Part 3

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.