The circumstances under which these pages came to be written are rather
peculiar. I am in favor of church unity, and I had thought of writing
something that would tend to bring the churches into closer harmony. I
am persuaded that their unity of doctrine is greater than is usually
supposed; I endeavored to make this apparent by citing a long list of
doctrines on which the churches tacitly agree.
But in all faithfulness I had to recognize a striking difference of
opinion when I came to speak of the doctrine of future punishment. On
this profound question I had to recognize that there are honest
differences of opinion. These could not be summarily dismissed by a
hasty yea or nay.
There are three views that are entertained, which may be expressed thus:
Extinction; Restoration; Endless Suffering. Not only do these different
views prevail among different churches; they prevail also among
individuals in all the churches. In fact, it would be hard to find a
thoughtful church of any name in which each of these views is not
represented.
While there is this diversity of view, there ought surely to be
toleration. It is a profound subject; I am very conscious of that; yet
I think there may be ultimate harmony if we are only candid enough to
lay aside all prejudice, and give the matter our serious and impartial
consideration. And surely, it is worthy of that. In my view, there is a
right conception of the matter, which if generally entertained would go
far to lift a dark shadow from the heart of the world.
For myself, I may say that I was brought up in an orthodox church that
professes to believe in endless suffering. I had not, even at a mature
age, examined that doctrine critically. In fact, I shrunk from examining
it; I think most people do who professedly accept it. It is the doctrine
of the church, and the easiest way is to assume that it is all right. If
it was formulated by our learned and pious ancestors, the usual idea is
that it's good enough for us.
A thoughtful mind, however, could not but recognize that there is a
serious difference on this question in different churches that are
admitted to be evangelical. Not only that, but there is a difference
between thoughtful men in the same church. Hence, I was led to adopt,
and to state, my own views here. The arguments that I was thus compelled
to use expanded far beyond my expectation. Then I recognized that a plea
for unity along with the advocacy of a contested vital doctrine, do not
hang well together. Moreover, the space that I felt compelled to give to
this doctrinal defense, induced me to cut it loose from my plea for
unity, and present the matter separately.
* * * * *
On this most serious question I must say that I have read but very
little. Even Dr. Farrar's standard work on "Eternal Hope" I have not
read. But I considered this to be no serious disadvantage, on the whole.
I conceived--and I think it was no undue egotism--that my own
originality and naturalness would balance in a large degree the
completeness which otherwise I might have attained. I think it is no
small advantage to see the natural working of an open mind, not warped
by other people's opinions and arguments.
But there was more than that. It is said of Christ that He is "The true
Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." I cannot but
think that I have had some illumination from that Source. Once in the
night season, when I wished above all things to sleep, I was kept awake,
and an idea came to me that was never in my mind before. In the morning
the idea was written down. The following night the same thing would
occur again, and again a new thought was written down. The same thing
continued for weeks, with hardly an intermission.
It did not strike me until afterwards that this might be a special,
divine illumination. Yet why should it not be, except that I was
utterly unworthy? But then I remembered that it is to "every man,"
however unworthy he may be, that this divine Light comes. So it may come
to many when they do not know it.
In this case it was not really so surprising. When we think of the Power
and Grace that are so bound up with the theory of Restoration that are
as yet so little recognized, might we not expect special, divine aid in
making known such a glorious revelation? As I have noticed elsewhere in
this treatise, neither of the two alternative theories brings anything
like such glory to Christ as the theory of Restoration. Is not this an
overwhelming argument that the theory is true?
At all events, there is now more toleration for such views than there
was some time ago. I know that many Congregational ministers hold to the
doctrine of Conditional Immortality; and there is no bar to such views
in that church. Dr. Farrar's "Eternal Hope" does him no discredit to-day
in the Episcopal Church. So with Dr. Edward White's doctrine of
Conditional Immortality. But there are some who still hold tenaciously
to the orthodox faith, and are quick to resent any departure from it.
Well do I remember a conference that was held in Dr. Parker's Tabernacle
in London several years ago. The occasion was the meeting with the Rev.
Henry Ward Beecher. The large church where we met was nearly filled with
ministers. During Mr. Beecher's talk one of these zealots for orthodoxy
flung out the inquiry, "Do you believe in everlasting punishment?"
Beecher--manly man that he was--immediately responded that he did not.
At once there was an uproar. The great majority, I believe, whether in
sympathy with Mr. Beecher or not, would have allowed the matter to pass
in respectful silence. But there was a small minority who felt bound to
stand up for orthodoxy. For a time there was great confusion. I remember
Parker's dignified protest. "Brethren," he said, "this is a Conference;
it is not an Inquisition."
Truly, it does seem strange that men should be ostracised for not
believing that the great majority of mankind is in everlasting fire!
That is really the sum and substance of their offending. It seems that
is an offense for which no greatness or goodness can atone. In the case
referred to the man who was condemned was confessedly head and shoulders
above his peers. Yet we boast of our culture and progress, and our
emancipation from medieval darkness. Truly, it would be funny, if it
were not sad.
* * * * *
On the occasion referred to I had no sympathy with Mr. Beecher's view,
nor for several years after. But the idea took hold of me about five
years ago. So far as I know, it came spontaneously; no, perhaps not
spontaneously, but as a direct suggestion from the unseen. I had been
reading nothing that would naturally lead up to it; I had no former
leanings in that direction; nor was I in contact with any person who
would suggest it. But suddenly the idea took hold of me, and pursued me
night after night with new arguments. All the time there was nothing in
my reach along this line that I could read; and I had read almost
nothing beforehand. So I sought for nothing, realizing that it might be
better to present the case solely from my own point of view.
I mention these matters in no spirit of egotism, but simply to show that
the matter occurred to me at a time unlooked for, and without any
extraneous help. If I had resorted to outside aids, I might perhaps have
made the argument more complete; but would I have made it more
convincing?
* * * * *
I am not in the habit of ventilating these views on all occasions; but
in certain cases lately there were some remarkable results. For
instance: I met a Presbyterian minister whom I knew, and we drifted into
these ideas. I said I would give him one argument for universal
salvation, and one only. When I had stated the argument he said it was
absolutely conclusive, and that there could be no such thing as
endless torment.
Lately, I met a Presbyterian D.D. on the train, and we drifted into
these questions. He argued the case strongly from the orthodox point of
view, and I defended the more liberal theory. We argued the question for
two hours. When we were at the end of our journey he frankly confessed
that he was quite with me, and that he "had gone through the mill." Yet
that D.D. is supposed to be orthodox. I believe he is one of many who
suppress their honest inner convictions.
A teacher in the Methodist body, a man of deep thought, and fine
culture, during a few minutes' conversation, endorsed several of my
views, and began to advance some of his own.
Lately, I visited a highly cultured Christian lady, who was once a
member of my congregation, and I referred casually to some of these
ideas. Thinking afterwards that I might really have done her an injury
by merely mooting such a subject, I went back the next evening, and went
into it fully. The result was that she expressed her hearty concurrence
in such views.
Cases like these convince me that the public mind is more open than it
was some time ago, and that when the matter is presented reasonably, in
many instances it will be accepted. Surely, the light of God is
beginning to shine into our gloom!
* * * * *
I suppose that the contracted view of divine love and power that
prevailed in former times was largely due to the failure of men to see
that God rules in all worlds and through all time. Because grace does
not take effect in the case of every person now and here, it was
concluded that this was a part of the divine decree; for could not God
do as it pleased Him? But now we realize that this life is not all; that
divine love and power are from everlasting to everlasting; that we see
here but "parts of His ways;" that the great redemptive scheme may be
completed in the ages to come.
* * * * *
In this treatise I have chiefly in view the great mass of people who
believe in the plain statements of Scripture, and also in reason. And I
will say this, for the sake of those who have been brought up with the
idea that the Scripture teaches eternal torment, that there are many
incorrect Scripture translations, and that these largely account for the
long persistence of the old theory. Its origin is really due to the
Roman Catholic Church, which invented it to keep its adherents in due
subjection.
It is well to note that in two of the views I have referred to there is
a degree of harmony. In the theory of Extinction and that of Restoration
there is a tacit repudiation of endless torment. That seems to be an
intuition in harmony with our highest range both of thought and feeling,
when thought and feeling are not unduly warped by tradition. The old
theory may sound orthodox; it may be consecrated by many tender
memories; but I would ask if you have thought over it seriously, and if
in your inmost soul you believe it. Then be faithful to that inner
conviction. It is the light of God. It is what Carlyle calls "the direct
Inspiration of the Almighty."
* * * * *
Pending the final solution of this great problem, I think there ought to
be enough charity to disagree, with all good will and mutual confidence.
And in all contemplated union of the churches this liberty ought to be
clearly recognized. For this question, though of tremendous importance,
is not a saving one by any means. Men, of whose goodness there can be no
question, hold different views. Truth is greater than orthodoxy, and is
sometimes to be found outside of orthodoxy. In this connection, the
words of Professor Faulkner, of Toronto University, are well worth
pondering. He says: "The fear of not being orthodox is, in my opinion,
the reason why theology is under a cloud at the present time."
Closely related to this subject, it may be opportune to quote an article
of mine that lately appeared in the "_Homiletic Review_" on the
"Doctrinal Basis of Union in Canada."
The contemplated organic union of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and
Congregational Churches in Canada has not yet been consummated. One
thing that involved some delay has been the discovery of a basis of
doctrine that would suit the three churches. At length such a basis has
been formulated. It contains one statement, however, which I am rather
surprised to see. It says that the doom of the finally impenitent will
be "eternal death," Now what does that mean? Might it not be honestly
taken to mean two very different things? Might it not be taken to mean
"eternal torment" or "eternal extinction?" The manifest ambiguity of
such a statement would seem to me highly objectionable. I quoted the
phrase to two thoughtful friends, and asked them what it meant. They
made a long pause, and said they did not know.
If the phrase has been adopted on purpose to make it the expression of
the two views referred to, such a course is surely wanting in candor and
honesty. To be sure, it is a Scriptural phrase, but inasmuch as it is
taken to express two very different views, it ought not to be adopted.
By all means be clear and simple and straightforward.
There has been too much vagueness on the part of preachers on this most
solemn theme. Lately I heard a preacher speaking of unsaved men as
"miserable failures, going out into the darkness." Now what did he mean?
Either he has no definite idea himself, or he judged it unwise to
express it. Does not such a statement as I have quoted pander directly
to infidelity?
Surely, the time has come when we ought candidly to recognize that on
this question there may be a legitimate difference of opinion. There
are men whose godliness and ability are beyond all question, who hold
diverse views on this matter. Whether it be the theory of eternal
torment or extinction or Restoration that is held, let us concede all
honor and confidence to the men who hold it. The more of that spirit we
really possess, the sooner will the divine light break upon our souls.
With regard to a basis on which conscientious men can really unite, is
it well to go so much into detail? Mere creeds will never conserve the
truth. Men will think, whether we will or no; and men will have diverse
views. Do we not put a premium on dishonesty by constructing a creed for
all details, and expecting men to subscribe to that creed? Have we not
had too much of that in the past? A noted official in the Methodist body
told me lately that he does not believe in eternal torment, but that if
it were known, he would lose his position. But eternal torment is in the
Methodist creed, and he had profest his adherence to it. It is so with
many Presbyterians. I have spoken privately with several, and not one
profest to believe in that doctrine. But we say, "Truth is mighty and
will prevail." Yes, I believe it will; but it would surely prevail
faster if we were always loyal to it. Besides, is there anything that
makes more directly for degeneracy of character than such evasion?
To avoid all peril of this kind, how would it do to take for a basis
of doctrine this simple statement. "I believe the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments to be the Word of God?" Or, "I believe the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments to contain the Word of God?" Then, with
further "light breaking from God's holy word," we would not need to
expunge anything from our creed, or add anything to it.
For the present, let us be faithful to the light we have. As Canon
Farrar well says: "There is but one failure; and that is, not to be true
to the best one knows."
* * * * *
It will be noted that throughout this discussion I have made no attempt
to indicate anything of the nature of the divine reformatory processes
in the next life. That is far beyond me. The principle may be the same
that operates now, but the details may be very different, and the
effects produced may be quick or slow, just as in this life. We have
instanced the case of Saul's conversion as exceptionally thorough and
immediate. There may be somewhat similar cases in the next life; we do
not know; but there is reasonable ground for hope. Then too, as now,
there may be cases of incorrigibility which ages may be required
to redeem.
* * * * *
Mistranslations of certain passages of Scripture on this subject are so
numerous, and in some cases so utterly opposed to the original, that I
made out a list of them, to be presented here. On second thought I have
omitted them, for the reason that this treatise is intended more
especially for plain, common sense people, who do not trouble much about
translations, but who are dominated largely by reason and good sense.
For those who give more attention to translations, I could wish that
some competent and impartial person would compile a list of
mistranslations and present them as a separate treatise.
* * * * *
I am satisfied that in the English Bible there is abundant support for
every position I have taken. I do not mean merely direct, verbal
support; but also the support of reason and common feeling, which come
from the same divine Source.
I can well conceive, however, that some may have a conscientious fear
that there may be something in the original that is opposed to the views
that I have taken. It may appear very unlikely that the orthodox views
that have so long prevailed should find such wide currency if they are
not supported by revelation. It cannot be denied, however, that the
translators of the Scriptures in many instances were strongly imbued
beforehand with certain of those doctrines, and that in many cases they
wrested the Scriptures to support them. So much is this the case that
corrections and modifications have since been made--in some cases
totally contrary to the original translations.
Along with this, let it be remembered that there is, and rightly, a
strong conservative feeling against meddling with the Divine Word.
Notwithstanding this, there is in all honesty a feeling that certain
translations call for a radical amendment. I think this statement will
be thoroughly borne out by some of the translations I will quote.
I have thus been moved to give some instances of mistranslation. Since
writing the foregoing I have met with a treatise by Rev. Arthur
Chambers, an English Episcopal minister, in which he quotes a great
number of these. A number of them bear so directly on the matter we are
treating that I feel that I cannot do better than quote some of them
here. And in order to do this author justice, I will give also some of
his own comments.
Mr. Chambers writes: