The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

IV. Tomlinson—Takes Issue With Bishop of Liverpool

Let us step now into the arena of current discussion long enough to observe how a rector takes up the cudgels with his bishop over the now hotly controverted issue of the nature of man and the destiny of the wicked. Feelings run deep and words are forthright. CFF2 363.5

WILLIAM ROBERT TOMLINSON (1811-1899), scholarly Anglican rector of Sherfield English, was a graduate of St. John’s, Cambridge. After ordination in 1835 he became curate at Preston and Hove, and then in 1837 he was inducted into the vicarship of Whiteparish, and finally was given the rectorship of Sherfield English. Conversing with a fellow rector, Mark Cooper, of St. Mary’s, Southampton, Tomlinson made a casual remark concerning the “immortal soul,” to which Cooper quietly replied, “The soul is not immortal!” The rejoinder startled Tomlinson. It was a new thought, and started a train of study that ultimately brought light, understanding, and relief to his mind. Immortality is actually conditional! It seemed so “reasonable,” and was clearly supported by Scripture. ⁴¹ It should surely appeal to the thoughtful and open-minded, he thought. (Portrait on page 362.) CFF2 363.6

1. CHALLENGES BISHOP’S POSITION ON ETERNAL TORMENT

In the current controversy of the time the bishop of Liverpool had called Conditionalism “a modern theory.” But Tomlinson had found, on the contrary, that ever since Reformation times it had been held by an unending succession of able scholars—actually “thousands” in all—though for some time it had been kept “under a bushel.” He also discovered that to preach his convictions was to go against stern contemporary “forces of authority.” CFF2 364.1

One of Tomlinson’s contributions was The Undying Worm and the Human Soul. But his best-known work on Conditionalism was his courageous reply to a chapter on “Conditional Immortality,” appearing in Thoughts of Immortality (1886), authored by John Charles Ryle, bishop of Liverpool, his ecclesiastical superior. Tomlinson published his reply in Thoughts on “Everlasting Death” (1886), in which he took decided issue with the bishop, who had flatly asserted that “the future misery of those who are finally lost is eternal,” holding that future bliss and future misery were coextensive, and that one cannot be less than the other. Said he, “I fail to see how you can distinguish the duration of the one from the duration of the other.” ⁴² CFF2 364.2

Tomlinson’s avowed object, in rebuttal, was to show that all future life, or death, is conditional, and that “everlasting death”—the “antithesis” of everlasting life—is the cessation of life. The bishop had complained that “Conditional Immortality” had “lately found great favour in some quarters,” but was “specious.” ⁴³ Tomlinson’s reply afforded an insight into his view of the fallacy of the reasoning of such a stricture. CFF2 364.3

2. INVOKES BIBLE AND CITES BISHOP PORTEUS

The Old Testament, insisted Tomlinson, neither declares nor “assumes the natural immortality of the soul.” Rather, it teaches that “the soul is mortal by nature.” ⁴⁴ And he adds: “Let us never forget that it was not God who said, ‘Thou shalt not surely die,’ but the devil, who was a liar from the beginning.” ⁴⁵ CFF2 365.1

The writer of Genesis, and David (Psalm 49:12, 14, 15), Solomon (Proverbs 12:28), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 18:20-27), are all alike crystal clear. Life and death are thrown into direct contrast. And in the New Testament “Conditional Immortality is brought out in a marked manner.” It declares, according to Christ Himself, that God is “able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). ⁴⁶ CFF2 365.2

Tomlinson then cites Bishop Beilby Porteus (d. 1808), ⁴⁷’ bishop of London—another Conditionalist—who declared that the soul is “formed for immortality,” can be “killed,” “kill and destroy” being “synonymous.” It was indeed fitted for immortality, Tomlinson insists, but was not of itself immortal, and might be lost irrevocably. The rector further held that “if the soul is to exist in misery forever, it must be made immortal for the purpose.” ⁴⁸ It must “put on” immortality, just as much so as if it were to live in joy forever. But that is not God’s provision. CFF2 365.3

3. THE SOUL “NOT IMMORTAL IN ITSELF.”

We must not call death “life,” Tomlinson urges, nor destruction “immortality.” “We must not put bitter for sweet, black for white, or darkness for light,” especially with the view of robbing God of His attributes of enduring mercy. ⁴⁹ Summarizing he says: “The soul is not immortal in itself. It is only ‘formed for immortality.’ It can be lost, and it can be kept, as demonstrated profusely in the Holy Scriptures.” ⁵⁰ CFF2 365.4

4. “QUOTES” ILLUSTRATING LINE OF THOUGHT

Here are some choice Tomlinson quotes that epitomize his line of thought:
“Surely ‘everlasting death’ cannot mean ‘everlasting life.’” ⁵¹ CFF2 366.1

“‘Death, dying, perishing, destruction,’ and the like ... can only mean cessation of existence.” ⁵² CFF2 366.2

“I protest against the words, ‘death,’ ‘dying,’ ‘perishing,’ and ‘destruction,’ being used contrary to their true signification, to suit party purposes, or, to keep men’s souls in bondage.” ⁵³ CFF2 366.3

5. PROTESTS ALTERATION OF WORD AND INTENT

Referring to Mark 9:43, 44, Tomlinson seriously protests Bishop Ryle’s changing a word in a quoted text of Scripture—putting a pronoun for an article—a change that “entirely alters the meaning of that sentence.” ⁵⁴ And he adds:
“How strange it is that people will not see that it is not the souls that die not, but their punisher, God’s avenging angel, under the title of ‘their worm that dieth not.’ The worm is not the soul, but the typical tormenter and final destroyer of the soul, its subject .... ‘The executioner lives: the culprits die, and he is their executioner.’” ⁵⁵ CFF2 366.4

6. CITES SIMILAR “BIBLE STANDARD” CRITICISM

Tomlinson refers to an incisive editorial in the Bible Standard (for September, 1887), likewise criticizing Bishop Ryle’s confusion of the “everlasting duration of the sinner’s punishment with its nature,” and insists instead that the “unbeliever’s death and extinction is endless.” Then on Revelation 14:9-11, Tomlinson observes that “it is the smoke,” not the “torment,” which ascends up forever and ever. Mention is made of the outgrowth of Immortal-Soulism—the “Will-o’-the-Wisp” of Spiritualism, “leading traveller’s to a quagmire,” without ever helping them out. And in Daniel 12:2 the “many” and the “some” sound to Tomlinson like “Conditional Immortality.” And further, it is the “contempt that is everlasting, not the contemptible; the despising, not the despised.” ⁵⁶ CFF2 366.5

7. SUPREME CONDITIONALIST IS JESUS CHRIST

The greatest argument for Conditional Immortality, Tomlinson continues, comes from the lips of our Lord Himself. Here is the Biblical evidence:
In Matthew 7:13“destruction” is put over against “life.”
In Matthew 19:17 and Matthew 10:28 it is “life” and “destroy” in juxtaposition.
In John 3:16 it is “everlasting life” versus “perish.”
In John 5:40 and John 10:28 it is “life” versus “perish.”
In Matthew 21:44“grind him to powder,” in allusion to the fate of the wicked.
And in Luke 20:16 He will come and “destroy” the husbandmen.
In Matthew 16:26 a man can “lose his own soul.”
In John 12:25 to “lose” and “keep” the life are put in contrast.
In John 8:51 some “never see death.”
In John 10:28 those having “eternal life” “never perish.”
In Luke 20:36 they do not “die any more.”
In John 3:36“hath everlasting life” versus “not see life.”
In John 4:14, 36; John 5:24, 39; John 6:27, 40, 47, 54; John 17:1, 2—all those so classified have “eternal life” or “everlasting life.” ⁵⁷ CFF2 367.1

These multiple declarations all teach that “life” and “death” are the real and “only ultimates of humanity.” And these all take place “after the final judgment,” not in the “intermediate state.” ⁵⁸ CFF2 367.2

8. FISHING IN SAME BOAT WITH ROME

The “very lack of Scripture” evidence in “upholding a beloved dogma” drives men who are “furthest from the Church of Rome in their usual tenets” to fish in the same boat with the Romanists, as Tomlinson puts it, and to “dabble with the ‘adherents of the Apostasy’ in ordinarily forbidden waters, when it suits their purpose,” as they cite supporting Catholic precedents and authorities in buttressing their own position. ⁵⁹ He continues: “If man is mortal Conditional Immortality is true, for that is its prime contention, since CHRIST alone can make man immortal.” ⁶⁰ CFF2 367.3

Tomlinson is extraordinarily candid in his strictures about the bishop’s distortion of the intent of Scripture phrases, and censures the “heresy” of— CFF2 368.1

“reading the Scripture word punishment as though GOD had written suffering, misery, or torment—which Divine wisdom has never written, in conjunction with the word eternal or everlasting, in regard to mortal man. The Divine connection always is punishment, destruction, and kindred words implying eternal death—‘ The wages of sin is death’—not life in torment.” ⁶¹ CFF2 368.2

9. ADMONITION: BEWARE OF JEHOIAKIM’S PENKNIFE TECHNIQUE

“Beware,” admonishes Tomlinson, “of constantly talking of ‘everlasting misery,’ when there is not a word in the Bible to support the term.” ⁶² Laying hold of the bishop’s allusion to “Jehoiakim’s penknife” and “cutting God’s Word to pieces,” Tomlinson turns it into an inquiry:
“What else—we say in return,—is calling ‘death,’ ‘dying,’ ‘perishing,’ and the like, ‘eternal life in misery?’ and what else is calling ‘destruction,’ keeping our component parts together for ever in order to be tormented for ever, but ‘cutting GOD’S Word to pieces,’ if not with a penknife, yet with a deplorable spirit of malversation? Destruction means pulling a structure to pieces, not keeping it together.” ⁶³ CFF2 368.3

Thus deeply did Tomlinson feel and speak. For him this was no mere academic discussion. To him vital truth was at stake. And it was typical of the times, for men had moving convictions and expressed them candidly, yet were respected and were now able to continue their ministry notwithstanding. CFF2 368.4