial,
as well as in his material part.
321 W. In this point also I am obliged to differ from
the common opinion. I hold that the earthly father can produce no more than the
earthy part of his progeny; and that the One Heavenly Father bestows in each
case the spiritual part.
322 D. Of course you have your reasons for differing
from others.
323 W. I think I have, and they are of two classes.
Let me first submit to you what, it appears to me, the Bible says upon the
point. Heb. 12.9, " We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us,
and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection to the
Father of spirits and live?" Here a few points are clear:—
I. God is as much the Father of our spirits, as any
man is the father of flesh.
II. There are many fathers of flesh: there is but One
Father of spirits.
III. Flesh and spirit are put in contrast, and a man
can be the father only of flesh; or why the restriction? why the contrast?
Evidently the father of the flesh is not the father of spirit.
324 D. To me this is new; but I cannot contradict you.
Can you give us other passages?
325 W. Yes. Isaiah 42.5: " Thus saith God the
Lord, He that created the heavens and stretched them out; He that spread forth
the earth, and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth rooach
unto the people upon it, and neshamah to them that
walk therein." 57.16: " For I will not contend always, neither will I
be forever wrath; for the rooach would fail before me
and neshamoth which I have made." Zech. 12.1:
" Saith the Lord which stretched forth the heavens, and lays the
foundation of the earth, and forms the rooach of man
within him." We are taught in these passages—
I. That God is the Maker or Former of human spirits.
II. That it is as much a Divine act to form spirits,
as it is to create the heavens and the earth; for He puts both works together
as equally showing His power.
III. That He did not once for all, at the beginning,
put or form a spirit in man, and then intend that it should be propagated with
the body; but He is still the Giver and Former of spirits.
326 A. Whence do you get your third point. The words
created, stretched, lays, formed are all participles in Hebrew, and if the act
of giving and forming spirits be a present perpetual act, then the stretching
out of the earth, and the creating of the heavens must also be perpetual.
327 W. Nay; your criticism will not hold here. You
must be aware how frequently the participles in Hebrew, especially the
participle poel, are rendered by a noun in English. Gahal (redeemer), for instance, is a participle. So that
the passages might, with the strictest propriety, be thus rendered—" The
creator of the heavens, the stretcher of them out; the giver of rooach unto the people," etc. And so of Zech. 12.1,
" He is the creator of the heavens, and He is the giver and former of
spirits," and in this instance the English Version is strictly correct in
rendering in the present tense giveth and formeth,
implying thereby that His work of forming spirits is always going on. Observe,
too, that in Isaiah 57 "spirits" is in the plural, as in Heb. 12. He
produces many spirits. He made but one body. Besides, the tense of the Hebrew
verb "make" denotes continued action.
328 A. I admit your criticism on the passages, and yet
I find it difficult to believe the doctrine, which you build partly upon it.
329 W. Take another proof, then, from Eccl. 12.7,
" Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit to God
who gave it." Here it is declared, in plain words, that God gave the
individual spirit, if I may so speak, which animates that very body which
returns
to dust. He does not give the body; the gift is
restricted to the spirit. This passage is too clear to be at all questioned. In
connection with this take 11.5, "As thou knows not what is the way of the
spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even
so thou knows not the works of God who makes all." These words affirm all
I have taught. The growing of the bones, before birth, is said to be the way of
the spirit, and the work of God. How can we mistake here. "The way of the
spirit," is His method of operation; and we are certain the Spirit of God
is meant, for this is one of the comparatively few places where rooach takes the article, ha. Besides, this work of the
Spirit is, in the end of the verse, said to be the work of ha Elohim—of that
God who makes all. God and His spirit co-operate in all their doings. Now this
passage plainly avers, that the Spirit directly imparts, in each case, that
life by which the bones grow before birth. Manifestly Solomon's opinion was,
that the Spirit imparted Himself to each embryo while yet unborn. There is
really nothing dubious in any of the texts quoted on this point; and if there
is any difficulty in our minds, it cannot arise from them.
330 D. St. Paul's words seem to me to be enough, and
Solomon and the two prophets confirm him.
331 W. You will all remember the old controversy,
respecting creationism and traducianism; the former taking my side, and the
latter yours. Creationism prevailed in the Eastern Church, and found powerful
advocates in the Western Church. It was founded upon the texts I have quoted,
and in addition to these, upon
332 John 5.17, " My Father worketh hitherto, and
I work;" and Psalm 33.15, " He fashioned all their hearts alike
"—one heart as well as another. Tertullian was the first who advanced
traducianism, and he advocated it only on speculative grounds; but it became
necessary to Augustine, on account of his view of the transmission of sin;
though, to his life's end, he was in doubt of its truth. In due time, however,
Leo the Great gave it out that it was the doctrine of the Catholic Church
(Epist. ad Turribim). In consequence of this, and the
great influence of Augustine, it has almost universally prevailed in the West.
Here again, you will see, my view is not new; for it was advocated by Jerome,
Chrysostom, Hilary, and others. I think, too, that traducianism is founded upon
a system of theology, not upon the simple Bible.
332 D. You said you had another class of reasons for
differing from the common opinion.
333 W. It has been shown that God is the Father, the
Giver, the Former of spirits. I now add that man can beget only the material
part of himself. " Like begets its like." A
material act, performed by a material being, in his material capacity, cannot
beget an immaterial substance, such as spirit, which hath not flesh and bones.
Matter cannot originate spirit. When spirit is associated with matter, the
former does not arise out of the latter, any more than life can arise from any
molecular arrangement, or action of matter. Man, even before his fall, was, as
St. Paul tells us, "of the earth earthy." And he goes on to declare
that " as is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy." The
earthy father, as we have seen, is father only of the flesh, and how can flesh
beget spirit. I argue from the nature of things. So also does the Bible, when
it declares, " that which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit." This latter is not " born of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."—John 1.13;
3.6.
334 B. Flesh expresses the sinful, fallen condition of
man; and it is in contrast with the new regenerated nature of the Christian
which, of course, is not of man, nor of the flesh, but from above. What has
this to do with the spirit nature, which every man has, whether he be
regenerated or not?
335 W. Your interpretation will not hold with the last
text quoted by me, John 1.13; for the next verse says, "And the Word was
made flesh, and dwelt among us." The flesh, which the Word was made, or
became, does not mean sinful, fallen human nature; but the material part, the
body, and it is of this body verse 13 speaks. Neither the spiritual nature
which every man has, nor the spiritual part of the regenerate man, can be born
of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It
seems to me not more anomalous for a vegetable to produce an animal, than for
an animal nature to produce a spirit. Now, let me beg you to weigh all these
passages of Scripture, and these considerations, from reason, and conclude
whether they lead to creationism or traducianism.
336 D. Your view is, that the spirit of man is not
propagated with the body of man, but that it is put into each human being by
God.
337 W. That is my belief. I hold, moreover, that the
Scripture texts which have been adduced prove this, and that there is not one
which looks the other way. When the Bible asserts a thing, it is not for us to
question it.
338 D. One point more. I want you to avow or deny. You
speak as if the spirit in man were the same as the Spirit of God. Do you mean
this?
339 W. Yes. I take man's spirit to be the same, in
essence or nature, as the Spirit of God; and that, in point of fact, it is a
portion of His Spirit. It appears to me, that as there is "but one
God," so there is but " one Spirit." Looking at the portion
which each living man possesses, it is the spirit of man; but looking at the
source whence it comes, it is the Spirit of God.
340 B. You will find tremendous difficulties in the
way of that view.
341 W. Let us face them, and overcome them, if it be
possible.
342 B. It is utterly opposed to the doctrine of man's
transmitted, inherited, sinful nature. Man is born in sin, and is, by nature, a
child of wrath. I know you believe this as much as myself. Now, if the spirit
is not propagated by man, how can his progeny be born in sin, and naturally
liable to wrath?
343 W. You hive stated the
difficulty which made Augustine lean to traducianism, though it would not have
been near so great, if he had held the threefold division of man, as laid down
by St. Paul, and held by the Eastern Church, and which defines man to be body,
soul, and spirit. He held the soul and spirit to be the same. Let me read a
passage from Augustine in Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine:—" He who
adopts traducianism, finds little difficulty in the doctrine of original sin,
while the advocate of creationism finds a great difficulty here. For the soul
(spirit?), as newly created (and it is newly created, in every instance,
according to the creationist), cannot be anything but a pure and perfect soul.
It cannot be tainted with evil of any kind; but, on the contrary, as coming
immediately from the Creator's hand, must possess His holy image and likeness.
If, now, it be thus pure and perfect, the question arises—why does it deserve
to be associated, at birth, with a diseased and dying body, and to be stained
and polluted with a corrupted sensuous nature?"
344 D. Well, that is a difficulty: how is it to be got
over?
345 W. The difficulty consists of two parts: I. That
on my theory, man cannot be born in sin; and II. That it supposes a pure spirit
to be put into an impure body. As to the first, let me observe, that my theory
is not inconsistent with the natural, transmitted sinfulness of man; but with
the mode in which that sinfulness has been stated by most divines since the
days of Augustine. Now, when we have the clear inspired declaration, that God
is the Father, the Former, and the Maker, of spirits, we must not allow an
uninspired mode of setting forth even a true doctrine to interfere with it.
Without any Scriptural warrant, divines began to identify the soul with the
spirit; then they made the word soul stand for both soul and spirit, seldom,
comparatively speaking, using spirit at all; then they gave to the soul a
distinct entity, and made it the other Ego, then the Ego itself. After that, as
the Ego was the man, or, as it was sometimes put, the chief part of man; it was
this Ego that was sinful, and it was this which is propagated. Then all this
was made identical with Bible truth, and they inferred, that as the Holy God
would not make an unholy soul, and the soul is unholy, therefore, it was
propagated by natural generation; and that when St. Paul said, God was the
Father of spirits, he must have meant it figuratively, and not what the words
seem to say. In time the soul was made the seat of desire, of affection, of
intellect, and of 'religion; and also, immortal in its own nature.
346 D. How, then, would you state the inherited
sinfulness of man's nature?
347 W. On this point, taken in connection with
creationism, I hold the same sentiments as Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Basil,
Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, and Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as Cyril of
Alexandria; as also the whole of the Oriental fathers, and, I believe, the
Eastern Church of the present day. I can give a summary of their opinions in
the words of Shedd: "They subdivided the constitution of man into body,
soul, and spirit. The first was the material part; the second included the principle
of animal life, together with the sensuous appetites and passions that relate
to the physical world; while the third was the rational and spiritual principle
including the will and the moral affections of human nature. Original sin,
according to the Alexandrian theologians, was confined to the first two
divisions in the trichotomy. It was an inherited corruption which has its seat
in the body, and the sensuous nature; but does not inhere in the spirit,
because this is not propagated, and therefore, cannot inherit anything. The
rational part, the spirit, coming down from the angelic sphere, would be kept,
more or less, in isolation from the body, and its sensuous corruption, and
might thus be regarded as able, by its intrinsic energy, to rule and overcome
this "original sin," this corrupted sensuousness that was all around
it, but not in it."
348 D. If these fathers were right, their opinion
clears away many a difficulty.
349 A. You have given us many respectable names; but
were their opinions on this subject Scriptural?
350 W. They thought so; and, after much consideration,
I am led to think the same. You will recollect how frequently sin is connected
with the body. Rom. 6.6, "That the body of sin may be destroyed; " 7.24,
" Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" 8.10, " The
body is dead because of sin; " verse 13, " If ye through the spirit
do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live." 1 Cor. 9.27, "But I
keep under my body and bring it into subjection." Col. 2.11, "In
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." It is in exact accordance
with this, that sinfulness and sin are so often connected with the flesh, and,
indeed in Rom. 7 body and flesh are, in this respect, used as synonymous. Rom. 7.18,
" I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; "
verse 25, " So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God: but with
the flesh the law of sin." 8.5-7, " They that are according to flesh
do mind the things of the flesh; but they who are according to spirit, the
things of the spirit; for to be fleshly minded is death; but to be
spiritually-minded is life and peace; because the fleshly mind is enmity
against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can
be." I think these inspired passages will bear out the Oriental fathers in
connecting sin with body and flesh; and they account for the distressing
experience of Paul, and of all Christians, that "when they would do good
evil is present with them." Divines have, very properly, dwelt upon the
responsibility of man, in reference to the committal of sin, but they appear to
have forgotten another truth, equally important, that sin is the aggressor, and
man the victim. (See Rom. 7.14-25.)
351 D. When one comes to think of these texts, they
are remarkable, certainly. Have you any other considerations bearing on this
same point?
352 W. Yes. Has it ever struck you, that in no place
of Scripture do you ever find that min's spirit is lost. The body is lost, the
soul is lost, man is lost, but spirit, never. Now weigh the value of this fact.
One great topic of the Bible is man's sinful, helpless condition, and if the
spirit of man were lost, would a set inspired treatise, so to speak, omit any
mention of it? Would a person, with modern ideas, have committed it, if he had
written the Bible? Again, has it ever struck you, that in no passage of the
Bible is mention made that the spirit is redeemed. Let the significance of this
fact, too, be well weighed. The Bible speaks of the redemption of the body, and
of the soul; but never of the redemption of the spirit. The Bible is,
emphatically, a book about redemption, inspired by the all-wise unerring
Spirit.
If the spirit of man needs redemption, and is
redeemed, is it not a serious defect to omit it. But there is no defect or
omission by the inspiring Spirit, and the inference is, that the human spirit,
that is, the spirit possessed by man, was neither lost nor redeemed. If this
spirit were sinful, it would have been lost; and if lost, it would have needed
redemption; but it is not lost, it was not redeemed; and, therefore, it is not
corrupt and sinful.
353 A. All this upsets our common notions, and yet I
must in candor say, that I do not see where you are wrong, or unscriptural; but
you are not free from all difficulties yet. I should like to state them, and
also to call your attention to certain texts of Scripture.
354 D. First of all will Mr. W. account for the
sinfulness of man on his principles?
355 W. Willingly. When man disobeyed the test-law of
God, "the spirit of holiness" was driven from him, and there remained
to him his intellect and his animal life, with its propensities and desires. As
his intellect was capable of being guided by "the spirit of truth,"
so, on that very account, it was capable of being guided by "the spirit of
error." Both spirits were in existence, and had then, as they have now,
access to the human mind. The spirit of error did enter, and found lodgment
there. It blinded the understanding, warped the judgment, perverted the will,
estranged the affections from God and goodness, and exercised the passions on
inappropriate objects. The intellect, thus deprived of the spirit of holiness,
and filled with the spirit of error, did not, and could not, choose to keep in
due regulation and subordination the animal propensities; and they became
rampant, and domineered over the whole man. Thus man became sinful, and a
sinner; and he was, in himself utterly helpless and hopeless. The process of
degeneration began; for as man was capable of progression, so, necessarily, he
was capable of retrogression. He can, if he will be so foolish, walk backwards;
but it is attended with much inconvenience and discomfort; for he was not
constructed for a backward motion, only for the forward. Through the rampant
exercises of the bodily propensities, bodily diseases are superinduced, and
these have a pernicious effect upon the mind, which, as it dwells in the body,
must work through those materialities called the
bodily senses. Bad blood is sent to the brain, the primary organ through which
the spirit operates, and it becomes enfeebled, diseased, and unfit to be the
instrument of vigorous, developed, intellectual operations. The mind, in turn,
acts upon the body, and they both act and re-act, and the individual gets worse
and worse, unless restraining grace works, and the all-powerful spirit of
holiness comes and converts the sinner from the error of his ways. Now, as is
the fallen father, so is the fallen child. He is conceived in sin. And when he
is quickened into animal life, and afterwards born, he is destitute of the
spirit of holiness, and possesses no more of life than is indicated by his
bodily activities and propensities, and his mental vigor, the former prevailing
over the latter. He is what St. Paul calls the natural, or psuchekos
man, who received not the things of the Spirit of God; and this, in contrast to
the pneumatikos who does. The one receives the Spirit
for spiritual, saving, purposes; the other does not so receive Him. Nor should
it be forgotten, that the person thus conceived, and thus born, is always open
to the invisible influence of " the spirit of error," and to the
visible influence of evil example. Thus it comes to pass, that there is not one
naturally good; no, not one.
356 A. I must admit that what you say deserves serious
and candid consideration. Yet there are two sides to a question. You say the
earthy father begets the body only, that God has reserved to Himself the work
of imparting spirit to the frame, that this spirit gives animal life to the
frame, and, in addition to this, God's Spirit imparts mental life, which mental
life is spirit, and comes from God, and, in a manner of speaking, is part of
the Spirit of God. Do I correctly understand you? "
357 W. In all points but one. Mind is one effect of
the indwelling Spirit of God, rather than the Spirit itself. It is one
manifestation of the spirit in man, just as the soul, or physical life, is
another manifestation of the same Spirit. It is indeed true, that the Spirit
lends and upholds that very intellectual life which imbibes error; just as He
lends and upholds that very physical life of the body, without which the body
could not sin. But though God is the Author, and Upholder of both these lives
in man, yet He is no more answerable for the erroneous notions imbibed by the
one, than He is for the sins committed by the other. You may say, that God
could prevent error and sin by withdrawing His upholding power. This is true;
but such a summary course would, at the same time, prevent the imbibing of
truth, and the practice of holiness.
358 A. Well, then, you have called by the name of
creationism, the act of God, by which He provides the spirit for each man, and
puts it into him. Now, by creation is usually understood the making of
something out of nothing; and yet you say, that God breathes in the spirit from
Himself.
359 W. Augustine understood the word creation in the
same sense; and it confused His thoughts, and complicated his argument. In no
place of Scripture does creation mean the act of making something out of
nothing; but it does mean an act which can be performed only by the Divine
Being, God Himself. When, therefore, in Isaiah 57.16, he speaks of neshamoth which He had made, and when in chapter 42 God
speaks of creating the heavens, and of giving rooach
and neshamah to the people upon earth, in the same
category, He does imply that the making, or giving, or forming spirits is as
much a Divine act as creating the heavens; and to this methinks our reason must
assent.
360 A. Is not Gen. 1.1, an instance where create means
making something out of nothing?
361 W. That is the idea that most have when they read
the verse, but it is an idea brought to it rather than taken out of it. Moses
does not speak of the making or creating of original matter in a yet unorganized
state, but of the making, or creating, or forming the heavens and the earth out
of that matter which had been previously brought into existence. If he had
meant to refer to the original creation of crude matter, he was too definite a
man not to have said so. A little further on in this chapter he speaks of the
creation of Adam, and we know that the body of Adam was created out of the
dust, and that his spirit was breathed into him by God. In neither case can
create mean making something out of nothing. Other passages fall in exactly
with this notion, but none to the contrary.
362 A. Still, there is the difficulty of supposing
that God puts a pure spirit into what He knew would become an impure body.
363 W. As theologians, we have simply to enquire
respecting any given revealed point, what the Bible really does teach; and
having clearly ascertained that, no difficulty ought to appertain to it. We
make the difficulty out of nothing, and then we are too apt to fancy it belongs
to the subject, and not to ourselves. But, even supposing there is a difficulty,
it belongs to your theory as much as to mine, if not more so.
364 B. How can you make that out?
365 W. You teach that God originally, and, once for
all, put His Spirit into man, and then ordained, that it should propagate
itself. He, therefore, put a pure spirit into what he knew would, in time, be
an impure body; which spirit He knew would, in consequence, become impure. And
not only so, a spirit which would, according to you, beget other impure spirits
for thousands of years. Is not this difficulty as great at least as mine?
Besides this, there is an immense difficulty peculiar to your theory. You make
a fleshly act capable of begetting spirit. Like begets its unlike, according to
you. After all, then, the philosophers are right: spirit, life, mind, grow out
of matter in some way or other.
366 A. But take the analogy of vegetable seed, the
germ of which springs up into life and fruitfulness.
367 W. If by its germ you mean a something which has
the principle of life intrinsic to itself, I deny such a germ, and cannot admit
your illustration.
368 B. There, again, how peculiar your ideas are. Who
does not know that the seed produces a living plant.
369 W. The living plant grows out of the seed; but I
deny that the seed has any life in itself, as you suppose. God has ordained,
that when the seed is put into a certain condition and circumstances, it shall
grow; but it is He who makes it to grow.
370 D. Do you mean to say that God's Spirit directly
bestows vegetable life, as He bestows animal life.
371 W. The inspired David says so. Ps. 104.30,
"Thou sends forth thy Spirit, they are created and Thou renews the face of
the earth." God's power is as necessary to sustain things, as at first to
give them existence. What can law do unless there is an Executor of it? The
laws of nature are the rules by which God is pleased to act; but He is the
Great Actor, and without Him all laws would be inoperative.
372 N. But you know the illustration of the
resurrection, taken from the springing up of the seed.
373 W. Yes; but do you mean to say that the dead body
has in itself a principle of life, to raise itself from the grave into life? If
not, what becomes of your illustration?
374 B. No, of course not. We say that the power of God
is brought to bear upon the dead body; and, there-fore, it is raised to life.
375 W. And I say the same of seed, of whatever sort or
kind. God is pleased to exert His power, and therefore alone it is that the
seed has life, and grows into a living plant. In no sense or degree, and under
no circumstances whatever, can matter originate life, any more than darkness
can originate light, or inertness can originate motion, and I think common
sense tells us this, as well as the Bible. God is all in all.
376 A. Now, as to the pollution of spirit, I think
there are some texts which are against you, and these you must consider before
you are wholly out of your difficulties. 1 Thess. 5.23 reads thus, " The
very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and
soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ." Now here you observe the Apostle prays that the spirit as well as
the soul and body may be sanctified, and be preserved blameless till the second
coming of Christ. How can the spirit be sanctified or made holy unless it is
unholy?
377 W. Your objection has often been urged, but
without success; for it does not arise from the text, but from the usual exposition
of it; and, somehow, it has been taken for granted, that the exposition is
identical in meaning with the text. St. Paul does not pray for the
sanctification of the spirit. Will you take your Greek Testament while we
examine it. The verse has two parts, and should be kept distinct, if we would
arrive at the Apostle's mind. In the first he prays for the entire
sanctification of the Thessalonian Church. Here the spirit is not mentioned,
nor is there any intimation given that the spirit needs sanctification, or that
it gets sanctification. One thing is evident, that the thing prayed for here
was to be done in this life. Now look at the other part. There is something
prayed for to be done at the second coming of Christ. St. Paul does not say, be
preserved unto the coming, but in the coming, or at the time of the coming. The
Greek is evfl rapovala. If
the inspired text had meant unto the coming, we should have found not ev, but axpt, as in other places.
Acts 3.21, "until the time of restitution of all things." 1 Cor. 11.26,
"ye do show the Lord's death till He come." Phil. 1.6, " He who
hath begun a good work in you will perform it, until the day of Jesus
Christ." Rev. 2.25, " Hold fast till I come." In all these, and
many more analogous texts axin is used; and if the
Apostle had meant—may you be preserved from now until the day of the Lord, he
would have used the same word. Thus, then, sanctification is to go on now;
preservation in the day of Christ, and the Apostle does not pray for the
sanctification of the spirit now, but the preservation of the spirit then.
378 B. You have forgotten the word blameless. There
seems to be a contrast: blameless then, though blamable now.
379 W. No; I have not forgotten it. The opposite of amemptos, rendered blameless, is not sinfulness, but
incompleteness. A complete man is composed of body, soul, and spirit, and all
pervaded with holiness. Such a man is complete in his kind; but if he has all
except one of these things, he is not complete—he is not blameless. The wicked
will not be complete in the day of Christ: they will be destitute of the spirit
of holiness, and they will, therefore, be destroyed, not preserved. The point
of the Apostle's prayer was that his flock might be wholly sanctified in this
world, so that, standing before the throne, in the full integrity and
perfection of their original nature, they might be fit and ready for life.
380 B. But is there no connection between the two
parts of the verse?
381 W. Yes, certainly, and a very important one. The
entire sanctification of sinful man must take place here, in order for the
spirit to be preserved there. It appears to me that this passage falls in
exactly with .all parts of my theory. The Christless shall be raised on the
morning of their resurrection, they will stand before the judgment seat of
Christ. Their whole body, and soul, and spirit, shall not be preserved, and
they themselves will be adjudged to the lake of fire, where the body will be
consumed, when the spirit shall return again to God who gave it, and the soul
or life shall expire. But the true Christian shall then be preserved, whole and
entire, in all his integrity—his whole spirit, and soul, and body.
382 A. In 2 Cor. 7.1, St. Paul writes: " Let us
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit." This is strong
language.
383 W. It is; and it is the only passage which, even
in appearance, is against me. I acknowledge it to be a difficulty. But I will
present you with the considerations by which my own mind is satisfied, that
this one passage is not sufficient to outweigh the large amount of evidence on
the other side.
I. The word rendered filthiness is GREEK,
and this being the only place in the New Testament where it occurs, we have
nothing to guide us as to its use.
II. It does not necessarily carry with it the idea of
moral defilement as do GREEK; all of which are so used in the New
Testament. So, that, if moral pollution had been the idea to be conveyed,
precise words were not wanting.
III. The verb GREEK whence the noun
comes, is used three times in the New Testament (1 Cor. 8.7; Rev. 3.4; 14.4),
and does not necessarily convey the idea of moral pollution, nor does it in the
Apocrypha (Ecclus. 22.13).
IV. GREEK is, as' you know, from the
perfect passive; and GREEK, in the passive, means, as you know,
to be disgraced, degraded.
V. The Apostle had been speaking of idolatry and of
its utter inconsistency with Christianity. Now, seeing St. Paul had, again and
again, spoken of the sinfulness of idolatry, it became a question in my mind,
whether he does not here allude to the disgracefulness of idolatry, and to the
degradation it was to the flesh and spirit. In consequence of these
considerations, I was led to look upon this text as doubtful. Still, I own the
difficulty it presents, and shall be thankful for further light. It is not
enough, however, to make me doubt the positions which I have advanced.
384 D. Well, if it is a balance of evidence, I do not
hesitate to say, it greatly prepdaderates in your savor.
385 A. And I too, am ready to confess, that the
considerations on the text with which we have been presented, satisfy me that
St. Paul speaks of the degrading aspect of idolatry, rather than of its morally
polluting aspect.
386 N. But the question is not yet wholly free from
difficulties. Do you believe in the intermediate state?
387 W. Yes; and in due time I should like to explain
myself.
388 N. Do you believe that Dives and Lazarus are
represented as being in that state?
389 W. I will let that pass also.
390 N. I believe that punishment in the other world is
not for vengeance, but for correction and amendment, and for ultimate
salvation. You know Origen believed this.
391 W. But you cannot think that this process of correction
is carried on in the intermediate state; for at the resurrection, the wicked
are raised, not to show their amendment, but to be judged for the evil done in
this life, and then will punishment begin; but whether it will be saving or not
is another question.
392 B. But this question will present itself, Where
does the spirit of man—of the wicked, go, when, according to you, the body and
soul are destroyed? Is the spirit destroyed also?
393 W. No; according to my system it returns to God
who gave it. He may possibly provide for it some vehicle, but as He nowhere
says a word on this point, we can know nothing about it.
394 B. What is it there? or what does it do there?
395 W. I have, from analogy, an opinion about it; but
as there is no text which speaks decisively of this particular phase of the
subject, I do not like to speak with undue confidence.
396 D. Let us hear what you have to say: there can be
no harm in that.
397 W. I am of opinion, then, that the spirit, which
did reside in a wicked man, returns to God, and is absorbed in His Spirit,
whence it originally proceeded.
398 B. A Brahminical idea.
399 W. If it is not inconsistent with the Bible, but
falls in with its analogies, and with the reason of things, that is enough for
the kind of faith which I put in it. Let me offer a few thoughts:—I. When the
body dies the first death, we are expressly told, that the spirit returns to
God who gave it. The second death is death, as much as the first, though it may
not take place through the same means. Why should we not fall back upon analogy
and say, the spirit returns to God who gave it? Again; we may safely say that a
portion of the spirit is given to every Christian man, to enlighten his mind,
to stir up his conscience, and piously to incline his heart; but many a one
degrades it, grieves it, resists it, quenches it. Now, when this spirit finally
leaves the sinner, where does it go? It is as really a portion of God's Spirit
as that which from birth has dwelt in him. Where does it go?
400 B. The Spirit of God is one and indivisible, and
you should not speak of Him as parts or portions.
401 W. Why not? In Mal. 2.15, God speaks of the "
residue or remnant of His Spirit," and implies that another residue had
been before given. What difficulty is there in supposing that when this residue
leaves the one who had it, it returns to its source? Take an analogy from other
works of God. It has been seen that no life can originate itself, and that it
cannot arise in any way from matter. It has been shown that vegetable life is
from the Spirit of God. Vegetables, however, die; where does the spirit go
which imparted and sustained that life? This spirit sustainer of life, must either
become non-existent, or it must return to God who gave it. I hold to the
latter. Is there any thing unscriptural, or
unreasonable, or shocking in it? May not the pure in heart see God in all the
operations of nature? And is it not a species of atheism to exclude God from any thing? Again; when those beautiful subtle rays of the
beautiful sun have come forth from their source, and have gone into every hole
and corner of the earth, making every place the better for them, and when those
rays are withdrawn, and darkness supervenes, where do they go? Do they come to
nothing? Or are they gathered up in some marvelous way, and returned to their
source? They are here during the day, they are not here at night; and if I
cannot tell the rationale of their absence, that does not alter the fact. So I
know that for a time the good Spirit of God resides in man. I know that He is
withdrawn, that it returns to God; and if I cannot tell the rationale of the
process my ignorance does not alter the revealed fact. " If God set His
heart upon man, if He gather unto himself his rooach
and his neshamah (or God's rooach
and God's neshamah) all flesh shall perish together;
and man shall turn again to his dust. If now thou halt understanding, hear
this: hearken to the voice of my words." Job 34.14-16.
402 D. You do not think, then, that spirit, wherever
it has temporally resided, can be lost.
403 W. Lost! Look throughout all creation, in all the
relations of its various parts, and in all their mutual dependencies. Is
anything lost? Things change, and atoms circulate, but are not lost. Look at
the waters: now they are in the sea, now in the rivers, now they are vapors,
now they are rain; but not a drop is lost. Consider the atoms of dust: now they
form that lovely flower, now that beautiful tree or shrub, now some animal
frame, and now vile refuse; but not a particle is lost. Think of the marvels in
nature: like loves its like; like is attracted by
like, and to like; and can anyone suppose that when a residue of God's Spirit,
which came from Him, shall leave the wicked body, which has insulted it and
grieved it, that it shall be lost, or that it shall solitarily wander about and
about through illimitable space, for endless ages? No! no! The ox knows his
owner and the ass his master's crib, and is attracted to it, and shall not that
Divine residue return to God, whence it came? The organized body no longer
exists, its changed particles are gone to mother earth; the spirit to its
Father. Nothing lost, nothing out of place, and God worketh all things
according to the pleasure of His own will, guided by infinite wisdom and love.
404 A. But now for enquiry and consultation, rather
than controversy. You have shown that the mute animal creation have a nephesh, psuche or soul. Have they also a spirit?
405 W. Let us hear Moses. Gen. 7.21, 22, "And all
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle, and of beast,
and of every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, and every man. All, in
whose nostrils was Neshamah's rooach
of lives, died." Hear David, Ps. 104. 29, speaking of animals in the sea,
he says, " Thou takes away their rooach, they
die, and return to their dust." Hear Solomon, Eccl. 3.19-21, " For
that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; even one thing befalls them:
as the one dies so dies the other; yea, they have all one rooach;
so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto
one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again,, Who knows [sees or
observes] the rooach of a man that goes upward, and
the rooach of a beast that goes downward to the
earth?" Now why should divines ignore these texts as they do; and why
should commentators so distort them, as many do? They are part of God's Book,
and are as true as any other part, and they plainly declare that the same
spirit is in both man and beast.
406 A. Theologians have shrunk from them: they sound
so strange and awkward; and one does not know what to do with them.
407 W. A sure indication that our theology is not in
harmony with the Word of God. This one thing has caused me, and others,
profound grief. Theologians make their systems of theology, and they think them
true, but portions of them do not fall in with the Bible. Now whatever the
supposed consequences, they should alter their theology to the Bible; but,
instead of this they give the Bible a figurative, or some other meaning, so as
to make the Bible and their systems sound alike. The anthropology of
theologians has not squared with the above texts, so they have been ignored, or
colored with marvelous ingenuity.
408 A. But there is surely a difference between a man
and a beast?
409 W. Yes, an amazing difference, but it depends upon
the will of God, who has designed that the beast should be for this world only;
but has designed man for futurity, for eternity, if he will but take the proper
course.
410 A. It seems degrading to man that he should have
so close an affinity with the mute creation.
411 W. Degrading to his pride, perhaps; but not to his
position. No one is degraded by being in the place where the Creator has put
him. That is the truest honor, to be what God has made us, and to do what He
has commanded. In the scale of created beings He has put us at the very top;
but, on that very account, we possibly may, by violating the laws of our
nature, degrade ourselves proportionally low. We have sinned, but He is our
Father still, and He can prepare us for a glorious throne, and place us upon it,
through the redemption of the Son of His love.
412 D. Sketch a few particulars in which a man is
superior to a beast.
413 W. The superiority is as manifest as it is great.
I. In general, man is able to know, love, adore, and
obey the Infinite Jehovah, his Creator. He can also hold communion with God,
and there can be an interchange of communication between them. He can be made a
fit companion, wonderful to say, for God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghost. He is capable of sharing God's immortality, and of partaking of
God's own glory and happiness. This is told in few words, but it will take ages
to develop; and this is a superiority so amazing as to be beyond our present
conceptions, much more our description.
II. The form of his physical frame is noble, comely,
and graceful, far more so than that of any other. Here the ancients shall teach
us. The beast goes on all fours, and looks down to the earth as being intended
for the earth, and for nothing higher; and, therefore, the wise man says, that
the spirit of the beast goes downward. Man's frame is the very opposite: he has
an upright, erect bearing, with his eyes and countenance towards heaven, as if
destined for that abode, as indeed he was. He is the anthropos
of the Greeks, that is, the living creature that turns the countenance upwards.
In this he was made in the image of Elohim, the second person in the Trinity
who, for creational purposes, took a material form, suited at once to His
relationship with the Godhead, and to His connection with all He would create.
In the glorious resurrection the true believer's body shall be again made like
unto His glorious body; and he shall be like Him, for he shall see Him as He
is.—Phil. 3.21; 1 John 3.2. What an amazing superiority is here?
III. Then as to man's mind: look at its all but
infinite grasp. Taught of God, what is there of which it is not capable in that
vast range which we comprehend in arts, sciences, and inventions? Solomon has
taught us that all have one spirit: this is, of course, true, for there is but
one Spirit, who is in all. But there is another truth just as surprising. Rooach is the general name in Hebrew for spirit, but neshamah is the select word, so to speak. This is the one
used when we read that the Lord God breathed from Himself the Spirit into man's
nostrils; and it is not applied to the spirit of the beast; but reserved first
for God, then for man, the being next to Himself. Perhaps this is intended to
show that in spirit man is more nearly related to the Divinity in heaven, than
he is to anything on earth.
IV. Then as to the progress of which man is capable:
Look at Sir Isaac Newton, as he, in infancy, sprawls on the ground with less
manifested intelligence than the pet spaniel that sports with him; and think
what he was when he left this scene for a brighter. What progress! If the
elements of knowledge, acquired in the school of this short life are so
astounding, what will be our advance in the life to come, where there will be
no hindrances and drawbacks, but every help and facility? It is amusing to hear
the speculations and discussions concerning the time it will take, in the race
of progress, for the ape to overtake the man. We should not hinder, or even
discourage, these enquiries and calculations, for even though they may not meet
with any fact on which to base a theory, yet science must be the gainer.
Alchemy was the father of chemistry, with all its splendid results. We see, at
present, no cause for jealousy in the progress the ape has made since historic
times began; it still lags a long way behind. When a lineal descendant of an
ape shall discover, by mathematical calculation, the place of a yet
undiscovered planet, when we find among its progeny a Milton, a Shakespeare, a
Dante, a Goethe; when we find a Bacon, a Boyle, a Faraday, a Playfair, a
Huxley, a Thompson, a Darwin, a Chantrey, a Lawrence,
or any one of the hosts of our great men, then we will consider whether the ape
race shall be classed with the genus homo, and doubtless they will get full
justice. Such, however, are the capabilities of man's progress, that he will
then be as much in advance of the ape as he is now. Indeed the ape will never
overtake us, and five thousand years hence it will—exactly to a hair's breadth
—be where it is now, whether in mind or body, and as it was five thousand years
back. But as to man, upward and onward will be his achievement; ever
progressing towards the Infinite, and happier, and greater, if possible, at
each step; but the imitated model not yet reached. How gloriously is man
distinguished!
V. Now as to his marvelous powers of expressing
thought by language. However sublime, or deep, or wide, or subtle his idea, he
can give utterance to it in suitable language; or when he has conceived a new
thought, or made a new discovery, he can coin words to express it. By language
he holds communion both with Deity and with his fellows. This is the great
broad line of demarcation beyond which the mute animals can never pass; and it is
one of man's honors and peculiarities. When the vast distance between
articulate speech, and the absence of ability to articulate shall have been
measured, then we may estimate how superior a man is to a brute.
414 D. There is no comparison of course between the
two, and I now see that your theory by no means degrades a man to the level of
the brute.
415 W. We have necessarily intrenched upon the second
proposition, that the Spirit is the Author and Sustainer of all the lives which
man exhibits.
416 D. There is no occasion to show that He is the
Author of physical life. Nobody, methinks, will deny that. Let your proofs bear
on the mental life of man.
417 W. There are some remarkable texts on this point
to which I beg your attention: Job 32.8, " But there is a rooach in man and the neshamah of
the Almighty giveth him understanding." Tovinem,
rendered "giveth him understanding, " cannot mean any single act of
comprehending a thing, but it refers to the faculty itself, the power of
ratiocination, the mind, and this text declares that God's Spirit is the giver
of it. Isaiah 11.2, " The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him—the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit
of knowledge, and the fear of the Lord." The same Spirit that imparts the
fear of God imparts also understanding, or mind. Job 38.36, "Who, says
Jehovah, hath given understanding to the heart," - to the mind? Meaning
that He Himself does it. These passages are clear; intellect is ascribed to
God, or His Spirit, and there is no room to dispute it.
418 A. John 1.4-9, seems to refer to the intellect of
man in general, especially the words—" that was the true light which lighted
every man that cometh into the world."
419 W. It appears to me, that they bear directly on
the point; and they gain no small significance from the fact that they stand in
close connection with the Apostle's account of the creation. The first nine
verses of his gospel seem to be a summary of Gen. 1 and of 2 down to verse 8,
and the words "God breathed into his nostrils the spirit of lives,"
appear to be expressed by St. John in the verse you have quoted.
420 B. I take the light to be that illumination of the
mind which takes place in every Christian who is truly regenerated.
421 A. How is that consistent with the words
"every man which cometh into the world? " Besides, true Christians
are, in verse 12, put in contrast with, the " every man " of verse 9:
" He came unto his own, and His own received Him not; but as many as
received Him, to them gave He power to become the
sons of God." He is the true light, even to those who do not receive Him;
but they only are the true sons of God who do receive Him.
422 D. I have sometimes speculated whether what we
call instinct in brutes is not a species of mind. What do you think?
423 W. I do not hesitate to say they have real mind,
as well as man, though not to the same degree as man. They are living animals,
with the power of voluntary self-motion. They have wants which they must know
how and where to supply. They show, what we call in ourselves understanding,
will, affection. They know when they have done what we have taught them is
wrong, and they show what is exactly like shame and sorrow. Let any one observe the doings and habits of mute animals, and
he will find plenty of indications of what in ourselves is called mind and
reason.
424 B. What will you say next?
425 W. Read Lord Brougham's Conversations on Instinct,
and he will show you that what we call instinct, whether in insects or the
large animals, is nothing less than the direct and immediate teaching of Deity.
Or, read the words of Elihu in Job 35.10, 11, words which are endorsed by God,
"But none saith, Where is God my Maker, who giveth songs in the night
season; who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and makes us wiser
than the fowls of heaven?" No one can say more than this, and I can
believe no less.
426 N. I have often thought that we do not
sufficiently recognize the direct hand of God in all the operations of nature.
He is everywhere, and He is the living God, and surely He is not everywhere
doing nothing, but doing everything everywhere.
427 W. Let any one study, Psalm civ. and Job, chapters
38 to 42, and he will find that God claims to be by His Spirit, the Universal
Executor of His universal laws. His Spirit fills all space, permeates all
things, energizes all energies, is the bond of adhesion, the force of
attraction, the power of all motion, the sustainer of all created existences,
the life of all lives, the all in all. Nature in the aggregate is not God. This
is an absurdity. But His Spirit fills the heavens and the earth, and works every where, and He imparts Himself to all His creatures
according to their requirements. To man, His chief work, the highest of all
creation, He imparts Himself in the greatest degree. Therefore man alone bears
His image, has the marvelous faculty of speech, possesses the greatest
intellect and moral powers, and is capable of vast progress in both. Blessed
are the people who have the Lord for their God.
428 B. We none of us shall dispute this. But you have
yet to prove that when God's Holy Spirit finally leaves man he shall become
extinct.
429 W. This seems to me the logical inference from all
we have learnt concerning the nature of man. I will, however, read a few
passages from the Bible as the foundation of a few remarks. Job 34.14, 15,
" If He set His heart upon man, if He gather unto Himself His rooach and His neshamah, all
flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again to his dust. Eccl. 12.7,
" Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the rooach to God who gave it." Prov. 20.20, " Whoso cursed
his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness."
What is meant by this lamp is shown in verse 27, " The neshamah
of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the
belly." The spirit of man, then, is a lamp, a flame of fire. Let us see
further what shall be done to this lamp. Prov. 13.9, "The light of the
righteous rejoiced, but the lamp of the wicked shall be put out." 34.19,
20, " Fret not thyself because of evil men, neither be thou envious at the
wicked; for there shall be no reward to the evil man: the lamp of the wicked
shall be put out." The time of reward we know is the future; but at that
time, so far are the wicked from a reward, that they shall be put out like a
lamp. Job declares the same thing; but I should prefer to put off the
consideration of these, and other such texts, till we discuss the final
destruction of the wicked.
430 D. Before we part to-day, could you tell us the
force of the original words rendered mind and heart? for they appear to me
connected with the subject of pneumatology.
431 W. Been, nous, or mind, is the human side, if I
may so speak, of God's Spirit in man. Looked at as to its original, it is
spirit; looked at as spirit dwelling, for intellectual purposes, in man, it is
mind—it is the product of the spirit. This mind is the seat of intellectual
power and of the moral and religious feelings. Its chief material organ is the
brain; but it looks by means of the eyes; hears by means of the ears; and
conveys ideas by means of the mouth. As for lehv,
heart, the Hebrews used it as they did the word been or mind. Indeed, in 1
Kings 3.9, 11, 12, heart and mind are used interchangeably, and both signify
what we mean by the inner-man; and both therefore are the produce of the same
spirit in man. There is but one spirit, one inner-man; but its operations or
" manifestations," are various. When the Hebrews wished to indicate
the inclinations, or the desires of the mind they generally used lehv, or heart, but the distinction does not appear to have
been always kept up.
432 A. Would you speak of death as the separation of
soul and body?
433 W. I should have no objection to this language
provided it meant that animal life has left the body. But this is not what is
meant. By soul, is meant, in this language, a distinct entity or being, which
has dwelt in the body; but which now leaves it and dwells, as a distinct
entity, in an invisible place, where it exercises its faculties with as much
ease and distinctness as when in the body; and some affirm much more. Now, I
venture to say that the Bible gives no countenance to all this. It does,
however, speak of the separation of the pneuma and the body. Here are
instances:—Matt. 27.50, "And Jesus, when He had cried, with a loud voice,
yielded up the pneuma." Luke 23.46, " Jesus said, Father, into Thy
hands I commend My pneuma." Psalm 31.5, " Into Thy hand I commit my rooach." Acts 7.59, " And they stoned Stephen,
calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my pneuma." There is not
a single text where similar language is used respecting the soul.
434 A. St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 6.19, that " the
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in us."
435 B. But that is not a general declaration; it must
be restricted to the true regenerate people of God."
436 W. That can hardly be maintained, when some who
were addressed by the Apostle lived in fornication, and it was by the
consideration that the Holy Spirit was in their bodies, that he dissuaded them
from so great a sin. Let the passage be studied with the connection.
437 A. Have our Lord's words any bearing on this
subject, " So is every one who is born of the
Spirit? "
438 W. No necessary connection. But they are perfectly
in harmony with my theory. The spirit of holiness does not abide in the mere
natural or psuchikos man. He yet possesses no more
than he had at his natural birth. He has the Spirit to give him bodily and
mental life; but not yet the holy spiritual life. When however the Spirit works
in him, as the spirit of holiness, then he is further born from above; and this
is absolutely necessary to make any one a new creature in Christ Jesus. I see a
wide difference between what I venture to call the spiritual nature of man in
general, and the spiritual nature of the regenerate. All mankind have the
former, and, without it, they could have neither bodily life nor intellect; but
only those born from above have the latter.
439 A. You use a new word, spiritual. What idea do you
attach to it?
440 W. It is a word which I coined to enable me to
express the spirit-nature, which all men must have, in contra-distinction to
the spiritual holy nature which is possessed only by the regenerate. It is most
important, on every account, to distinguish the two. We have too much
confounded them, and, therefore, we have not had clear ideas concerning
pneumatology.
441 D. But you say it is the same Spirit which imparts
both the spiritual and spiritual natures.
442 W. Yes; St. Paul expressly calls the Spirit one (1
Cor. 12.11, 13; Eph. 2.18; 4.4-8) as he calls the Father one God; and
whatsoever of spirit essence is possessed by any creature is from this "
One Spirit."
443 B. Still I must return to the charge, I cannot yet
see that the spirit of man is the same spirit as the Spirit of God. It is so
contrary to all our ideas and modes of speak*, that I cannot receive it.
444 W. Let us then observe the phraseology of the
Bible on this point. Take 1 Cor. 2.11—" For what man knows the things of a
man, save the spirit of a man which is in him; even so the things of God knows
no man but the Spirit of God." Observe here, we have the spirit of a man;
this is one thing; and we have the " him; " that is, the man in whom
the spirit resides; this is another thing. We have man and the spirit of man,
just as we have God and the Spirit of God.
445 B. Is not that making two persons to be in man, or
to be the man?
446 W. Not at all; any more than God, and the Spirit
of God, make two Gods. Read next Job 27.3 —"All the while my breath (neshamothi) is in me, and the Spirit (rooach)
of God is in my nostrils." Here what Job calls his own spirit, and which
he says was in his nostrils, he calls also the Spirit of God. It is clear that
the spirit in man, is the Spirit of God. Read also Job 34.14, 15, " If God
set His heart upon man; if He gather unto Himself His Spirit (rooach), and His breath (neshamotho),
all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto his dust."
Now here it is said, in so many words, that the spirit in man, which God
gathers at death, is the Spirit of God.
447 B. But I hold that the spirit spoken of is man's
spirit: when God gathers man's spirit and man's breath.
448 W. Nay; look at the whole passage. God is the
subject throughout; and it relates to what He does. The rooach
and neshamah in man belong to Him who sets His heart
on man, and who is the One who gathers the spirits. Here is that most masterly
work of Dr. Lee, late Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of
Cambridge. It is his Commentary on the Book of Job, and he expressly says, p.
460, that the grammar requires it to be considered God's Spirit. ' These are
not the only passages where the same kind of phraseology is found; but those
now read will satisfy your minds, that the spirit of man is the Spirit of God.
The same spirit that He gave in each individual case, is that which returns to
Him when the dust goes to earth again. Nor should the word " gather "
be overlooked. It means, to collect that which has been dispersed; and it
implies that God disperses His Spirit, to give life to mankind; and that at
death He gathers it again. He does not merely recall the spirit, but He gathers
it, as if there were a portion given to each man. Here, again, I would refer to
the analogy already mentioned. If God gathers His Spirit at the first death of
men, why should He not do the same when the wicked are made to die the second
death?
449 D. There is one point that needs to be cleared up,
or to be abandoned. You have said the spirit of man is not made; and yet you
have quoted texts where both made and formed are used in reference to the
spirit of man.
450 W. When I said that it was not made, I added the
explanatory words, " as was the body." God made the body out of the
dust, which was external to Him, and not part of Him; but when He caused a
spirit to be in man, He took it from His own Spirit, and it was part of
Himself. In this sense, not made, but infused. The process of infusing this
spirit into the earthy part of man, the part by man begotten; or the means by
which a portion (2 Kings 2.9) of God's Spirit is constituted to be the spirit
of man, or the spirit in man, may well be called a making, or forming. My point
is, that the spirit of man is not made out of something separate, and apart
from God; but that it is part of Him. I say, too, that the spirit is not
created in the sense of being made out of nothing.
451 B. There is a passage which has been overlooked by
me, 1 Cor. 5.5, where we find the expression, " that the spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Now, if a spirit can be saved, may we
not reasonably suppose it can be lost?
452 W. Will you tell me what you mean by lost?
453 B. That it will ever be retained by the man, and
with him suffer for sin.
454 W. It appears to me, that this text is of the same
kind as 1 Thess. 5.23, already considered; and that the " saved," in
the one place, is the same, in meaning, as the " preserved " in the
other. I think, too, you will see a wide distinction between a thing lost in
itself, and lost to the person who had possessed it.
455 B. Is not that a distinction without a difference?
456 W. So far from it, that it makes all the
difference in the argument. After the judgment, all the wicked will lose the
spirit which they had; but when God gathers the spirit of each of these lost
ones, it is not lost, it returns to God that gave it. Heaven itself, with all
its joys, will be lost to the wicked, but it will not be lost in itself. The
Apostle delivered a certain man to a painful discipline, with the hope of
bringing him to amendment, that thus, in the last day, his spirit might be
preserved to him; and that he might not be deprived of it by the destruction,
which will then come upon the wicked.
457 D. We have to-day gone over many points, and the
mind is bewildered. I do not just now perceive the bearing of your pneumatology
upon the general question of endless torments.
458 W. It is commonly said, that man has a deathless
spirit in him; that this spirit is a part of man by propagation; that this
spirit, therefore, is sinful by nature, and becomes sinful by practice, and
cannot, therefore, when unconverted, dwell in heaven, but must dwell in hell
forever. Popular theology would allow here that soul should be substituted for
spirit. In the course of this discussion, it has been shown that the soul is
not the spirit, and is not immortal; that spirit, though in itself immortal,
yet is not so a part of man, as that it must ever dwell with him, and keep him
alive forever; that while the righteous will retain their spirit forever, yet
that the unjust shall be deprived of it at their second death, from which there
shall be no resurrection: and that, consequently, they shall be at an end
forevermore. Let me add that, what you have called my pneumatology has been
proved by certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
459 A. We will next time discuss the miscellaneous
texts which are alleged against you.
460 B. It seems to me that to-day you are about to
attempt to prove that everlasting is not everlasting. In this I anticipate for
you a certain defeat.
461 W. No; I shall not attempt so foolish a course as
to try to show that a thing is not that thing. I suppose, however, you mean
that you expect me to combat the general notion that certain words, used in
this controversy, signify absolute endlessness?
462 B. Yes, that is certainly the precise idea. We
find in the Bible the words everlasting and eternal applied to the future
torments of the wicked; but you deny the eternity of these torments, and it
would appear therefore that you limit the meaning of everlasting.
463 W. Can you adduce any passage of Scripture where
you find everlasting in association with torments or pain, or any other word
signifying the same thing?
464 B. What if I cannot? We find everlasting fire,
everlasting punishment, everlasting destruction; and is not this the same as
everlasting torments?
465 W. Excuse me. I think that both practically and
logically the three Scriptural phrases and the non-Scriptural ones, eternal
pain, eternal misery, etc., etc., are very different. At present, however, I
only wish to observe, that, in this controversy, certain phraseologies are used
which are supposed to be identical with Bible phraseologies. Then an inference
is drawn which, perhaps, the former will not allow, but which the latter will;
yet, on account of the supposed identity, the fallacy is made to pass.
466 A. Have you no wish, then, to show that the words
in the Old and New Testament rendered eternal, everlasting, forever, forever
and ever, are often used in a limited application?
467 W. They are no doubt used in a limited
application; but to show this is not necessary to prove my theory. I am ready
to take these words as denoting absolute endlessness, and it will be but a
waste of time to discuss whether their meaning be limited or unlimited.
468 D. Well, take your own method of defense; you have
a right to that.
469 W. Will Mr. B., then, state the passages of the
Bible on which he relies, and let us examine them?
470 B. I quote first that celebrated text found in
Matt. xxv. 46: " These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the
righteous into life eternal." Now, as the same word is used in both cases,
the punishment of the wicked must last as long as the life of the righteous.
471 W. The mistake which, it seems to me, is made here
is, that everlasting punishment is made to mean an endless process of the act
of punishing, instead of an endless result of the act.
472 B. Explain yourself.
473 W. You make the words to indicate the act of
punishing as endlessly going on, as if the sinner were endlessly tortured by
the punishment; whereas, I make the act of punishing to be temporary, but the
result of it endless and irreversible; and thus my explanation, as well as
yours, makes the punishment of the wicked as endless as the life of the
righteous.
474 B. But your exposition is a new and unheard-of
one, and I cannot allow it to be correct.
475 D. Do you rest your exposition on your mere
assertion?
476 W. Certainly not. I can show that it is the
natural meaning of the words; and that my opponents take the same method of
expounding four or five exactly similar phrases in the New Testament.
477 B. Let that be seen.
478 W. In Heb. 5.9 we have the words "eternal
salvation." I would ask Mr. B. if he expounds this as meaning an eternal,
or everlasting process of the act of saving, or whether he does not expound the
act of salvation as temporary, but the results of it as endless?
479 B. If at all, a man is saved, as to the process of
saving, while in this world, but the results of it will be never-ending in the
world to come.
480 W. Exactly so. In Heb. 6.2 we find the words
"eternal judgment." Now, must we not understand here, that the act of
judgment is itself temporary; but that it is followed by results which shall be
eternal? and that thus " eternal judgment " cannot mean an eternal
process of judging, but an eternal result, including a sentence which shall
never be reversed?
481 B. True. What, however, does that make for you?
482 W. We shall see. Again, there are the words "
eternal redemption " in chap. 9.12, and "eternal covenant" in 13.20,
and "everlasting Gospel " in Rev. 14.6. Now, who is there that
expounds these five passages as meaning, severally, an endless act of saving,
an endless act of judging, an endless act of redeeming, an endless act of
covenanting, or an endless act of preaching the good news? Who is there that
does not expound them all to mean a temporary process but an endless result?
and why should they expound the sixth case to mean an endless process?
483 D. I don't quite catch your argument.
484 W. Here is the phrase, "everlasting
punishment;" and they expound it as meaning an endless act of punishing,
endlessly carried on; and they infer that the victim lives in endless conscious
pain, because he is sentenced, as they say, to what they expound as meaning an
endless act of punishing. This I have ventured to call an endless process of
punishing. In the five illustrative examples, however, they all say the meaning
is an endless result; as, for instance, " eternal judgment," they say
does not mean an endless process of judging, but an eternal result arising from
a temporary act of judgment; that is, they expound the five illustrative
examples as I do the sixth similar phrase which is thus illustrated.
485 D. Expound, then, what you mean by eternal
punishment.
486 W. As it bears upon the phase of the subject now
before us, I mean, that the painful process of punishing shall last for a time,
though for how long a time I cannot tell; but that this punishment, being the
second death, is destined to put an end to the living existence of the one who
shall suffer it; from which second death there will be no hope of resurrection
or resuscitation. The result shall he endless, inevitable, irretrievable, and
it is therefore endless punishment, though not endless punishing.
487 A. I can well perceive the distinction between an
endless process and an endless result, and I cannot deny its importance in the
controversy, nor can I, with any grammatical propriety, refuse to apply to the
words in Matthew the same rules which we all apply to the five analogous cases.
488 N. Would you then expound, in the same way, the
words " everlasting destruction," in 2 Thess. 1.9?
489 W. I should. In my judgment, they cannot mean an
endless process of destroying, yet the victim never destroyed; but an act which
is literal destruction, from which there will be no regathering, no reorganization.
Let me add that the word kolasis, translated
punishment, confirms my exposition of Matt. 25.46, and proves that an endless
process cannot be meant. Kolasis means, a clipping,
or pruning, then a restraint, chastisement, and by metonymy a punishment.
490 B. You are depending on etymology, which is an
excellent servant, but an indifferent master. Words acquire a secondary
meaning, and it by no means follows that the circle of ideas belonging to the
first meaning, waits in unbroken order upon the derived meaning.
491 W. Without denying that some words get a meaning
different from the roots whence they were derived, yet I do deny that I rely
upon etymology when I say that the meaning of kolasis
is pruning. Indeed, I do not know what the etymology of kolasis
is, and none of the philologists I have consulted seem to be able to tell me.
Here, however, are the two largest and best lexicons published, and you may see
that they both supply me with the meanings I have given. The ground, then, on
which I do rely no one can dispute. I do not rely on etymology; I follow the
lexical meaning, and when I say that the punishment indicated by the word kolasis is short in duration, I am borne out by the lexicons,
and by the use made of it by Greek writers. Now, consider the force of the
argument. Here is a withered branch of a tree, which bears no fruit; is the
process of cutting it off—the process of punishing it, an endless one? But
consider the consequences to the cut-off branch. Is it ever engrafted on the
tree again, and made alive, so as to bear fruit? Never! the result of the kolasis is endless. " If a man abide not in Me he is
cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into
the fire, and they are burned." John 15.6.
492 B. You quote our Lord's words, as if they were
both illustrative and confirmative of what you say; but they are not. Kaietai, rendered, " are burned," is, literally,
are being burnt, implying that the act of burning is forever going on.
493 W. I am aware that this has been advanced with
much confidence, but I was not looking for it from you. The force of the
present tense here can be no more than that men are in the habit of gathering
the branches which are cut from trees, and using them for fuel. To serve your
purpose, you must show that it indicates that each branch is forever burning
and never burnt up; a thing this which no one would try to establish.
494 N. I have a book here which shows that Matt. 25.46,
is entirely in favor of universalism. A tree is pruned to better it, and to
make it bear fruit; so the punishment inflicted on sinners, in the next world,
is for their amendment and salvation, not for destruction. It is corrective
rather than punitive.
495 W. I recognize the book, and know it well. It
confounds two clearly distinct things, and argues as if the design of pruning
were to better the branch that is cut off, and make it bear fruit; whereas it
is intended for the good of the tree. Whoever can seriously imagine that a
branch severed from a tree is, by means of that very severance, made into a
fruitful branch? Nor do I think it creditable to even the human judgment of our
Lord, that He should be supposed to imply this, and use it as an illustration.
But the fact is, as we have seen, He says that a severed branch withers, and is
burnt.
496 A. I cannot but own that Matt. 25.46 does not of
itself prove endless torments. If other texts prove the doctrine, it may give
corroborative evidence, but no more.
497 B. You all have forgotten another verse of Matt. 25.41,
which ought to be taken with 46: " Depart from me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire." They who go into everlasting punishment depart into
everlasting fire. Can language be stronger?
498 W. The meaning you attach to everlasting fire is,
a fire which endlessly burns, and which never goes out.
499 B. Certainly; and I see not what other meaning you
can give.
500 W. As with words, so with phrases. In reference to
both, the inquiry should be, How are they used in the Bible? Now, it can be
shown that the Bible use of everlasting fire indicates an everlasting result,
not an everlasting, process, as if the fire were endlessly flaming.
501 D. Prove that, and you will make no small progress
in the argument.
502 W. Take, then, as an example and proof, Jude 1.7,
" Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, are set forth for
an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Here is exactly the
same phrase as in Matt.; and you observe the question is not, whether
everlasting carries or not, the idea of endlessness, but whether Jude means by
everlasting fire, an endless process, or an endless result. I contend for the
latter; and, happily, fact decides the point. If Jude had meant an endless
process, the cities must have been flaming and burning from the days of Lot to
the time of Jude, and from his time till now. They must be flaming at this
moment, and they will still go on flaming evermore for the time to come. If,
however, Jude meant an endless result, then we should understand that the
everlasting fire destroyed the cities once for all, and that they had never
been rebuilt. I submit that fact decides on both points, and that, unless Jude
intended to contradict facts, he must have meant by everlasting fire, that
which produces an endless result.
503 B. I really think you arrive too quickly at
conclusions. Were there not human beings in the cities? and may there not be an
endless process with respect to them?
504 W. The question simply is, what does the Apostle
say? If you wish, you may include the inhabitants, but you gain nothing in
argument by it. The point before us is, what is the force of the words
everlasting fire in the Bible? And it is manifest that Jude's use of them
applies to an everlasting result, whether with respect to the material cities
or to the people.
505 B. You do not hit the point. The souls of the
inhabitants went into the intermediate state, and there they are now. With
respect to them there is a process, though with respect to the material cities,
there is, as you say, the result.
506 W. What then? do you believe that immaterial
souls, as you affirm they are, may be acted upon by material fire?
507 B. No! I believe the bodies of sinners will be
punished by material fire, and their souls by the gnawing’s of a guilty
conscience.
508 W. Then St. Jude's example does not apply to your
point. He says that material fire consumed the material cities, and you add,
the inhabitants, to which I do not object; but those inhabitants are not now in
a body upon which fire can act, for they exist only, as you say, in their
souls, on which fire cannot act. Where then is the process you wish to
establish in the words of Jude? I still affirm that they indicate an endless
result, and I now add, an endless result alone; and that, neither everlasting
fire, nor everlasting punishment, means an endless process of torturing the
sinner, but an endless, unchangeable result. I thus show that neither passage
in Matt. 25 teaches endless torments.
509 B. You argue as if the text from Jude were
parallel with that of Matt. Now Jude says, " set forth as an
example," or type. May not the typical endlessness of the punishment
endured by the cities foreshadow the endlessness of the sinner's punishment in the
next life?
510 W. You are not the first that has mistaken the
word used by Jude, or who has founded an argument upon it. Your observation
supposes that the word rendered example is tupos,
but, you will observe, it is deigma, which, as you
know, means a specimen, or sample; and it was applied to the sample which
exhibited the kind and quality of the wares which the merchant wished to sell.
Now the sample would not be one kind and quality, and what was in the store
another kind and quality; or, if there were any difference, the merchant would
be properly put down as dishonest, and the sample would be said to be no sample
at all.
511 D. Then there is the parallelism which has been
denied.
512 W. Yes; there appears to me a perfect likeness
between the warning example adduced by Jude and the state of the lost
hereafter; and if not, Jude would be open to the same charge as the dishonest
merchant. We have seen the example to be one of an endless result, and if the
thing shadowed forth be an endless process of burning, then I say, the example
or sample is no sample at all.
513 B. Still, I cannot help recurring to Matt. xxv.
46. Here are two sentences: the one is to eternal life; and we know that this
means living forever, and so we have terribly good reason for believing that
" eternal punishment," spoken of in immediate sequence, and in direct
contrast with this life, means an endless conscious endurance of punishment.
514 There are, as you say, two sentences, and,
moreover,. as you also say, they are in direct contrast. To me it therefore
appears, that as the one sentence is to eternal life, so the contrast to this
is, eternal non-life; that is, eternal death. Now it really is out of question,
as we shall see in due time, that eternal non-life, or eternal death, can be
made to mean an endless conscious endurance of punishment. The truth is, we
must take the two sentences upon their own grounds, and find out, from the use
made in the Bible of the same language, what they really mean; and I trust it will
not be considered over confident if I say that the sentence to eternal
punishment has been proved to mean an eternal, irreversible, result; not an
endless conscious enduring process of suffering pain. The result of the
sentence in the one case is eternal life, and in the other, eternal non-life,
called here punishment.
515 A. The word kolasis is
used in one other place of the New Testament, but the passage lends no help to
our discussion.
516 D. Are there any other Scriptural texts which
illustrate and prove your distinction between an endless process and an endless
result?
517 W. There are several, but I will read only one,
Is. 34.8-10: " It is the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of
recompenses for the controversy of Zion. And the streams of Idumea
shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land
thereof shall become burning 'pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day;
the smoke thereof shall go up forever; from generation to generation it shall
be waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever." This is part of a
prophecy which speaks of the punishment of the Idumean people; and the language
in which the punishment is expressed is as strong as any found in the Bible.
The streams, the dust, and the land are to burn like pitch, the smoke of which
shall go up forever, and the fire not quenched night nor day, so that none
shall pass through the land forever and ever. Here again is a result which is
endless—forever and ever; but the process by which this result was brought
about—the punishment, the unquenchable fire, the everlasting smoke—was not
endless, as facts declare. The land of Edom, like the cities of the plain, is
to this day an example, or specimen of a temporary process, followed by an
endless result. I have read the Bible with this specific object in view, and I
believe I may say with confidence, that in every place where wrath, or
judgment, or punishment is mentioned in connection with words which express
endlessness, the reference of the endlessness is to the result, not to the
process.
518 B. There is that awful text in Matt. 3.12—"
He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." The chaff we know means
sinners, and here we see they are to be subject to unquenchable fire.
519 W. I also believe that; but perhaps I do not
believe the meaning you bring to this text. By unquenchable fire you understand
a fire which shall be endlessly burning; and you understand, also, that sinners
shall be endlessly burning in it.
520 B. You rightly represent me in both particulars.
521 W. I am obliged, then, to differ from you
entirely. Unquenchable fire never means a fire that shall be endlessly burning,
but a fire that has gained such a mastery that it will never go out till it has
consumed all that upon which it was fed. It expresses the certainty and
inevitability of destruction, not the endlessness of the process.
522 D. I have been taught that it means what you say
everywhere except in theology, and that there it means what Mr. B. holds.
523 W. Whatever may be its meaning in theology, Mr.
B.'s is certainly not the meaning in the Bible. Let me read a few passages. The
text just read from Isaiah is to the point, as are also the following: Jer. 7.20,
" Mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man,
and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the
ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched;" 17.27, " I
will kindle a fire in the gates of Jerusalem, and it shall devour the palaces
of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." Other examples will be found
in 2 Kings 22.17, Eze. 20.47, 48. I may add that I have searched and have not
found a single text of an opposite kind. But there is a text which declares
that the wicked shall not be endlessly burning in fire. Is. 43.17, "They
shall lie down together, they shall not rise; they are extinct, they are
quenched as tow."
524 D. In the Bible, then, the words mean what they do
everywhere else?
525 W. Most assuredly. But look at the figure itself
employed in this awful text. What is the action of fire upon chaff? Is it not
to reduce the chaff to ashes, so that it is chaff no longer? for it is
"burnt up." It is consumed. You make the text to say that the chaff
is not burnt up, that it is endlessly preserved in the fire. Now let the text
be taken as it is. It says the chaff is burnt, and burnt up; that is, it is
entirely consumed. If the inspiring Spirit had wished to say that sinners, in the
next world, would be endlessly burning in endlessly flaming fire, would he have
pointed to burnt-up chaff as an illustration of it? and burnt up, too, by a
fire which went out as soon as all the chaff was burnt .up? Take, however, the
reverse side. If the Spirit had wished to say that sinners should become
extinct in the lake of fire, could He have used a more forcible figure? The
sinner is by it assured that there is no escape for him; that if he does not
repent, he shall be as certainly consumed as chaff is by fire.
526 D. Certainly, when one gives it a thought, it is
surprising how we could have supposed that chaff, burnt up in, and by, the
fire, should represent a sinner not burnt up in the fire, but endlessly
preserved intact in the midst of the fire.
527 W. The connection of the tenth verse with this
twelfth should not be overlooked. It is there written, " Every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." Now
the action of fire is to destroy a tree, not preserve it; and I trust that we
must all see that neither text teaches the endless torment of the wicked, but
their utter and endless extinction.
528 B. I wish to refer to Mark 3.29: " He that
shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger
of eternal damnation." Never forgiveness; eternal damnation. How can you
get over these words?
529 W. Believe me, I never try to get over any words.
All I do is to try to find out their meaning, and then believe it. Of course
you have noticed the close affinity between this text and Heb. 6.2 already
considered; and that the word rendered damnation is kriseos,
which does not convey the idea that is suggested by the word damnation to
modern minds. This text, however, is not in the way of my theory, but falls in
exactly with it. The penalty of all sin is death: forgiveness removes the
penalty, and brings life. No forgiveness, however, is provided for sin against
the Holy Ghost; but this by no means says that the unforgiven sinner must live
in conscious misery, as is taken for granted. And as to aioniou
kriseos, it certainly does not express an endless
process of pain, but an endless result of the condemnation and non-forgiveness.
You appear to me to engraft a meaning upon words, and then argue as if you had
taken it out of them. Excuse me for being so plain.
530 B. Now we come to those solemn verses, Mark 9.43-50,
in which we read the very strong language, " into the fire that never
shall be quenched," and three times are the words repeated, "Where
their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched."
531 W. They are indeed most solemn; far too solemn and
awful to be trifled with, whether as to their meaning or application.
532 B. I hold that in the face of these words no one
can successfully overturn the doctrine of endless torments. They are sufficient
in themselves to establish it beyond contradiction.
533 W. Let us examine them with all care and candor.
If you will look at your Greek Testament you will not find anything to warrant
the words " never shall " in the clause " never shall be
quenched," upon which you lay so much stress. The Greek is literally
" into the unquenchable fire." The same remark must be made respecting
the same words at the end of verse 45, and how to account for the rendering in
the English Version I know not.
534 D. I never noticed that before. The English
Version is here very misleading.
535 W. It should be observed also that, according to Dean
Alford and Tischendorf, verses 44 and 46, and the last clause of verse 45 are
not found in the two most ancient manuscripts. I wish, however, distinctly to
state that I base no argument on this fact.
536 B. Then verse 48 is found in them! and if so, we
have the words on which my argument is founded, and as for the words "
unquenchable fire," at the end of verse 45, we have them again in verse
43.
537 W. If the words at all bear you out, there is
enough of undoubted text for your purpose. We have already examined the phrase
" unquenchable fire," and we have seen that it does not mean a fire
endlessly flaming, and which will never go out.
538 B. Excuse me. I am not satisfied on that point. It
means a fire which never can, and never will, go out.
539 W. I have quoted passages from Scripture and
referred to others in which your meaning is impossible, and you have not
attempted to bring a single passage to the contrary; and, in fact, there is not
one to be found. You make the meaning of unquenchable to be, will never go out;
whereas it is, cannot be put out. You add to it the idea of endless time,
although no such idea belongs to it, nor is ever given to it, by dictionaries.
The words asbestos, unquenchable, in verse 43 is, as you know, in classical
authors, applied to prolonged laughter, which cannot be suppressed;. to fierce,
obstinate battle; to indefatigable vigor, shown in pursuing a desired object;
and to the fire which burnt part of some ships. In the LXX. it is used, in Gen.
11.3, for unslaked lime; and in the ancient ecclesiastical historians it is
applied to the fire which burnt to ashes the bodies of the martyrs. All this
warrants my meaning of the phrase. It is not, in fact, my meaning; it is the
meaning given in lexicons and dictionaries, and it is a truth which cannot be
overturned, that unquenchable fire by no means proves the endless torments of
the wicked, nor does it lend any support whatever to such a notion. It is a
meaning brought to the words, not one taken out of them.
540 B. You have not yet touched the other phrase,
"where their worm dies not." Where the fire is un-quenchable, there
the worm does not die.
541 D. Will you give your interpretation of the words?
542 B. The outer man shall be punished by the
un-extinguishable fire, and the inner man by the gnawing of the worm.
543 W. You take, then, one part of the verse -to be
literal—the fire—and the other figurative—the worm?
544 B. That is a just inference, certainly.
545 W. Whether the verse be partly literal and partly
figurative, or not, one thing is certain, that the one clause of the text does
not contradict the other clause. Forgive me if I speak so positively as to say
that it has been demonstrated that unquenchable fire does not and cannot mean a
fire that is endlessly flaming, but one that will not go out, and that cannot
be put out, till it has consumed its victim. Now, if the words, " their
worm dies not," means that the worm endlessly lives and endlessly gnaws
the sinner, then the one part of the verse contradicts the other part.
546 D. What meaning, then, would you give to the worm
that dies not?
547 W. Their meaning is analogous to the unquenchable
fire; that is, the worm does not die till it has no more of the carcass to feed
upon.
548 A. Should you not connect these words of our Lord
with Is. 66.24, whence they are quoted. The prophet says: " And 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." And as we are considering what
the Bible does really say, I would observe, that the worm and the fire act upon
the same thing; that this is called, not the inner man, but the carcass—the
dead body; that this does not take place in some invisible place of
retribution, but upon this earth, and where the carcasses shall be seen by
those who go, from one new moon to another, to worship the Lord at Jerusalem.
Now I must in candor own, that I think it impossible to support the notion of
endless torments from these words of Jehovah, as given by Isaiah.
549 B. But you must remember that our Lord expands the
views of Isaiah, and gives their true meaning and significance.
550 D. How does that appear?
551 B. Why, if you look at any commentator, you will
find that this is the universal opinion of them all.
552 D. I am sure I would respect the opinions of all
great and good men; but in sifting evidence, you know, we do not depend upon
opinion. Can you show by any text, or by reason, that our Lord meant something
more than the prophet meant, or something different? This seems necessary for
your argument.
553 N. I may take it upon myself to answer that there
is no text or reason which will suit the purpose.
554 D. I have lately learnt, I own, to distinguish
between the text itself and an exposition of it. The first is sure to be right,
the second may be wrong, on whichever side it may be given.
555 W. Let me add, that our Lord would never
contradict His prophet; and it would not be expansion, but contradiction, if
Jesus meant that the worm should feed on the soul, as just now stated, and not
on the carcass, as stated by Isaiah, and if He spoke of what should be done in
the eternal world, when Isaiah spoke of what shall be done in this. It is but
one instance to show how the doctrine of endless torments has put the Bible out
of harmony with itself. Permit me to say, that on my theory the Bible is in
harmony, and every text bearing on the subject finds its proper place.
556 A. For a long time I have not been satisfied with
the soundness of the argument on our side, as based upon this text.
557 W. I would further argue against you respecting
this passage, on account of its exceeding unsuitability to illustrate, or
prove, endless torments. If you would expound it fully in this view, you would
say something like the following:—" Look at that dead carcass; that
represents the living and endlessly-tormented sinner. Consider that worm, whose
life is a span, and whose power is small; that represents the ever-living and
all-powerful Jehovah, Who is the Punisher of the wicked.
Watch the gnawing of the worm; that represents God's
endless act of punishing. Mark the insensibility and quietness of the dead
corpse; that represents its sensibility to pain, and its writhing under
it." If these are not your sentiments, expressed in plain, understandable language,
then the passage will not serve your purpose; but they are your sentiments, and
I must avow that it shocks my reverence for our Great Teacher that it should be
supposed He would use a figure so singularly inappropriate for what you affirm
was His object, namely, to teach the endless torments of the wicked. If it had
been His wish to teach such a doctrine, and to teach it in figurative language,
His resources, we may be sure, were not so limited as to oblige Him to resort
to such a figure as this.
558 D. But our Lord must have taught something. What
was it?
559 W. If the figure be taken in its natural meaning,
as representing the certain, the inevitable destruction of the wicked, it will
be seen as both appropriate and most forcible. As certainly as the carcass is
devoured by worms, so certainly, and entirely, shall the sinner be devoured and
come to an end; and as certainly as dead bodies were burnt to ashes in the
valley of Gehenna, so surely shall the wicked be burnt up in the Gehenna, or
lake of fire.
560 D. Well, as a layman, I must say that it is no
little relief to my mind to see that the Bible is as sensible and reasonable as
it is holy and divine.
561 W. I have long seen, with humble gratitude, that
the teaching of Jesus in these verses is deeper and more impressive than any
warning ever yet taken out of them, or engrafted upon them.
562 D. Let us hear it by all means.
563 W. The key to the whole passage, both as to what
the figure means, and why such a figure was employed, is found in the very last
line of Isaiah: " And they—the wicked—shall be an abhorring of all
flesh;" and it indicates also why our Blessed Lord and Teacher quoted from
Isaiah. Let it be remembered, that it was the very same Being who spoke what is
found in Isaiah, and what is found in St. Mark. The only difference is, that
meanwhile He had become " God manifest in the flesh."
I. Consider, that the human heart was made to love. It
loves to love, and to be loved. It hates to be hated and abhorred. Man does not
wish to be out of mind and memory. He likes to be thought of, and his memory
cherished by all, especially by those whom he loves; and it would be to him a
bitter trial if he thought it would be otherwise, and that he should be abhorred.
Now, how does our Wise Teacher seize upon this strong natural feeling and make
it subservient to deter us from sin, and to bring us to Himself? He solemnly
tells the sinner that his memory shall not be cherished; on the contrary, that
he shall be an object of abhorrence, just like a loathsome putrid carcass. How
close, how telling is the appeal thus made! And you will remember that it is
not unfrequently made in the Bible, and applied in the same way. (See Ps. 104.15,
16; Prov. 10.7; Eccl. 9.5; Isa. 26.14.) Would that men had always employed
God's deterrents; their teaching would have been more effectual and saving. The
Lord of life and Maker of man knew human nature well. May we, his servants,
learn of Him, and pass on to the people that treasure only with which He has
entrusted us.
II. But His teaching has a deeper application still;
and it meets another yearning of our nature equally strong. Which of us has not
seen the agony of the godly survivor of a deceased and loved relative, who died
in sin, and without God, and without hope? I do not allude now to that dreadful
agony which man has inflicted upon such by teaching her that her loved one must
roll in the fiery billows endlessly, and without hope. I allude to that
question, which will present itself, whether we would or not. It is left
unanswered by your doctrine; and on your theory you can neither inform the
understanding, nor console the heart. Is the teaching of Jesus as deficient as
our own? I know not. I allude to the question often put, with such intense
anxiety; so much oftener brooded over, with intense anxiety, because it is
silent: " How can I be happy in heaven, while my loved one is so miserable
in hell? How can it be heaven while I know that he is in unendurable,
inconceivable pain and misery?" Now I avow my deep conviction, that no one
can be happy in heaven while another is tortured in the lake of fire, whether
he be a loved relation or not. The two are absolutely, and irremediably,
incompatible. In proportion as God has given to us a loving and benevolent
heart, in the same proportion can we not bear that a fellow-creature should be
in pain and misery. This is the case in our present imperfect state; much more
shall it be in the perfected state. What answer does the advocate of endless misery
give to this? Will he say that the religion of Christ affords no consolation?
564 B. We say, " Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?" We counsel submission; for that stern justice demands it
all, and that it is useless to rebel.
565 D. Where is the Scripture for that? It seems to me
too much like asking for bread, and getting a stone.
566 W. It is not a question of submission or of
rebellion. It is the utter impossibility of a loving, benevolent, saved one, in
glory, being happy, while another is agonizing in endless torturing pain. You
tell us that the infinitely loving Lamb, and the holy angels, shall endlessly
look on upon these miseries; and you sometimes intimate that the saved saints
shall do the same. I say it is impossible; and will show that God's Book says
no such thing, when the proper time comes. Meanwhile, I push my question.
Argument gives me a right to do so; and I feel that the honor of the God of
love binds me to it. What do you say to this, and how can you administer consolation
at the time when it is most of all needed? Now, I hold that the religion of
Jesus meets the loving longing of every broken loving heart; and here it is
that the teaching of Jesus comes in so beautifully and blessedly. It tells such
a one, and that too is the very passage which—forgive me—has been so perverted.
He says there is no such thing as endless agony for anyone, and that all the
wicked shall be destroyed. He then teaches, that to these wicked ones so
destroyed, there shall not be attached the feeling of fond remembrance, but of
abhorrence, or such as that feeling which we attach to a putrid carcass.
567 B. But could not they be equally abhorred if they
were in endless misery?
568 W. No; for then the feeling of benevolence and the
sense of happiness would be disturbed; but when there is no such disturbance,
then the feeling of loathing can find a place. It is an immense relief, to a
loving benevolent mind, to know that a fellow-creature is out of suffering,
though at the same time it is well able to appreciate the worthlessness of the
wicked dead, and to give him up accordingly.
569 D. I suppose we shall have to discuss the subject
on the ground of justice. Meanwhile we cannot but say that the words will bear
your meaning.
570 W. I go further than that, for I contend that what
you call my meaning is the only natural meaning of the words; and that the
opposite contradicts the whole scope of the Bible, lexically and grammatically
understood. Let any one, not assert, but prove the
contrary.
571 B. Hitherto one main part of the passage has been
forgotten (verse 49), "For every one shall be salted with fire, and every
sacrifice shall be salted with salt."
572 A. One of the most difficult of texts, and one
which has drawn forth a great variety of interpretations.
573 W. Let it be borne in mind, that it is not my
theory which has made the difficulty, nor caused the variety. Will you say what
the meaning is which you would give it, as bearing upon endless torments? It is
figurative language, what do you make of it?
574 B. Salt preserved the flesh of the animals which
were offered in sacrifice, and kept them from becoming putrid; but the flesh of
the sinner shall be salted with fire: that is, he shall be preserved by the
fire, as the flesh of the sacrifice was preserved by the salt. But this
preserving fire is said to be unquenchable, and therefore the sinner will be
preserved forever in the fire, and by it, and so be punished forever.
575 W. Whether I can tell what the passage does mean
or not, I think it can be shown that yours—the usual one—cannot be the meaning.
I. If the language is figurative, let us learn from
the figure, and not add to it. Even allowing, for the moment, that the object
of offering salt with the flesh was to preserve it, I still ask, did the salt
preserve the flesh from being consumed on the altar? And allowing, what is not
said, that the salt was burnt with the flesh, did it prolong the process of
consumption? Still less prolong it endlessly? The flesh was consumed; that we
do know, and the ashes were carried away from the altar.
II. But the object of offering salt with the sacrifice
was not to preserve the flesh. The victim was slain and carried to the altar at
once, without giving time for the salt to permeate through the fibers of the
flesh. Salt was an emblem of continued friendliness, and so it is to this day
among the Arabs; and therefore the covenant made with Aaron for the priesthood,
and that with David for the kingship, was called " a covenant of
salt." Numb. 18.19; 2 Chron. 13.5. Now an emblem of friendliness cannot be
turned into an emblem of wrath; still less of endless wrath. The burning of the
victim was the emblem of wrath, and this, in its process, was not endless, though
the result was; for the slain and burnt up animal never became the animal
again.
III. This conclusion is favored by the next verse,
where we read, "salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltness
wherewith will ye season it." The process of losing its saltness is
finished; it is salt no longer; nor shall it ever be salt again.
IV. Whatever is meant by being salted with fire, and
salted with salt, it was something to be done in this life. The apostles had
been disputing which of them should be the greatest, a piece of worldly
ambition which has often been a serious hindrance to Christ's kingdom. The
whole context should be studied from the 33rd verse. It was in reference to
this dispute that Jesus said to His apostles, " Have salt in yourselves,
and have peace one with another," and thus He ended His discourse.
576 D. As far as I am able to judge of Bible figures I
do not see anything in your exposition to which we ought to object. I begin to
see that we take many things for granted, which the Bible does not bear out,
when we come to look into it. You have sifted the passage and shown that it
does not teach endless torments.
577 B. You must not consider me as assenting to your
conclusions. I adduce Matt. 5.26, " Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by
no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." To
be cast into a prison means to live in prison, and Christ declares that the
sinner shall not come out of it till he has paid the very last farthing. Now
the sinner's debt is infinite, he has not a mite with which to pay it, and
therefore he must live in the prison of hell forever.
578 N. Here I am myself constrained to join issue with
you. In point of fact, was it a general thing, when a man was once cast into
prison for debt, that he seldom got out of it? Was it not rather the exception?
For, generally speaking, was not the debt paid sooner or later, and the debtor
liberated according to the law of Moses? You suppose circumstances when it was
impossible to pay the debt, and then you say that these are the circumstances
of all who are cast into the prison of hell, and that, consequently, they can
never come out. You make Christ to say the debt will never be paid, whereas He
says no such thing; but implies it will be paid, and liberty regained. If you
will apply this text to the prison of hell, then I contend that there is a
prospect of deliverance.
579 W. My objections to Mr. B.'s exposition are
these:—
I. It calls God the adversary of man. Look at the
character of the adversary; it is just like that of the fellow servant in
Christ's parable, who, unlike the Master, would not forgive, even a part, but
cast him into prison till he should pay all that was due. The adversary is a
cruel exactor. Now, is this the character of God? Hear His own words in this
very chapter: " But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully
use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is
in heaven; for He makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends
rain on the just and on the unjust.... Be ye therefore perfect as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect!" With such a description of God as this,
does it not seem impossible that Jesus should, in the same sermon, and within a
few sentences, have described the same God as an exacting adversary such as man
is?
II. God is nowhere in the Bible called our adversary.
Satan is so called on many occasions, and, indeed, Satan means an adversary;
but it seems most strange that we should, for the sake of an interpretation,
give to the pre-eminently good Being the same name which is deservedly given to
him who is emphatically the bad being, the evil one. How marvelous and how sad
that such an interpretation could have gained currency among Christians.
III. I again object to the position that sin, as done
by each man, is an infinite debt, and, therefore, must be paid by sufferings
infinite in duration. To what I have already said, I add, that a creature
cannot, in any respect, do an infinite thing. If he could, then I should argue,
that if the demerit of human bad actions is infinite, then the merit of human
good actions is infinite also. In the phase of merit or demerit human actions
are alike, whether performed by special help or by the abuse of ordinary help.
I, for one, repudiate the thought of infinite merit, and with it the notion of
infinite demerit.
IV. Let the whole context be duly considered, and it
will be seen that our Lord is directing what should be the conduct of His
followers, if they got into debt and difficulty with any of their fellow men.
For all these reasons, I conclude that Matt. v. 26 does not support the
doctrine of endless torments, nor even refer to it.
580 B. You must not forget that the parable of the
unmerciful servant, in Matt. 18, represents the Lord as delivering that servant
to the tormentors till he should pay all the debt, which amounted to ten
thousand talents; and it is expressly said he had nothing to pay. He is,
therefore, cast into prison till he should pay, in suffering, what he could not
pay in money.
581 D. How long must the sufferings last to pay so
large a debt?
582 B. It could not be longer than the term of his
natural life.
583 D. How then do you understand the words " So
likewise shall my heavenly Father do to you?" How long does the
imprisonment last which God inflicts?
584 B. There can be no end to that.
585 D. You surprise me. Here is an imprisonment which,
you say, lasts for a limited time; and Christ says, "So likewise shall my
heavenly Father do." But according to you He does not do likewise. He
endlessly extends His imprisonment. On your system where is the force, or even
the truth, of the words, "So likewise?" It seems to me, if you are
right, that Christ should have said, " So infinitely more will my heavenly
Father do." Can the words " so likewise " mean this? I want to
see consistency of interpretation on both sides.
586 B. The force of " so likewise " is this:
As the master punished the unforgiving servant, so likewise my heavenly Father
will not forgive you, if you are unforgiving, but will punish you.
587 W. Then you give up the element of duration
altogether in the " so likewise?"
588 B. It would, indeed, seem so.
589 W. I quite agree with you on this point. The
parable does not bear upon the question of endless misery. A man owing ten
thousand talents, and having nothing to pay, and no one to pay for him, would,
according to oriental usage, be cast into prison for the term of his natural
life. He might die the next day, or not for many years, but death would end the
penalty; so likewise does God. He does not forgive an unforgiving person; but
on the contrary, after the resurrection of the wicked, He delivers such a one
to the tormentors, to be punished according to that, and other deeds, done in
the body; and his second death ends the penalty. We add very seriously to the
words of God in this parable when we bring to it the notion of endless misery.
590 D. Yes; in that I can see the parallel of the
" So likewise; " but I could not in the other. I can see the parable
does teach that the wicked shall be punished; but it does not teach endless
pain. If you prove that you must resort to other evidence, this does not apply
to the case.
591 B. The next noted passage I bring against you is
Rev. 14.10, 11, " And he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of
their torment ascended up forever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night
who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his
name." Who can mistake whether endless torments are taught here—fire and
brimstone, as instruments of torment; smoke ascending up forever and ever; no
rest day nor night; and all this in the presence of the holy angels and in the
presence of the Lamb of God.
592 W. I am constrained to say that this passage does
not teach endless torments, and was never intended to teach such a doctrine;
and the following are my reasons—I. Your interpretation of this figurative
language contradicts a plain unfigurative text which undoubtedly refers to the
future punishment of the wicked. You say that this passage describes the angels
and the Lamb as looking on day and night at the endless torments of the wicked.
Now 2 Thess. 1.9 expressly says " That they shall be punished, with
everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of
His power." This is striking language; and in the Greek it is stronger
than in the English Version. It declares that the wicked shall not be in the
presence of the Lamb, but away from Him, and out of His presence. There can be
no mistake in the language; it is as clear as plain words can make it. The
torment of the wicked shall put them away from His presence, and also away from
His glorious power. His presence and His power will not be with the punished
ones. And I would enquire where can they be, in existence, out of and away from
the presence and power of Him who fills all space, and is everywhere? If He is
everywhere, and they are not in His presence, where are they? Seeing 2 Thess. 1.9
is so clear and decisive on this point, we are prepared to suspect the
soundness of the interpretation put upon Rev. 14.10, 11.
II. This passage has nothing to do with the eternal
state of individuals; but with the ruin of a city and its inhabitants. In verse
8 we read, " Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she
made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." The
imagery of this description is evidently taken from the overthrow of Sodom, and
the destruction is of the same character, while the people are viewed in their
political capacity.
III. This is made clearer by the fact, that after the
overthrow of the place, and the burning of fire and brimstone, and the ascent
of the smoke, there are commercial persons yet living who will lament the loss.
And not only such as these, but kings, and kings, too, of the earth. In chap. 18.2,
the same fall of the mystic Babylon is mentioned, " Babylon the great is
fallen, is fallen." Then in verses 9, 10, the kings of the earth lament
her, standing afar off, for the fear of her torment, saying, " Alas, alas,
that great city Babylon, that mighty city!" And verse 11 says, " The
merchants of the earth—mark, the earth—shall weep and mourn over her; for no
man buys their merchandise anymore." How can all this apply to the eternal
state of the wicked?
IV. Notwithstanding the expressions, " forever
and ever " in the description of the overthrow, and to which you attach an
unlimited duration, verses 8 and 10 declare, in plain unmistakable words, that
the process of that overthrow shall be of limited duration, though it is to be
followed by an everlasting result. "Therefore, shall her plagues come in
one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with
fire; for strong is the Lord who judges her." The kings in verse 10 say,
"in, one hour is thy judgment come." If all these things are
considered, it seems to me utterly impossible to apply Rev. 14.10, 11 to the
endless torments of the wicked. And let it not be said that the judgments come
in a day, or an hour, but last forever; for verse 19 declares, that "in
one hour she is made desolate;" and verse 21 says, "She shall be
thrown down and be found no more at all." The process of being made
desolate is said to take place "in one hour;" but the result is to
endure forever. The city Babylon shall be thrown down, and made like a desert,
and never more be found at all.
593 B. I do not think you allow sufficient weight to
the fact that individual persons were in the overthrow.
594 D. I should, perhaps, have been perplexed at the
language of St. John if it had not been shown that precisely the same kind is
used by Isaiah in describing the overthrow of the Idumean nation, with Bozrah, their capital city.
595 W. Yes; and our inquiry should always be, not what
meaning, according to modern notions, can, by a little stretching, be put upon
a few words, apart from their context; but what is the force of them in the
estimation of the authors and of their first readers. I may be bold to say that
the modern notion never entered their minds.
596 D. I am well able to see the distinction. We
sometimes find, in court, an effort made to interpret an old act of parliament
according to present mode of thought, and, of course, this is not allowed.
597 B. I will state two things which interfere with
your view of the passage. The first is the word " torment," which
means an agony which is consciously felt.
This must refer to real men. The second is, that there
is a process in the fact that the smoke ascends up forever and ever.
598 W. As to the first, I would say, that there is
nothing in the word rendered " torment," which may not be applied to
the material part of a city. In Matt. 14.24, it is applied to a ship. "
But the ship was now in the midst of the sea tossed with waves; " that is,
tormented with waves. Then as to the second. I allow there is a process, and I
am ready to contend that there will be a process in the last day of punishing
the wicked; but I contend also that this process is not endless. Let me express
a hope that I have fully answered your arguments, and met all your difficulties.
I have shown that, according to Bible usage, the words " forever and ever
" invariably refer to the endlessness of the result, not the process.
599 D. You do not deny that the persons in the city
will be tormented?
600 W. Certainly not; they will be terribly tormented;
but their torment will not be endless.
601 B. I will not trouble you with Rev. 19.3; but Rev.
20.10 will, in my opinion, prove stubborn. " And the Devil, that deceived
them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the
false prophet are, and they shall be tormented day and night forever and
ever." Now let a few points be considered. Here, again, is the indefinite
phraseology, " forever and ever;" the Devil is cast into the lake of
fire, and there he is tormented day and night with the beast and false prophet.
602 D. Which part of the passage strikes you as
supporting the endless torments of wicked men?
603 B. The whole aspect of it looks that way—the false
prophet is in the lake at this period. Now, Rev. xix. 20 tells us, that he, as
well as the beast, was cast into it after the great battle, which was coeval
with the advent of Christ. Between the two periods, however, at least a
thousand years intervene, and yet here are the beast and the false prophet
still in the lake of fire; that is, they were put there at the beginning of the
thousand years, and we find them there at the end of it. They must, therefore,
have been burning there for at least a thousand years. Then into this same lake
of fire the Devil is cast; and I suppose it will not be avowed that he also
shall be extinguished.
604 W. There is, indeed, an interval of at least a
thousand years between the period when the prophet is cast into the lake of
fire, and the time when the Devil is cast there; but it is a mistake to suppose
that the beast and the false prophet remained in the flames from the one period
to the other. You will observe that in the Greek there is nothing corresponding
to the word " are," and, therefore, it is put in italics in the
English Version. The object of this clause, viz., "where the beast and the
false prophet " is to show that the Devil was cast into the same lake, as
were these two; and, inasmuch as it alludes to what was done a thousand years
before, the inserted verb ought to be in the past tense; thus—" where the
beast and the false prophet were cast." The sacred text, therefore, lends
no sanction whatever to the supposition that these two, whoever, or whatever,
they were, endured the burning flame for a thousand years.
605 D. Well, that seems reasonable, certainly; and if
we were translating a profane author, we should treat him as you do the sacred
Author.
606 B. But you have overlooked one very material point
which is utterly inconsistent with your rendering of were, instead of are. The
Greek word rendered, " shall be tormented," is in the plural (basanisthe-sontai), and therefore must include the beast
and the false prophet, as well as the Devil—all three shall be tormented day
and night. Your explanation makes the Devil only to be tormented, which would
require the verb in the singular, whereas it is, as you see, in the plural.
607 W. Pardon me, I had not overlooked the plurality
of the verb; and if I did not express the fact, it was because the argument did
not then require it; but it does now. I do not agree with you that the words
" beast and false prophet " are part of the nominative case to the
passive verb, " shall be tormented." They are the nominative to the
verb understood, and which you say should be are, but which I hold to be were.
The clause, " where the beast and the false prophet," is really a
parenthesis, and with the connection should be read thus, " And fire came
down from heaven and devoured them. And the Devil which deceived them, was cast
into the lake of fire and brimstone (where the beast and false prophet were
cast) and they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." The
persons who shall be tormented are Gog and Magog, with their countless hosts,
who had rebelled against the Lord's Christ.
608 D. What is the force of the words lake of fire?
609 W. They express the place, or the mode, or both
together, of the utter and final destruction of all that oppose the designs of
Almighty God. This revolt of Gog and Magog will be the last effort of the
Devil, the great deceiver, to make evil triumphant; but he can go no further,
he shall be cast, with his last deluded victims into the lake of fire, there to
be consumed, after which, in my opinion, there will be no more evil persons or
things in existence.
610 D. You do believe, then, that the Devil shall be
destroyed?
611 W. I do indeed. The Bible is clear upon the point;
but I should rather discuss it when we consider the meaning of destruction.
612 B. Yes; we have done no more yet than look at the
negative side of the question; you will now have to face the positive side, and
prove that the wicked shall become extinct, .as well as the Devil and his
angels, and all such.
613 A. Let us then discuss this part of the subject
next time.
614 B. Before we part, I should like to say, that I am
not satisfied with the way in which W. has disposed of the clause, "where
the beast and the false prophet are." It must be part of the nominative to
the plural verb, " shall be tormented."
615 W. Take again, then, your Greek Testament, and let
us see. The particle opou, " where," in
taken connection with the conjunction kai, " and," demands that the
words " beast and false prophet " should have a verb to themselves,
and shows that they cannot be part of the nominative to " shall be
tormented." If there were no " and," you might possibly read the
words thus, " and the Devil was cast into the lake of fire, where the
beast and the false prophet shall be tormented." But read, even in this
way, there would be this great difficulty, it would confine the torment to the
beast and the false prophet; whereas the special object of the verse is to
declare that the Devil shall be tormented, and that this shall be done in the
same lake of fire as the beast, etc. were cast into. In my judgment, this alone
would prove that the words " beast and false prophet " must have a
verb to themselves; but when we take "and " into account, it amounts
to certainty that my view is correct. I recur therefore to the arrangement
already given of the words.
616 A. I must say that you are right. Gog and Magog,
with their armies, and also the Devil, are the nominative to " shall be
tormented;" and " the beast and false prophet " are the
nominative to a verb understood, and which the context shows should be, "
were cast."
617 B. Still, whoever shall be the tormented ones,
there are the words " day and night, forever and ever." How can you
get over these words? What language can be stronger?
618 W. Pray believe me when I say, I have not the
slightest wish to get over any words. I only desire to find out their real
force in the Bible. Now, it has been shown that in several places of
Scripture—as, for instance, Is. 34—similar language is used, and even stronger,
where one really cannot avoid seeing that the words denoting endlessness do not
apply to the process of execution, but to the issue or effects of the
execution, and there is not one text to the contrary.
619 D. My mind is satisfied on that point, and I judge
that the time is near when any who will patiently go into the matter will be
satisfied also. I am struck with the slenderness of the alleged evidence in
favor of endless torments, and with the fact that it melts into nothingness
when brought into close cross-examination.
620 D. What is the precise point of discussion today?
621 A. It is, whether wicked men shall ultimately be
put out of living existence, and become as if they had never been born.
622 D. When is this supposed to take place?
623 A. After they have been raised from the dead, have
stood before the judgment seat of Christ, and have had sentence pronounced upon
them.
624 D. Is it the execution of the sentence which is
said to bring them to this end?
625 A. It is; the common view being that the sentence
is endlessly in process of execution, but the victim never executed; whereas
Mr. W.'s doctrine is that the process of execution is temporary, but the result
of it is endless; and he thus gets rid of the constant, endless torture of the
wicked.
626 D. This is certainly what our hearts would wish to
believe; but then our wishes are not the ground of faith.
627 W. Most true; but if these wishes, which I hold to
be a drop of God's beneficence, fall in with God's wishes and declarations, why
should we not indulge them, and look forward to their realization, and not
expel them from our breast, as if the very wish that sinners might not be in
endless pain were a crime instead of a right and proper feeling.
628 B. That their pains shall come to an end, is what
you have now to prove.
629 W. I cheerfully and thankfully undertake the
pleasing duty. My first proof is contained in Rev. 21.7, 8: " He that overcomes
shall inherit all these things, and I will be his God and he shall be my son;
but cowards in religion, and unbelievers, and those polluted with abominable
things, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone;
which is the second death." I rely upon the word death; and, lest I should
be mistaken, I at once explain, that by death I mean the antithesis of life, as
darkness is the antithesis of light; and I so take death to be the antithesis
of life, that where death is, there, there is not life; just as where darkness
is, there, there is not light.
630 B. This is the ordinary meaning of death, but I
contend that death has several meanings in the Bible; and that when the future
sufferings of the wicked are called death, it is not used in your sense, but in
one of the various meanings which we attach to it.
631 W. Tell me, then, what is your definition of
death?
632 B. In general, what you say; but when used for the
future state of the wicked, it means ruin and misery.
633 W. Do you mean that death is ruin and misery, or
that the effects of death are ruin and misery?
634 B. The former is what I mean.
635 W. Death, then, when applied to the future state
of the wicked, you define to be ruin and misery. The wicked are not dead, as
human beings, but they remain alive in a state of ruin and misery. What precise
idea would you attach to the word ruin when applied to a man alive? I can
understand that a man alive in misery is one very unhappy; but what is the
state of a man alive in ruin. I am aware that the language you use is that
generally employed, but it leaves no definite idea on my mind; I see what a
house in ruin means; but in this instance, it is a house no longer. You,
however, speak of a man in ruin, who remains a man still as much alive as he
ever was.
636 B. I have a general notion that in the other world
the wicked will be in a state of disaster; they will acutely feel their torture
and pain; and they will know their misery will be forever and ever, without any
chance of gaining any happiness whatever. I think this is ruin indeed, and this
is the second death.
637 W. In the case of these wicked ones you make death
to be the antithesis of happiness, not of life.
638 B. Just so. You make death to mean an end of
existence, which is not correct; for Dives and Lazarus both died, but they did
not cease to exist. St. Paul says, " sin revived and I died;" but he
did not cease to exist. There are many other examples of the same kind.
639 W. Pardon me, I have never said death is ceasing
to exist. This is one instance where our opponents alter our definitions and
propositions, making them something which can be refuted, and then, apparently,
thinking that they have refuted us; whereas they have not touched us. I say
that death is the end of life, or of a living existence, not of mere existence.
640 B. Why, what is the difference.
641 W. There is an exceeding difference, and if you
will consult the works of philologists you will find it out. All things have
existence, but all things have not life. A stone, or a table, exists; but it is
not alive. In the cases you cite, and in others of a like kind, I am quite
aware death does not mean an end of existence; but it does mean an end of life,
or of the living existence of that which death took hold of. When death occurs
to any one of man's lives, then that life is ended.
642 B. Death has various meanings in Scripture. It
sometimes means the death of the body, sometimes spiritual death, but it means
also the ruinous, miserable, and—if you please—living existence of the wicked
in another world.
643 W. Will you, then, give passages from the Bible to
show—I. That the word death has various meanings; and—II. Where it means a
living existence in misery?
644 B. For the first, take Matt. 8.22, " Follow
me and let the dead bury their dead." Eph. 2.1, " You hath He
quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." 1 Tim. 5.6, "She
that lives in pleasure is dead while she lived." In the first text there
are persons mentioned who are dead in one sense, and yet not dead in another;
for they are able to bury their dead relatives. The Ephesian Church had been
dead in sin, and she who lived in pleasure was dead at the same time. The
meaning in all these cases is, that the persons were spiritually dead.
645 W. Most readily do I allow that in all these cases
spiritual death is the thing spoken of; but what do you gain by this fact as to
the different senses of the word itself? There is a different application of
the word, but not a different sense. The question is, was there any spiritual
life in these persons? Were they not as really dead, as to spiritual life, as
any dead body could be as to physical life? While they were dead spiritually,
was it not as impossible for them to perform spiritual functions, as it is for
a dead body to perform bodily functions? Death is as real in the one case as in
the other, and the meaning of the word itself is the same in both applications
of it. Spiritual death is the antithesis of spiritual life, and where the one
is, there the other cannot be.
646 B. But you grant that the same man may be dead in
one sense, while he is not dead in another sense.
647 W. It seems to me that your phraseology is very
illogical and misleading. If we were speaking of the question in its more
practical aspect, I would let it pass; but as we are in argument, I deny two
senses of the word death; but I allow that one of the lives which God has put
into us may be dead while another is alive. Thus, in the cases you have cited,
the persons were alive bodily and intellectually, but they were not alive
spiritually.
648 D. I see it now: the word itself, whether in the
three passages, or in the one from Rev., is the same in meaning, though not in
the application. Death is the extinction of life, to whatever part of man it
may be applied. If the life of the body is gone, it is bodily death; if that of
the mind, it is intellectual death; and if the holy life is gone, it is
spiritual death. The idea is the same in all cases.
649 B. You do, then, allow that one part of man may be
dead while another is alive. May not this idea be applied to man's future
state?
650 W. Manifestly not. When the wicked are cast into
the lake of fire, that life, or those lives, become extinct which they had when
cast there. Now, they had not the holy spiritual life, so that this could not
expire in the lake. They had, in fact, nothing but what belongs to " the
natural man;" and each wicked man, in his natural condition, is cast alive
into the lake of fire, and there he wholly perishes. It is the death of all
which is cast into the fire, and no part is left alive, or can be so. Now, will
you give me specimens of texts where death means misery, or living in misery?
Will you, Mr. D., take this concordance, and see if you can find an instance?
651 D. Cruden does not
afford an instance. His fifth signification is what Mr. B. says; but he offers
no example of it except Rev. 2.11, where we find the phrase in dispute—"
second death;" and this of course proves nothing. I am afraid it is
another case where an
interpretation is given to a passage, and then taken
as if it were the passage itself.
652 W. It is a fact worthy of deep consideration, that
there is not one text where death means living in misery. There are several
which are so interpreted. But that is not the point; for it is the
interpretation which is to be proved by some plain passage; but the effort is
constantly made to prove an interpretation by an interpretation; and though, it
is most illogical, yet, strange to say, it is allowed to pass as demonstration.
653 D. Well, but it does really seem to be past belief
that we all should go on thinking that death, when applied to the future state
of the wicked, means living in misery, and then that it should turn out there
is not a single text to prove it.
654 W. You must not, however, imagine that the
advocates of endless torments have not what they deem proof for their
interpretation. They say that the soul of the wicked is immortal and cannot
die, that as the wicked cannot spend their immortality in heaven, they must
spend it in hell, the place of misery. Then, finding that the last state of the
wicked is called death, they identify a life in misery with death, and so
interpret death as meaning living in misery.
655 D. But all this is reasoning in a circle, and like
taking one presumption to prove another presumption; as if two presumptions
made a certainty.
656 W. Let me point out, that such an interpretation
of death is inconsistent with several plain texts of Scripture. Isaiah xxv. 8,
" He will swallow up death in victory." Or, to give the more correct
rendering of Lowth, " He shall utterly destroy
death forever." 1 Cor. 15.25-27, " For He must reign till He hath put
all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death." Rev. 21, " And there shall be no more death." Hosea 13.14,
" O death, I will be thy plagues! O grave, I will be thy destruction:
repentance shall be hid from mine eyes." 1 Cor. 15.54, 55, " Then
shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in
victory. O death, where is thy sting! O grave, where is thy victory!" Can
any language be more explicit than these varied expressions, that death itself
shall come to an end. But here is an interpretation—not a text remember —which
says death shall have no end, that it means living forever in misery. Whatever
may be the definition given of death, whether mine or yours, God's Book
declares in unmistakable words, "There shall be no more death."
Surely our faith ought to believe it!
657 D. Are there no texts which indicate what the
meaning is which we ought to attach to death?
658 W. Yes, there are several. We cannot do better
than begin at the beginning, and consider the penalty which was originally
attached to sin. " In the day thou eats thereof thou shalt surely
die." As this threat of death was intended to deter from disobedience,
Adam doubtless understood its nature, and felt a dread of it. To him death was
something to be dreaded and avoided.
659 D. How would Adam learn what death was, and whence
arose his feeling of dread?"
660 A. He could have learnt the nature of the penalty
only from the instructions of God; or from examples which he might have seen of
death among the brute creation; or from both. From the latter he would see the
difference between a living animal and a dead animal. This would give him some
notion; but, as man had a compound nature, so, I apprehend, he could not get a
full and adequate idea of death with respect to himself without instruction
from God; and we cannot help inferring, that as man was liable to a great
calamity, so God would teach him what it was, and how he might avoid it. We may
be certain, also, that Adam in innocence had a longing for life and immortality
more intense than any felt by us his descendants.
661 D. Your remarks are certainly very just.
662 W. On your principles you would suppose that God
taught Adam that it might be possible for him to live forever in misery, and
that this was one form of death concerning which God taught him.
663 B. I do not shrink from that consequence of my
belief. If Adam became a sinner, he would be liable to eternal death in endless
misery; and I do not see why his Divine Instructor should not tell him of it.
664 W. Your supposition that God taught Adam that the
final punishment of sin was endless torments, is consistent with your
principles; but I greatly demur whether Adam was ever taught any such idea of
death. Not to say, just now, that it is contradicted by the whole of the Bible,
it appears to me utterly inconsistent with two passages in Gen. 3, both of
which are connected with the penalty due to sin. I will read verses 22-24,
" And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of Us to know
good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live forever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the
Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So He drove out the
man: and He placed, at the east of the garden of Eden, cherubims,
and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of
life." Now, let me direct attention to a few points contained in this
passage:—I. Man's condition is not now what it was. He was intended for
immortality; but he had incurred the threatened penalty of death, and the
sentence of death had formally been pronounced upon him. He was now mortal, and
this it was which made it both necessary and desirable that precautions should
be taken. II. So necessary and important did God think that some measure should
be adopted, that He took counsel with the other divine persons as He did when
He made man. Humanly speaking, the disobedience of Adam had caused a perplexity,
and something must be done to show him that he needed a fresh grant of grace
and immortality. Therefore—III. After the Divine council, and in pursuance to
its decision, God drove the guilty pair from the garden, lest they should eat
of the tree of life and live forever.
665 D. Did this tree impart life?
666 W. We cannot believe that; for to do this was the
province of the Spirit of God. Seeing, however, it was a vegetable fruit, it
was able to contribute towards the support of bodily life; and it would seem
God had ordained that the eating of this fruit should be a kind of sacramental
assurance to the worthy recipient that he should live forever, if he fulfilled
the conditions imposed. Adam had violated the conditions, and had become
mortal, and therefore he could not be allowed to receive the assurance of life;
for that would have been making his fallen condition the same as the unfallen,
and would have given the same blessing or privilege to disobedience as to
holiness. This would have compromised God's truth, and therefore He not only
drove man out of Paradise, but He placed there cherubims
and a flaming sword to prevent the possibility of Adam gaining any access to
the tree. Now, if he had an intrinsic immortality, why take such precautions
lest he should live forever? Of what use could the precautions be if of his own
nature he is immortal and must live forever? Now what was this act of Jehovah
but a plain testimony that man is mortal? In other words, that his doom is the
opposite of living forever; that is, that he shall die forever, without any
chance of coming to life again. Now let this significant transaction of Jehovah
be weighed, and think whether it is at all consistent with your idea of death,
and which idea, you say, God taught to Adam, that its full ultimate meaning is
to live forever in misery.
667 D. This passage never struck me in this way
before. I took it as a simple fact; but I own I never reflected on its deep and
practical bearing.
668 W. All the Word of God is worthy of the deepest
thought. The other verses I alluded to contain what I might well call God's own
explanation of His threatened penalty (Gen. 3.19). He had said: " In the
day thou eats thereof, thou shalt surely die." Man did eat, and now God
pronounces the sentence: " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread
till thou return to the ground; for out of it thou was taken; for dust thou
art, and unto dust thou shalt return." Death was the penalty, and when,
according to the penalty, sentence was pronounced, it was in the words, "
To dust thou shalt return." Death is the body returning to dust as it was,
when the spirit returns to God who gave it. Now let me ask whether we can
believe, in the face of these two transactions of Jehovah, that He taught man
that the idea he must attach to the word death was living forever in misery?
669 A. I must, in candour,
own that in my judgment your argument from these passages cannot be disturbed.
670 D. It seems to me, too, that if these texts do not
teach extinction they teach what is uncommonly like it.
671 W. In seeking still what the idea is which we must
attach to death, let us turn to Rom. vi, The words, death and dead, are used
sixteen times in this chapter. In fifteen of the instances you would take it in
what you consider the ordinary sense; but in the sixteenth you attach to the
word a totally different idea. " The wages of sin is death," is the
instance: and here you say, the idea of death is not the ending of life, as in
the other instances, but the continuance of life spent in endless misery; and
this notwithstanding a single text cannot be adduced where the idea of death is
an endless living existence in misery. Of course it must be a terribly
miserable thing to die the second death,
but that is not the point. You do not say that to die
is miserable, but that one sense of the word itself is an endless living in
misery.
672 D. If I understand you aright, you contend that
death means that state of man when life has left his body, and the body itself
is reduced to its original earth, and the spirit returned to God.
673 W. You have exactly expressed my sentiments. This
is God's explanation of death; or, as it is expressed in Job, it is God's
gathering from mankind His Spirit when men return to their dust. Let us now
turn to Eze. 18, where death and die are so often used, and where, in many
places, and in various forms of words, it is said, " The soul that sinned,
it shall die."
674 B. But you have told us that nephesh is used for
person; so that, according to you, this text is, " the person that sinned,
he shall die."
675 W. True; but you must remember that person
includes the nephesh or soul; therefore, to express the text fully, it is,
" The person, including the body and soul, that sinned, he shall
die."
676 D. How does this chapter bear on the question
before us?
677 W. In two particulars. First I want to show that
the death here meant is the second death of the text in Rev. 21, from which we
started.
678 D. How does that appear?
679 W. Because it is a death which men can avoid, and
which God does not wish to inflict. " Why will ye die?" He asks, ver.
31; and He asks also, ver. 23, 32, " Have I any pleasure at all that the
wicked should die, saith the Lord God." " For I have no pleasure in
the death of him that dies; wherefore turn and live ye." Now this language
cannot apply to the first death of the body, and therefore the second death is
that which is meant.
680 A. Yes, I think we must assent to that. Still,
what is the idea to be attached, in this chapter, to death?
681 W. This is the next thing I wish to point out. You
will observe that throughout this chapter death is the antithesis to life.
682 B. Well, life is happiness, and death is misery.
Is not there an antithesis here?
683 W. This is an interpretation, and begs the
question at issue. I cannot allow that life means happiness. I am aware that a
man must be alive in order to be happy; still the word life does not mean
happiness. Many a man now has life, but he has not happiness. In this, and many
other such passages, you destroy the antithesis unless you allow that death is
the extinction of life, as life expresses the condition of one who is not dead
but alive. I trust I shall not be considered presumptuous, if I conclude that
all this evidence proves that the second death of Rev. 21.8 can mean no less
than the extinction of man's living existence; remembering, at the same time,
that not a single passage has been, or can be, adduced, which shows that death
means misery.
684 D. I own I do not see how your proofs can be
overturned; and it is evident to me that we have not duly studied the matter or
we should have seen all this before.
685 W. The doctrine of extinction does not rest merely
on the word death, though, if it did, it would be enough. The evidence in its favor
is cumulative, and the Bible tells us of the process by which the second death
of the wicked shall be brought about. It says that the wicked shall be
destroyed, shall perish, shall be consumed, shall not be, shall be extinct,
shall be extinguished like the flame of a candle, and shall be burnt up like
chaff and tares. As a text, around which others may be grouped, I read, 2
Thess. 1.7-9, " The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His
mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of
His power. I rely upon the words " everlasting destruction," and I
contend that the sinners, who shall be the subjects of destruction, shall be
brought to an end, as if they had never been born.
686 B. That destruction sometimes means bringing a
thing to an end I allow; but I stoutly deny that it means this when applied to
human beings; for it would make the Bible utter the greatest absurdities. Take
a few texts and read them in the light of your meaning of the word destroy.
" I am not sent but to the annihilated sheep of the house of Israel."
" The Son of Man is come to save that which was annihilated." "
If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are annihilated." "
Annihilate not him, with thy meat, for whom Christ died." If you are
right, this reading is correct, but the utter absurdity of it is its
refutation.
687 D. Does Mr. W. mean by destruction what we
generally mean by annihilation?
688 W. Far from it. I invariably use the word extinction;
but opponents will attribute to us the word annihilation, and then argue as if
we used it.
689 B. But is not this a refining upon words, and does
it not savor of logomachy?
690 W. By no means. The distinction between the two is
great: extinction is the separation or destruction of the parts, which compose
an organized being; whereas annihilation is the destruction of the particles or
atoms of which the various parts are composed; and I constantly let it be known
that this is the sense in which I use extinction, lest any should mistake me;
and I never, in this controversy, use the word annihilation. As far as
experiments have yet gone, there is no such thing as annihilation, but
extinction is perpetually occurring.
691 D. Give an illustration or two, if you can.
692 W. If this table were knocked to pieces, it would
be the separation of its parts, and the destruction of it, as a table; but the
material, of which it is made, would not be destroyed. If the material be
burnt, it is destroyed as wood, and is made to undergo a great change. It is
wood no longer, but ashes, or, to speak scientifically, ashes and invisible
gas. Not an atom, however, is annihilated. Or, pull to pieces this beautiful
rose. It is destroyed and is a flower no longer. Its medium of life was taken
away when it was cut from the bush, and the process of decay then began; but
when it is entirely decayed and rotten, it is not annihilated, only reduced to
its earthy mold. So I say of man, he is destroyed in the lake of fire, and his
living existence ends. His body, however, is earthy matter, and in the fire,
and by the fire, this body is reduced to ashes; but the particles of which it
was composed are not annihilated. Besides this, the spirit which made the
resurrection body alive, is again gathered by God, and again it returns to Him,
as at the first death in this world; and, as we have seen, this is not
destroyed or lost; so that the use of the word annihilation, with respect to
man, is, as Mr. B. says, truly absurd; but we extinctionists
are not answerable for the absurdity; and any reasoning arising from it does
not, as you will see, touch our argument for extinction. I adopt the word
extinction because it is a Bible expression in Isaiah 43.17, where, speaking of
the wicked, it is said, " They are extinct, they are quenched as
tow."
693 D. I must say that I cannot see either the logic
or the fairness of the argument arising from substituting annihilation for
extinction. It is like persons making a proposition of their own, then overturning
it, and then supposing that they had overturned yours: let us hold the balance
true. I would add, however, that many of those who do it are unconscious of it.
694 W. Well, then, having settled the meaning in which
we use the words extinction and destruction, I repeat that the text I quoted
proves that the wicked shall come to an end, and be as if they had never been
born.
695 B. Surely you have forgotten the epithet "
everlasting." It is not destruction only, but " everlasting
destruction," and thus the idea of endless continuance is involved.
696 W. If you mean an endless continuance of the state
indicated by destruction, I agree with you; but this you will remember does not
involve endless misery, nor an endless living existence in conscious pain; for
I must contend that here too we see an endless result, not an endless
process—not an endless act of the process of destroying, but an irreversible
irretrievable result.
697 B. I have not yet allowed your distinction; I
consider it imaginary, not real.
698 D. In my judgment you have proved the distinction
in all the examples hitherto; see if you can logically and Scripturally do it
in this. We want to know truth and fact.
699 W. I argue it on two grounds. First, the meaning
of the word itself. Destruction involves the idea that the destroying process
is accomplished, not that it is still going on. When the rose has been picked
to pieces, then, as a flower, it is destroyed, not before. The destruction of
the rose denotes that the process of destroying is finished, and as it will
never be a rose again, so it is eternal destruction.
700 B. But I cannot allow you to draw a parallel
between the destruction of a flower and the destruction of a man. When a rose
is destroyed, there is an end of it, not so the man; he is immortal, and must
live for
ever.
701 W. I do not go out of the Bible for illustration.
Hear what St. James says, 1.11, " For the sun is no sooner risen, with a
burning heat, but it withered the grass, and the flower thereof falls, and the
grace of the fashion of it perished: so also shall the rich man fade away in
his ways." Here is the parallel between the end of a flower and the end of
a rich man, drawn by an Apostle; and you will recollect there are other
instances of the same kind in the Bible. I would, however, ask Mr. B. to what
time he refers when he says there is not an end of man: does he refer to the
period when man is cast into the lake of fire?
702 B. To that time, of course.
703 W. Then pardon me if I say you beg the question.
You take for granted the very point in controversy. I will return, therefore,
to the process of proof. I was showing that destruction denoted an act
accomplished, not an act in process of accomplishment, and I was illustrating
that idea. I argue, that when it is declared that sinners shall be punished
with destruction, it denotes that the act of destroying is finished. The body
is reduced to its original atoms; it is alive no longer, and the spirit which
kept it alive has returned to God who gave it; and as it is eternal
destruction, so there shall be no other resurrection, or hope of resuscitation.
Sinners shall be destroyed forever without any hope of recovery. It will be an
endless death, though not an endless dying, but never dead; an eternal
destruction, though not an eternal process of destroying without bringing the
victim to destruction.
704 A. Whatever we may say theologically, yet,
philologically speaking, there is nothing against your explanation of the words
eternal destruction.
705 W. The second ground upon which I argue for an
eternal result is, that this punishment of destruction issues in the punished
ones being put out of, away from, the presence of God. We have already
considered this part of the text, when showing that Rev. 14.10, 11 cannot be
applied to the future state of individuals. Let us now look at it still
further. I argue, that if the wicked are punished with everlasting destruction
from the presence of the Lord, then they are nowhere.
706 B. One of our bishops has shown that " from
the presence " marks separation from the Lord; and seems to point out an
existence apart from the Source of light and life. " They shall pay the
penalty of everlasting destruction away from the presence of the Lord." So
that it is the act of punishing that takes place apart from the presence of the
Lord, not so much the persons of the punished ones.
707 D. I think you would find it rather hard to prove
that the punished one is not where his punishment takes place. If the
punishment is inflicted away from the presence of the Lord, then the punished
person must be away also. Where is that? and who is the punisher?
708 B. That is easily answered. Hell is the place of
punishment, and the Devil is the punisher.
709 N. We can know nothing as to who the punisher is
except from the Bible. I know that the everlasting fire is prepared for the
Devil and his angels; but can you quote a passage which proves that the Devil
is the punisher of the wicked there.
710. B. I cannot just now recollect one, but I should
say there are several.
710 A. I believe I may confidently say there is not
one; and I am afraid it is an instance of the many things on this subject which
we take for granted, because we have heard it repeated perpetually from our
childhood; and I begin to see, with sorrow, that but few of us search and see
whether these things are so.
711 W. Mr. B. says that the words, " from the
presence of the Lord," seem to point out an existence apart from the
Source of light and life. By existence he must mean, not that which unorganized
matter has, but living existence, such as that which pertains to man. Now,
suffer me to ask, whether, on serious reflection, he really thinks that any
living creature can live separate and apart from the Source of life? Can any
creature be self-sustained, any more than self-created? Does not St. Paul say,
" all things subsist in Him?" (Col. 1.17); and that it is " in
Him we live and move and have our being?" (Acts 17) If men have an endless
living existence in hell, it can be kept up only by His perpetually-sustaining
power; nay, miraculous power; for if fire does not consume the bodies of men,
it must be by a perpetual miracle wrought by God, in order to keep them alive
to punish them. Mr. B.'s theory requires the supposition; but is it true or
possible?
712 A. I may answer for him that it is not true, nor
possible, for anyone to live anywhere, except by the sustaining power of God.
713 W. I adhere, then, to my words, that the passage
before us shows that the punishment of everlasting destruction puts the sinner
out of the presence of God, and where God is not. Where is it that God is not?
If there is any corner of space in the whole universe where God is not, then He
is not the infinite God; that is, God is not God at all.
714 D. Yes, certainly, that is the just and logical
consequence of supposing that sinners shall be punished endlessly out of the
presence of the Lord, or from His presence. They cannot be where God, or the
Lord, is not; and if they are out of His presence, then they are nowhere; that
is, they are no longer alive anywhere. I see, the word destruction must mean a
finished act of extinction. In your proof passage it is applied to wicked men,
and therefore it must denote that their extinction shall, some
day, be an accomplished act. The philology of the Bible, and common
logic, demand that I should say this; and if theology, so-called, is against
it, then let theology be reformed and made consistent with the Bible. I think,
however, the defect here is that Mr. W. rests his proof upon one single passage
of the Bible.
715 W. Excuse me; I have no such intention. I quoted
the one we have discussed, because it afforded a good example from which to
extract the precise meaning of destruction as .used in the Holy Scriptures.
There are many other texts to which I beg your attention, and they are far from
being all which the Bible contains. The language is varied, but the meaning is
the same:—
Psalm 37.9, 10, 20, 28, 38: " For evildoers-
shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the
earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be (lit., there shall
not be a wicked man'): yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, but it shall
not be. But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as
the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. His
saints are preserved forever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. But
the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be
cut off. But the salvation of the righteous is of the Lord."
We can hardly fail to see the force of these words.
"Wicked men shall be so utterly destroyed that not one shall be found;
they shall come to an end, as the fat of lambs when burnt up; and as the smoke
when it is dispersed. If the Spirit did not wish to teach the final extinction
of the wicked, is it not strange that He should use language which exactly and
strongly expresses it?
716 B. These passages do not refer to the final state
of the wicked in another world; but to the time when they shall be destroyed in
this world, and cut off by death.
717 W. Can you give any proof of what you assert?
718 B. We never think of applying it otherwise.
Besides, the earth is mentioned, in a few places, and we may therefore suppose
that it is from this earth that they shall be cut off by physical death.
719 W. I will point out to you, from the psalm itself,
that you cannot so restrict it. The wicked are to be cut off from an earth
which the righteous are to inherit, in which they shall be preserved forever,
and where they shall have abundance of peace and prosperity. Let me read to you
verses 9, 11, 22, 28, 29, and you will perceive the contrast
For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait
upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and there
shall not be a wicked man, . . . but the meek shall inherit the earth, and
shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. For such as are blessed of
Him shall inherit the earth; and they that are nursed of Him shall be cut off.
For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsakes not His saints; they are preserved
forever: but the seed of the wicked one shall be cut off. The righteous shall
inherit the land, and dwell therein forever."
Now, I ask, when the wicked are taken out of this
world by death, do the righteous remain in it, and remain in it forever? Do not
the righteous die out of this world as well as the wicked? And have the
righteous this promised abundance of peace in this world? It is plain that this
psalm refers to the results of the great judgment-day.
720 D. But how does it apply to that time? We are
usually taught that then the good shall go to heaven, the bad to hell, and the
earth altogether be burnt up.
721 W. We must not now enter upon that glorious
prospect when God's kingdom shall have come, and when His will shall be done
upon earth as it is in heaven. To this time it is that the saints who sing the
new song in Rev. v. refer when they say, " We shall reign upon the
earth." Before then the wicked shall have been cut off from the earth, the
tares, and all things that offend shall have been gathered out of His kingdom.
Then shall the earth bring forth her increase; the people will praise God; yea,
all the people. He will give us His blessing, and then shall this psalm be
fulfilled. The wicked shall not be, they shall be cut off, and the meek shall
inherit the earth. " Blessed are the meek," saith Christ, " for
they shall inherit the earth."
722 D. This is a glorious prospect for the righteous.
Have you any more texts on the main subject?
723 W. I invite your attention to the following
Is. 1.27-31: "Zion shall be redeemed with
judgment, and her converts with righteousness; but the destruction of the
sinners and of the transgressors shall be together, and they that forsake the
Lord shall be ashamed. . . . For they shall be as an oak whose leaf faded, and
as a garden that hath no water. And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker
of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench
them."
Obadiah 16, 17 " The heathen . . . shall be as
though they had not been; but upon Mount Zion shall be deliverance."
Matt. 3.12: " He will gather His wheat into His
garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.'!
Matt. 10.28: " Fear Him who is able to destroy
both body and soul in Gehenna."
Matt. 13.30, 42, 50: " Gather ye together first
the tares, and bind them in bundles and burn them; but gather the wheat into my
barn. And shall cast them into a furnace of fire there shall be wailing and
gnashing of teeth."
Luke 17.33: "Whosoever shall seek to save his
life (psuchen) shall lose it; and whosoever shall
lose his life (psuchen) shall preserve it."
John 12.25: " He that loveth his life (psuchen) shall lose it; and be that hates his life (psuchen) in this world, shall keep it unto life (zoen) eternal."
Rom. 2.12: " For as many as have sinned without
law shall also perish without law."
Phil. 3.19: " Whose end is destruction."
Heb. 10.27: "A certain looking for of judgment
and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries."
Heb. 12.29: " For our God is a consuming
fire."
Now what a variety of expression is here. Stronger
language cannot be found. The wicked shall be destroyed; shall be devoured;
shall be as though they had not been; shall utterly perish; shall be consumed;
shall be burnt up, like chaff. Now, on the supposition that you are right, that
the wicked shall live in endless torments, is it not an amazing thing that God
should use words whose meaning is that the wicked shall come utterly to an end,
and not remain in living existence? Get a man, who is ignorant of this
controversy, and who is no theologian, but a mere philologist and grammarian,
and let him discourse on the endless torments of the wicked,—would he use the
words and language contained in the texts we have heard? It is certain he would
not. But let it be supposed for a moment that God meant to teach us the
ultimate extinction of the wicked, could He use language more suitable and
forcible? When He says that they shall be destroyed, can He mean that they
shall be preserved? When He says they shall die, can He mean that they shall
continue in living existence, and be miserable? When He says they shall be
burnt up like tares cast into fire, can He mean the very opposite? If a human
author were treated in this way, could we make sense or reason out of him? Can
the All-wise Author intend that we should take His words according to
contraries, without giving us a single hint of it? I pray you, is it not
putting light for darkness, and darkness for light? Nay, let me ask, is it not,
in reality, handling the Word of God deceitfully, though it may not be so
recognized?
724 D. Now that I allow myself calmly to think, I
certainly am amazed that the common opinion could ever have gained credit. The
passage 2 Pe. 2 is very strong and decisive. The wicked shall utterly perish,
as much as the brutes who are intended to perish. Is the same Greek word used,
in that passage, in reference to man, which is used in reference to the brutes?
725 W. The same; but with the very significant
addition to the verb, of a preposition, to intensify it, in the case of man;
and, therefore, it is rendered "utterly perish." And, as in the next
verse, the Apostle adds, " And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness,"
he must mean that this utter perishing is that reward.
726 B. Still I must contend that this class of words
has more senses than one in the Bible. Take a single instance out of many. Our
Lord speaks of new wine, put into old bottles, which then perish. Here it is
their usefulness which is at an end, not their existence. May we not say the
same of man, that he has similarly perished, but that his existence is not
ended?
727 W. You evidently mean that the material, of which
the bottles are made, has not perished. I allow this point; but when they are
burst, are they bottles still, and alile, as before,
to hold wine? Our Lord does not intimate that the material has perished; but He
does say the bottles, as bottles, are perished. I say the same of wicked men:
they perish as men; and are men no longer; they are gone out of living
existence.
728 D. Since I have attended these discussions, I have
seen two or three small books, in which fallacies of this kind abound. I am
amazed at the lack of accurate thought on the part of the writers. They appear
to see no difference between an organized living being, and mere existence.
Life may be gone, say they, and death be present; but there is not an end of
existence. Consistent argument requires they should say, " Life may be
gone, and death may be present; but there is not an end of Life." But they
would see the absurdity and contradiction of this form of argument, and,
therefore, they never adopt it.
729 B. Take, then, your own form of words. Man dies,
and his body is buried, but he does not cease to live; for he is living in the
separate state.
730 D. The question I would ask is this,—Is the dead
body really dead, or is it still in living existence? Can the same thing be
dead and alive at the same time?
731 B. It is really dead, and it has no life.
732 D. But it has existence, has it not?
733 B. Why, yes, for it decomposes and returns to
earth again, and it has that kind of existence which dust has.
734 D. We have seen that the Bible calls the
destruction of the wicked, in the last day, by the name of death. When, at that
time, the body is dead, does it, according to you, retain a living existence,
or is it again destroyed, and reduced to dust?
735 B. It will be kept alive in torment then.
736 D. Then where is the death and destruction?
737 B. It is the usual language of theology. The
wicked man is then finally lost, ruined, and in misery; and we call this death
and destruction.
738 D. We all know this is the language of theology;
but the precise question now is, What is the idea which the Bible attaches to
death and destruction? W. says death is the opposite of life? and destruction
denotes the finishing of an act by which a thing or person is brought to an
end. I want to get a clear idea by a consistent logic.
739 B. Well, I have adopted your own phraseology, and
have instanced the first death, when one part of man is dead and another part
is in living existence.
740 D. You should carry on the parallel, and say,
" at the second death also one part of man is dead, but another part is in
living existence."
741 B. But I cannot allow this parallel.
742 D. Then what becomes of your illustrative proof?
You say, At the first death one part of man dies, and another lives; but at the
second no part dies, as at the first death; but the whole man lives on in
misery, and he is not destroyed at all. How does the fact that one part of man
remains in living existence, after the first death, prove that the whole of him
remains in living existence at, and after, the second death?
743 B. We do not attach exactly the same idea to the
death and destruction of the body, at and after the second death, as we do to
it at the first. Life does leave the body at the first death; but it does not
at the second, or it would have no capacity for pain.
744 D. With double reason, then, I ask, Where is your
illustration and proof? It utterly breaks down, exactly where your argument
requires it; and, in such a case, it is neither proof nor illustration. Besides
this, where is your Bible warrant for using death, not only in different
senses, but in absolutely contradictory ones?
745 B. I cannot produce a positive text it seems; but
I will not believe that all Christian divines, in all ages, would hold my
notion of death and destruction, if they had not thought they had good reason
for it. I would appeal to the candor of W., if death and destruction are not
used, in Luke 15.32, in a sense different from that in which he uses them:
" This thy brother was dead, and is alive again, he was lost and is
found." There are several other instances of the same kind.
746 W. Pray do not think me lacking in candor if I say
that these words in this passage are used exactly as I use them. They relate to
the prodigal's religious state with respect to his father, and his father's
home. He was dead in trespasses and sins, and he was lost or destroyed from his
father's home and family. As long as he was spiritually dead he had no
spiritual life; and as long as he was in the far country, and was joined to the
citizen there, he was not in his father's home, but lost to it. He was really
spiritually dead and destroyed.
747 B. But there was not an end of him.
748 W. You are not to the point. There was an end to
his spiritual life, and to his spiritual union and communion with his father
and family.
749 B. Still I say there was not an end to his
spiritual state, for he was alive and found again.
750 W. Yes; God mercifully brought him nigh by the
blood of the Lamb; and if He had not done so he would have been dead and
destroyed forever. And, with respect to the wicked after the second death, the
question is not whether God is able to bring them back, but whether He will do
so. He has expressly said, however, that He will punish the finally impenitent
with everlasting destruction. The same answer might be given to the other
texts, usually adduced to show that the word to destroy does not always mean to
bring to an end; such as the lost sheep and lost piece of silver.
751 B. Well; I do fearlessly say the sheep was all the
time alive, and the piece of silver was all the while in existence.
752 W. True; but not to the point. The point is, that
the sheep was really and truly lost to the possession and fold of the shepherd,
and the piece of silver as truly lost to the possession of the woman; and if
they had not severally sought for, and found their lost property, it would have
been lost or destroyed forever. My firm conviction, after long and close
investigation, is that in every place were destroy, perish, and such words are
found, the idea is that some thing, or some person
has come to an end, or shall come to an end.
753 D. You say that this, and this only, is the Bible
idea; how then was it possible for a different and even contradictory notion to
be originated, and to gain currency among believers in the Bible?
754 W. There is the mystery and wonder. The foundation
of it was a belief in the Platonic doctrine of the innate immortality of the
soul. The soul cannot die and be destroyed, said certain who were Platonic
philosophers, as well as Christians. But then, the Bible declared that the soul
and body of the wicked should be destroyed and die; and instead of giving up
either Platonic philosophy or the Bible, they retained both, and altered the
meaning of such words as destroy and die when applied to the final state of
man, and made a system of theology in accordance with this non-natural meaning
of important words. They thus corrupted the religion of Christ; it is corrupted
still; and if He were to come now, He would not find His pure faith on earth. I
say this with deep sorrow, but I dare not keep silence.
755 D. If you are not true, a great responsibility
rests upon you; if you are, an awful and tremendous one rests on us. Let us
part to-day, and reflect on what we have heard.
756 W. What point shall we take next.
757 A. Let us hear what you have to say on the
destruction of the Devil and his angels, and of evil things as well as persons.
758 D. What is the subject of discussion to-day?
759 A. It is whether Satan and his angels shall be
destroyed, and, also, whether all evil things shall be destroyed.
760 D. I suppose the Bible will still be the textbook;
for no other can give any information on the question which can be relied on.
761 W. The Bible speaks with authority, and faith is
bound to receive its utterances. Our province is to understand what it does
say? and then believe it. The proposition which I would submit is, that God has
said, He will bring to an end the living existence of the Devil, so that he
also shall be as if he never had been.
762 D. Is the evidence as satisfactory as that in the
case of wicked men?
763 W. It is not so full, but, in my judgment, it is
as satisfactory. The first passage I adduce is that which contains the original
sentence, passed upon him by God in Paradise: " I will put enmity between
thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy
head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Gen. 3.15.) I do not consider that
the idea we attach to the word bruise is so strong as the Hebrew word shooph, which means to break or crush; so that the truth
here declared is, that Jesus the Seed of the Woman, and the Son of God, shall
crush the head of the serpent; and I thus argue, that, as a serpent is put out
of living existence, when its head is crushed, so Jesus shall do that to the
Devil, which shall put him out of living existence. The language cannot mean
less than this.
764 B. May it not simply mean that he shall be opposed
and foiled, as to his designs and doings?
765 W. That he shall be thus foiled I do not doubt;
but this is not the force of these words, but of the other words, "I will
put enmity between thee and the woman," which would primarily apply to the
personal Eve, but which might well apply, typically, to the faithful Church of
God in all ages. Between the devil and these faithful ones, there is continual
hostility; and they are instrumental in counteracting his 'operations, though
they can never be wholly or finally successful. The final triumph is destined
for the Son of God, who will utterly destroy the author of evil, the great
enemy of God and man: " He shall crush thy head."
766 D. Such, certainly, is the meaning of the words;
for I cannot see how the head of a serpent can be crushed without killing it as
dead as a stone; and as it is not the animal serpent which is meant, but the
Devil himself, I cannot see how the words can have any application to him,
except to show us that some day his life too shall
end. But it is so thoroughly contrary to all we have ever heard, that it seems
hard to believe it. Have you any texts which confirm your view of this passage?
767 W. Yes; three or four. I refer you to Rom. 16.20,
" The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." Here
is an evident reference to Gen. 3, and the force of suntripsei,
rendered "bruise," can scarcely be mistaken. In Mark 5.4 it is
rendered " broken in pieces," and in Rev. 2.27, " broken to
shivers, as the vessels of a potter; " language this which denotes entire
destruction. Satan is aware of his doom, as learnt in Paradise, from God's
terrible sentence, in which he believes, and on account of which he trembles.
(James 2.19.) This is evident from Luke 4.34, where the Devil utters these
remarkable words, " Let us alone; what have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus
of Nazareth? art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art; the Holy
One of God." The Devil recognized the All-conquering Seed of the Woman,
who was to crush his head, and destroy him. St. Paul gives his testimony to the
same thing, Heb. 2.14, 15: " Forasmuch, then, as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same;
in order that, by means of death, He might destroy him that had the power of
death, that is the Devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all
their lifetime subject to bondage." Here we see the Son of God becoming
the seed of the woman, a partaker of flesh and blood, on purpose to deliver His
people, and destroy the Devil; and as surely, and certainly, as He will do the
former, so certainly and surely will He do the latter; for " the mouth of the
Lord hath spoken it." Now, I would ask, if God intended to put an end to
the Devil, could He have used clearer language? If He did not, is it not
marvelous that He should have used, concerning the Devil, such exterminating
language as this? Surely it is our duty to believe the plain words of God.
768 D. I, for one, will believe. The guide of a
Christian's faith is not what we think likely or unlikely, but the Word of God;
and the passages you have read, I must say, are most convincing.
769 B. But may you not be now looking at these
passages in a wrong light.
770 D. I think not; but what do you deem the right
light?
771 B. Why we are all aware how often the devils are
called spirits, and how can spirits be destroyed and brought to an end?
772 D. Well, where is the difficulty? The Bible says,
in one place, the devils are spirits, and in another place that the devils are
to be destroyed. Why should I not believe both?
773 B. But is it not a contradiction?
774 D. Possibly it may be to human sight, but not to
our faith, any more than three persons in the Godhead, each of which is God and
yet not three Gods, is a contradiction to our faith. I have heard you say with
respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, that when we have ascertained what the
Bible says about it, it is our duty to believe just that, whether we can
comprehend it or not. I intend to apply your rule here. God's book says that
the devils shall be destroyed, and also that they are spirits. I will believe
both.
775 W. Your position, Mr. D., is impregnable; but
there is yet another way of answering Mr. B. I would ask him, are the devils
mere spirits, without a material vehicle, very subtle and refined, perhaps, but
still material?
776 B. Really, I cannot say I have thought about such
a minute point. I have taken for granted what I don't suppose can be
questioned, that devils are unmixed spirits, without a material vehicle.
777 A. If you will read Faber's Many Mansions, I think
he will prove to you that God is the only being who is unmixed spirit, "
who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen
or can see " (1 Tim. 6.16).
778 W. That was the book which satisfied me on this
particular point, and seeing Holy Scripture does declare that the Devil shall
be destroyed, is there any Bible or other reason to forbid the supposition that
his death and destruction will result in, consist in, the spirit leaving the
material vehicle, and returning to the one Spirit who alone can sustain any
living creature whatever?
779 B. Supposing I grant this, what then?
780 W. Then your difficulty is met. There will be no
destruction of the essence of spirit at all, though the Devil is destroyed.
781 D. This is quite a new feature to me. It is
difficult to suppose that the Devil is sustained by the holy God, though I must
grant that evil men are.
782 W. But reflect a little. Every being must be
self-sustained, or not self-sustained. If not self-sustained, then he is
sustained by another; if by another, who can that be but God? Again, put it
another way. No creature can be self-sustained any more than he can be
self-made; the Devil is a creature, therefore he is not self-sustained, any
more than he was self-made; if he is not self-sustained, he is sustained by
another, who can that be but God? Again, God is the Creator of all things and
of all living creatures; therefore He is the sustainer of all. He who became a
living devil was created by God, and is, therefore, sustained by God. You see
it is inevitable that that being who became a wicked devil must be sustained by
the holy God, as much as wicked men are sustained by God.
783 D. You have logically put it, and proved it, and I
cannot dispute it.
784 W. The conclusions then of our reason, on this
point, fall in with faith, and no objection against the destruction of Satan
can arise from the fact that he is spirit. The same may be said of all his
emissaries or angels.
785 D. You have, I consider, sustained your
proposition. I can see no flaw in your tests, nor any hitch in your argument.
If others do, they can say so. I begin to be angry with myself for not seeing
all this before.
786 W. Let me ask, is it not a matter of sincere
congratulation to the universe that so powerful, subtle, and malicious a foe,
the author of all evil and every woe, shall be destroyed? And will it not lend
additional luster to the triumphs of the Cross of Christ and to the glory of
His reign? Hallelujah! for the Lord God omnipotent reigned.
787 B. I am not yet satisfied that your idea of
destruction is correct.
788 D. Can you give us instances where the idea is
obvious.
789 W. Yes, several; and where, too, the same word, katargeo, is used which the Apostle to the Hebrews employs.
Concerning the etymology of this word there is much doubt, but concerning its
use and meaning in the Bible there can be no doubt, as the following instances
will show:—Rom. 6.6, " That the body of sin might be destroyed. 1 Cor. 1.28,
" To bring to naught the things that are;" 6.13, " Meats for the
belly and the belly for the meats; but God shall destroy both it and
them;" 13.8, 10, 11, " Prophecies, they shall fail; knowledge, it
shall vanish away; that which is in part shall be done away; I put away
childish things." There are many other examples, but these are enough, and
you will observe that in all these passages, though the Greek is variously
rendered, yet the idea is that something is brought to an end. Thus, when the
body of sin shall be destroyed, it is a body of sin no longer. When meats and
the belly are destroyed, they are meats and belly no longer. When prophecies
fail, they are prophecies no longer. When childish things are put away, they
are retained no longer; and so I argue, that when the Devil is destroyed, he is
a living being no longer.
790 D. There really does not seem any room for mistake
here. The word the Apostle applies to the end of the Devil, or to his
destruction, he applies also to the end of many things; and certainly when he
shall be destroyed, his living existence will end. If there is any flaw in the
argument, I should like it to be pointed out.
791 A. Candor obliges me to say, that there is no flaw
in the argument founded upon the passages advanced; still there is something
which prevents me from going all the way with W., but this may arise from the
difficulty which the mind feels in giving up a line of thought to which we have
been accustomed from childhood, and which we were always taught to look upon as
the very truth of the Bible.
792 D. Yes, we all feel that; and perhaps it is not
every mind that can conquer its former self, and form a new habit of thinking.
There is the feeling of timidity, too, lest the new idea should be wrong; still
we are bound to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good.
793 W. There is other evidence for the extinction of
the wicked one which should not be passed over. Matt. xxv. 41 is to the point,
" everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels." The doom
of the Devil and his angels is the same as that of wicked men. It is not too
much to say that it has been proved, that everlasting fire does not denote a
fire which shall be endlessly burning, but never consuming what is put into it;
but a fire which shall inevitably and forever put an end to -whom-soever and
whatsoever shall be cast into it. Now it is said that this devouring and
exterminating fire was prepared for the Devil and his angels. By this fire,
therefore, they shall be brought to an end.
794 D. I do not see how it can be disputed. The doom
of both races of wicked beings is exactly alike.
795 W. Let me add, Rev. 20.10, a passage to which we
have already given much attention. It tells us that the Devil shall be cast
into the lake of fire which is the second death. In this same lake of fire the
doom of the wicked is death or extinction, and the end of the Devil shall be
the same. He shall then be destroyed as we have already seen.
796 B. But, the text says that he shall be tormented
there day and night forever and-ever, not that he shall be destroyed.
797 W. I would in answer make an observation or two.
I. As to the torment which he will have to endure, I fully believe this; nor is
it all inconsistent with the belief in his extinction. He will have to answer,
not for the sins of a short life like wicked human beings, but for rebellions,
crimes, and indescribable wickedness and atrocities, which he has committed
during a life of thousands of years; as also for originating sin. in all
others, and for causing all the evils and mischiefs which have ever existed.
Now, upon the just principle of proportioning punishment to the evils done, I
cannot doubt that his will be great, and will last longer than that of anyone
else. His stripes will be many indeed. I contend, however, that even his
sufferings shall not be endless: He is to be killed, as a serpent is killed
whose head is crushed; he is to be destroyed, as are all the enemies of Christ;
he knows it himself and trembles, and he is to be cast into the lake of fire.
II. As to the words forever and ever, I have amply quoted texts which
conclusively prove that the Bible use of the phrase is to express an endless
effect, not an endless action of the thing which brings about that effect.
798 D. The lake of fire seems to be the apocalyptic
emblem, if I may so call it, of that which shall put an end to all evil things
and persons.
799 W. It is, as may be seen from the places where it
occurs. Let me now lay before you the evidence which has led me to believe in
the ultimate extinction of all evil things. I will read first, 1 John 3.8,
" He that committed sin is of the Devil; for the Devil sinned from the
beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that He might destroy
the works of the Devil." No exposition can be plainer than these words,
and I will not attempt it. Nothing seems to be left but to believe them. The
declared purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God was to destroy the works
of the Devil; and indeed it is a glorious prospect and is sure to be
accomplished.
800 B. The Greek word rendered destroy is not a strong
one, I believe. It is often rendered " to loose;" as, " loose
the colt and bring him to me," Matt. 21.2; " loose his ox or his
ass," Luke 13.15; " put off thy shoes," Acts 7.33.
801 W. It seems to me that in these and other such
instances, the idea conveyed is something brought to an end. When the colt, or
the ox is loosed from the stall, it is bound to the stall no longer; and when
shoes are put off the feet, they are on the feet no longer. Will you give us
what you think is the force of the word in the passage before us.
802 B. I should say " to make void or to destroy
the influence of the works."
803 W. But let us realize the idea conveyed by your
explanation. If a work is made void, is it the same afterwards that it was
before? And can an influence of a work be destroyed, as long as the work itself
continues to be done? You cannot destroy the influence of a work without first
destroying the work itself. Whatever be the attempted explanation of the text,
you must come back to the fundamental idea that the works of the Devil shall be
put a stop to; and when this is done, their evil effects will cease also.
804 D. There is no way of getting over this text, I
can see. The question is reduced to believing or not believing. Are there other
texts which would give an idea of the use of the word?
805 W. Yes, many. John 2.19, " Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 10.35. The Scripture cannot
be broken. Acts 27.41, " The hinder part of the ship was broken with the
violence of the waves." 2 Pet. 3.12, 13, " The heavens being on fire
shall be dissolved. Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new
heavens." In all these places, and many more, the leading idea is bringing
to an end; so that I boldly say that all the works of the Devil, of every kind,
sort, and description, shall be destroyed, exterminated and utterly brought to an
end; and it is the office of simple faith to believe it.
806 A. I again acknowledge that I cannot with reason
oppose your conclusion.
807 W. Before I adduce another passage, I would draw
two inferences from the present passage.
I. If the works of the Devil are destroyed, then the
Devil himself will be destroyed; for he is a living, acting, agent. He must be
doing something, and if he does anything it must be evil; and as long as he
lives he will be doing his evil works, and the only way of stopping his works
is by putting an end to his life.
II. If the works of the Devil are destroyed, then
wicked men are destroyed, for they are his work. In Matt. 13 we learn that God
sowed only good seed in His field, and when the servants discovered the tares,
and told the master, he said, "An enemy hath done this." Our Lord's
explanation is, " The tares are the children of the wicked one; and the
enemy that sowed them is the Devil." Now, in the fact that wicked men are
the work of the Devil, we have an additional proof that they themselves shall
be destroyed.
808 D. Yes. When the eyes are once opened, the
evidence meets you at every step.
809 W. Now let me read that glorious passage in Rev. 21.
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the
holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a
bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying,
Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and
they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more
death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for
the former. things are passed away. And He that sat upon the throne said,
Behold, I Make all things new. And He said unto me, Write; for these words are
true and faithful. And He said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of
the water of life freely."
Observe a few things here—
I. When God dwelleth with men then there shall be no
more suffering. Neither shall there be any more pain. Now if there is to be, as
you say, that excruciating inconceivable pain 'in hell, how can these words be
true? According to you there will be infinitely greater suffering and pain than
were ever before known, and they will be endlessly continued. I repeat the same
concerning death. Allow for a moment that death is, as you affirm, misery.
Well! " there shall be no more death," or, rather, " death shall
be no more."
II. This is the more certain, because of the words,
" For the former things are passed away." All the sins, and
sufferings, and woes, and distresses, and griefs, are all passed and gone. But
at this Very time, according to you, all these are infinitely intensified and
concentrated upon the millions of millions of human beings in hell. Can this be
true? Are they passed away, if you are right?
III. God gives a reason for this entire absence of
pain and misery by adding, " Behold I make all things new." Well may
we behold this happy prospect, and gaze upon it with wonder, gratitude, and
longing desire. Here is a work worthy of our all-wise, all-good, all-powerful
God!
IV. He next gives an assurance to our faith. "
Write," says He, " for these words are true and faithful." He
well knew what our unbelieving hearts would be; that some would not care to
believe; that others would not believe for joy. It would seem too good to
expect, too great
for even His power to accomplish, too gracious for a,
fallen world to see, and hence the loving direction and assurance.
"Write," that all peoples, in all ages, may read, and believe, and be
comforted, in their present toils and woes. " Write." Do not seal up
this, but " write." Make it known; let all, who will, anticipate the
good time coming. " Write, for these words are true and faithful."
V. But He affords us still further assurance. "
And He said unto me, it is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
end." He who is the great I AM, who inhabits an eternity at once (Is. 57.15),
as we do a moment at once speaks in His own ever present time, " It is
done." It is already done in my view. I see it accomplished, and it shall
be done in your view. And, then, lest our burthened hearts should be cast down,
and ready to break by our sense of unworthiness, and lest we sinners should
,despair of ever realizing so transcendent a blessing, He tells us, it is all a
free gift of His love, and mercy, and not our merit. " I will give unto
him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." All this
is our Christian birthright; should we not cling to it? think of it? tell it to
others? and hasten to get ready for it? And now devils and wicked men having
become extinct, and all evil extinguished, our God in Christ is all in all,
loved, adored, and served by all that remain of His intelligent creatures.
810 D. Such a bright and glorious prospect makes one's
heart to glow. I wonder now I ever thought your views dangerous. They appear to
me most winning and profitable, and well calculated to draw all men to the
Cross, if they were universally preached.
811 B. We must not allow our feelings to carry away
our judgment. May not this passage refer only to the heavenly spheres, where
all the children of God shall be? and that it is among them that there shall be
no more pain or suffering or death? while in the region of the lost there shall
be that endless misery which we call death?
812 W. Suffer me to say that I cannot imagine such a
limited interpretation would ever be put upon unlimited language were it not
for our systems of theology, to the existence of which your interpretation is a
necessity. It is not the natural meaning of the words, which are clear and
conclusive, and give not the slightest intimation that death, and sorrow, and
crying, and pain shall not be in one place, but shall be, with terrible intensity,
in another. On the contrary they expressly declare, in positive terms, that
these evils shall not be any longer, that is, shall not exist any longer. They
" are passed away," it is added, and that because God makes all
things new. According to you the former things shall not pass away; they shall
be concentrated and intensified in one place; and all things shall not become
new; and death and pain shall exist forever. It seems to me evident that your
views and this passage are utterly irreconcilable.
813 D. Have you any additional evidence bearing on the
passage?
814 W. I should like to direct attention to the next
two verses.
He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will
be his God, and he shall be My son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and
all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
To this I would add two of the passages in which the
expression " book of life " is found. Rev. 20.15, " And
whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of
fire; " 21.27, "but they that are written in the Lamb's book of
life." Here we have the book of life in contrast to the second death. Now
I have shown you that death, in Scripture, is the antithesis of life, and no
text has been produced to the contrary. I am warranted, therefore, in saying
that while the sons of God "inherit all things," the wicked shall not
inherit all things; or, in other words, while the righteous are alive with God,
the wicked are forever out of living existence by means of the second death. I
would point to this contrast between the two states of the righteous and the
wicked as illustrating three passages of the Psalms. Ps. 100.5, " For the
Lord is good, His mercy is everlasting; " 103.17, 18. But the mercy of the
Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him. Psalm 35.
" For His anger endured but for a moment. In His favor is life." Or,
"Truly! a moment in His anger, Life in His favor." It is
evident," says Bishop Horsley, that " the moment in His anger "
is opposed to the continuance of life in His favor; and the Psalmist's meaning
is, to affirm the contrary effects of God's anger and God's forgiveness."
Now, in these texts, it is declared that the mercy of the Lord is, like, the
living existence of the Lord (Psalm 90.2), " from everlasting to
everlasting;" but "His anger is but for a moment." I appeal to
you on this ground. There are the saved through mercy, enjoying a heaven
purchased by mercy, where they inherit all things. There are the wicked put to
death in the lake of fire. Now if, as you affirm, the wrath of God is exhibited
in hell as long as His mercy is exhibited in heaven, how is it possible for an
inspired man to say, " His wrath endured but for a moment? "
815 D. That is a remarkable text, and there is no
getting over it; for it is absolutely against endless torments. If the wrath of
the Lord endlessly endures and endlessly shows itself in punishing sinners,
then it cannot be limited to a moment, as David says it is. Is there any text
that seems to contradict this.
816 W. Not one.
817 D. Then what reason is there against applying the
same idea to the anger or wrath of God, which we apply to our own wrath or
anger? that is, it is, from its own nature, a temporary feeling, and in time
dies away.
Anger continued, is resentment and these can find
place only in a depraved mind. I can easily conceive that wrath can enter the
Divine mind; but I cannot conceive that it can rest there, and be endlessly
continued there. This would not be anger nor wrath; it would be implacability,
which cannot dwell with holiness and rectitude, not to say justice. The
Psalmist's words are as good in common sense as in truth, when he says God's
anger endures but for a moment. Of course, I see now this is all right in the
nature of things; and yet we have always been thinking otherwise.
818 W. Let me ask your attention to a confirmatory
passage (Ep. 4.26, 27): " Let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither
give place to the Devil." Now would God do Himself what He tells us not to
do? Would He endlessly retain His wrath, when He forbids us to retain ours,
even for a day?
819 B. Why not? Has He bound
Himself by the same rules by which He is pleased to bind us?
820 W. Right and wrong are in themselves as invariable
as God Himself, who is the standard of right. If, in matters of right and
wrong, He had reserved to Himself a liberty, that would be enough to make me
say, with the utmost submission and reverence, " Good is the will of the
Lord." He has not, however, done this, but the contrary. What is wrong in
one, cannot be right in another; and the rules of conduct which He has
prescribed for our guidance are but the transcripts of His own nature. The
Apostle therefore, in connection with the precept already quoted, goes on to
say, " Be ye imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love;"
and it is in reference to this very feeling of unforgiving wrath that, while
dissuading His followers from it, Jesus says (Matt. 5.48), " Be ye
therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
Now, if the sun is not to go down on our wrath, if we are thus to be imitators
of God, then this is confirmatory of the teaching of David when he says that
" God's wrath endures but for a moment." It is in this we are told to
be like God.
821 D. I can see plainly that the doctrine of endless
torments brings the dogma of the Bible and the precepts of the Bible, into
direct and irreconcilable conflict. The precept says, Do not retain your anger,
but imitate God; this doctrine says that God retains His wrath forever. If this
were done by a doctrine which had some solid support from Scripture, I should
not be so displeased with myself; but when, in reality, it turns out that it is
supported only by human philosophy and tradition, I am amazed that we all could
be so misled.
822 A. This is a point which but few will like to
believe. It has been generally supposed that God has a right to violate the
precepts which He commands us to observe. W. does not dispute the right; he
says only that God will not Himself do what He tells us not to do, and I think
his texts prove it. Indeed, the whole drift of Scripture is with him. The
marvel is how the opposite could have gained such currency.
823 W. It should not be forgotten that the popular
doctrine falls in with some of the worst feelings of our fallen nature. We are
revengeful and unmerciful. We like to retain our wrath, and to pour it out in
vengeance; and when we are told that God does the same; nay, that He will
endlessly pour it out, with an intensity which only an Almighty Being can
inflict, of course they are encouraged to carry out the desires of their own
hearts. What can be the worth of a precept when the Holiest One never observes
it?
824 D. I begin to see that this doctrine is not only
untrue, but pernicious to morals.
825 W. Whatever is not true must be pernicious. How
can a man be better, or otherwise, than the God he worships? If he worships a
God of a vengeful nature, who will use His resistless, Almighty power to keep
myriads and myriads of his helpless creatures in living, sensitive, endless
existence, to torture them in a way that He only can do, and thus beget in them
hate, curses, and horrid defiant blasphemies, listened to by all His holy ones
in heaven—if, I say, a man worships a God of this kind, he is sure further to
imbibe and exhibit the same vengeful feelings, as far as his power will enable
him. I hesitate not to say that this doctrine is greatly answerable for the
hatred and fierce quarrels of Christians.
826 B. What a strange fancy. Do you' mean to say that
if your doctrine had been taught there would have been fewer?
827 W. I think there would. This I know,—that
Christianity is God's own remedy for the evils of humanity; and as it is His, I
cannot think that it is so inefficient as its popular substitute has shown
itself to be. God's design was to make mankind into a world of brothers, each
loving the other as himself, and God better than all. Indeed He enjoins this;
and " love," says an Apostle, "worketh no ill to his neighbor
" (Rom. 13.10). Now, if this love, which is the fulfilling of the law, had
had its place, and a God of love and mercy had been worshipped, the effect must
have been different. " Like begets its
like." The religion of Christ is one of love, and not one retaining wrath.
Christendom worship a God of endless vengeance. Who need wonder that quarrels,
national and individual, should prevail?
828 B. I think you have all of you forgotten John 3.36:
" The wrath of God abides on him."
829 W. Will you say whether you think this abiding of
wrath refers to the continued and endless exercise of this wrath by God? or the
danger which rests upon " him that believeth not the Son?" words
which immediately precede those you have quoted.
830 B. I must own the distinction had not struck me.
It must refer to the latter, of course.
831 W. Then as you allow your text does not refer to
the endless possession and exhibition. of wrath on the part of God, as it
certainly does not, then there is nothing in it contradictory to the words of
David. All that your text affirms, on the point before us, is that no sinner
can escape the wrath of God except by believing in Jesus; but it does not give
the slightest intimation that any unbeliever shall suffer endless pains, though
it does say he shall not see everlasting life. We have, moreover, seen that the
antithesis of everlasting life is everlasting death, and this, we have also
seen, cannot denote an everlasting dying yet never dead, but an accomplished death
in the lake of fire, which shall be final, and from which there will be no
revivification. You have quoted the only text which has any show of continued
wrath in the mind of God, and it turns out that this does not refer to the
point at all.
832 B. The justice of God has been referred to by Mr.
D., as if it were inconsistent with endless torments. Now I would say, that to
bring down the justice of God to man's standard of justice, is one of the
greatest presumptions of which we can be guilty. Poor mortal man, fancies that
endless torments, being inconsistent with his assumed notions of justice, is
therefore inconsistent with the justice of God. Extinctionists
are continually urging this.
833 W. I have never met with one who puts it at all in
this light. I will not shrink from saying, that endless torments are utterly
inconsistent with the idea of justice which the Bible teaches, and with the
declared procedure in the day of judgment.
834 D. But are our ideas of justice unlike those which
God has?
835 B. Of course they are. Is not every
thing in God different from what it is in man?
836 W. I cannot admit this. Unless our ideas, of all
moral qualities, be the same as His, then His Word does not instruct us, and
must be misleading. If His idea of love, mercy, or justice, be one thing, and
ours another, how can we set about the practice of these qualities? I shall, in
that case, do what I think to be merciful, loving and just, but, after all, it
is not what God meant, and can approve of. On your supposition God's law is no
law to me; it can be no guide to me; it can only perplex and mislead me.
837 A. Of course, it is too obvious. No such position
can be maintained. Mr. B. does not mean it. Yet I am aware it is often urged.
So certain is it that God's idea of justice, and ours, is the same, that He
Himself appeals to our sense of it in vindication of His doings. Is. 5.3:
" And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge I pray you
betwixt me and my vineyard." It seems to me that our opponents confound
two sets of ideas. They confound the justice of God, with the wrath of God. His
justice is coeval with His living existence; but His wrath did not exist till
there was wrong doing. His justice is an attribute of His nature, His wrath is
not. The former must ever exist, whether He has any one to exercise it on, or
not. Not so His wrath. This is an accident of His justice; and its possession,
and His exhibition of it, we have seen is but for a moment. They confound also
the administration of justice by man, and the administration of justice by God.
In this I grant there is a difference, between what God does, and what man
does. His is all discriminating, impartial, and complete. What man does is not
so always, perhaps cannot be so always. This, however, does not indicate a
difference of idea as to what justice is.
838 D. Will Mr. B. say what his idea of justice is?
839 B. Giving to every man a reward, or punishment,
such as he deserves.
840 4 Perfectly right. St. Paul calls it "
receiving according to that a man hath done " (2 Cor. 5.10); and our Lord,
" giving to every man according as his work shall be " (Rev. 22.12).
841 W. This is exactly my notion of justice, and I
venture to affirm that endless torments are absolutely inconsistent with this
idea of justice. I support my affirmation on two grounds: I. That the sins of a
finite creature, committed in time, do not deserve inconceivable pains,
endlessly inflicted, in eternity. II. That the judicial procedure of the great
assize, and the sentence on the wicked which shall then be pronounced, are
opposed to endless sufferings.
842 D. Well, if you can maintain these two things, an
inch of ground will not be left for endless torments to stand upon.
843 W. The wages of finite crime, cannot amount to an
infinite sum.
844 B. But that supposes that sin is finite.
845 W. That it is finite I prove by two facts: I. That
it is committed by a finite person. II. That it is committed within the limits
of the sinner's mortal existence on earth. Our opponents allow these positions,
and say, that sin, looked at in these aspects, that is, as done by man, is
finite; and so far, cannot deserve infinite pain. They are obliged therefore to
import into their argument are extraneous idea—which shall be further dealt
with presently—in order to give to endless torments a show of justice. In other
words, they strive to show that sin is infinite, in order to prove the justice
of the infinite pain for which they contend. I beg their forgiveness if I say,
that this is like making their inference first, and then forming their premise
to suit it.
846 D. It would seem then that the first affirmation
must be passed, with this proviso, that if sin turns out to be infinite, then
it comes to nothing.
847 B. I hesitate not to affirm that sin is infinite.
848 D. On what account?
849 B. Not as committed by man, nor as committed in a
comparatively short space of time, but as committed against the Infinite God.
850 D. As this discussion is carried on upon a Bible
foundation, can you adduce some text to prove what you say, or some text from
which it may be fairly inferred?
851 B. I do not pretend there is any direct text to
prove it; but the position I take arises from the necessities of the case.
852 D. Point this out, please, that we may see it.
853 B. I contend that God will inflict endless pain;
that He, the just One, would not do this unless the demerit of sin were
infinite; and sin can be infinite only as committed against an infinite God.
This reasoning seems to me conclusive.
854 W. It labors under this serious disadvantage: it
makes the very proposition which is to be proved—which has not been proved, but
the opposite of which has been proved—to be the premise from which you draw
your conclusion on the point before us.
855 D. This reasoning in a circle of course proves
nothing. Can Mr. B. found the infinite demerit of sin upon any other ground,
than that of an alleged sentence to endless infinite pain?
856 A. Let me here interpose and say that, in reality,
no such ground exists, except in human writings.
857 W. This will bring me to my second affirmation,
and I will show that the procedure, in the day of judgment, is inconsistent
with this notion of the infinite demerit of sin. I beg attention to the
following texts,
Acts 17.31, "God hath appointed a day in which He
will judge the world in righteousness." Here is the assurance that the
procedure in the judgment shall be strictly righteous; and, indeed, as Jesus is
the judge, it could not be otherwise. But other passages show that the
righteousness of the justice of that day will be according to works, and not
according to the infinite dignity of the One sinned against.
Jer. 17 10, "I, the Lord, search the heart, I try
the reins, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to
the fruit of his doings." Here He declares He will take into consideration
the motives of action, but not a word about considering His own dignity.
Jer. 32.19, "Great in counsel, and mighty in
work: for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give to
every one according to his ways and according to his doings." In order to
give men what is just, He observes what their doings are. He says not' a word
about His own greatness, as a consideration in giving sentence.
Eccl. 12.14, "God shall bring every work into
judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be
evil."
2 Cor. 5.10, "For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in the
body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
Rev. 22.12, "Behold I come quickly, and my reward
is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be."
The ground upon which sentence shall be given, in that
dread day, is thus invariably represented as the doings of the judged persons.
The element which orthodoxy makes so much of, and which is necessary to the
dogma of endless torments, is never even hinted at. If God intended to judge of
the enormity of sin, by the consideration of His own dignity, would Ile have
omitted it? According to you, this is the chief element. Without it sin would
not be deserving of endless pain. Yet, in professed descriptions of the
judgment, it is never mentioned, never even implied. If this made the infinite
enormity of sin, we may be certain so important a point would not have been
overlooked; and I am entitled to say, there is no such thing as infinite sin,
or infinite demerit; and, therefore, you cannot argue from either that there
will be infinite punishment. Sin, and its demerits, can be but finite; and,
therefore, it is against the rules of justice to punish it with infinite
endless pain. No text can be quoted to support your notion; but the nature of
justice, and the revealed procedure of the judgment day forbid us to receive
it.
858 D. But you said awhile back something about the
terms of the sentence.
859 W. I alluded to the fact that it is one of death.
And as it has been proved that death is the extinction of life, I argue that it
would be unjust to threaten the sinner with death, and then to make it turn out
that he was not to die, but to live on, and on, in endless misery. What would
be said of the penal code of any nation, if the penalty of death were attached
to murder, and then at the trial the murderer were to find out, that death
meant being perpetually scorched over a fierce fire, while some chemical
composition should be continually applied to his tortured body, which should
have the effect of keeping it alive, but not of lessening the pain?
Should we not execrate such a code? Should we not, in the
interests of common humanity, demand the abrogation of such a code? Or, if we
could not do this, should we not demand that the meaning of the penalty should
be explained? that it did not mean death, but being kept alive and tortured in
a slow fire? I pray you, apply all this to the case before you. God has said
the soul that sinned it shall die. He gives not the slightest explanation that
by death He means living in fierce fire, and being miraculously acted upon so
as to be able to endure it to all eternity; and yet you represent His sentence
as meaning this. Where, I pray you, is the justice of your representation? I
will not entrust myself with liberty to express my feelings on the matter. I
will content myself by merely saying, it is man's representation, not God's.
860 B. But you cannot deny that the merits of the Son
of God are infinite; and from this I infer that sin, for which it atoned, is
infinite.
861 W. I gladly allow your premise. The atonement was
the work of an Infinite Person, and therefore infinite in its value; but I
cannot allow your inference. I think, however, you may be confounding all the
sins which human beings ever have committed, or ever will commit, with the sins
of each individual. Now, although the former are not infinite, in the absolute
sense, yet by a figure of speech they are often so considered, and I cannot
think that any atonement less than that made by Jesus, could be a full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of
the whole world. The aggregate sin of mankind, however, is not the question
before us, but the sin of each individual wicked man, and until you can give me
some Bible text, or some sound reason, I cannot allow the sins of each one
person to be of infinite demerit, and therefore worthy of infinite punishment.
862 B. You have forgotten one important consideration.
The sins of sinners in hell will be committed throughout eternity, and
therefore punishment will be of equal duration.
863 W. Can you give me a text for that?
864 B. No; but it is the opinion of some of the great
German orthodox divines, as it is also of some of our own.
865 W. This notion of these great men labors under two
grave defects.
I. It supposes the truth of the very point which we
question, and which they undertake to prove. Let them show that the committal
of sin will be endless. Till then it is sufficient for us to deny that the
punishment of sin will be endless. We have seen that if plain words of the
Bible mean anything, it is that the works of the Devil shall be destroyed.
II. Various passages have taught us that the sentence
pronounced upon the wicked is exclusively for works done in this life, not for
anything which shall be done afterwards; and I appeal to you whether a
prospective sentence can be just.
III. If this ground is relied upon you must abandon
all other grounds you have relied on to prove endless torments. If the sins
committed by a man up to the time of his death deserve endless torments, as you
aver, then why assume the fact of an endless sinning to justify an endless
punishing? Or if the assumption of the fact of endless sinning be necessary to
justify an endless punishing, then why contend that sins committed in time are
also deserving of the same thing? If you hold to the one, you must give up the
other. It really is not too much to say that your great men must be driven to
extremities for support, when they resort to such an argument as this.
866 B. You argue zealously for your side of the
question, but I must still say that it is a very suspicious thing against you
that your doctrine is what our natural hearts would like to believe, and every
vicious man would wish to be true.
867 W. Whether they would like it or not, you affirm
that, in point of fact, all believe with you, though, as you now say, against
their wishes; and not with me, though, according to you, this falls in with
their wishes. I cannot see any force in your objection. One question, however,
disposes of all such objections. . What saith the Scripture? We have had ample
and decisive proof that it declares against endless torments. This being the
case, the heart ought to wish that the pains of even their wicked fellow-creatures
should come to an end; and if they do, their desires are in harmony with God's
decrees. If the human heart does wish that none should have to bear endless
indescribable torture, is it a wish to be ashamed of, and to be extinguished?
Is it not rather a drop from the Divine ocean of benevolence, which should be
cherished, till it leads to brotherly love and active beneficence?
868 B. I should like to ask what good can ever come
from the propagation of your notions?
869 W. By the blessing of our Great Master, I hope for
various kinds of good effects.
I. The establishment of truth. This is worth any labor
or suffering.
II. The vindication of the maligned character of the
good God. St. Paul tells us that all mankind are His offspring; and yet
orthodox opinion represents Him as sending the vast majority of His children to
endless, inconceivable, irretrievable torments. This character is so odious and
repelling, that it is not surprising so few are attracted by what is called the
Gospel. Could a worse character be given to the gods of the heathen? I own it
is difficult to speak of this feature, and yet keep down one's indignation;
just as we all feel it to be so when we hear a good man misrepresented and
maligned. Of course, if theologians and preachers thought they were doing this,
they would be filled with horror, and would stand aghast; but I am not speaking
of what they think, but of simple fact. They say, that God the common Father
can, if he chooses, kill both body and soul in Gehenna; but they say also, He
will not choose to do it; on the contrary, that He will choose to make them
capable of bearing exquisite endless torture, and that then He will inflict it
upon them. What is the character we give to the inquisition compared with this?
We teach our people to say, " Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be
Thy Name;" but, I ask, how can they hallow, reverence, and love, a
character such as you describe? Such a character shall no longer be attributed
to Him, without a protest given with all the little vigor I possess.
870 D. With your belief, I do not wonder you are
indignant; but from various motives, and on account of various obstacles, I
believe that nine-tenths of our teachers do not think seriously about the
matter; if they did, they would alter their belief, and consequently their
teaching. But I am interrupting you.
871 W.
III. I hope to rescue the Bible from the hosts of
misconceptions under which it groans. In the public mind this blessed Book is
identified with orthodox teaching; and, of course, shares in the scorn and
infidelity with which this teaching is received by millions. It will be a great
good if I can exhibit this inspired Book to these in its primitive, heaven-born
beauty and attractiveness.
IV. As a consequence of all this I hope to inspirit
the timid, and increase their confidence in the love of God; to arouse the
indifferent; and to reclaim the hosts of our infidels.
872 B. In your professed objects I wish you success;
but I still think your proposed means are by no means fitted to bring them
about.
873 4 I differ from you. At any rate we can say but
little for the success of the means which we have used. May it not be possible,
that we have built up with one hand, and pulled down, if not all, yet much, by
the other? I own I am reduced to this, I cannot bring Scripture against what W.
says. I can bring only philosophy, tradition and orthodoxy—all so-called.
874 W. It is time that I should sum up and report
progress.
875 D. No, let me do that, I am used to summing up
evidence, and I will do it pretty fully.
I. The first part of the evidence, against endless
torments, arose from the lexical meaning of nephesh, psuche,
or soul, and the use which is made of these words in the holy Scriptures. Their
meaning is, animal life; and they are applied to all animals, from creeping
things, up to man; and never to the higher or spiritual part of man. An
allegation, that they did so apply, turned out to be a misapprehension; and
their meaning and use were found to be uniform throughout the whole Bible. The
inference was that the intrinsic immortality of the nephesh, or psuche, or soul, was not founded upon a single text; but
contradicted by several plain passages; and though nephesh or psuche, is found above eight hundred times in the Bible, it
is never, in a single instance, associated with the epithet, immortal, or any
other word signifying the same thing; whereas it is often spoken of as dead,
and as often threatened with death. Man is capable of immortality, not from an
innate quality, but only by a vital holy union with God through Christ; and it
is a gracious gift of God in consequence of the atonement of Jesus. It thus
comes to pass, that true Christians only live forever, while wicked men perish,
or come to an end, forever.
II. Respecting the spiritual part of man's nature, it
was shown that it is originally and immediately derived from the Spirit of
Jehovah, who is the only Spirit fountain, who imparts, out of Himself, whatever
there is of spirit in any created existences, and who is the Author of all life
of whatever kind or degree. This Spirit dwells in man in the greatest degree,
and imparts animal, and mental, life, to each one, and spiritual, holy life to
the regenerate; and though it cannot itself be lost or die, yet man can be
deprived of it, and, in point of fact, the wicked shall be finally, and
forever, deprived of it, after the resurrection and the judgment, by the second
death; after which their living existence will be impossible, and consequently
their capability of pain and suffering, will be at an end. Alleged
difficulties, in the way of this view, were found to arise, not from Bible
texts, but from traditional notions; whilst the view itself was founded on
numerous plain passages.
III. The many passages of Scripture, which are said to
support endless torments, passed under a searching examination, and were ably
defended, but they all failed, when looked at in their lexical and grammatical
force. Indeed their evidence, such as it was, thoroughly vanished in
cross-examination. IV. Then direct evidence, in favor of extinction, was
advanced, arising from those numerous texts which, in varied language, declare
that the wicked shall be destroyed, and that forever, when they shall have
received the few or many stripes, according to the deeds done in the body. It
was alleged, on the opposite side, that the words death and destruction, etc.,
could not mean the same, when applied to the final state of man, as they did in
all other cases; but in as much as no text could be advanced to support that view,
and as the allegation rested upon another allegation, it could be of no force
against the usual literal lexical meaning of these words. V. The extinction of
the wicked one, and of all his works, came next under examination; and several
passages of the Bible plainly showed that he, and they, shall be brought to an
end. An attempt was naturally made to neutralize this evidence; but it failed,
and it manifestly appeared that all evil persons and things shall finally
become extinct throughout the whole of God's universe; and that nothing shall
remain but holiness, happiness, joy, peace and prosperity; without a single
drawback, of any kind. It was shown that all this is worthy of God to decree,
and of the cross of Christ to accomplish. I have summarized the Bible evidence
first, that being the only kind which can be admitted as proof, but ample
evidence was given to show, that extinction was, as it would appear, the
prevalent opinion in the primitive Church; and also that the Acts of
Convocation and the decisions of the Judicial Committee have expelled endless
torments from the doctrinal code of the Church of England.
876 A. Yes, you have given a fair summary of the nine
days' discussion, and its results. I own I did not previously think so much
could be said in favor of extinction. I took it for granted, I suppose, that
the opposite was the truth; and thus, treating it as a settled thing, it did
not strike me to give myself trouble about it. Now, however, I see the
practical importance of the subject; and I shall turn my full attention to it.
If W. is right, we all are very wrong; and if he is not right, it is strange
that he should have all the sound evidence on his side, and we, the many, no
real evidence at all; for candor obliges me to add, that I was astonished to
see how our evidence broke down, till, at last, it seemed to vanish altogether.
I do not pretend to be able to adjust my mind, all at once, to these new
views—new that is to me and to most others, but I shall search, and consider
whether they are true; and if I find them so, I shall not then be slow to
correct my former errors and teaching.
877 D. It is a simple question of truth or error. Only
one side can be right; that is evident. If extinction is wrong, surely it is
capable of being overturned. It will not be fair, however, nor worthy of a
cultivated mind, to meet arguments by contradictions or assertions, nor to take
part of an argument and treat it as a whole, leaving it to be supposed that,
because that part is assumed to be weak, therefore the whole is also weak, and
indeed demolished. The interests of truth demand that the arguments themselves
be taken and fairly grappled with on Bible grounds. Nothing else will satisfy
the inquiring laity. If extinction can be fairly overturned, let it be done; if
not, let it be believed and taught.
878 A. As far as we have gone it would seem to be
plain enough, but the discussion will not be complete unless we inquire into
the origin of evil and its bearing on extinction.
879 D. Can you satisfactorily make anything out on
this question?
880 W. Yes, there is much to be said of what appears
to me satisfactory, and which has some connection with our subject. I shall
have no objection to consider the point with you, if you will let it clearly be
understood that I do not ground any necessary argument on it for extinction. On
this question the argument is already clear and conclusive.
881 A. We are now about to consider one of the most
difficult questions which can engage the human mind: How sin and evil came into
existence, and why they were permitted? It seems strange that a God who is
infinitely wise and good and of almighty power, should have permitted it.
882 D. Half of the difficulty is overcome now we see
that evil and suffering shall not be endless. Still the mystery is why they
should exist at all, even for a time. To us it would seem far better had there
been nothing but holiness and happiness, and no sin and misery at all.
883 W. What if it should turn out that things could
not have been otherwise than they are, and ought not to have been otherwise
than they are; barring, indeed, that man's perversity has made them worse than
they need have been. I have a strong faith that God worketh all things
according to the counsel of His own will (Ep. 1.11); that He is the One,
Supreme, Sovereign Ruler of all things in heaven and earth, and that no
arrangements could have been made better than those He determined upon, and
which are in process of final accomplishment.
884 A. Yes, it is very proper that our faith should
receive all this. We must walk by faith.
885 W. The manifested character of God, both in nature
and grace, demand and deserve all the faith of the heart; but our intellect may
see far enough into the question to consent to the faith of the heart, and say,
with intelligent acquiescence, " He hath done all things well." His
works cannot be improved or amended, and if we had had to make the arrangement,
and had had sufficient wisdom, we should have done just as God has done.
886 D. Well, if you can make out that, you will still
further relieve my mind, and the minds of thousands of others.
887 W. There is much, both in the Bible and in reason,
to lead us to suppose that when God contemplated creating anything, especially
intelligent moral creatures, His design was the communication of His own
happiness and the manifestation of His own glory. I should think this might be
taken as an axiom. In the Bible He invariably connects His glory with the good
of His creatures.
888 A. There is no solid reason against it.
889 W. It is also a truth, too clear to be disputed,
that before He was pleased to create any thing or
person He knew everything which would take place in the then future. This also
may be treated as an axiom by us.
890 A. Neither can there be any objection to that.
891 W. I would lay down what appear to me to be two
other axioms; but I will call them propositions: I. Given an all-powerful,
all-wise, all-beneficent Being, then creation is inevitable, and intelligent
creatures a necessity. II. If the origin and temporary existence of moral and
physical evil is to be absolutely and certainly prevented, the only course is
not to create any intelligent beings at all. When it pleased the Divine Persons
of the Godhead to take counsel together respecting the creation of man, we may,
with reverence, suppose that every side of the question was considered, and
every possible contingency—as we should call it—contemplated. We may reverently
suppose that at last—as we should say—the matter might have been reduced to
this one question: " Shall We create intelligent beings, or shall We
not?" There were reasons for and against; and that we are told the Godhead
sat in council would seem intended to teach us that these reasons had been
fully weighed, so to speak.
892 D. Supposing then it had, as we may say, been
decided not to create intelligent beings, what might have been the
consequences?
893 W. I will quote the sentiments, and some of the
words, of a publication of mine. If God does not create, then He must remain
eternally in His own solitariness. He would be infinite in His perfections;
though, in such a case, we could not call them attributes, for there would be
none to attribute His attributes to Him. He would be unknown, if not
unknowable. He could not be declared, there would be none to whom He could be
declared. He would, indeed, be able largely to bestow benefits; but there would
be none to receive them. If He continue in His solitariness, His own essential
happiness would remain to Him, and, perhaps, remain unimpaired; but He would
not have the exquisite, God-like, happiness of sharing it with others; there
would be none to share it with, none to enjoy it. Mentally constituted as we
are, it is not possible for us to conceive of such a state of things. It would
not be a state of things at all. It would be a negation, a nothingness, an
absurdity.
894 D. I can see it would never have done for the
wisdom of God to decide upon doing nothing, to be followed by such consequences
as these.
895 W. Besides this, though if He had remained alone,
and none other with Him, He would still be complete in His natural perfections,
I would presume to ask, with great reverence, whether He could be complete in
His moral perfections? He has taught us that part of the completeness of His
moral perfections is diffusion; and He has told us to imitate Him, and diffuse
happiness to others. This was the very point, enforced by Jesus, in His sermon
on the mount, when He said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father,
which is in heaven, is perfect." If He had remained alone, would He have practiced
what He taught? and could there have been in Him, that example of perfection,
to which Jesus refers? Goodness is not goodness, unless it be communicated.
Wisdom is not wisdom, except it be exhibited—exhibited by its use. Goodness
cannot be diffused and admired, if kept secret; nor can happiness be really
enjoyed, if kept to one's self. I would think of it with reverence, still more
speak of it. But if God had kept Himself, so to speak, to Himself, would it not
have been selfishness? Is it not what He calls selfishness in us, or what St.
Paul calls "living to ourselves." Could it be different in Him? He
would possess an endless source of holy, happy, life-giving power, but no one
to know it, no one to be the better for it! One eternal, useless blank,
throughout boundless space! What unsearchable riches lying idle, though capable
of producing unbounded felicity and delight! What a glorious light hid under a
bushel! What an eternal rust for want of use! But no; we cannot conceive—we do
not wish to conceive—that of the wisdom of God, which we are taught by Him to
call wrong and folly in ourselves. Seeing there is such a God, as our God, the
creation of intelligent creatures was sure to take place.
'898. A. When one comes to look into the matter we can
see, that as creation had a beginning, there must have been an eternity before
anything began to be; and that our difficulty is, to conceive an eternity to
have passed, when none but God was in existence.
896 W. This difficulty is not real, as is the
difficulty of conceiving non-creation. Your difficulty vanishes when it is
considered, that, in reality, eternity as well as time, is a relative term, and
can refer only to the cognizance of the creature. An eternity, to the infinite
Jehovah, is not what it is to us. With Him "a thousand years are as one
day, and one day as a thousand years." He lives an eternity at once, and
there is not, and cannot be, time past or time future with Him. To us there
would appear to be an eternity, before God began to create; to Him it would not
appear so. Eternity past, and eternity future, to Him is an ever present now.
897 D. It is plain, the alternative of a non-creation
could not have been entertained. Creation must have taken place; and a creation
too of something more than inert matter: there must have been life and
intelligence. The creation of intelligent beings is decided on, we will
suppose. What then?
898 W. Then there is the risk of such creatures
becoming sinful and rebellious; and thus the risk of making misery, not
happiness.
899 D. How so? Why should not man be created so as to
be incapable of falling?
900 W. From the very nature of the case this could not
have been done.
901 B. Why? Are not all things possible with God?
902 W. All possible things are possible with Him; but
it is no derogation from His power to say He cannot make a contradiction. For
instance, He cannot make it both dark and light in the same spot, at the same
time; and He cannot make a creature in whom it would be impossible for a change
to take place. A creature cannot be created a God. Man can be but a creature,
and he must necessarily inherit all the qualities and liabilities of a
creature. Unchangeableness is an infinite attribute; and can belong only to the
Unchangeable, Untreated God; and cannot dwell in a finite being. The phrase
unchangeable creature, is the same as saying, an unchangeable changeable
creature; an infallible fallible creature. It is a contradiction, an absurdity,
an impossibility. If man be made at all he must be liable to
fall, though there may be no innate necessity for it.
There must be the capability, though there need not be the inevitability.
903 D. I see the reasonableness of what you say; and
certainly it goes far to justify the ways of God to man.
904 W. Nor should it be forgotten, that if a creature
could possess one infinite attribute, he could possess all others; in fact, he
would possess all others. No single nature can be infinite finite; and if a man
were infallible, he would also be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal,
and immortal. And yet a creature! A creature God! An originated unoriginated
being! An eternal being, beginning to be! Two Gods! The untreated original God,
and the created God; both equal in all their attributes! You see what an
absurdity must necessarily follow the supposition, that man might have been
made incapable of moral and physical evil. In the nature of things it could not
be. If an intelligent being is to be made at all, he must be subject to change;
and as God would make him innocent, any change would be from right to wrong,
from good to evil. He must be liable to this risk, or he must not be made at
all.
905 D. Your conclusion is certainly inevitable.
906 W. Besides all this, you will see, when it is put
to you, that it is impossible for a being, such as man, to be capable of right,
and yet, at the same time, incapable of wrong.
907 B. That is a bold assertion. I do not see how you
can maintain it.
908 B. But if what you say is true, what guarantee has
the true Christian, that he shall not change and become a sinful creature
again, even after he gets to heaven?
909 W. Every possible guarantee. Leaving alone, just
now, the Divine promise that he shall be kept from it, a promise not given to
the unfallen Adam, I would observe, that man might, in time, have acquired such
integrity, as never to swerve from the right; but always to choose the good and
avoid the evil. God possesses, by the perfection of His nature, an infinite
rectitude of will. He cannot do wrong, because He will not do wrong; and human
perfection is of the same kind. When, however, man was made at first, he could
not have had this perfection. He was not made a sinner, nor even sinful; for he
was made by the Holy God. " God made man upright " (Eccl. 7.29). He
was, however, necessarily made imperfect. To think otherwise would be, either
to suppose him incapable of improvement and progress, which is the
characteristic of the lower animals, or to suppose him already perfect, which
is the characteristic of God only. He was perfect, according to his nature, but
not to the extent to which he was able to come, by cultivating his capacities,
and especially by that ennobling, elevating improving process, which is the
effect of communion with the Father of spirits. Man could not have been made
otherwise than he was, even if all possible intellects, inspired by all
possible benevolences, could have been called to the council of the Divine
Persons, when consultation was held—so to speak—respecting his composition and
destiny.
910 D. All this certainly commends itself to the best
instincts of our reason.
911 W. Considering, too, the nature and proved
character of our beneficent Creator, have we not the best of all reasons for
concluding that He made man in the very best possible way? If a better could
have been devised, He would, we may be sure, have resorted to it. He could not
make a mistake. He did not make man in a hurry, or without previous thought and
consideration —as we should call it—nor even without consultation.
No afterthought could with Him improve upon the idea,
though this is often the case with us. He could not be deficient in resources;
and His power could be restrained —if we may so speak—only by considerations
arising from prudence, wisdom, and beneficence. Man was the masterpiece of all
God's works; the climax of all created perfection; but absolutely to prevent
all chance of evil, would have been to do nothing at all; or at least not to
create a moral, intelligent creature; which would have been next to nothing;
and then, as we have seen, the Divine resources could not have been manifested,
nor His happiness and glory diffused. Indeed, I will venture the assertion,
that things could not have been and ought not to have been, otherwise than they
are.
912 D. I should much like to know if any sound
objection could be made to all this; for, if not, it throws a flood of light
upon many dark thoughts which have often perplexed and grieved me, and no doubt
thousands of others.
913 A. If it is any comfort to you, I will say, that I
see no objection to it; nor can I conceive there can be any. Some might
contradict; but contradiction is no proof; nor indeed objection.
914 B. To me it is all new; I will neither assent nor
dissent.
915 W. The perfection of a scheme for the constitution
of man would be, that he should be made immortal, as long as he retained those
qualities which bring, and increase happiness; and become mortal, if he should
acquire those qualities which entail, and increase misery.
916 D. Why this is the very scheme which you affirm
God has actually introduced.
917 W. It is; and I think it ought to draw forth the
admiring gratitude of all. If, in addition to this, some scheme could be
devised, by which consistently with truth and order, any, who became morally
sick and sinful, might regain their holiness; and thus, having regained their
capacity for happiness, should again obtain the grace of immortality, this,
surely, would be the perfection of wisdom, benevolence, and love; and should
draw forth universal praise and admiration.
918 D. Why, this is the scheme of redemption by our
blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as proclaimed in His good news found in
the Bible.
919 W. You are right; and redemption is the necessary
adjunct of the creation of moral intelligent beings; so that the latter is
sure, sooner or later, to follow the former.
920 A. I do not quite see that.
921 W. The real, true and continued welfare of
intelligent beings, is closely connected with, and depends upon, their having a
correct knowledge of God. " This is life eternal, to know Thee the only
true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent " (John 17.3). God can be
made known to us only by His works, and by what He may be pleased to tell us
about Himself. His works of creation had exhibited His wisdom, power and
goodness; and His anger, at wrong doing, was exhibited when the angels fell
into sin. But there' were attributes, not yet exhibited; such as His pity and
mercy; or that pitying love which He tells us He delights to exercise; (Micah 7.18).
Now if His intelligent creatures do not know these attributes of God, their
knowledge of Him will be incorrect, and even erroneous; and this would be to
them an element of serious deterioration, which would eventually work their
misfortune; perhaps even their ruin; and this neither the wisdom nor goodness
of God could allow to arise from such a cause.
922 D. I can perceive plainly that, as our permanent
welfare and happiness depended upon our correct knowledge of all the attributes
of God, so He would necessarily exhibit all of them.
923 W. But His pity' and love cannot be exhibited
except by the exercise of them; and they cannot be exercised or used except
upon an appropriate object. Now the only thing that can call forth the exercise
of pity, is a miserable object; and there can be no miserable object, unless
there is sin. In other words, unless there is evil in existence.
924 D. This throws fresh light upon the subject. It
would appear that sin, evil, and misery, as we call them, are necessary for the
full manifestation of God's nature, and consequently for the welfare of all
moral intelligent creation.
925 W. You have exactly expressed my convictions, and
a truth which cannot be successfully disputed. This fully accounts for the deep
interest which, St. Peter tells us (1 Pet. 1.12), the unfallen angels take in
the redeeming work of Christ; and also for their gratitude, as shown in the
part which they take in singing the song of the Lamb (Rev. 5.11-14). They were
not redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb; but in His work the attributes
of God were fully developed, and by its means they learned more of the nature
of their adorable Lord God, and were the better for it. When I hear persons
with bated breath, as it were, lament the existence of evil, and express their
wonder that it was ever allowed to be, I long to impart to them these important
considerations, and thus turn their wonder into intelligent admiration, love,
and praise. When I view the great, grand scheme of Jehovah, carried out by
means of creation, preservation, and redemption, and when I know that it will
ultimately issue in the endless establishment of all good, and glory, and
happiness, and in the utter extermination of all that evil which the infinite
wisdom and dexterity of God has made subservient to it, my intellect and heart,
with a fresh power and zest, adore and magnify Him whose infinite wisdom laid
the scheme, and whose boundless love and almighty power are surely, though
slowly, carrying it to its final accomplishment.
926 D. I must, for myself, express my gladness for
these views. They relieve my mind and heart of a heavy burden, and make me see
that the good God is making all things tend to a glorious end.
927 B. I really think you are treading on delicate, if
not dangerous ground.
928 D. One question I would ask. Is it true? If not,
it is capable of being refuted, and will you do it?
929 B. I do not exactly say it is not true; but we are
so unaccustomed to this sort of thing, and it has the ' appearance of making
God the Author of sin, at which one would shudder.
930 W. I can thoroughly respect your fear. Do
remember, however, that the danger you dread can no more be a result of my
views, than of any other which may be advanced. Evil does exist, and we cannot
shut our eyes to it; and it is the general opinion, that God might have
prevented it, and accomplished all the good without it. I have shown this could
not have been, and I am sure you will allow the obvious distinction between an
author of evil, and a permitter of it. I hold God is the latter, but not the
former. I have shown, that if man is to be created at all, his evil doing could
not be absolutely prevented; and we have seen that evil was permitted for wise
and sufficiently important reasons. Now, let me observe, that it is your idea
of endless evil, which creates what danger there is. You say this evil will
endlessly exist, and be eternally intensified. You secretly feel that this is
something too horrible to be connected with God in any way; and many of you
will scarcely allow that He even permits it; and others of you shut their eyes
altogether to it. But suppose for a moment that evil will not be endless; that
while it does last, it is made to accomplish a necessary good, and an eternal
good, which it only could achieve. Suppose, too, that when its purpose is
accomplished, it shall itself be brought to naught; all this would at once
change the aspect of affairs, and take away that which makes you shudder. Now
it has been proved that the Bible does not invest evil with the attribute of
eternity; but that God has decreed, that, as evil had a beginning, so it shall
have an end. Thus, whatever connection God may have had with the existence of
evil, whether as author or permitter, there is nothing, in what He did permit,
unworthy of His power, or wisdom, or love.
931 B. But if people think that evil is of use, is it not
likely to encourage them in sin.
932 W. It seems to me there is a question prior to
this. Is it true that the wisdom and love of God, have turned, and are every
day turning, a necessary evil, into an instrument to promote His own glory and
His people's benefit! If so—and who can dispute it? —then there is nothing in
this fact at all calculated to encourage men in sin. I own, indeed, it may be
true, that, in consequence of your erroneous system of teaching, they may abuse
this truth; but neither I, nor the truth I announce, can be answerable for
this. Is the Gospel answerable for the fact, that some turn its grace into
licentiousness, and transmute a savor of life into a savor of death? Supposing,
however, there is a possibility of an abuse of this truth, should not God's
ordained teachers of His holy book, counteract it, as they do the alleged evil
tendency of the doctrine of justification by faith only?
933 A. I will own we ought not to dispute what you
say, for it is true, and therefore salutary.
934 W. I want to urge another thought. The fruits of
the Spirit cannot be matured in a Christian, and he cannot be fitted for His
Father's house, without the existence of evil.
935 B. That is a strange position; how can you make it
out?
936 W. Heavenly joys and rewards are not for those who
have not sinned because they have no opportunity of sinning, and no temptation
to sin; but for those who have both opportunity and temptation, and who, by
Divine aid, resist and overcome. " How can I do this great wickedness and
sin against God?" There can be no victory, over the foe, without a battle
with him. No crown till after the cross. No virtue without temptation; and in
proportion to the fierceness of the temptation, does the resistance of it show the
strength of virtue and grace in a Christian. Thus we cannot be sure of the
existence in us of true religion and virtue, nor of what strength they are,
unless evil is in existence, and we are tempted to yield to it.
937 D. Certainly a very important and practical
observation.
938 W. Further, how can Christian graces be matured
without exercise? and how can they be exercised unless evil is in existence,
and we are plied with it? For instance, how can the divine grace of forgiveness
be exercised, unless an injury is done? and how can we show the meekness and
gentleness of Jesus, except under provocation? And so with respect to all godly
qualities. Let it however never be forgotten, that if our Heavenly Father has,
for all these good purposes, permitted evil to exist, He gives to us Christians
ample facilities to counteract and resist, and conquer the fatal effects of
evil. He urges upon us the all-powerful aids of His Spirit. He has given to us
the means of grace, and He has instituted the Christian ministry, whose office
it is to teach true knowledge, and to give warning of danger. Consider how very
much all this comprehends; and then say, what more God could have done for His
vineyard than He has done. How grievous it must be to Him, that when He looks
for grapes, He finds only wild grapes!
939 A. I am being convinced, that a deep and solemn
responsibility rests upon us, especially upon some of us. If we, by our
teaching, have caused the people to err, what will be the consequences to us
and to them?
940 D. If we have been wrong, let us be thankful that
our eyes are at last opened. It is never too late to mend. It has been shown
that man could not be made incapable of falling; that he ought not to be so
made; and that evil has been permitted for necessary and benevolent reasons.
Now, what is the end of all this, and how does it bear upon the main question,
the extinction of evil?
941 W. Sin and evil were permitted for a necessary
purpose. How obvious and reasonable then is the inference, that when the
purpose is fully accomplished, it shall pass entirely away and exist no more!
In other words, the attributes of God could not have been exhibited, and
consequently the continued welfare of His intelligent creation could not have
been conserved, nor virtues in human beings be matured, without the presence of
sin and suffering. But the attributes of God are now manifested; redemption, by
the cross, has been completed; by and by He will, " of His gracious
goodness accomplish the number of His elect;" and His kingdom shall have
come, and have been established; when all opposition is to be put down, and
every foe destroyed. Now I ask, where will be the use of evil any longer? On
what plea can it be endlessly continued, as you aver it shall be? If God can
put it down, why should it not be done? If the Son of God can destroy the works
of the Devil, what considerations of wisdom, benevolence or utility, can forbid
it? Benevolence, as we have seen, was concerned in the permission of evil, and
that very benevolence will demand its utter extinction when it has done its
work.
942 A. If I could successfully oppose your positions,
I would do so, but I cannot. I must yield to clear Bible texts and strong sound
reasons.
943 W. Let me then take advantage of the concession;
and, on the ground which has been laid, let me construct another argument for
extinction. We have seen that the reasons for permitting evil, and for
tolerating its continuance, are, from their nature, but temporary. When their
object is achieved, it is needed no longer. This being the case, I will lay
down this proposition:—Unless sin and suffering become extinct, the saints, in
glory, cannot be happy. In proportion as a man is holy, he is vexed and
disturbed by sin, even here below; and in proportion as he is good and
benevolent, he is distressed, and made unhappy by the sufferings of his
fellow-creatures. Now the imperfect saintly nature through which he feels these
things now, will be perfected in the heavenly state, and be made more sensitive
to them there, than it is here. How then can saints be happy while they know—as
you say they will know—that myriads upon myriads of their fellow-creatures, are
ever uttering the most horrid blasphemies and curses against God, and are ever
suffering the most exquisite tortures that can be inflicted? A man must be lost
to holiness and benevolence now, if he can behold sin and suffering unmoved.
Can glorified saints be without a heart to feel these evils and agonies? If
they can, they are not saints; or if they are, God must have given them a
different rule of action and feeling there, from what He gave them here; and He
must have infused into them a nature far different from the new nature He gave
them in this world. But since all this is untrue and absurd, since saints will
be perfectly and exquisitely happy, and since they cannot be so in the presence
of sin and suffering, therefore, if only for their sake, these shall come to an
end. In fact, the perfect bliss of the saints will be coeval with the utter
extinction of sin and pain, and not before.
944 D. Now it is put to us, I confess I cannot see how
the happiness of heaven can consist with the endless miseries of hell.
945 W. The question then, whether evil shall be
extinct, resolves itself into the will of God. If it is His will, it will be
done; but not otherwise. We may be allowed to suppose, that an infinitely
benevolent, loving Being, would wish to abolish all pain and sin, if He could
do so consistently.
946 A. Can we suppose that any obstacle can be in the
way, if He wishes it?
947 W. He must be consistent. " He cannot deny
Himself." Let us try this feature on various grounds. Does His truth
forbid it? He has nowhere given the slightest intimation, that sin and. pain
shall be endless; on the contrary, He has said they shall pass away; that He
will make all things new, and that He sent His Son on purpose to destroy the
works of the Devil. His truth therefore cannot interfere with His wishes; but
it falls in with them. Does His wrath forbid it? We have had positive proof
that he does not keep His anger forever. Does His justice? It has acquiesced in
the destruction of an enormous amount of sin and evil; nay, it has helped in
their destruction. Would it not be capricious to say —" So far and no farther?"
If justice has helped to destroy some evil, why not all. Besides this; part of
the office of justice is to see to the welfare of the good; but their welfare,
we have seen, is inconsistent with the existence of sin and pain; therefore
justice would require their abolition; especially as truth and wrath do not
require their continuance. Can it be then that He is not able? I answer most
positively and emphatically No! No! a thousand times over, if that would
increase the emphasis. All possible things are possible with Him, though with
no one else. We have seen He could not make man a God; and thus render him
infallible and incapable of wrong. There is an absurdity in such a supposition,
and an absolute contradiction. But there is neither absurdity, nor contradiction
involved in the supposition of the utter extinction of all moral and physical
evil; and, as we have seen, there is no hinderance on account of truth, or
wrath, or justice. He can do it, with the strictest propriety, if it so please
Him. Then does it so please Him? The following considerations will help us to
an answer:
I. God is the best of beings, and the most benevolent;
and He is also the fountain of goodness and benevolence in all others.
II. If so, His benevolence is like ours, wishing for
the extermination of sin and pain. The difference is in degree, not in kind.
III. The more benevolence we have, the more do we try
to extinguish evil; but we are limited for want of power.
IV. God's benevolence cannot lead Him to an opposite
line of conduct; and He is not bounded by power, nor hindered by circumstances.
The answer then is clear, undoubted, and unhesitating. God does wish, and will,
to extinguish all evil, of every kind. I ask, with the authority of truth,
" Who shall dare to stay His hand or say, What does thou? And who ought to
contradict His decree?
948 D. Well, if that is not demonstration, I don't
know what is. If I were umpire and judge, I would say —Take your case, you have
proved your cause.
949 W. I should like to make a finishing observation
or two.
I. The redemption of Christ has greatly mitigated the
condition of all sinners; even of those who will not come to Him that they may
have life. All the good things of this life were forfeited by sin. The
continuation of our living bodily existence, and all its enjoyments, are the
produce now of the atonement. " He is thus the Savior of all men,"
and He leaves not Himself without witness of this, in that " He does good,
and gives rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with joy
and gladness." Though the many refuse spiritual, saving blessings, yet He
has arranged to make them as comfortable as possible, as long as they do live.
He opens His hand and fills all things living with plenteousness; " and
" He gives them all things richly to enjoy." When He causes grief, it
is to bring them to accept eternal as well as temporal, mercies; and if His
arrangements were not marred, by the perversity of man, far greater happiness
and plenty would be enjoyed by all. I will venture the assertion, that if men
will not allow themselves to be prepared for happiness in the next world, He
does not, on that account, wish them to be miserable in this. Like a kind and
tender Father, He has made the best possible provision for the welfare and
happiness of all; and would that He had never been interfered with. " The
Lord is good to every man, and His tender mercies are over all His works."
II. I wish to repeat, and to draw special attention to
it, that though, for wise and sufficient reasons, He has permitted evil to
exist, yet He has so fenced and bounded it, that it does not operate fatally
with those who fall in with His designs and arrangements; and He has so
managed, as to ultimately extinguish it; and, meanwhile, He so reins and guides
it as to make it subservient to present and endless good. I have now told you
why evil was permitted; and, I think, I have shown that our Heavenly Father
always acts infinitely wisely, and well, and kindly. "Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord."
950 A. My mind is quite satisfied—you have displayed
to us the eternal, great, grand scheme of the Sacred Three; and, truly, a
magnificent one it is; and worthy of Himself. I thought you wrong, but I now
see you have a good cause in hand, and I wish you all prosperity in it.
951 W. God is giving His blessing to this new
reformation; and I have good reason to know that He is preparing the hearts of
thousands, who are ready to rise up as a great army, when what they deem the
proper time shall come. I want them to be more bold and decided for the truth;
but it is hard for them to go against wind and tide.
952 D. What shall be the subject next?
953 4 I should say universalism.
954 D. Will Mr. N. be kind enough to tell us what his
belief is concerning universal salvation?
955 N. It is that all those who have died in sin,
however wicked they may have been, shall ultimately be restored to endless
holiness and happiness.
956 D. By what means do you suppose this will be done?
957 N. The punishments to which they will be consigned
will be corrective, not punitive; and the object of their sufferings is, not so
much for the display of vengeance, as for the purpose of their salvation.
958 D. Will the Gospel be preached to them, and will
they have any helps to obtain salvation in the way of means of grace, as we now
call them?
959 N. I cannot say I have any definite idea in my
mind on that point; but they will be saved by the mercy of God, as shown
through the atonement.
960 D. Must they believe with their hearts unto
righteousness then as we have to do now?
961 N. They will know that Christianity is true, and
they will believe it.
962 D. It seems they went as far as that here, but it
did not save them. Will it save them there?
963 N. It will chiefly be by their sufferings that
they will be subdued and saved. It will be a kind of purgatorial fire, and
their sins will be burnt out of them.
964 D. It is important that we should fully understand
exactly what you believe. Will it be the blood of Christ which will cleanse
them from sin, or will it be the fire?
965 N. Of course I do not exclude the blood of Christ;
but they will then be saved chiefly by the sufferings and purgation of fire.
966 D. Material fire?
967 H. It would appear so: they will be cast into the
lake which burns with fire and brimstone, and it will be there that the process
of their salvation will be carried on.
968 D. Will the working of the Holy Spirit be needed
and imparted then as now, to give them a new heart for instance?
969 N. I cannot imagine that sinners then will get a
new nature without the Spirit any more than ourselves now.
970 D. Those in the lake of fire are as much men as
they ever were, and it seems from what you say that, if saved at all, it will
be through the merits of Christ for them, and by the work of the Spirit in
them; they must desire salvation, and seek it by prayer, and the work of the
Spirit in them must be first imperfect, and then must gradually arrive at
maturity. They must also be pardoned and justified as we are. In fact, much the
same work will, according to you, be done for them then, as for us now. One
does not see the need of that terrible lake of fire to save them. It must be
the blood of Jesus which will cleanse them from sin, and the work of the Spirit
by which they will be sanctified. Could not these be done for them without the
action of fire?
971 H. These means were not efficacious for them in
this world, and in the next the fearful proces4 of fire is added, and all put
together will be efficacious.
972 D. So that their sufferings there operate much as
affliction sometimes operates here; they bring them to their senses and make
them reflect. Do you suppose that the process will take a long time or short?
973 N. It is likely that some will yield sooner than
others; but our general opinion is that it will last for ages.
974 D. And you think that all that time those who will
be in the lake will have to endure those fierce inconceivable agonies.
975 N. Better that than that their sufferings should
be endless. The very prospect and hope of deliverance, some time or other, will
greatly mitigate their sufferings. The details of the question we do not
investigate. We believe that they will ultimately be saved, and the detail of
the process we leave.
976 D. Excuse me, we cannot in discussion leave out
such details as I have mentioned. The subject must be made definite and
understandable before we can discuss it. I should not have supposed that so
much efficacy would have been attributed to physical pain. Afflictions have
often a hardening, and not a subduing effect; and I recollect reading somewhere
in Revelation how that the sufferings of certain persons made them blaspheme
God the more (Rev. 16. 9, 11, 21). If pain is for them more effectual to
salvation in the next world than here, it must be, I suppose, because God adds
to it more of the energy of His Spirit there than He chose to do here.
977 W. Universalists generally think that the process
will be sharp and so extended in duration as to warrant the term eternity to be
applied to it. Now will all the untold myriads be in suffering the whole of
this eternity? If some will find the duration shortened for them, why not all?
seeing the sins of all are equally atoned for, and seeing the Spirit could work
holiness in all as quickly as in some. The long continuance in such exquisite
misery would seem to be the result of caprice, not of necessity. Besides this,
as soon as the human will yields to the will of God, rebellion no longer
exists. Is there then a mitigation of suffering? If one yields sooner than
another, as N. supposes may be the case, is the fierceness of the same fire
lessened to him, and not to someone else close to him? Does the fire contribute
to the process of sanctification, as well as towards the subduing of the will?
And is it the exceeding slowness of the process which makes such a time
necessary? Or is it that sin has not yet received sufficient punishment? Or is
it continued by the arbitrary will of God? If the first, it must be because the
Spirit does not choose to do His work more quickly, and so, by means of the
delay, he keeps them longer in their suffering. If the second, then this
alleged purgatorial fire is punitive,
and it becomes corrective, only when a certain amount of punishment has been
inflicted. If the third, it supposes God, by an arbitrary act of His will, to
keep millions of His creatures in most exquisite tortures, though it is not
necessary for any alleged worthy object. I have given much thought to your
views, and they appear to me to be contradictory in themselves, and to be
surrounded with real difficulties. Still, if you can prove them by Scripture,
that will be sufficient.
978 D. Will Mr. N. describe, in general terms, what
the Bible evidence is on which he rests?
979 AT I rest upon the meaning which we universalists
believe must be attached to the word destruction, and similar words; the
universality of the language used in reference to the restoration, and
salvation, of mankind; and upon the character of God.
980 D. Let us then consider these grounds of evidence
one by one, and see what will be the result.
981 N Universalists agree in the idea which the extinctionists attach to destruction; that it means,
bringing to an end; but we object to their application of it. They apply it to
the lives or persons of sinners: we to their sins and sinful dispositions. We
thus save the sinner, and destroy his sins only. And we contend that whenever
it is applied to living human beings, this is its precise signification.
982 A. What is the reason for so applying it to them.
983 N. Mr. W. has proved it may be applied to things,
characters, qualities, etc., etc. Now why should we not apply the word to the
character and evil qualities of a sinner? If you turn a bad man into a good
man, he is a sinner no longer; and he who was an enemy of God, is become a
friend. We think this is the destruction of the sinner.
984 W. No, not of the sinner, though of his sin. The
sinner is the person of him who commits the sin, and he is identically the same
person, after his conversion, as he was before. Such a one is no longer a
sinner in character, but he is the same man. Can you give us a text which
refers to the future of the wicked, where destruction, or any similar word,
must apply to their sinful character, and not to their persons?
985 N. I have no specific text on the point; but if I
read, that all shall be saved; that all shall be restored; that Jesus is the
Savior of all men; then the destruction of the sinner must refer to his sins:
it cannot refer to his life or person.
986 D. It seems, then, that it is your system of
theology which necessitates your application of the word. Is not this too much
like reasoning in a circle to be an argument?
987 W. I would remind you of two things which have
been proved by those texts which speak of the ultimate destruction of the
wicked. I. It is invariably their persons which are referred to. Of course
their sins will be put a stop to, but it will not be by the conversion of their
character, but by the destruction of their persons. Thus the destruction of 2
Thess. 1.9 is threatened against the persons of those who obey not the gospel
of Jesus. St. Peter says, the " false prophets shall bring upon themselves
swift destruction." 2 Pet. 2.1; that the "unstable wrest the word to
their own destruction; " that it is " the perdition of ungodly
men." 2 Pet. 3.7, 16. He says, 2 Pet. 3.9, that God is not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance; which, on the theory
of Mr. N., should be read thus—"Not willing that the sinful characters of
any should perish; " and as to the remaining clause of the text, it can
have no place with the preceding clause. The two clauses would be in
contradiction, on his theory. The same may be said of Ezek. 18.23, " Have
I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God, and not
that he should turn from his ways and live?" On N.'s theory it would read
thus —" Have I any pleasure at all that the evil character of the wicked
should die?" Go throughout the Bible and you will find that similar
remarks will apply to all such passages; and that there is not one, which
refers to the future state, where the destruction of wicked characters is
referred to, independent of the destruction of their persons. II. This
destruction is threatened as a penal infliction; and never in any other aspect.
It is, punishment, judgment, wrath, indignation, to be punished with
everlasting destruction, to be slain, to be burnt up, etc., etc. Now when we
consider, that all these penal expressions describe a judicial sentence, passed
as the result of a set judicial enquiry, we must surely see it to be impossible
to admit, that the sentence of destruction applies to the sins of the sinner,
and not to the sinner himself. If the Bible is to be our teacher, let us learn
what we are to believe, from the natural meaning of its words, and not make a meaning
for them.
988 D. All that seems very satisfactory, and I do not
see bow it can be overthrown.
989 N. Perhaps, as we go on, you will better perceive
the force of my argument. I next remind you of the universality of the language
of the Bible, when describing the salvation which Christ wrought out. Take
first Rom. 5, where St. Paul absolutely says, that the effects of the work of
redemption by Christ are, at least, as extensive and universal, as are the
effects of the fall in Adam. Now as we cannot put a limit upon the latter, so
we must not upon the former. " For if through one offence the many be dead,
much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus
Christ, hath abounded to the many. Therefore as by one offence, judgment came
upon all men to condemnation; even so by one righteousness, the free gift came
upon all men unto justification of life," verses 15, 18. Now how can we
mistake such language as this? You cannot here make the distinction, which is
sometimes made, that though Christ died for all, that does not prove that all
shall actually be saved; for, by the same reasoning, you must hold, that all
did not actually fall in Adam. If the effects of the fall are actually felt by
all, then the effects of Christ's work must be actually felt by all. In this
respect there is no difference; except indeed, that St. Paul adds the words,
" much more," to the latter.
990 B. I have often been struck with the palpable
universality of this chapter; and I own, if I were ever to change my views, it
would be in the direction of Mr. N., not of Mr. N.
991 A. Even that would be an immense improvement. You,
Mr. N., no doubt have observed, that though, in some of the verses, the words
are " all men;" yet in others it is, " many," or " the
many." Now is it not possible, that " all men " may be properly
bounded by "the many?" Many, are not all. Besides this, it should not
be forgotten that one great point of St. Paul, was to contrast the
exclusiveness of Judaism with the wide expansiveness of Christianity. The one
was intended for the few, the other for all; and hence the pains which the Apostle
took to show, that Christ's work was for the whole human family; not for the
Jews only. The actual salvation of individuals is not the point treated of,
whether they be few, many, or all.
992 N. Is there not as much reason for asking, whether
" the many " should not be so extended as to include the all?
993 D. It is difficult to say which phraseology should
bend to the other.
994 W. Does the way in which the phrase, " all
men," is used in the Bible, bind us to understand it as necessarily including
every individual descendant of Adam?
995 N. How otherwise can we understand it? How can all
men, mean some, or many?
996 W. I think you will find it difficult to discover
a language, in which the corresponding phrase to our " all men,"
necessarily includes every individual, or more than the many. As far as I can
search, the real force of the phrase very often is, all that are concerned in
the thing spoken of. Before we see that St. Paul himself puts a limitation upon
his own " all," I would refer to a few places where " all "
cannot include every individual. " To all that be in Rome " =to all
concerned in the Epistle. " So all Israel shall be saved " = all that
are grafted in again; not every individual Israelite who has ever lived. "
Provide things honest in the sight of all men " = all that have
opportunity to observe your conduct. " Live peaceably with all' men "
=all with whom you have to do. "One believeth that he may eat all things
" = all things which are edible. " Your obedience is come abroad to
all men = many, or all who are interested in the Christian cause. "
Revelation . . . made known to all nations " = all the nations where it
had been preached. " I would that all men " were [single] even as
I," or (as the subsequent words show) all that have the gift to remain
single. Could Paul wish that no man whatever should ever be married? " I
please all men in all things " = all men with whom I have to do, in all
things I have to transact with them. There are very many more places of a like
character; but these are enough to show, that " all men " do not
include all the descendants of Adam. We perpetually use the phrase " all
men," in a limited sense, as meaning all referred to, or all concerned.
997 D. What precise meaning, then, would you attach to
the phrase as used by the Apostle?
998 W. The same as in all the examples I have adduced,
which you will observe are all from his writings, and are specimens of his
style. Its force is—all who fell, fell in Adam; all who are saved, are saved by
Christ; and the force of the " much more" is = they who are saved,
gained much more in Christ than they lost in Adam. If you ask how many fell in
Adam? I answer, all his descendants. If you further enquire, how many are saved
by Christ? I answer, with the whole Bible, all who believe and obey Him. That
is, all concerned in both cases.
999 B. Is not all that plausible, rather than sound?
1000 W. I wished to show you, on independent grounds,
that St. Paul perpetually uses the words in a very limited application; but now
let me point out, that in this very chapter the Apostle himself limits their
application. I will read verse 17 of Rom. 5: " For if by one offence,
death reigned by one, much more they which have received abundance of grace,
and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus
Christ." Here, you see, the " all men " are restricted to those
" who receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of
righteousness." Thus, then, the all men, in one verse, are " the
many" of the other verse; and these " many," are these only who
receive the abundance of grace; and it is these only who " reign in life
by Jesus Christ." All others must die the death.
1001 N. I own I am met, on this portion of the Bible,
in a way I did not expect. I suppose that verse 17 was overlooked by me.
1002 W. Your candor is most praiseworthy. Permit me to
add, that the first verse of the chapter would not allow your view, "
Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ." Here, peace with God is restricted to those who are justified by
faith; and this faith can be exercised and exhibited by us only in this world.
1003 B. But do you mean to say that " all
men" never means all Adam's descendants?
1004 W. By no means. In some places it must be so
extended.
1005 B. Then, why should it not be so understood here?
1006 D. The answer has already been given us. The
Apostle himself manifestly often uses the words in the limited application, and
in this chapter he restricts their application by what he writes in verse 17.
1007 N. I will now give you a text where, I think, I
have made no mistake: 1 Timothy 4.10, " We trust in the living God, who is
the Savior of all men; specially of those who believe." Now, those who
have received abundance of grace are those who believe. Ile is manifestly the
Savior of them; and it would appear that they who believe are the comparative
few. This text, however, will not restrict salvation to them. He is the Savior
of all men. Ile is specially so of believers; still He is the Savior of all.
1008 A. May it not mean, that He came as the Savior of
all; for He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; but that He is
the actual Savior of those only that believe? In this case the " all
men" would be taken in the same way as in the texts already adduced.
Through the work of Jesus all mankind are put into a state of salvability; believers only are actually saved.
1009 D. That is true; but one does not see in such an
interpretation, the full force of " specially." The text would declare,
more than that Jesus is the intended Savior of all. As Savior He actually does
something more for those who believe; but this implies He does something less
for those who do not believe. Still, He does something for all.
1010 W. It is quite true; He is the common Savior of
all. He is " specially;" that is, " most of all " so, of
those who believe. As Savior, He does much for all; He does most for believers.
1011 D. That analogy satisfies me. Now we must find
out what is the much, and what is the most.
1012 W. As a help to find it out let us realize to
ourselves that He does something for the one class which He does not do for the
other.
1013 D. Obviously so; or there would be no force in
the " specially."
1014 W. And something different also must be intended;
not that He gives so much of a thing to the one class, but most of the same
thing to the other class.
1015 D. Stay, let me see that. . . . Can it be so? . .
. Is it so? . . . Well, I suppose I cannot object to it, though I do not see
what you are driving at.
1016 W. I am driving at nothing, except to elucidate
the text. There is one feature, in the redemption of Jesus, which is almost
ignored by divines. They speak and write as if He bought back for us only what
we usually understand by spiritual and eternal blessings; whereas His
redemption purchased for us all the blessings for this life, as well as the
next. We get nothing from our heavenly Father merely because He is our Creator,
but because He is also our Redeemer. We all, by our sinful nature and actual
sin, have, again and again, forfeited food, raiment, and all the blessings and
endearments of this life; and it was the death of Christ that won them back;
and it is by the intercession of Jesus that these, as well as spiritual
blessings, are perpetually bestowed. A new grant of every forfeited thing is
made to us through the work of Christ.
1017 B. I don't think the commentator Scott would say
that.
1018 D. Do you make any man, even Scott, your
Rabbi,—your infallible teaching master? Is there a text, Mr. W., to back up
what you say?
1019 W. There is 2 Pet. 1.3: "His divine power hath
given unto us all things that pertain to life and Godliness, through the
knowledge of Him who hath called us to glory and virtue." It may possibly
be thought, that as St. Peter uses here we, and not bios, he does not refer to
the comforts of our mortal state; but we several times find zoe
instead of bios, thus applied. As for example: 1 Tim. 4.8, " Godliness is
profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that
which is to come." James 4.14: " For what is your life? It is even a
vapor which appeared for a little while," etc. 1 Pet. 3.10: " For he
that will love life and see good days," etc. So in the text before us;
life refers to things that concern our welfare in this world; Godliness to the
things that pertain to the next; but when either are bestowed, it is through
Jesus Christ. You will find that even Doddridge gives this meaning of the text,
and the best Lexicons tell us that the primary meaning of zoe
is " the means of life," though in the New Testament its chief application
is to life itself.
1020 D. I begin to think there is some text for everything.
Now make what you say to bear upon the question before us.
1021 W. If Jesus were not the Savior of all men, no
man could have a living existence, nor any mental powers, nor any supply of
earthly necessities, nor any enjoyments, nor happiness in this world; nor could
he acquire wisdom, nor make mental progress, nor advance in arts, science, and
civilization. Above all, unless He were the Savior of all men, none would have
the opportunity of obtaining glory, honor, and immortality; and, in that case,
the whole race of man must have become extinct, according to the original
sentence. In other words, unless He had been the Savior of all men, He could
not have been specially so of those that believe. He does very much for all
men, but those who believe He adopts into His family, and, as the children of
the Most High, they live forever in their Father's mansion of glory. He is thus
" the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."
1022 D. Well, I must say that view of the text falls
in with the whole drift of Scripture, without mangling any part of it; and,
like everything really Biblical, it accords with common sense and sound reason.
To make it say that every individual descendant of Adam shall ultimately be
saved, would leave no force, nor place, for the " specially," and
would bring it into conflict with the whole scope of the Bible, especially of
those parts which restrict pardon of sin, and eternal life, to those who repent
and believe the Gospel; and that, too, while they are in this world.
1023 A. I, too, must say I find more and more
satisfaction in this close investigation of the Bible. I see more distinctly
God's vast and glorious plans and designs in creation and redemption; as also
that He is gradually, but surely, fulfilling them.
1024 N. I believe that; and my next passage will prove
that He is doing it in my sense, not yours (1 Tim. 2.4): "God, who will
have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Now
it is here declared that God wills all to be saved; and I confidently ask, with
St. Paul (Rom. 9.19): " Who hath resisted His will?" Depend upon it,
nothing shall ultimately frustrate His will; nor ought we to wish it. St. Paul
goes on to say (ver. 6), "Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all, to be
testified in due time." Put the two together. " God wills all to be
saved;" " Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all." Can language be
stronger, or more universal? This is to be testified in due time. Not perhaps
yet, but sooner or later. Possibly not till the next world.
1025 A. But you forget; this is to be done "in
due time." The next world will be eternity; and before then the angel will
have sworn " that time shall be no longer," and " the mystery
will have been finished " (Rev. 10.6, 7). The next world will not be
" in due time."
1026 W. I would beg Mr. N. to look at the Greek of his
two main texts. In 1 Tim. 2.4 the Apostle uses thelei,
and its force is that God wishes all men to be saved, not that it is part of
His fixed counsel, as affirmed by Mr. N. In Rom. 9.19 the word is boulemati, which does mean God's fixed counsel; and this,
none can resist. Persons do resist God's will or wishes for their salvation;
for Stephen says: "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers
did, so ye " (Acts 7.51). And Jesus says, " Ye will not come unto Me
that ye may have life " (John 5.40). To take Mr. N.'s proof text as he
interprets it, is to contradict its own words, and to bring it into conflict
with all the rest of Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has
determined on saving all mankind, but it does often say that He wishes to save
them and does not wish them to perish.
1027 N. I see that I must look more at my Greek Testament.
I had taken it for granted that " will " represented, in both texts,
the same original word.
1028 W. You are not alone. I have often heard it urged
in the same way as you have done. You will observe that the words, " due
time," harmonize with this natural view of the text; but not with yours,
as shown by Mr. A. Present time and future eternity are contrasts; and when the
latter begins the former ends.
1029 N. I will, this time, put two or three passages
together, as they will illustrate and confirm each other: Eph. 1.9, 10, "
Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good
pleasure, which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the
fulness of times, He might gather under one headship all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him." Col. 1.20,
" And, having made peace by the blood of His Cross, by Him to reconcile
all things to Himself; by Him I say whether they be things in earth or things
in heaven." Acts 3.21, " Whom the heavens must receive, until the
times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of His
holy prophets since the world began."
1030 D. You think you can extract the individual
salvation of all men from these passages? I should have thought that the neuter
gender—all things—would stand in your way.
1031 N. No; there is no difficulty in that. Whatever
is done, it is by the blood of the Cross, and this blood reconciled persons as
well as things; and I cannot imagine how these glorious words can be fulfilled,
unless every man shall ultimately be saved. There is universality, and no
exception, in things of heaven; and there must be the same universality, and no
exception, in things of earth. Nor can you bring in any lack of counsel here;
for God hath spoken of it by the mouth of His holy prophets, and purposed it in
Himself.
1032 W. Fully to understand these passages, we must
see both what they do say, and what they do not say. First, what do they say?
I. They speak of a period yet future, called the
fulness of times. There have been patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian times; but
this fulness, or completion, of times, will be after all these; and also after
millennial times. It will be that complete state, for which all these were the
preparation, and to which all the progress of these times tended. In fact, the
final state of glory.
II. This fulness of times will be a dispensation,
which, as we all know, means the family economy, or arrangement, which the One
Father makes for His children and household. He has made many of these
arrangements; each succeeding one, fuller than the former, and better suited to
the progress which His family had made. This will be the fullest and best;
indeed, the final one.
III. All intelligent beings, living at that period,
whether they belong to heaven or earth; as also all the things with which their
happiness shall be connected, will then be united under one Headship, our
Redeemer, Jehovah Jesus. All opposition will, by that period, have been put
down, and all enemies destroyed, even the last enemy, death.
IV. This glorious consummation of all God's plans,
will be, by means of the blood of the Cross. Well may we glory in the wondrous
work of our precious Savior on the Cross!
V. By this blood of the Cross, harmony will be brought
about between heaven and earth. By heaven and earth, I understand, here, the
same as in the Lord's prayer. " Thy will be done on earth " = among
mankind„" as it is in heaven " = among angels. From the time of the
Fall, heaven and earth have been out of harmony. Now they are one again in
Christ.
VI. This will be the time of the restitution of all
things; or when all things shall be brought back to their original happiness
and glory; with that addition which shall accrue to God's intelligent
creatures, by the latest and fullest exhibition, which He gave of Himself, by
the pity, mercy, and love of the Cross. All these things these passages clearly
say.
1033 D. Yes; and they hold out most glowing and
glorious prospects. What do you include in what the texts do not say?
1034 W. Mr. N. makes them say that every individual
descendant of Adam shall be restored and saved. But nothing of the kind is
said, or implied. All who shall be in heaven and earth shall be in harmony
under One headship. These, however, do not include the unsaved wicked, for at
this period they all will have been destroyed. It is not too much to say, that
it has been demonstrated that all the wicked shall be destroyed upon and after
the great assize. The holy prophets and apostles looked beyond this period to
that time when all evil persons and things shall be extinct; when, as all
opponents are put down, God shall be all in all; when the former things shall
have passed away, and all things shall have become new. This harmonious view of
the passages entirely fulfils Mr. N.'s conditions. There is universality, and
no exception, in things of heaven; and there must be the same universality, and
no exception, to things of earth.
1035 D. I see it! Mr. N. goes back and collects all
men who have lived from the time of the Fall; the prophets and apostles go
forwards, and collect only those who shall be alive in heaven and earth when
that last full dispensation shall be established. Thus St. Paul's two texts are
quite in harmony with his limitation in Rom. 5; and the prophets appear to be
the same, and, of course, all the rest of the Bible. My mind was quite ready to
receive universalism, if it could be proved by clear texts of Holy Scripture;
but I see it cannot be done.
1036 B. Perhaps Mr. N. has further evidence to adduce
which altogether might establish his cause. I begin to think his views may be
correct.
1037 N. I must be candid and honest. I have much that
I intended to put forward as a kind of supplementary makeweight to what I have
already said; but it has no weight in itself. I intended to show that God says,
by Daniel, "He will make an end of sin;" but then W.'s system does
this as well as mine; and so of the words, " For Thy pleasure they exist,
and were created." But this is as true on his system as mine, and the same
may be said of some others. I am not able to maintain my views on the best
texts which we usually adduce, and I shall abandon the rest. I now wish to urge
only the known and declared character of God. This seems to me to require the
restoration of all men.
1038 A. Any argument arising from that ground deserves
most serious attention.
1039 N. The known character of God is, that He is
infinitely benevolent and loving; and these qualities are combined in Him with
equal wisdom and power. I am aware that this argument tells with special
strength against endless torments; but it tells, with much force, against W.'s
system. I hold endless torments to be absolutely and positively irreconcilable
with the Fatherhood of God, and with that nature which is love itself; and the
sooner that Christendom shows abhorrence of it, the sooner will it be wise and
true, and be likely to convert the world. W.'s theory is an immense relief from
this. Still he represents God as pursuing a course of mere penalty, without any
expectation of producing any good by it to the punished ones; and I urge this
against it. I can understand the One Great Father scourging and correcting His
obdurate children, in order to bring them to amendment and happiness; but it is
most repugnant to my best feelings to think that He would inflict pain for mere
vengeance.
1040 TV. I think this argument does tell, with
crushing force, against the popular notion of endless torments; but it does not
against extinction. I do not shrink from averring that God is as much a just
Governor, as He is a loving Father. In executing the renal duties of a
Governor, He does not take us by surprise; for, from the beginning, He has
warned us of the consequences of wrong doing. He gives His warnings, either by
the light of reason and conscience, which are part of that " true light,
which lighted every man that cometh into the world; " or by the direct
revelations of His Word; and where He gives little of these, and such like
advantages, He requires but the corresponding little increase. The conscience
of the heathen, St. Paul tells us (Rom. 2.14, 15) bears them witness, and their
thoughts, or reasonings, accuse, or else excuse them, " which shows the
work of the law written in their hearts." Now, seeing all this is the
case, I would ask, with the Apostle, "Is God unrighteous which taketh
vengeance," though He is the One Father? Mr. N.'s theory answers, yes. But
what adds St. Paul? " By no means; for then, how shall God judge the
world? " (Rom. 3.5, 6.) Here is N.'s own difficulty contemplated, and
fully met. As Father, God tries to save His children, and He sent His Son for
this very purpose. If they will not let this be done, then He, who is the
Savior, will also be Judge; and in visiting the incorrigible with wrath, He is
not unrighteous.
1041 A. It is here, it seems to me, that the mercy of
extinction is seen. God must either keep the incorrigibles alive in their sins,
which would be a species of endless misery, though it need not be of torment;
or He must punish them endlessly; which He repudiates; or He must put them out
of living existence, and thus end both their sins, and their misery. Now, I
ask, what, under the circumstances, would be the dictates of even a father's
heart? Would it not be extinction? Then, as Governor, He has warned them, and
threatened them with judgment, and the terrors of death and destruction. Now,
what can He do? Must He forget His threat and not execute it? Where, then, is
His truth? They have proved themselves worthless in character, and to be incapable
of the high elevation and refinement of holiness, without which they cannot see
the Lord. What is to be done with such? I must avow the convictions of my
corrected faith and say, I see nothing but extinction. St. Peter's language is
strong, but it is just, and fitting. "These, as natural brute beasts, ...
shall utterly perish in their own corruption."
1042 D. It seems to me, also, that extinction is the
fitting and proper sequel of those vast designs of God which were discussed on
the tenth day.
1043 N. I must own to a feeling, which sometimes
strongly possesses me, that it seems an unjust partiality to save some, and not
all. Now I cannot suppose that God is unjustly partial. I, therefore, infer He
will save all.
1044 W. As against endless torments, your observation
is of great force; but not against extinction. To bring the few to glory, and
endlessly to torture the many, would, in my judgment, be what you say. Though
if God had declared He would do this, I should not think thus. As against extinction,
however, the essence of the remark is, that there must be equality, if you
would avoid partiality; and I am sure you would not thus argue. We should never
forget that God claims to be a Sovereign; and to be, at perfect liberty to do
what He pleases with His own; and to dispense His gifts according to His own
will. If there is to be variety, there must be inequality; and the toad has no
reason to complain that it is not a noble horse, nor a piece of sandstone, that
it is not a diamond; nor can an incorrigible sinner, who has been long borne
with, complain that he is not on an equality with the good and the holy, who
have worked for God, and suffered for His sake.
1045 N. These reasons do not quite satisfy my mind.
1046 W. Have you, then, for the moment forgotten that
this difficulty also of yours St. Paul contemplates, and meets in the way I
have done? Let me read his words, Rom. 9.19-24: " Thou wilt say then unto
me, Why Both He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man,
who art thou that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that
formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay,
of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What
if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with
much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He
might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had
afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles?"
1047 4 With my old notions, that destruction meant
endless misery, and that the vessels of wrath were fitted for this doom, this
passage was a thorough perplexity; but it is now so no longer. I see still that
it asserts the Sovereignty of God; but I see also that He does not exercise it
by sending anyone, Pharaoh, or Esau, or any one, to endless misery; still less
to endless torture.
1048 B. But your system does give an immensely long
torture to the wicked before they become extinct.
1049 W. If it did, it would not be endless, like
yours; nor would it be worse than N.'s; but I deny that my system is open to
your charge. As the Bible is silent upon the precise duration of pain, I have
been silent also. I know only that this duration is compared to the time it
takes for fire to consume chaff and tares; and the difference of time it takes
to inflict many and few stripes.
1050 D. You have spoken of the heathen. Do you think
any of them will be saved?
1051 W. I do, indeed. I believe, with St. Peter,
" That God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feared
Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him." (Acts 10.34, 35).
And when a heathen, in days of old, inquired of his duty, the answer was that
for him, and for such as he, the course was this: " He hath showed thee, O
man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly,
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6.8). From
those enjoying a revelation, and who are in covenant with God, more is
required.
1052 B. Will they be saved by their morality?
1053 W. Not any more than a Christian is saved by his
holiness. When a heathen is saved it is by Christ, though not by faith. Faith
is not required where there is no Gospel, nor revealed Word; for " Faith
comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God," Rom. 10.17. I doubt not
but many of the heathen will be at the right hand of Christ, and be trophies of
His cross; while those whose characters St. Paul describes in Rom. 1.20-32 must
forever perish.
1054 D. So far, our way seems clear. Have you any positive
evidence to show that universalism cannot be true?
1055 W. Yes, much; and I will now adduce some of it.
The passages to be quoted may all be ranged under two heads.
I. All opportunities for obtaining salvation ' are
restricted to this world. By salvation I mean a state of safety and fitness for
a happy eternity.
II. When the great day of retribution is come, the day
of grace will be over.
1056 D. If you can prove these points the question
will be settled.
1057 W. In 2 Cor. 6.2, St. Paul thus writes: "For
He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation
have I succored thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day
of salvation." Here we read of an accepted time, which is also called the
day of salvation; and it is implied, that there is a period which is not
accepted, and a day which is not one of salvation. Accordingly we read of a day
of wrath, and of a day of judgment. When is this time, and this day? The
Apostle himself answers, "Behold! now is the accepted time. Behold! now is
the day of salvation." Nor can we mistake the duration of this twice
repeated " now;" for verse 1 restricts it to that period during which
the offers of mercy and grace are made to us by the good news of a Savior. As
too, this Epistle is addressed to each and every member of the Corinthian
Church, the accepted time, and day of salvation, cannot be extended further
than the present life of each person; and, therefore, this " ambassador of
God," this " worker together with God," exhorts all of them not
to receive the grace of the' Gospel in vain. Moreover, the whole is emphasized
by the word "behold," twice urged. " Behold! now is the accepted
time. Behold! now is the day of salvation." Let me ask whether all this is
not totally inconsistent with another accepted time? and another day of
salvation? after that period when the Bible declares that the wicked shall be
cut off, and be no more. Let me read a text which has not yet been adduced,
Mal. 4.1-3, and to which I beg your particular attention: "Tor, behold,
the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and 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. But
unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in
His wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye
shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet
in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.
1058 N. But is not the Lord sometimes better than His
word, and though He tells us to seek His grace now, may He not hereafter
magnify His mercy, and open another door of hope to all who have sinned away
their day of grace in this world?
1059 W. We cannot know what lie may do, except from
what He has said He will do. Now after such a passage as that just read, and
after distinctly telling us, that now is the day of salvation, ought we to
build upon any unsupported supposition which we may make of what He may do?
1060 A. I really think that such a supposition is
fraught with that danger, which was unsuccessfully tried to be fastened on
extinction.
1061 Again, He limited a certain day, saying in David,
To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day, if ye will hear His voice,
harden not your hearts. Now you will remember that the Apostle had been warning
the Hebrew Christians of their danger of coming short of their antitypical
rest, as some of their forefathers came short of their typical rest. On this
example he grounds this caution: "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise
being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short
of it." (Heb. 4.1.) He then concludes with this exhortation: "Let us
labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same
example of unbelief," verse 11. Now I ask you to observe that the time for
laboring is limited, " To-day, while it is called to-day." Could the
Bible speak more plainly?
1062 A. These two texts are worth a thousand. They do
however but give expression to the whole drift of Bible teaching; which is,
that salvation is to be obtained now; if not, nothing but a fearful looking for
of judgment hereafter remains (Rom. 2.3-11).
1063 W. Let me now show that when that time of
judgment shall come it will be too late to obtain salvation. I begin by reading
John 3.36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath, of God abides on him.
Now it appears to me, that this passage is irreconcilably inconsistent with
universalism. He only who believes .on the Son, bath everlasting life; while it
is expressly said, that he who does not believe shall not see life. N. thinks
he shall see life after a certain time spent in purifying pain; but the text
asserts, " he shall not see life." On the contrary it says, "
the wrath of God abides on him." That wrath which shall burn him uproot
and branch, and make him like ashes under one's feet, shall never be removed.
Though this abiding of wrath does not tell of living in conscious misery, yet
it does tell us, most positively and unmistakably, that that state which is
produced by the wrath shall never be reversed. In other words, when the wicked
are once extinct, they are extinct forever. St. John's deterrent is extinction,
from which we instinctively shrink.
1064 D. Without fear of successful contradiction, we
may consider this text as settling the point.
1065 A. Besides, we should consider, that the whole
aspect of this John 3, looks to this life only, with respect to the means of
salvation. It is now that we must be born again, that we must believe on the
Son of God, that we must love the light and do the truth, and now that any can
receive His testimony and set to his seal that God is true.
1066 W. The next passage which I will read is Rev. 22.10-15:—"And
He saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the
time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is
filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous
still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And behold I come quickly;
and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as His work shall be. ram
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are
they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,
and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and
sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth
and makes a lie." This passage speaks of Jesus coming with His reward,
when they that now do His commandments shall enter into the gates of the new
Jerusalem, outside of which are the various wicked characters. Mr. N. supposes
that these shall be purged and saved, but what says verse 11? " He that is
unjust, let him be unjust still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy
still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is
holy, let him be holy still." Here then the destiny of both classes is
fixed; and as the righteous and holy will never again turn to sin; so the
unjust and filthy will never be purged and saved.
1067 D. I have never given sufficient heed to this
passage. It also really settles the point.
1068 W. Of course, it refers to the period when the
accepted time is past; when the day of salvation is over; when the door is
shut, and the foolish virgins (Matt. 25.8-13) can never enter into the house of
the bridegroom. In fact, the night is now come when no man can work, John 9.4. As
the filth of these unjust ones is never to be purged, the question recurs, Is
it best that they should live on in sins, and in the misery of them, or that
they should be put out of their misery, by having an end put to their living
existence? In such a case I do not see how pity, and even justice, can
hesitate.
1069 N. But what a wreck of large fine powers, and of
amazing capabilities: One would imagine, that the infinite resources of God,
might have done something for them.
1070 W. In giving an answer I would first take the
lowest ground. May we not well wait for the unravelling of this mystery, till
we have capacity to understand it, and till we have sufficient data upon which
to found a decision? Meanwhile, do we not know enough of the wisdom and love of
our heavenly Father to trust Him? But further, from what we know of the
tremendous force of the human will, and of the power of long continued habit,
which often takes away the capacity for improvement, may we not reasonably
infer that incorrigible sinners are past improvement? They cannot bend their
will, because they will not bend their will. It is not a question of what
omnipotence can do; but of what infinite wisdom can allow—so to speak—to be
done. If God were to make them holy against their will, it would not be
holiness; nor could such a thing bring happiness. If God were to remove the
human will from these incurables, they would not be human beings any longer,
and, consequently, they would not be the sort of beings for whom atonement was
made, nor such as the saving means of the Gospel are suited to. I think,
perhaps, the words of Jeremiah may apply here, 13.22-25: "And if thou say
in thy heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine
iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare. Can the Ethiopian
change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are
accustomed to do evil. Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passes
away by the wind of the wilderness. This is thy lot, the portion of thy
measures from Me, saith the Lord; because thou hast forgotten Me, and trusted
in falsehood."
1071 D. When one takes a wide view of the case it is
difficult to see what can be done for the morally incurables except that which
the Bible declares shall be done.
1072 IV. The more I study the character of God, and
the operations of his hands, the more I am convinced that He never acts from
mere arbitrary will. The acts or decisions of His will are the directions—if I
may so call them—of His wisdom and love; and the decision—"he that is
filthy let him be filthy still "—is no exception. The time will come when
it will not be a question of what He would do. He would have gathered them but
they would not. Now it is a question of what He must do; after offers of mercy,
powerful strivings and rebukes of conscience, and much long suffering.
They were not without warnings and entreaties, again
and again repeated. What is to be done with them now? They have made their bed,
alas, and they must lie upon it; they have labored out their doom, and it must
come upon them; they have worked hard to earn their wages, and they must be
paid them in full. " The wages of sin is death." I rejoice to know
that none of my fellow creatures shall suffer endless torture; but for the
morally incurables, I can see nothing but eternal death. More-over, it appears
to me that in this their end, there is no room to impeach either the wisdom or
goodness of God; but to adore Him for both.
1073 D. Does Mr. N. think that the Devil shall be
restored?
1074 N. I did once think so, as Origen did; but the
Apostle (Heb. 2.16), expressly says, that Jesus did not take hold of angels to
save them, and I have abandoned such a thought.
1075 B. But does St. Paul mean that? His words are,
" He took not upon Him the nature of angels." Though He did not take
their nature, might He not still save the fallen angels, if He chose to do so?
1076 W. Taking verse 14 as our guide, it seems not;
unless He may be pleased to put off the human nature, and assume the angelic
nature; and, in that nature, bear their curse; and so preach to them a kind of
gospel. In this case it would appear, that He must ever abandon the human form,
and retain the angelic, and in it make intercession; and then He could not
present Himself as our Representative, nor be our compassionate High Priest.
But, in truth, the Apostle does say, that Jesus did not undertake to save
angels. The word epilantbanetai, which he uses, can
mean no less than this; and in this sense it is used by Greek writers. Jesus
did not lay hold of angels, with a view to deliver them; but Ile did lay hold
of the seed of Abraham for that purpose. Mr. N. is therefore perfectly right.
1077 B. He might have urged in his favor Phil. 2.10,
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and things under the earth." Here are devils bowing at
the name of Jesus. I am defending N.'s cause.
1078 D. Does that mean that they shall be saved? 1083.
B. Universalists so take it.
1079 W. Whether devils are meant by those under the
earth, I will not now stop to inquire. It will be enough to show that this text
speaks of subjection, and not of salvation. The words are found first in Is. 45.23,
" I have sworn by myself,—that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall swear." St. Paul quotes these words to prove, not the salvation of
any, but that all shall be judged. Rom. 14.10-12, " For we shall all stand
before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So,
then, every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Here we see
that bowing the knee, and confessing to God, do not indicate that they who do
either thereby show that they are saved, or shall be saved. No doubt the
righteous will stand before Christ, and will bow the knee and confess to God.
These acts, however, are not connected by St. Paul with their salvation; but
with the fact that they, as well as others, " shall give account of
themselves to God." Now this same Apostle again refers to the words in
Isaiah, as pointed out by Mr. B. But does he do this in token that all who are
in heaven, and in earth, and under, the earth are saved? Whether they are, or
are not saved, must be decided on other grounds. But the fact that they bow the
knee and confess to God, does not prove it. It proves only that all are so
brought under the reign of Christ as to be judged by Him. To some He will say,
" Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world." To others He will have to say, "Go, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
(Matt. 25.34, 41). All this appears to me to prove that Phil. 2.10 is not a universal
salvation text, but a general judgment text.
1080 A. I quite agree ,with you. The object of St.
Paul in the whole passage was not to speak of salvation, but of the exaltation
of Christ as the reward of His voluntary humiliation and sufferings; and it
cannot be pressed into the service of universalism with any propriety or accuracy
of interpretation.
1081 D. Mr. N. then exercised a wise discretion in not
adducing it to prove such a notion.
1082 W. Another passage to which I direct attention
is, methinks, one of the most awful in the whole Bible (Prov. 1.24-33), "
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man
regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my
reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a
whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon
me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find
me: for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord:
they would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall
they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools
shall destroy them. But whoso hearkened unto me shall dwell safely, and shall
be quiet from fear of evil."
1083 A. These words need no comment, and seeing they
are true, universal salvation cannot be true.
1084 D. Well, it really does appear that it has no
Bible ground to stand upon; but how then could it originate. This seems
surprising.
1085 W. It originated with Origen, who died A.D. 254;
and after his death he was excommunicated for the many errors which it was
deemed he had introduced into the Church. He believed in the Platonic dogma of
the innate immortality of the soul; but he could not bring himself to believe
that anyone would live in endless torture; and therefore he invented the notion
of a purgatorial fire, after the judgment, by which means all would be saved at
last. To support the two dogmas of the innate immortality of the soul, and
universal salvation, he had to give a non-natural interpretation to many
passages of the Bible; especially on the former point. To be consistent, he
held also, that devils would be saved at last, and as this could not be done
without an atonement, and that too made by one who bore the nature to be atoned
for, and as Jesus was a man, not an angel, he labored to show that, originally,
angels and men possessed the same nature, and that thus the atonement of Christ
would suffice for both races. Few know the extreme fancifulness of many of his
interpretations. Those non-natural interpretations which bear on the nature of
the soul, have been handed down to present times, an example of how the seeds
of error, once sown, propagate themselves.
1086 D. For myself I must say, that my mind is now
satisfied; and I have only to express my thankfulness at being present at these
discussions; and that I shall still reflect seriously on what I have learnt,
and try to teach others the same truth. I can have no hesitation in believing
and saying, that much of popular theology contradicts the Bible.
1087 N. I have a request to make which I wish
particularly to urge. It is that we have one more conference, and consider the
question of the intermediate state. I am aware that it is not essentially
connected with extinction, and that the orthodox hold different views on the
subject; but it is a most interesting point, and, I don't think, it has ever
been very fully investigated.
1088 W. I have no objection to it, if you will
thoroughly bear in mind that the proof of extinction does not at all rest upon
any view which I may take of an intermediate state, for the two things are
entirely distinct. I may be right or wrong in the one, but that in no way
affects the other.
1089 D. We understand that, and therefore let us meet
and discuss what is to most persons a subject of importance.
1095. A. As far as I know, there is but little said in
the Bible about the intermediate state of the dead between death and the
judgment. It is left in much obscurity, and we have to grope, rather than see
our way. If the importance of a question is to be judged, either by the amount
of information given respecting it, or by the clearness with which it is given,
we may infer the question of to-day is not of great practical importance.
1096. D. It calls forth a great deal of curiosity, and
if this feeling is lawful, and it can be satisfied, why should it not be done
as far as it can be.
1097. W. It must be profitable to search the
Scriptures to find out what may be said upon the point. That it is revealed
obscurely, may well teach us that we should not let clear texts on kindred
subjects be ruled by the obscure ones on this.
1098. D. I daresay you have given your mind to the
subject, and have formed an opinion upon it. I wish you would tell us what it
is.
1099. WY. I have not formed a decided opinion, and my
mind is eagerly open to further light, which I hope to get by to-day's
discussion. At present I am inclined to think that the unsaved among the
heathen, and the wicked dead of Christendom, have no intermediate state; but
that the spirits of those who die in the Lord, at once go to Jesus, where they
are consciously happy, waiting for "the redemption of the body." We
had better read those parts of the Bible which bear upon the question, and look
at the difficulties on all sides. We shall then see how far we can, or cannot,
decide upon any point.
1100. B. You say the unsaved among the heathen, as if
some were saved. Have we any reason to think that any of them are saved?
1101. W. I think we have much more evidence to believe
that some are saved than that all are lost. I have given some of the reasons
which satisfy me on this point in No. 1055. As the good news was never preached
to them they could not be saved through faith; still, when any of them are
saved, it is solely in consequence of the merits of Jesus; and these saved
ones, I believe, enjoy a happy intermediate state; but, according to my present
light, it appears to me that the lost heathen have neither an intermediate
state nor a resurrection.
1102. D. Well, then, refer us to the passages which bear
upon the state of the heathen dead.
1103. W. There are a few remarkable texts of which I
can make little or nothing, if they do not declare that the lost among the
heathen shall not have a resurrection from the dead. I read from Isaiah 26.14,
and will quote it without the italics, as Bishop Wordsworth rightly says the
text ought to stand. "Dead, they shall not live; deceased, they shall not
rise: thus hast Thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to
perish."
1104. D. Why it says, in so many words, that the
heathen shall not rise again.
1105. A. It seems to say, too, that it is in
consequence of not rising again that their memory is made to perish.
1106. W. The words are certainly very strong, and, in
themselves, clear. The word rendered destroy is one of the strongest in the
Hebrew. And not only are the persons of these heathen said to be destroyed, but
the memory of them, it is added, is made to perish; words which seem to denote,
wherever they are used in the Bible, that they whose names are made to perish
shall not have those names called over at the resurrection, and thus kept in
remembrance. These names will not be found; they have perished, and shall not
be revived. In contrast to this we are told (Ps. 112.6) that "the
righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance."
1107. D. So far it seems plain. Now, what is there on
the other side? Is there any other passage which contradicts this view of the
text, or any sound reason against it?
1108. A. No doubt many will contradict; but it will be
chiefly, if not entirely, upon the ground that it is contrary to received
opinion.
1109. D. Well, if received opinion on such a subject
as this be founded upon the Bible, it is entitled to respect, not otherwise.
1110. N. Some commentators have supposed that Isaiah
primarily refers to the destruction of Sennacharib's
army, and that this verse was intended to show that they should not rise and
oppress Hezekiah and the Jews any more.
1111. D. I should not have supposed that an inspired
prophet was needed to show them so obvious a truth as that, or that such a man
as Hezekiah was so ignorant as not to know that the dead Assyrians would not
come back to him again.
1112. N. Of course these commentators must mean that
other armies of the Assyrians should not rise and trouble them.
1113. D. How can that be? The text expressly says it
is the individuals destroyed who shall not rise, and whose memory shall perish.
1114. A. Besides, other Assyrian armies did trouble
the Jews, and thus, on your supposition, their name did not perish. The whole
verse is really too precise and emphatic, to be applied to any except the
wicked heathen dead. "They are dead," and it is added, "they
shall not live;" "they are deceased, they shall not rise." The
idea is expressed in two ways: "They shall not live;” and "They shall
not rise." What words can be plainer?
1115. B. May they not be taken in a figurative sense?
1116. D. So taken, then, what would be their meaning
and application? Our simple object is to find out the real sense of the words.
1117. A. I may say, with confidence, that no writer
has attempted to point out a spiritual application of these words. There is
really no application of them except to the dead of Sennacherib's army
primarily, and to such heathen dead generally. For our object, it is of little
importance. The Assyrians were heathens, and unless it can be proved they form
an exception, then both they and other unsaved heathens shall not rise again,
and shall not live.
1118. W. The happy contrast of God's real people, in
v. 19, will throw much light upon the point, and will, perhaps, decide it. I
will again leave out the italics: " Thy dead shall live; my dead body
shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the
dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." Here is the same
language as in v. 14, only in this case the negatives are left out. God's
people are to live and rise again; the unsaved heathen are not. The dew of the
one is as the dew of herbs in spring; the other have no dew at all to make them
spring up again, and thus their memory is made to perish.
1119. D. Plainly then, the very same thing, whatever
that is, which is done for God's people, is not done for the heathen; and that
thing is, that the one shall rise again, the other shall not. Is there any
other passage?
1120. W. Jer. 51.39, 40, and 57, are to the point. The
prophet is speaking, in the name of the Lord, of the Babylonians: "I will
make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not
wake, saith the Lord. I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like
rams with the he-goats. And I will make drunk her princes and her wise men, her
captains and her rulers, and her mighty men: and they shall sleep a perpetual
sleep, and not wake, saith the King whose name is the Lord of Hosts." None
will dispute that by sleep is meant death. It is said to be perpetual, or
eternal (ohlam), from which there shall be no awaking;
and in this the heathen are compared to lambs, rams, and goats. When reading
the Holy Scriptures with the view of searching out what they taught on this
subject, my old notions were staggered with these passages. There was nothing
dubious in their language or meaning, and I felt I had no choice but to believe
them in their literal natural sense and grammatical force, unless sufficient
reasons could be given to the contrary.
1121. D. Did you find any passages against this
conclusion?
1122. W. There were several, the usual interpretation
of which was against it, but they could not bear examination; such as "All
that are in their graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth."
There was one, however, which did seem to be quite against it, but even that
gave way when examined in the Greek. I allude to Matt. 10.15: "It shall be
more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than
for that city."
1123. B. Yes; the people of Sodom were heathens, and
yet they are to appear at the day of judgment.
1124. D. Certainly it seems to contradict the other
texts. The question is, I suppose, which is to take the lead, and which is to
bend to the other?
1125. W. If you will look at the Greek, you will see
that the true reading is as follows: "It shall be more tolerable for a
land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in a day of judgment, than for that city."
1126. D. Then Isaiah and Jeremiah are contradicted
only by the English version, not by the original?
1127. W. Just so. When an English reader sees
"the day of judgment," he thinks only of that time when all who are
under the covenant must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; and when he
reads "the land of Sodom," he thinks only of the place which was
destroyed in the days of Lot; whereas the point of our Lord is, that any
Sodom-like land—like in wickedness, and like in the absence of spiritual help
and privileges—shall have less wrath when judgment does come upon them than a
city that rejects His offers of grace and mercy. If our Lord had alluded to the
time of the great assize, the words would have been " in the day of the
judgment," as is the Greek of 1 John 4.17. Whenever a day of judgment is
spoken of, it is very questionable whether allusion is made to the great day of
assize, or to any time of wrath which may come upon a community or person.
1128. A. Is the word Sodom used in the figurative way
you have applied it?
1129. W. Yes; we find several instances. Take one or
two as specimens. Isaiah (1.10) thus addresses the Jews, "Hear the word of
the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of our God, ye people of
Gomorrah." Rev. 11.8: "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street
of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our
Lord was crucified." So that we may well take Jesus as referring, not only
to the literal Sodom, but to any city of like character and circumstances.
Indeed, to take His words otherwise, would be to make Him say, that Sodom was
the only city which would meet with the less severity on account of the absence
of spiritual helps and privileges; whereas He says the same of Tyre and Sidon, and His object, in both cases, is to
announce the just and general principle, that where there is an absence of
privilege there greater leniency would be shown.
1130. A. Would you always translate "a day of
judgment," where the article is omitted in the Greek?
1131. W. I would; for I have well considered every
instance where the words occur; and it appears to me that the object of the
sacred writer, in each case, was to teach that a time of wrath or judgment
would surely come, rather than to allude to the general great assize mentioned
in Rev. 20. Whether the general assize be or be not referred to, in any
specific text, must be gathered, not from the words, "a day of
judgment," but from the connection and circumstances and the whole
teaching of the Bible.
1132. B. But is there not a danger of lessening the
certainty of a judgment by so taking the words?
1133. W. The prior question should be, What is true?
Now I am convinced that " a day of judgment " is the true rendering
of the original. Moreover, the translation "the day of judgment," has
greatly tended to fix our attention upon the time of judgment rather than upon
the fact and certainty of a judgment; and the impressiveness of that solemn
transaction has been greatly lessened in most minds. I should have thought the
danger lay here and not in the rendering of "a day," instead of the
day of judgment. Do consider the fact, that there is no article in the Greek,
either to the word day, or to the word judgment. You contend for a word which
is not in the Greek. I take it as it is. Moreover, your rendering makes the
text (Matt. 10.15) contradict the two prophets, while mine is in harmony with
both. They say the wicked heathen shall not rise; but the rendering for which
you contend makes St. Matthew say, that the wicked heathen Sodomites shall
rise, and shall be judged in the last day at the general assize. I still
contend, therefore, for the correctness of my view of Matt. 10.15.
1134. D. If I understand the state of the question, it
is, that nothing has yet been found to outweigh the direct testimony of the two
prophets.
1135. W. After much earnest attention to the subject,
I must say that I yet see nothing against the literal sense of the passages,
except that condition of our minds, which makes us reluctant to receive what is
not in accordance with our traditions, and, perhaps, past utterances. It ought,
however, to take much to make us believe, that when the plain sense of a
passage is clear, it is intended to be taken in the opposite sense—the
non-natural sense.
1136. A. It is no doubt our duty to go wherever the
Bible leads us. It does not behove us to lead the
Bible, as our traditions really attempt to do; and the consequences to us of so
doing are as ruinous as they were to the Jews of old.
1137. W. There is another text which we should dwell
upon (Rom. 2.12), "For as many as have sinned without law, shall also
perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by
the law."
All will allow, that they who sinned in the law, are
those who were brought under the Mosaic covenant, and who yet sinned against
its precepts, especially those precepts called moral. These, it is declared,
shall be judged by the law. They who have sinned without law, are those who
have not been brought under any covenant, to whom no revelation has been given,
and who have had no church privileges. It is not said that they shall be
judged. They cannot justly be judged by a law of which they knew nothing, and
St. Paul testifies (Rom. 3.19) that "what things soever the law saith, it
saith to them that are under the law." Though, however, they shall not be
judged, they shall perish. They are not holy, and they cannot live forever.
They have sinned without law, and they shall also perish without law. Observe
the great contrast—perish. without law, because they sinned without law; judged
by the law, because they sinned in the law.
1138. D. That does seem very consonant with those
ideas of justice, which we have seen are taught in the Bible. Judged according
to deeds. Deeds judged by the standard of the moral law. None judged by the
law, who have not received and known it. When persons know that this is the
Bible, they will not oppose it as they do.
1139. A. When we come calmly to consider the matter,
it does certainly seem unjust, to the heathen, that they should be sent into a
separate state where they cannot be happy, but must be miserable; although they
never had any offer of salvation, nor any helps towards it, so as to keep
themselves out of that miserable place.
1140. D. The thought strikes me, too, that if there is
any truth in this separate state for the heathen, some of them will have been
there thousands of years, and others but a few months, or even days. There can
be no equal justice in this. On all accounts, therefore, I am inclined to
believe, that the plain literal sense of the prophets and the Apostle must be
the true one. When the wicked heathen die, they live no more. They sleep a
perpetual sleep, and wake no more. They perish without a law process of
judging. Seeing they cannot be saved, inasmuch as they have sinned without law,
it is most satisfactory that the holy Book which contains the Gospel, should
reveal this most just and reasonable procedure. I shall admire the Bible more
than ever. Let me ask, however, if there is anything, in the connection of the
text, from Romans, which weakens the conclusions we have arrived at?
1141. W. There is not. In the preceding connection it
is said, that there is no respect of persons with God; but only respect of
characters, thus affirming the perfect impartiality with which God acts towards
all. In the succeeding connection, it would seem, that St. Paul contemplates a
difficulty which might, in some minds, arise from his words, that the heathen
were without law. The difficulty would be this—if the heathen are without the
law, how is it some of them do the things contained in the law? The Apostle's
answer is—" This does not show that they have the written, revealed law:
it only shows that they have the law written on their hearts, to which some of
them yield. But it does not show they sinned in the law, as did the Jews, and
that they, therefore, must be judged by the Still, as they had sinned, they
must perish." Both connections, therefore, favor our conclusion. I would
add a general remark. It appears to me that all that is said in the Bible about
the resurrection, and the judgment of the great assize, as John 5.28, 29,
refers exclusively to those who have been brought into the pale of God's Church;
whether they lived under former dispensations or the present. This Church has
ever comprehended two classes: the righteous and the wicked. All these shall be
raised again, and shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and there be
dealt with according to the deeds done in this life. When reading the Bible,
let me ask you to keep this distinction in mind. It will, perhaps, surprise you
to see, by its means, the harmony and precision it produces, where, without it,
there is discord, dubiousness, and uncertainty. The distinction seems never to
have been lost sight of by the sacred authors, and they write as if it were
ever in their minds, though they might give no expression to it.
1142. B. I cannot quite assent to the conclusions you
arrive at from Rom. 2. Verse 9 speaks of tribulation and anguish, upon every
soul of man that does evil; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
Whatever, therefore, is dealt out to the Jew is also dealt out to the Gentile.
Then verse 14 says, "When the Gentiles, which have not the law," etc.,
etc. Now if, as you say, the Jews are judged, does it not, from this, appear
that the Gentiles are to be judged also?
1143. W. If you will look at the Greek, you will
perceive that two different classes of persons are spoken of. In verse 9 they
are the Hellenes, who were either Grecian Jews or Grecian proselytes; and they
were therefore comprehended in the Church of God; and must be judged by the
law. Those in verse 14 are Ethnes, who were never in
covenant with God, nor ever in His Church. These sin without law, and must
perish without law. This is one of the examples, where my distinction exhibits
the harmony of the Bible.
1144. D. All this is very satisfactory. you do,
however, put the unrighteous, who are within the pale of the Church, on a very
different footing from those outside it. What is their condition with respect
to the intermediate state?
1045. A. Should we not first consider Ps. 49? It bears
directly upon the question, and is too important to be passed over.
1146. W. I cannot differ from you. Commentators have
come to it, with the belief in the innate immortality of the soul; and, as it
formed an immense difficulty to such a belief, they have expended upon it an
extraordinary amount of ingenuity; and have proposed amended conjectural
readings in the Hebrew, in order to make it accord with their received Platonic
philosophy. Perhaps there is no one place of Scripture which has suffered more
from this cause; and our difficulty will be, not with the psalm itself, but
with the traditions which have been brought to it, and which most of us have
unconsciously received and substituted for the sacred text. The inspired writer
had no belief in the intrinsic immortality of the soul; and if we would
understand the psalm, we must put that heathen dogma away, and read it with new
eyes.
1147. D. We will read it at leisure for ourselves; but
can you not now give us an outline of what it teaches?
1148. W. It is addressed to all the inhabitants of the
world, whatever be their condition; and it assures them of the wisdom and truth
of what was about to be uttered. It says, that however rich and powerful a man
may be, he cannot redeem his brother, and implies that he cannot redeem
himself. It is out of their power to make themselves live forever and not see
corruption, though they vainly hope that their estates, to which they give
their own names, will make their memory to endure. They cherish this hope,
notwithstanding they know that the same device has not succeeded in the case of
others; and they thus show that they are earthly, and as much live for the
earth as "the beasts that perish." Then comes a sad description of
the consequences of resting in earthly things. "Like sheep they are laid
in the grave; death shall feed upon them, and the upright shall have dominion
with those [who shall rule] in the morning [of the resurrection]; but their
beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. Yet God will redeem my
soul from the power of the grave; for He shall receive me" [as a guest.]
Then follow exhortations to the righteous as to what their feeling should be
with respect to the riches and prosperity of a wicked man, and the psalm ends
with this awful assertion—"He shall go to the generation of his fathers;
they (he and his fathers) shall never see light. Man that is in honor, and
understands not, is like the beasts that perish." The striking thing in
the psalm is, that whilst the worldlings shall perish in the grave and never
see light, the Psalmist, and such as he, shall be redeemed from the grave, and
be made, as it were, the guests of the Great King.
1149. D. The contrast is certainly striking. I shall
give close attention to this psalm.
1150. A. It seems impossible, with any consistency of
interpretation, to take it otherwise than as affirming that the wicked heathen
shall have no future whatever after this life. We are, however, only
deliberating on this question, not deciding. There is another contrast in the
passage which should not be omitted. The people of God are sharers in dominion,
and rule in the resurrection morning, whilst the others are in their graves,
where they shall ever remain, and never see the light of that morning. But
there is yet another passage which is too clear to admit of doubt. For many
years I have not believed in the endless torments of the heathen, and this is
one text which made me give up that feature of the dogma: Obadiah, verses 1:15-16—"For
the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen; as thou hast done, it shall
be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. For as ye have
drunk upon My holy mountain, so shall the heathen drink continually; yea, they
shall drink and they shall swallow down [the vomit, and be suffocated], and
they shall be as though they had not been," see also Job 10.18, 19.
1151. D. If there is no other text as positive and
clear on the other side, then this decides the point.
1152. 4. There is no such text. The only difficulty
which the teaching of this text will meet with is, that it is contrary to our
general notions.
1153. B. If what you say is true, the heathen would
appear to be in a better condition than Christians. The former will have no
miserable future; the latter are very liable to it. Why, then, send the Gospel
to the heathen?
1154. W. If you mean liable to an endlessly miserable
future, I deny it; and the opposite has been proved. You cannot deny the
propriety of the rule in Luke 12.48, "For unto whomsoever much is given,
of him much shall be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they
will ask the more." If Christians have an increase of privileges, they
must have also an increase of responsibility; and if they run the greater risk,
that risk does not arise from the possession of privileges, but from the abuse
of them, or from misuse. If there is no possession of privilege, there is no
risk of abuse; but then, there is no opportunity of so using privilege as to
obtain as gracious endless reward. As to the reason for sending the Gospel to the
heathen, it should be enough that our Lord commands it. Besides this, however,
if the good news to sinners were preached and received in its integrity, it
would turn a community into a loving brotherhood, among whom there would be
immediately exhibited the good effects of order, industry, economy, and
cleanliness; and, remotely, the elevating effects of education; as also of the
cultivation of arts, sciences, and inventions.
1155. D. I think somebody should say, that when a
mutilated Gospel is not preached; but when it is propagated, in its pristine
purity and fulness, greater success will attend it, both at home and among the
heathen.
1156. A. Now, then, let us see what the Bible says
about the intermediate state of unfaithful Christians.
1157. W. It is upon this point that the Bible is so
astonishingly silent.
1158. A. There is no doubt of their resurrection?
1159. W. None, whatever. It is revealed in the
plainest, clearest terms, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just
and of the unjust.
1160. D. Yes. And the Bible, as we have seen,
restricts it to the unfaithful among those who have received the oracles of
God, and who have been brought within the pale of the Church. Indeed, strictly
and properly speaking, none can be called unjust, unless they have received the
rule and privileges of a revelation, or have been brought under a covenant, and
have been unfaithful to its conditions. I see plainly the sound propriety and
justice of this restriction.
1161. A. The result of our search will be, I think,
that we shall not find a single clear text which reveals the intermediate state
of those who have been unfaithful to spiritual privileges.
1162. W. It is remarkable that all the parables of Our
Lord are about the Kingdom of God, or about the condition and rule of those who
are in the Christian covenant, and are God's household; and they invariably
relate, first to their condition in this life, and then to their condition at
the judgment, without at all alluding to anything between the two periods,
"Occupy till I come."
1163. B. This would cut both ways. They no more speak
of the intermediate state of the good than of the bad.
1164. W. True. But other passages do allude to that
state with respect to the good: there is not one which alludes to that of the
bad. This fact, I think, is very significant. If the unfaithful do indeed run
such a risk, they certainly ought to be told so, in clear, decided,
unmistakable words. As this is not done, it is fair to infer that there is no
such liability. It is the constant habit of the Bible, that, wherever there is
danger, it 'warns those who are liable to it, in terms which they cannot
mistake. How often, and in what awful and decided terms, are unfaithful
servants warned of their doom in the day of the great assize.
1165. D. From the absence then of any warning
concerning a danger of this kind, you argue there is no such danger? This is
certainly very congruous with the notions of equal justice which we have seen
the Bible teaches. Besides, if there is an intermediate state for the
unfaithful, some would endure its misery thousands of years longer than others,
without any alleged reason for it. This would make the ways of God unequal.
1166. A. Yes, and not only so, but it would make those
who had the least helps and privileges to endure the longest misery. Thousands
of unfaithful Jews, for instance, would go to it thousands of years before
Christians; though the former are acknowledged to have had far less privilege
than the latter.
1167. B. You have surely forgotten the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus. This tells us of an intermediate state, and of the
torments there endured.
1168. A. Many years ago I used to think so; but though
I then received the doctrine of endless torments, yet the conviction was forced
upon my mind, that when our Lord spoke this parable, He had no intention of
teaching an intermediate state; but simply, that there would be, most
certainly, a time of retribution for all such characters as Dives. If so Jesus
had not broken the silence preserved by His Spirit in all other parts of holy
Scripture.
1169. D. Will you favor us with the reasons which
influence your mind?
1170. A. The general notion of an intermediate state
is that the immaterial part of man, usually called the soul, goes into the
invisible world, while the body is resolved to its original earth; that there
the soul has an individual conscious existence, separate from the body; and
that, in the case of the unfaithful, it suffers exquisite mental torments.
1171. B. Yes, that is the universal doctrine.
1172. A. I was driven from it; at first reluctantly,
but now willingly; and these are the reasons:—I. Dives has a body, with eyes to
see Abraham and Lazarus; and with a tongue to speak and to feel thirst. II.
This body alone is tormented. Not the slightest hint is given of something
immaterial as enduring mental anguish. III. The instrument of the torment is
material flame, and therefore cannot torment an immaterial soul. IV. Dives and
Lazarus are represented within speaking distance of each other. Yet says the
parable—V. There is a great gulf or chasm between the two. VI. Abraham is
represented as having the liberty of sending an inhabitant, of this alleged
intermediate state, back into this world. More than this—VII. It represents
Abraham as having power to do this by raising Lazarus from the dead. These were
the reasons which made me conclude, that our Lord never intended to teach
anything respecting an intermediate state, either for the unfaithful or
faithful.
1173. D. They seem to me valid and conclusive.
1174. B. May not our Lord have intended to represent
the torment of the mind, under the emblem of the torment of the body?
1175. D. The parable is intended to instruct us. Can
we do better than learn from it? Can you give any reason or passage of
Scripture for your supposition?
1176. B. I do not know that I can, except the all but
universal consent among divines, and this ought to go for a great deal.
1177. D. Yes, if they go to the law and the testimony
for their authority.
1178. W. If there were other passages which taught au
intermediate state, for the unfaithful people of God, the question would be
different. We should then be obliged to interpret one part of the parable
figuratively, and another literally, though, even then, it would be difficult
to say where the one begins and the other ends. But, inasmuch as there are no
such passages, we must not resort to this plan. To help our understanding to
discover 'the meaning of this portion of holy writ, we have but the parable
itself, and the occasion Which gave rise to it. As to the former we have heard
reasons enough to prove that the scenery of the parable is not laid in an
intermediate state, called by some the receptacle of departed souls; and, as to
the former, there is certainly nothing whatever in it against this conclusion.
1179. D. Can the parable be applied to the state of
the unfaithful, after the resurrection and judgment? If not, why?
1180. A. It cannot, Sand for these reasons:—I. Dives
had five brethren who were yet alive in this world. II. They were alive during
the time of the Levitical dispensation; for Dives is referred to Moses and the
prophets only, as the divinely ordained means of his brethren's conversion.
1181. D. Well, it does, indeed, seem impossible to
resist the conviction that this parable, by no means sanctions a belief in the
intermediate state. How is it that so many people, for so long a time, have
taken it as undoubtedly teaching it?
1182. W. Will you let me ask how it is that so many,
for so long a time, have believed that the supremacy of Peter is found in the
words, " Thou art Peter," etc., etc. They certainly do not take their
meaning out of the words; but bring it to them; and, as certainly, the
believers in a receptacle of souls, do not extract their belief from this
parable. They bring their belief to it, and then fancy they have found it
there. I do not say that either the one or the other are conscious of what they
do.
1183. D. What, then, is the teaching of the parable?
1184. A. It is that any unfaithful service, persevered
in till death, shall certainly meet with punishment; but how, or when, it is
not the object of the parable to declare. And it seems to me that our Lord
constructed it in such a way as to shut us up to this precise idea. If He had
wished to teach us anything about an intermediate state, He would have done it
without putting so many insuperable difficulties in the way of such a notion.
Is it not a remarkable fact that our Lord implies the need of the resurrection of
Lazarus, if he is to be sent to the brethren of Dives? Not 'that his ghost or
disembodied soul should be sent. He does not imagine the possibility of the
soul going to warn the brethren. It is Lazarus himself who is to be sent; and
Lazarus, in order to be the man Lazarus, must be raised from the dead.
1185. N. Does not 1 Peter 3.19, 20, bear upon the
question, and support the view of a receptacle for departed unfaithful souls?
" By which Spirit also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
which were once disobedient when the longsuffering of God was waiting in the
days of Noah."
1186. D. How would you explain these words?
1187. N. I should say they refer to some who lived in
the days of Noah, who repented at the last moment, so to speak, but who
notwithstanding could not be admitted into the ark. They could not, however, be
allowed to perish eternally, and therefore their 'spirits were sent to prison,
where they were, till Christ went and proclaimed deliverance to them.
1188. W. Do you mean that these spirits were in what
some call the unhappy part of the invisible world? that Christ visited them
there and took them to the
happy part? The passage does not say this; and whether
it can be made to mean it is questionable.
1189. N. Yes, that is what I mean.
1190. W. Does it anywhere appear that Christ ever went
into the alleged unhappy place of separate spirits It is usually said, that
that place is only for the bad. Why should the Holy One go there?
1191. N. It is said, "Thou wilt not leave my soul
in hell;" and St. Peter applies these words to Christ.
1192. W. True. But you will see, on examination, that
St. Peter's argument in Acts 2 involves and expresses this great fact, that the
soul and body of Christ were one and the same, and he, therefore, uses them as
equivalent terms. This is a fact worthy of deep attention. Moreover, the word sheol in Psalm 16, whence Peter quotes, and hales, the word
he uses, do not signify the place of invisible spirits, but the grave, the
place of the dead. The popular notion that the Holy One went to the place of
lost sinners is utterly groundless and entirely fanciful. Not a single text
sanctions such a horrible idea. I would add, lest I should be mistaken, that
the human spirit of Christ returned to God, into whose hands He commended it.
1193. D. Jesus said to the saved thief, " This
day shalt thou be with Me in paradise." It was three o'clock when He died,
and the Jewish day ended at six. He went, therefore, direct to the hands of His
Father, which place He also calls paradise.
1194. N. Between the time of His death, and that of
His resurrection, there was plenty of opportunity to go to both places.
Besides, St. Paul expressly says (Eph. 4.9), that " Christ descended into
the lower parts of the earth," and where can that be but the place of the
lost?
1195. W. If we will let Scripture explain itself, it
will be seen that these words signify that He became incarnate. David says (Ps.
139.15), " My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret,
and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." We cannot mistake
this language, for verse 13 expresses the same sentiment in these words, "
Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb." See also verse 16.
1196. D. It does, then, appear that 1 Peter 3.19 no
more means than it says, that Jesus went to any receptacle of unfaithful souls.
But it must mean something. What is it?
1197. W. The text is considered a difficulty however
it is taken, and it would seem reasonable that we should adopt that
interpretation which forms the least difficulty, and which is most in harmony
with the whole Bible.
1198. A. We cannot get a better rule for interpreting
any obscure text than that.
1199. W. I will give what I think to be the meaning,
and then support it. It appears to me to say, that by the power of that Divine
Spirit which raised Him from the dead, Jesus went, where the spirits of just
men are waiting for the redemption of their bodies, and proclaimed that the
redemption on the cross was finished, and that, therefore, they should in due
time be joined to a glorious resurrection body. Let me enumerate a few
particulars. I. Two personal acts are ascribed to Christ. He went, and He
preached. II. He preached to spirits. III. These spirits belonged to persons
who lived in the days of Noah. IV. These persons had been disobedient. V. They
did not continue in disobedience. It is said they were "once
disobedient," or "sometime - for a time, disobedient." This is
more than an intimation that they were brought to repentance, and obtained
mercy and forgiveness. They were, therefore, saved persons, and "died in
the faith," and consequently their spirits returned to God and stayed with
Him. Now this is the place to which Jesus would naturally go. He came forth
from the Father and to Him He returned when He went, with the pardoned thief,
to paradise.
1200. A. You restrict this text then to the people of
God, and you do not extend it to those who are called the lost in a separate
state.
1201. N But the text says, " spirits in
prison." Are good spirits sent to prison? Is not a prison only for bad
ones?
1202. W. To an English ear, a prison seems only for
the bad; but to a Greek ear, phulake, rendered
prison, does not necessarily convey that idea. The primary idea of phulake is, keeping, or safe keeping. It is often applied
to the watch kept by sentinels, whose duty is not always, or chiefly, to keep
custody over the bad to prevent them from escape and from doing evil to others;
but it is, to guard the good from danger. The idea conveyed in this text is,
"spirits in safe keeping," lest evil should come to them. They are
dear to God, and He guards them; for, as He reserves an inheritance for them,
so He keeps them for it (1 Peter 1.4, 5).
1203. A. You then believe with me, that there is no
separate, conscious state, for unfaithful servants of God?
1204. W. As there is not a shadow of Bible evidence
for it, I certainly cannot receive it. The idea of such a place originated with
the heathen philosophers and poets, and has been engrafted upon the religion of
Christ, very greatly to its detriment.
1205. D. Then there is not even this pretense for the
dogma of purgatory?
1206. W. Never was any notion more founded in fancy
than this, or more upheld for pecuniary profit.
1207. D. Are there any texts which, though they may
not prove your point, yet look that way?
1208. W. Yes, there are some of this latter kind. I
will read a few. Ps. 146.3, 4, " Put not your trust in princes, nor in the
son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goes forth, he returns to his
earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Prov. 21.16, "The man that
wandered out of the way of understanding, shall remain in the congregation of
the dead." Eccl. 7.1, "A good name is better than precious ointment;
and the day of death than the day of one's birth." Now, whatever may be
said of the day of a good man's death, yet we could not say that the day of
death of a bad man is better, if he then goes to a place of mental anguish and
torment. All those texts, too, bear upon the point, which speak of the wicked
heathen perishing from the earth like beasts. Now, let the whole evidence
produced upon this point be impartially weighed, and then let anyone say what
proof there is, or even intimation, of a separate state, either for the heathen
or for lost sinners of Christendom? There is no resurrection even for the
former; but for the latter, they shall remain in the congregation of the dead,
only till their resurrection, when they shall be judged, condemned to the second
death, and be destroyed.
1209. D. I certainly must not withhold my faith from
what I consider has been so clearly proved. I have already gleaned that you
both believe in a happy separate state for the righteous. Will you give a
reason for your faith?
1210. W. After so much has been said, we need do
little more than read a series of texts. 2 Cor. 5.6-8, "Therefore we are
always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent
from the Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and
willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the
Lord." Phil. 1.21-23, "For to me to live is Christ; but to die, is
gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor; yet what I
shall choose I know not. For I am in a strait betwixt two; having a desire to
depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless, to abide in the
flesh is more needful for you." I think we cannot mistake this language of
St. Paul. It is a clear declaration of faith, that when he should be away from
the body, he should be present with his Lord. Now throughout all these days'
discussions I have invariably taken Scripture in its natural, lexical,
grammatical construction; and I must do the same with these passages. I began
this day's discussion with a mind open to fresh light; but it has confirmed my
previous impressions. I think it has been proved that the wicked heathen have
neither resurrection nor the separate state; that the unfaithful servants of God
will have no conscious separate state, though they will be raised from the dead
to be judged and punished as justice may require; and that the saints of God
will spend that state in happiness with Jesus.
1211. B. I will only say you have silenced me, but not
convinced me.
1212. A. I can do no less than say, I am confirmed in
my previous belief.
1213. D. I have been much informed by these
discussions, and I shall hope to be the better and holier for them.
1214. N. I shall more than ever read the Bible and
ponder over it.
1215. W. I thank you all for the kind courtesy with
which you have listened to me. May our gracious God and Father so bless what
has been said that it may tend to spread and establish His truth.