_Eternal Punishment and Eternal Death._ An Essay. By James
Barlow, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin.
London: Longman and Co., 1865.
There is a class of writers at the present day, who believe themselves
good Christians, and yet whose spirit contrasts very strangely with the
spirit of the Gospel. It was a maxim of St. Paul, that every
understanding should be made "captive unto the obedience of Christ".[2]
But in the nineteenth century Christian philosophers are found who
presume to sit in judgment on the doctrine of Christ, and to measure it
by the standard of human reason. Mr. Barlow's book, we regret to say,
partakes largely of this spirit, equally at variance with the faith of
the Catholic Church and with the maxims of Inspired Scripture. It is
fit, therefore, that the _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_ should raise its
voice to expose the dangerous tendency of his principles and the fallacy
of his arguments.
The Apostle Paul was "rapt even to the third heaven", and was there
favoured with those mysterious revelations "which it is not granted to
man to utter".[3] Nevertheless, when he looked into the profound depths
of God's decrees, and saw at the same time the littleness of human
reason, he was forced to exclaim: "How incomprehensible are His
judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!"[4] Not so Mr. Barlow. He has
ventured to sound those depths which St. Paul could not fathom; he has
been bold enough to scrutinize those judgments which St. Paul could not
comprehend. The decree of eternal punishment, pronounced by Jesus Christ
against the wicked, does not harmonize with Mr. Barlow's notions of
morality.[5] He has weighed the malice of sin in the scales of human
philosophy, and he has pronounced that it does not "deserve" eternal
torments. Therefore, he concludes, must this "detestable dogma" (p. 135)
"be struck from the popular creed" (p. 144). Such is the general scope
and tenor of a book on which we propose to offer a few remarks.
Our readers are well aware that the eternal punishment of the wicked is
the unmistakable doctrine of Sacred Scripture. It is foreshadowed in
glowing imagery by the Prophets; it is set forth in simple and emphatic
words by Jesus Christ; it is borne to the farthest end of the earth by
the burning zeal of the Apostles. We need not be at any pains to search
for texts. The following are familiar to us all. "Then shall He say to
them also that be on His left hand: Depart from me, you cursed into
_everlasting_ fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels".
"And these shall go into _everlasting_ punishment; but the just into
life _everlasting_".[6] Let it be observed, that the punishment of the
wicked is here declared everlasting, in the very same sense as the
happiness of the good is said to be everlasting. On another occasion our
Divine Lord thus admonishes His disciples: "If thy hand or thy foot
scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for
thee to go into life maimed or lame, than, having two hands or two feet,
to be cast into _everlasting_ fire".[7] Or, as St. Mark has it: "To be
cast into _unquenchable_ fire; where their worm _dieth not_, and the
fire _is not extinguished_".[8] This dreadful judgment of the wicked had
been already announced by St. John the Baptist to the multitude who
flocked around him in the desert of Judea. Speaking of Christ, whose
coming he announced, he said: "He will gather His wheat into His barn,
but the chaff He will burn with _unquenchable_ fire".[9] And long
before, it was written by the prophet Isaias: "And they shall go out,
and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me;
their worm _shall not die_, and their fire _shall not be quenched_".[10]
Again, we read in the Apocalypse: "And the devil, who seduced them, was
cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the
false prophet shall be tormented day and night _for ever and ever_....
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into
the pool of fire".[11] These passages speak plainly for themselves; they
stand in need of no commentary from us. True, it is an awful doom; and
he who ponders well upon that fire which shall never be quenched, that
worm which shall never die, must look forward to the great accounting
day with "fear and trembling". But we must not hesitate to accept a
doctrine which comes to us from the lips of Eternal Truth, in language
so clear, so simple, so divine.
Indeed, some of the texts we have adduced seem to Mr. Barlow himself so
very conclusive, that he candidly admits he can offer no satisfactory
solution. "I trust I shall not be misunderstood to assert that there are
no passages in the New Testament relating to the question, which present
formidable difficulties. This would be simple dishonesty. Such passages
exist, and though the difficulties involved in them may be much
extenuated, they cannot be wholly removed"--p. 86. The "difficulties",
indeed, are "formidable", and "cannot be wholly removed", because in
these passages it is simply asserted that the punishment of the wicked
will be eternal, whereas Mr. Barlow maintains that it will _not_.
So far the testimony of Scripture. As for Tradition, we shall content
ourselves with Mr. Barlow's own admission. He tells us that "the
eternity of future punishments has been, in truth, the immemorial
doctrine of the great majority of the Church"--_Preface_, p. v. And in
another place, he speaks of "a longing to make out a doctrine of
everlasting punishment, which has in all ages characterized the genuine
theologian"--p. 86. Such, then, are the overwhelming odds against which
this intrepid writer boldly takes his stand, the clear and obvious
meaning of the sacred text, "the immemorial doctrine of the great
majority of the Church", and the teaching of "the genuine theologian in
all ages". Surely he is a dauntless warrior, and must come forth to the
conflict armed with mighty weapons, and clad in impenetrable armour. Not
so, indeed; but his understanding, which should have been made "captive
unto the obedience of Christ", has shaken off that sweet and gentle
yoke; he has looked with too curious a scrutiny into the mysterious
decrees of God, until at length his dizzy reason has become the dupe of
false principles and fallacious arguments.
"The civilization of the nineteenth century jars with a belief in
everlasting torments, to be inflicted by the All-Merciful on the
creatures of His hand"--_Preface_, p. iv. This is the sum and substance
of Mr. Barlow's difficulty. The words of eternal truth, and the faith of
the universal Church, are weighed in the balance against the
civilization of the nineteenth century; they are found wanting, and they
must be cast aside. We cannot contemplate this sentiment without a
feeling of horror and amazement. One would think that, if such a
contradiction did really exist, it would be the duty of a Christian
writer to elevate modern civilization to the standard of revealed truth.
But this is not the principle of Mr. Barlow. He looks down, as it were,
from the vantage ground of the nineteenth century, and he proposes to
reform the faith of Christ, and to raise it up to the level of his own
philosophy.
We are satisfied that this dreadful principle contains the germ of all
that Mr. Barlow has written against the doctrine of eternal punishment.
But it does not always appear in its naked deformity. Sometimes it
assumes the grave and imposing garb of philosophical argument; sometimes
it is adorned with the graces of rhetoric; and thus for a time it is
made to appear plausible, and even attractive. In the following passage
it may be recognized without much difficulty: "I cannot conceive any
finite sin _deserving_ such a doom. I cannot conceive it proceeding from
a _merciful_ being. The sentence appears to be clearly repugnant not
only to mercy, but to justice. It surely requires some explanation. The
_onus probandi_ rests upon its supporters; let us see what they have to
allege on its behalf".[12]
Mr. Barlow "_cannot conceive_ any finite Sin deserving such a doom!" Mr.
Barlow "_cannot conceive_" eternal punishment proceeding from a merciful
being! That is to say, one of the "incomprehensible decrees" of God
exceeds the limits of Mr. Barlow's conception, and this is a sufficient
reason "to strike it from the popular creed" (p. 144), and to reform the
venerable symbols of Christian faith.[13] He adds, indeed, that "the
sentence appears to be clearly repugnant not only to mercy, but to
justice". But when we look for a proof of this daring assertion, we are
told that the _onus probandi_ rests upon us. Now, this is a simple
issue. Does the _onus probandi_ rest with us or with Mr. Barlow? Let our
readers judge for themselves. Mr. Barlow professes to believe in the
Bible. We urge upon him the solemn declaration, so often repeated by
Christ and His Apostles, that the wicked "shall go into everlasting
punishment". True, he replies, I cannot gainsay these words; but "I
believe that the doctrine is untenable" (_Preface_, p. iv.), because it
is repugnant to the attributes of God. Surely it devolves upon him to
prove this alleged contradiction between the attributes of God and the
words of Christ. As for us, we have nothing to prove. We cling fast to
the words of eternal truth, with a firm confidence that they cannot be
shaken by the arguments of human wisdom, nor even by the boasted
civilization of the nineteenth century.
The ingenious sophistry by which our author seeks to shift the burthen
of proof from his own shoulders, may be exposed more clearly by the
following illustration: God alone exists from eternity. This world,
therefore, which we inhabit must have been created by Him _out of
nothing_. This is an obvious and a certain conclusion. But some one
might object: "This opinion is untenable if creation out of nothing is
an impossibility; and 'I cannot conceive' that it is possible. How do
you prove that it is consistent with the Divine attributes?" Mr. Barlow,
we think, would give little quarter to such an objector. And yet this is
the very course of reasoning he has himself pursued. The answer in each
case is exactly the same. We _know_ that creation is possible, because
it has actually taken place. And so, too, we _know_ that the doctrine of
eternal punishment is in harmony with the attributes of God, because He
that cannot deceive has told us that the doctrine is true. If we cannot
_see_ that harmony, it is because the judgments of God are
incomprehensible, His ways unsearchable to our finite understanding.
But we must do justice to Mr. Barlow. Though he maintains that the
burthen of proof rests with his adversaries, yet he does set himself to
demonstrate that the doctrine of eternal punishment contradicts the
attributes of God. Now, in this part of his task, we freely admit that
much of his reasoning is cogent and indeed conclusive: but it falls very
short of the conclusion which he labours to establish. Thus, for
example, in the case of a little child that "cries about taking its
medicine", Mr. Barlow cannot bear the idea that this trivial fault will
be punished with eternal flames (pp. 19, 20). Or, "you fall asleep for a
minute or two in church, at afternoon service on a hot day: of course
you have not been attending to the service; but, honestly and truly, do
you clearly see and feel that those two minutes' sleep _deserves at the
hand of Infinite Justice_ everlasting agony?" (p. 38, _note_). Again, "a
quick little child of two years old, or even younger, knows very well
that it is naughty to get into a passion and strike his mother or his
nurse: his elders, however, do not think a great deal of this little
ebullition of temper, and consider it amply expiated by sending him to
bed. But the child may suddenly die in his sin. Will the 'All Merciful'
consign him to everlasting tortures?" (p. 44). In another place (chap.
v.) he adduces several texts to prove that "punishment after death,
finite in duration, as the lot of _some_, is the unambiguous doctrine of
Holy Scripture" (p. 116). There is nothing in all this to which we can
object. But we maintain that such arguments are worthless in the cause
of which Mr. Barlow is the advocate. He proves, indeed, that there are
many sins which do not deserve eternal punishment. He proves too from
the Inspired Writings, that, beyond the grave there is a state of
expiation, in which many souls must needs be purged from such minor
transgressions before they can appear in those mansions of heavenly
purity where "nothing defiled shall enter".[14]
Our readers will here recognize without difficulty the Catholic doctrine
of venial sin, and the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Unconsciously Mr.
Barlow has become for a time the champion of Catholic faith. But the
question at issue has not to do with the innocent little babe that beats
its nurse, nor the wayward child that refuses its medicine, nor yet with
the just man that, through human frailty, "shall fall seven times, and
shall rise again".[15] The controversy in which Mr. Barlow has engaged
regards the future lot of the _wicked_--of those who, _with full
deliberation_, have committed _grievous_ sin; of whom St. Paul has said
that they "shall not possess the kingdom of God";[16] in a word, of that
unhappy band to whom the Great Judge will one day speak those dreadful
words: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire". It yet
remains for Mr. Barlow to demonstrate that this fire will _not_ last for
ever, that it will one day be extinguished, and that the torments of the
_wicked_ will cease.
We may pass on, then, to other proofs. "How beautiful are the feet of
them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring glad tidings of good
things".[17] This is the sentiment of St. Paul and of the Prophet
Isaias. But, argues Mr. Barlow, if the gospel of eternal punishment be
true, he that goes forth to preach the gospel to the heathen is a curse
and not a blessing. Now what are the practical results of our missions
to the heathen? "Is not the testimony of all unbiassed witnesses who
have travelled among them uniform? Success is infinitesimal, failure
all but universal. What impression has been made by our associations on
the hundred and fifty millions of India? Taking the estimates of the
missionaries themselves, who are not unnaturally disposed to magnify the
good results of their work, the nominal converts are barely one in two
thousand, while the number of _bona fide_ native Christians, 'possessed
of saving faith', may be regarded as practically evanescent.
Remembering, then, these facts, and assuming as a not improbable
proportion, that a zealous missionary preaches the Gospel to a thousand
who reject it for one whom he converts to Christ--God help him--the load
of human misery which that man has brought about must surely weigh heavy
on his soul.... Has any tyrant, a recognized scourge of the human race,
brought down such storms of misery on his species as must be ascribed to
the active missionary who has failed? And they have all failed--failed a
thousand times over for once they have been successful" (p. 14, 15).
On reading this very remarkable passage we are struck with the ingenuous
candour of the writer. It is nothing new for us to learn that Protestant
missions in pagan countries have been all but absolutely barren. But it
is something new to find a distinguished Protestant Divine, who frankly
admits this inconvenient fact. Mr. Barlow must, indeed, find it
difficult to persuade himself that the Church which sends forth such
missions, is the same as that which Isaias addressed in those well known
words: "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy
tabernacles; spare not; lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes.
For thou shalt pass on to the right hand, and to the left, and thy seed
shall inherit the gentiles".[18] "And the gentiles shall walk in thy
light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes round
about and see: all these are gathered together, they are come to thee:
thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy
side. Then shalt thou see, and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be
enlarged, when the multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the
strength of the gentiles shall come to thee". This magnificent prophecy,
Mr. Barlow must confess, has no fulfilment in the Protestant Church.
But let that pass. It is not with the _fact_ but with the _argument_
that we purpose to deal. And first, it occurs to us that the argument,
if valid, would prove not only against the doctrine which Mr. Barlow
impugns, but also against that which he defends. He certainly will admit
that a grievous sin against God is a dreadful crime; that it far
transcends every other evil which exists or can be conceived. He
maintains, moreover, that each one will receive, in the world to come,
rewards and punishment "_according to his works_". Therefore, the
punishment reserved for the sinner, even though it were not eternal,
must yet be something dreadful to contemplate. And the missionary, the
number of whose real converts, "'possessed of saving faith', may be
regarded as practically evanescent", brings down this dreadful
punishment on all to whom he preaches the gospel. Hence, if we accept
Mr. Barlow's argument, even on his own doctrine of finite punishment,
the missionary will be a curse to heathen nations; not indeed _so great_
a curse as if the punishment of sin were eternal, but still a _curse_
and _not_ a blessing. He must therefore answer his own argument, or else
he will be forced to maintain that there is no punishment for sin in the
world to come.
To us his reasoning offers little difficulty. If the heathen, when he
rejects the Christian faith, commits a deliberate grievous sin, he will
certainly be punished accordingly. But this punishment must surely be
ascribed to his own wickedness, and not to the labours of the
missionary. The work of the missionary is a blessed work; it is the
heathen himself that has changed it into a curse. We may illustrate this
explanation from the pages of Sacred Scripture. The wicked servant in
the gospel, if he had not received the one talent from his master, could
not have buried that talent in the earth. And yet, for this fault he is
"cast into exterior darkness", and condemned to "weeping and gnashing of
teeth".[19] Will Mr. Barlow say that the gift of his master was not a
blessing but a curse? If so, he arraigns the conduct of God Himself,
whom this master represents. Again, if our Divine Lord had not selected
Judea for the scene of His public mission, the Jews would never have
been guilty of the frightful crime of Deicide, nor would they have
incurred the terrible chastisement with which that crime was punished.
Yet who will deny that the presence of the Incarnate Word amongst them
was a special favour--the last and greatest--vouchsafed by a loving
Father to that unhappy people? We need only add that the words of holy
Simeon, addressed to the Virgin Mother on the presentation of her Infant
Son in the Temple, are still applicable to every zealous missionary:
"Behold, He is set up for the fall and for the resurrection of many in
Israel";[20] for the resurrection of those who hearken to the glad
tidings, and eagerly accept the grace which He brings; for the fall of
those who spurn the one, and trample the other under foot.
The next argument to which we shall invite the attention of our readers,
is founded on the condition of the blessed in Heaven. "But the terrible
difficulty arising from the relations of the saved to the lost cannot
even be mitigated" (p. 22). This "terrible difficulty" is presented to
us in two different forms. First, Mr. Barlow implicitly appeals to the
divine precept of fraternal charity. Every one is bound to love his
neighbour as himself. Now, if the blessed in Heaven fulfil this precept,
they must be intensely miserable. For the proof of true charity is that
we feel for our neighbour's sufferings, the same grief as if they were
our own. Therefore the saints must experience the same internal anguish
for the torments of the damned as if they endured these torments
themselves.[21] This argument may be dismissed in a few words. The
precept of fraternal charity does not extend to the future life. The
blessed inhabitants of Heaven _cannot_ love the wicked in Hell; much
less are they _bound_ to love them. They see God face to face, and they
love Him with a resistless impulse. Whatever else is good and pleasing
to Him, that they love for His sake; whatever is bad and offensive in
His sight, they _cannot_ love, because they _see_ that it is unworthy of
their love. A divine precept to love the devil and his unhappy
companions in misery, is an idea peculiar to Mr. Barlow.
The second form in which this "terrible difficulty" appears is more
plausible than the first. Many a saint in Heaven will miss from the
mansions of the blessed the friend of his bosom. Many a fond sister will
look in vain for her gay and dissipated, but yet warm-hearted and
affectionate brother. Many a loving mother will behold afar off the
undying torments of her darling son. Are we to suppose that the generous
affections of the human heart are extinguished in Heaven? If so, then
man must be morally worse in Heaven than he was upon earth. And if not,
it cannot be true that "mourning and sorrow shall be no more"[22] in the
City of God. Here is the argument as it is put by Mr. Barlow. "I firmly
believe that if, in the fruition of the Heavenly Kingdom, a time should
come when I shall be capable of forgetting that one who truly loved me
in this world ... is alive in hopeless torment--scorched by the
everlasting flame--gnawed by the undying worm--I must have sunk down
lower in the moral scale before this came to pass. I must have become
more deeply immersed in heartless selfishness than I am now. And this,
which I believe of myself, I believe of every one else. There is only
one explanation of this frightful difficulty. We must assume that the
redeemed are morally worse in Heaven than they were on Earth" (p. 24).
This difficulty, which appeals more strongly to the feelings than to the
judgment, is by no means peculiar to the doctrine of _eternal_
punishment. It must be explained as well by those who say the torments
of the damned will come to an end, as by those who say they will not.
If the saints must grieve at the _eternal_ punishment of their friends,
they must certainly grieve at the _temporal_ punishment of their
friends. The latter grief will be less poignant, it is true; but it will
still be inconsistent with _perfect_ happiness. Let Mr. Barlow explain
how the inhabitants of Heaven will be free from _all_ sorrow, if the
punishment of Hell be limited in duration, and it will be easy to show
they will be equally free if the punishment be eternal.
As for us, we see no necessity for any explanation. God has promised to
make His saints happy. Surely He is able to do it. Mr. Barlow thinks
they will be weeping for their friends. But is it not written that "God
will wipe away all tears from their eyes"?[23] In what manner this will
be done it is not necessary for us to explain. Yet we may be allowed to
offer a conjecture, which, as it seems to us, is supported alike by
reason and by revelation. We would say that, in the saints every
affection that has not for its object what is good and pleasing to God,
will be utterly extinguished; and therefore they will _cease to love_
those unhappy souls that have been condemned to Hell. The reason is
clear. The saints in Heaven see things as they are; and hence they
_cannot_ love that which is wicked and hateful in the sight of God. In
Mr. Barlow's mind this severance of earthly ties must come from an
increase of "heartless selfishness". To us it seems to flow from perfect
love of God. Neither does it follow, as he supposes, that the saints
have "sunk down lower in the moral scale". On the contrary, it is
manifest they have been raised up immeasurably higher. On Earth their
affections were often guided by mere human motives, and, at best, were
governed by an erring human judgment; in Heaven, they are moulded with
the most perfect fidelity after a Divine model.
With these remarks, we take leave of Mr. Barlow and his book. We cannot,
however, close this brief paper without directing the attention of our
readers to a very serious consideration which this book suggests. The
Reverend Mr. Barlow is a Fellow of Trinity College. And there are many
who would ask Catholic parents to entrust the education of their
children to him and his colleagues. We have seen a specimen of his
principles; in particular we have seen that, according to his views,
"the civilization of the nineteenth century jars" with a doctrine which
every Catholic is bound to believe. Is it safe, then, for a Catholic
youth to gather his ideas of modern civilization from the lips of such a
teacher as Mr. Barlow? We are told, indeed, it is for _secular
education_ alone that a Catholic student should go to Trinity College:
that he may learn his religion from other sources. But, if we
understand the words aright, secular education must surely include
modern civilization, and modern civilization, as taught by Mr. Barlow,
is contrary to Catholic faith. These are simple facts. Our readers may
draw their own conclusion.