The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

VIII. Archbishop Tillotson Undercuts Dogma of Eternal Torment

JOHN TILLOTSON (1630-1694), Archbishop of Canterbury, was of nonconformist background. Educated at Cambridge, he was profoundly influenced by the works of the great Protestant apologist, William Chillingworth, with their basic theme, “The Bible only is the faith of Protestants.” Submitting to the Act of Conformity in 1662, he served first as an Anglican curate, then in the rectory of Kiddington. He next became lecturer at St. Laurance’s, in the Jewry, where he came to be recognized as such a distinguished preacher that many of the clergy modeled their sermons after his. (Pictured on page 188.) CFF2 191.9

In 1670 Tillotson became prebendary of Canterbury, and in 1689 dean of St. Pauls. He was also a member of the commission to revise the Book of Common Prayer. He held the Zwinglian view concerning the Eucharist, and preached strongly against Popery and Purgatory. Then in 1691 Tillotson was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, and set about reforming the abuses among the clergy. His hope was to include all Protestant Dissenters, other than Unitarians, in the Church of England. CFF2 192.1

1. DECLARES INNATE-IMMORTALITY ASSUMED, NOT “REVEALED.”

On March 7, 1690, Archbishop Tillotson preached a revolutionary sermon dealing with the “Eternity of Hell Torments,” based on Matthew 25:46—one that created great commotion in the theological world. In it he maintained that though God had threatened impenitent sinners with eternal punishment, yet He kept the right of punishing in His own hand, and may remit the penalty. ³³ This was recognized as virtually abandoning the traditional certainty of the doctrine of invariable eternal torment for the impenitent, and was so construed. CFF2 192.2

It was not an open break, but a crack—a noteworthy breach in the solid wall of established “orthodoxy” as to the fate of the damned. It was clearly a denial of the indefeasible immortality of all souls and the universality of eternal punishing for all the wicked. It was the first time an Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, had so declared. More than that, he openly confessed that the dogma of Innate Immortality is based not on Scripture but on tradition. That too was an epochal confession. Other archbishops would follow, in time, who would make the break complete, as history attests. These will be noted in their chronological sequence. CFF2 192.3

Coming from so high a dignitary, the statement created consternation among the advocates of endless torment in Hell. Widespread discussion ensued. Tillotson’s position was defended by the French Arminian theologian, Jean Le Clerc, ³⁴ and condemned by William Lupton, ³⁵ and others. But what disturbed most was Tillotson’s admission that the doctrine of the “immortality of the soul was rather supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly revealed in the Bible” ³⁶ Such were the disruptive statements uttered by this prominent prelate near the close of the seventeenth century. CFF2 192.4

2. SIMILAR CONTINENTAL DENIAL BY VON STOSCH

It should be added that about the same time, over on the Continent, FRIEDRICH WILHELM VON STOSCH published a work openly denying the doctrine of endless punishment—Concordia Rationis, et Fidei ... (1692), ³⁷ which caused the author much trouble. The book was suppressed by the government and drew a rebuttal from Johann H. von Elswich. ³⁸ Revolt against eternal torment was on, and was destined to increase. CFF2 193.1