APPENDIX.
I have allowed to stand in the Essay (pp. 76-81) the views I held at the time it was composed respecting the interpretation of Matt. xxv. 46, because I considered that these views, although in certain respects they are inconsistent with those I maintain in this Appendix, might contribute, by comparison with the latter, towards an understanding of the passage. The interpretation which, after long consideration, I have finally adopted, was first published in two letters, contained under the head of "Correspondence," in the numbers of the Guardian for December 27, 1877, and January 16, 1878. With the view of offering some additional arguments in support of that interpretation, and making it more generally intelligible, I propose to begin with producing in extenso the two letters referred to.
"ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
"Sir,
"After reading attentively the letters of your correspondents to which the sermon of Dr. Farrar has given occasion, it appeared to me that some views in addition to those which have hitherto been proposed, and in certain respects controverting them, may be worthy of consideration. I beg, {126} therefore, to be allowed space for making the following remarks:—
"We are taught in the Scriptures that hereafter there will be a new constitution of the universe, 'new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness' (2 Peter iii. 13), and that in this perfect social state 'there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain' (Rev. xxi. 4). To reconcile this revelation, so intelligible and so comprehensive, with the meaning of passages which seem to say that the punishment of the wicked will be 'endless,' presents a very great difficulty. We are not at liberty in such cases to accept some parts of Scripture and reject others in order to get rid of the difficulty, but must believe that the truth, if it should be reached, will establish the consistency of all, and that seeming contradictions are only due to our ignorance. I propose for consideration the following solution of the above-stated difficulty:—
"Jesus Christ in his ministration on earth said, in the course of giving instruction to his disciples (Matt. xxiv. 3), 'These [on the left hand] shall go into eternal punishment, and the righteous into eternal life' (Matt. xxv. 46). Considering that in all he said and did he had in view his Father's purpose of making the spirits of men meet for immortality, it may be asked, In what way was such teaching contributory to this end? May we not conclude from our Lord's words, apart from all other inferences, that eternal life is necessarily preceded by righteousness, and eternal punishment is as necessarily consequent upon sin, and that the knowledge of these divine decrees contributes to the formation of spirits for the life to come? This inference might be accepted as abstractedly true; but then the question arises, What is meant by duration as signified by the word 'eternal'? It should be remarked that in the statement of the doctrine I have employed the word 'necessarily' in a sense that is not unusual, and is generally thought to be intelligible. But it is to be taken into account that no such use of the term occurs in Scripture, where, in fact, it would be wholly {127} incongruous. The reason of this is that the Scriptures contain no abstract truths which are not expressed, or expressible, in terms understood from the facts and conditions of human experience. This may especially be said of the discourses of our Lord, in consequence of which they are much misunderstood by the many who are incapable of discerning the spiritual through the literal, who, as he said, 'have eyes and see not, and ears and hear not.' Assuming, therefore, that there is truth in speaking of righteousness and life as being necessarily connected, as also of sin and punishment as being in like manner connected, we have to inquire in what way these abstract truths are expressed in the language of Scripture. I venture to make answer that this is done by its recognition of a special faculty we are all conscious of possessing, that of thinking and speaking of time (and space also) as indefinitely extended. (The mathematician knows that without the supposition, whether as to greatness or smallness, of ad libitum extent of space and time, he is unable to conduct his reasoning.) On this principle Scripture speaks of duration through 'ages, and ages,' because by such emphatic reference to our capacity for thinking of unlimited duration, the anterior necessity of certain abstract truths, as especially the being and attributes of Deity, and the characters of divine judgment, is expressed in terms drawn from common thought and experience.
"But the omnipotent Creator, who, for purposes towards us, made time and space to be what we perceive them to be, has also the power to change or unmake them. If it were not so, there would be a power above that of the Creator, which is impossible. The difficulty concerning the duration of future punishment appears to be attributable to a preconception tacitly, perhaps unconsciously, entertained by most persons that time and space have an independent existence, although the teaching of Scripture is directly opposed to this view. St. Paul speaks of 'height' and 'depth' as of things created (Rom. viii. 39); St. Peter has, 'One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day' (2 Epist. iii. 8); and in {128} Rev. x. 6 it is expressly said that when the scheme of redemption is finished 'time shall be no more.' The foregoing argument suffices, I think, to show that 'endless' and eternal are not convertible terms, for the special reason that the latter is significant of time as being derived from [oe]tas, whereas the other has per se no necessary relation to time. (For the same etymological reason I consider 'eternal' to be preferable to 'ever-lasting.') I cannot forbear adverting here to a serious misstatement, as it seems to me, in Mr. Churton's letter in the Guardian of December 12 (p. 1714). He says that the teaching of Holy Scripture as to the matter of duration, is precisely the same with respect to eternal life and eternal death, having apparently overlooked the remarkable expression in Heb. vii. 16, 'indissoluble life' (zôês akatalytou), in which endlessness is signified by an epithet not explicitly indicative of time. No such epithet is applied in Scripture to future punishment. This difference is of great importance when taken with reference to the declaration in Scripture that time itself has an end.
"It would certainly appear that the apostle Paul did not teach that the future punishment of the wicked will be endless; otherwise, how could he have written, 'God is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe' (1 Tim. iv. 10)? Is not this to assert that all are saved in the same sense that some who believe are saved, although there may be difference as to the order or mode of the salvation? We know that in the present age faith avails to save if it rests on the assurance given by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ that by passing through the same gate of suffering we are prepared to enter into life; for such faith yields the fruit of patience and righteousness. But in the age to come there is neither faith, nor repentance, nor probation, but 'a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation' (Heb. x. 27). The appointed Judge is the Son of man, who, having suffered an unjust and painful death at the hands of sinful men, is entitled to execute the vengeance on sinners. All men are judged; but the elect, {129} who have been sealed by faith and good works, escape condemnation, and are those that are 'specially' saved. The rest are condemned to undergo the second death. This is that 'threefold woe' and 'great tribulation' so plainly foretold in Scripture. It was by these 'terrors of the Lord' that St. Paul sought to 'persuade' men, and not, as it would seem, by saying that the misery will be without end. As matter of experience, the preaching of this hopeless destiny does not deter from sin, but only makes sad tender spirits whom God has not made sad. Why should we not rather believe that the purpose of avenging justice is fulfilled when that great and final tribulation (Mark xiii. 19) has availed, in virtue of the suffering whereby the Son of God 'consecrated' the way to life, for the purification and salvation of the condemned, seeing that even saints and martyrs have need to be purified by suffering (see Dan. xii. 10)? This view reconciles all apparent contradictions, and accords with the gospel declared in Rev. xxi. In making the foregoing statements I have necessarily tried to be brief; but I hope, ere long, to be able to publish a justification of them by arguments drawn at greater length from Scripture.
"Cambridge, December 21, 1877."