The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

X. Archbishop Whately Expressly Rejects Immortal-Soulist Positions

We close this chapter by considering a towering champion of Conditionalism, quoted again and again throughout the century. RICHARD WHATELY, D.D. (1787-1863), Anglican archbishop of Dublin, famed as a prelate and theologian, was recognized as one of the most profound and original thinkers of his time. He was likewise known as a man of great moral courage. Educated at Oriel College, Oxford, he was successively vicar at Halesworth, principal of St. Albans, briefly professor of political economy at Oxford, and shortly, thereafter consecrated archbishop of Dublin. Whately gave the famous Bampton Lectures in 1822, at Oxford, which bore upon the theme we are pursuing. In 1826 he wrote a treatise on Logic and the “syllogism” that injected new life into the study of logic. And his work on Rhetoric, in 1828, was immediately accepted as a text, and was long used in English universities. He was an intellectual leader. (Pictured on page 257.) CFF2 261.2

During the years 1833-1841 Tractarianism was militant at Oxford. One of its leaders, John Henry Newman (later cardinal), had been Whately’s friend. But Whately did not shrink from duty as he saw it, and produced his Cautions for the Times on the hurricane of controversy that was assailing the church. In this he vigorously opposed the Oxford Movement. Another of his works was on the Errors of Romanism. Renowned alike for piety, learning, and logic, he stated the issues as he saw them, with clarity and candor. With him, doctrines to be believed must be proved from Scripture. He was a determined opponent of the doctrines of Plato. CFF2 261.3

1. DEALS MAJOR BLOW AGAINST “INNATIST” THEORY

Perhaps no single individual of the time dealt a heavier blow against the inherent immortality-of-the-soul theory than did Whately. His popularity as a scholar and his high position as a prelate secured for his writings respectful attention and wide circulation. His principal treatise in this field was written when he was still vicar of Halesworth—A View of the Scripture Revelations concerning a Future State (1829), which ran through eight editions, with an American reprint in 1857. CFF2 262.1

In the light of his prominence it is desirable that we have Whately’s essential statements before us in his own words. Here is a series of his clear and forceful statements. CFF2 262.2

2. PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT ESTABLISH IMMORTALITY

Holding that philosophical reasoning does not, and cannot, assure immortality, Whately makes this basic declaration:
“That the natural immortality, again, of man’s soul, as distinct from the body, is discoverable by human reason, may be denied on the ground that it has not in fact been discovered yet. No arguments from Reason independent of Revelation have been brought forward, that amount to a decisive proof that the soul must survive bodily death. Indeed, as I shall presently take occasion to show, the arguments by which some philosophers did attempt to prove this, were not sufficient to convince fully even themselves.” ²⁴ CFF2 262.3

3. JESUS THE SOURCE AND ASSURANCE OF IMMORTALITY

Jesus Christ, Whately maintains, is our sole hope of immortality: “It was then Jesus Christ, who brought ‘life and immortality to light,’ and founded the doctrine, not on ingenious philosophical arguments, nor on obscure traditions of which no one can tell the origin, but on the authority of his own assertions, established by the miracles He wrought, and especially by that splendid one, of rising Himself from the dead, as ‘the first-fruits of them that slept [“Lazarus, and the others, mentioned as raised from the dead before, were merely restored to life—to the natural mortal life on earth—which they had before enjoyed.”];’ to confirm his promise to his disciples that He would raise up also at the last day, his faithful followers.” ²⁵ CFF2 262.4

4. NO PURGATORY AND NO SECOND PROBATION

The gradual introduction of Platonism and Purgatory is expressly dealt with:
“Long after their [the sacred writers] time, a groundless notion gradually crept into the Church in days of ignorant superstition, concerning an intermediate state of purification of souls by suffering, thence called Purgatory: from which they might be delivered through the prayers of survivors. [“It may be remarked, by the way, that, if this purification or purgatory be a necessary preparation to fit men for entering on a state of heavenly happiness, it would be both foolish and wrong to pray that they should be removed from it.”] This superstition, as it became a source of profit, was encouraged and sanctioned by those who ought to have taught the people better. CFF2 263.1

“It is manifestly a presumptuous addition to the Christian Faith; for not only is there no ground for any such doctrine in Holy Scripture, but on the contrary, the Scriptures afford us in many places the most convincing proofs that this life is the whole of our state of probation,—that sentence will be pronounced on every man, according to his life here on earth,—‘his deeds done in the flesh;’—and that nothing can take place after his death that can at all affect his future condition.” ²⁶ CFF2 263.2

5. “SLEEP” THE DECLARED CONDITION IN DEATH

Denying that death is a state of “lively consciousness,” he says:
“The style in which the sacred writers usually speak of the deceased is, as of persons who are ‘asleep.’ For instance, in John’s Gospel we read, ‘Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of his sleep;’ so, also, Paul speaks of some witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, who were still living at the time he wrote, and some who are ‘fallen asleep:’ even as in the Acts, the Evangelist Luke, speaking of the stoning of Stephen, says, ‘And when he had said this, he fell asleep.’ It may be said, indeed, that sleep does not imply total insensibility; but it must be allowed to be strange, that the word ‘sleep’ should so often be applied to the condition of the departed, if they are in a state of as lively consciousness and sensibility as before death, and in the actual perception of more unmixed pleasure or pain.” ²⁷ CFF2 263.3

6. UNCONSCIOUS OF PASSING TIME IN DEATH-SLEEP

During the intermediate state, between death and the resurrection, there is no consciousness of time:
“I believe that, to my own perceptions, the instant death closes my eyes, I shall be awakened by the last trump,—the summons to meet my Lord. And though in relation to you the survivor, my dying this hour or a year hence, makes no difference as to the time when that day shall arrive, to me, it makes all the difference: absolutely, the interval from now to the general resurrection is the same; but relatively to me, it does, to all practical purposes, come the sooner, the sooner I am released from the burden of ‘this earthly tabernacle.’” ²⁸ CFF2 264.1

7. NO “INTERVAL” BETWEEN DEATH AND RESURRECTION

“The long and dreary interval, then, between death and the Day of judgment (supposing the intermediate state to be a profound sleep), does not exist at all, except in the imagination. To the party concerned, there is no interval whatever; but to each person (according to this supposition) the moment of his closing his eyes in death, will be instantly succeeded by the sound of the last trumpet, which shall summon the dead; even though ages shall have intervened. CFF2 264.2

“And in this sense the faithful Christian may be, practically, in paradise the day he dies. The promise made to the penitent thief, and the Apostle Paul’s wish ‘to depart and to be with Christ,’ which, he said, was ‘far better’ than to remain any longer in this troublesome world, would each be fulfilled to all practical purposes, provided each shall have found himself in a state of happiness in the presence of his Lord, the very instant (according to his own perception) after having breathed his last in this world.” ²⁹ CFF2 264.3

8. WICKED TO BE DESTROYED, AND CEASE TO EXIST

Whately is likewise explicit in declaring that the wicked will, after punishment, cease to exist:
“The expressions of ‘eternal punishment,’ ‘unquenchable fire,’ etc. may mean merely that there is to be no deliverance,—no revival,—no restoration,—of the condemned. ‘Death,’ simply, does not shut out the hope of being brought to life again: ‘eternal death’ does. ‘Fire’ may be quenched before it has entirely consumed what it is burning: ‘unquenchable fire’ would seem most naturally to mean that which destroys it utterly .... CFF2 264.4

“In the parable of the tares, our Lord describes himself as saying, ‘gather ye first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my garner;’ as if to denote that the one is to be (as we know is the practice of the husbandman) carefully preserved, and the other, completely put an end to.” ³⁰ CFF2 265.1

This remarkable volume made many converts to the Conditionalist faith, and was soon followed by numerous other books from various ministers in England advocating the same views and drawing heavily from him. CFF2 265.2