The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2
III. Maude—Epochal Rainbow Article Creates Crisis
WILLIAM MAUDE (1827-1883), though born in Cape Town, went to Liverpool at the age of ten, where he spent most of his life. His ancestors were of the Society of Friends, but he received his early training among the Calvinists. An omnivorous reader with a bent toward literature and theology, at twenty he wrote a devotional booklet, The Christian’s Daily Portion. About the same time he was attracted to the study of prophecy by Hugh M’Neile, 4 who presided over the Albury Park Prophetic Conference of 1826, which was part of the resurgence of emphasis on the Second Advent and eschatology. CFF2 383.2
1. STEPS IN ADOPTION OF CONDITIONALISM
While visiting friends in Wales, Maude was discussing the awful state of the eternally wicked when a German woman protested, “Don’t believe that of the good God!” For two years he pondered the arresting thought, asking many close friends for their best arguments on Eternal Torment. Though he told no one at the time, he had secretly rejected the doctrine of the indefeasible immortality of the soul and the concept that it was impossible for the Creator to extinguish, in the creature, the consciousness of existence. He came to regard it as a purely philosophical contention, opposed by Scripture and reason alike. CFF2 383.3
Prostrated by an illness, he promised God that if he was restored to health he would openly meet the libels of those who misconceived His character. Soon after this he found a copy of Edward White’s Life in Christ in a secondhand bookstall, which gave him an added incentive. As he read he remembered how Luther had found truth buried under human accretions, and pondered how it had been recovered by the hand of a monk, through the neglected Volume in the library at Erfurt. CFF2 384.1
But because of expressing his new convictions on the final destruction of the wicked, Maude found himself expelled from the large circle of his former friends. At times he felt lonely in his isolation, but soon formed a smaller circle of fellow believers in Conditionalism, and began to make new converts to that view. CFF2 384.2
2. CONDITIONALIST ARTICLE STIRS PUBLIC OPINION
Frail of body but strong in mental vigor, Maude soon became a stalwart defender of truths now under assault, and was often ahead of others in his thinking. In 1864 The Rainbow was launched, with the avowed purpose of bearing testimony to neglected Bible truth. Maude contributed an article in the April issue, with many more to follow. During the first five years the major theme of the journal was the glorious coming kingdom of our Lord and the approaching crisis. At the outset it was more of a forum for the expression of variant views, and many in Liverpool and Birmingham confessed their faith in the Second Advent. CFF2 384.3
About this time Dr. White rewrote and enlarged his Life in Christ. And William Leask, editor of The Rainbow, asked Maude to write an article on Conditionalism, which appeared in March, 1869. To his surprise it greatly stirred public opinion. It was like a ground swell that swayed the foundations of orthodoxy. Maude’s presentation evidenced thorough investigation, a masterly grasp of the subject, and an orderly arrangement of the material.” 5 CFF2 384.4
The article gave him prominence as a Conditionalist and placed The Rainbow at the head of a new reformation. On the other hand, the publication of this article entailed the loss of five hundred subscriptions by irate readers, followed by years of reproach and recrimination. There was consternation and anger among the “orthodox.” It was a critical period. But White, Constable, and Minton entered the lists as defenders, and new readers soon took the place of those who canceled out. CFF2 385.1
3. THREE MAJOR CONTENTIONS OF ARTICLE
Because of its importance we give the gist of Maude’s epochal article. Listing ten Anglican and Nonconformist publications that had appeared within the previous four years, 6 which had called in question the popular concept of Innate Immortality, Maude asks, “Are they the writers right, or are they wrong?” He insists that this vital question can no longer be ignored or stifled by the cry of heresy. The issue must be faced, for it had become a crucial topic of the time. And the importance of the issue is apparent because it involves the further question “What is the nature and duration of the future punishment of the lost?” CFF2 385.2
Referring to the growing criticism and widespread current hostility against the “rigid dogma” of the past concerning human destiny, and the new trend of the times, Maude asserts that truth on this topic can no longer be evaded by the thoughtful and candid mind. He then summarizes three main points on which these ten writers agree. CFF2 385.3
a. That “man is, us to his whole nature, a mortal creature,“ with no satisfactory proof from either revelation or reason of the immortality of the soul and the necessarily “eternal existence of all men.” Pertinent supporting excerpts are cited from Dobney, Davis, Constable, Minton, and others. CFF2 385.4
b. That immortality is had in, and only in, Christ. This “sublime truth,” as Maude denominates it, makes more radiant the provisions of salvation only m Christ—involving the Incarnation, atonement, regeneration, resurrection, and eternal judgment. In support he draws from Burgh, Dobney, and Davis. CFF2 386.1
c. That the question of future punishment of the wicked can be “interpreted in harmony with the preceding two propositions.” He again drafts upon William Ker and George Sidney Smith, and shows the fallacy and unscripturalness of such charges as those leveled by James Grant in The Religious Tendencies of the Times (1869). CFF2 386.2
4. CHRISTIANITY EARLY POISONED BY PLATONISM
The Platonic philosophy of endless continuity necessitates a past eternity of the soul as definitely as an eternity of futurity. Cicero declared of the soul that it can neither be born nor can it die. Failing to heed Paul’s warning against the subtle philosophies of the time, the Christian Church early accepted this basic fallacy—merely shunning the first concept while adopting the second. Thus it was that Christianity was early poisoned by the infusion, and “eternal punishment” soon came to be regarded as “eternal life spent in eternal pain.” CFF2 386.3
5. GOES BACK TO CONFLICTING DECLARATIONS OF EDEN
Maude cites Dobney as establishing the fact that the old generalities that “everybody believes it,” that the arguments of philosophers “demonstrate” it, and Scripture “abundantly proclaims it,” no longer bear the test of scrutiny. The logic of the schoolmen does not prove the immortality of man, and the fallacy of Plato and his successors is now apparent. Moreover, the Articles of the Church of England leave the clergy and the communicant free to follow Scripture, and the Bible is absolutely silent on the unconditional immortality of all men. CFF2 386.4
The whole issue stems back to the two conflicting declarations of Eden: “Ye shall,” and “Ye shall not,” surely die. The Scriptures have been consistent in opposition to the assumption of “universal and uncontingent immortality.” Constable likewise traces the inherent immortality thesis to Platonic philosophy, as applicable to all souls, good and bad, and necessarily eternal, with no possible end. Burgh insists that it applies only to the saved—who are seeking for immortality; and immortality is something brought to light through the gospel, not by natural constitution. CFF2 387.1
Dobney holds that eternal life is more than mere endless existence. Those only who do the will of God abide forever. It is held forth to those who are “capable” of immortality, and thus become partakers of the divine nature of the very life of God Himself. Davis says that such a doctrine “exalts the Redeemer of men.” We derive our life from Him—eternal life, and with it, never-ending existence. Only he that “hath the Son” hath life, eternal life. CFF2 387.2
6. FULL TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE ALONE DETERMINATIVE
It is the full testimony of Scripture that constitutes the determinative evidence—not the definition of certain single words or the arbitrary interpretation of two or three selected texts. Such few texts, if they stood alone, might seem to afford proof for the salvation of all men, or the eternal torture of the wicked (such as Matthew 25:41, 46; Revelation 20:10; 14:9, 11). Those are the “sheet-anchors” for all proponents of Eternal Torment. But in contrast with these, Maude places 1 John 3:8; Romans 5:15, 18, 19; Ephesians 1:9, 10; Revelation 20:3-5; 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28. CFF2 387.3
In addition, there are the passages that explicitly teach that the doom of the wicked is death: Matthew 10:28—“destroy both body and soul in hell”; 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 9—“punished with everlasting destruction”; Romans 6:21, 23—“the wages of sin is death”; 2 Corinthians 2:15—“them that are perishing”; Galatians 6:7, 8—“shall of the flesh reap corruption”; Revelation 2:11, and Revelation 20:6, 14— “the second death.” And these are reinforced by numerous similes indicating that they shall come to an end—the chaff “‘burnt up’”; “‘thorns burned in the fire’”; “‘trees cut down,’ ‘rooted up,’ ‘burned in fire’”; “‘taken and destroyed’”; as “‘a light put out’”; “‘waters melting away’”; “‘ashes under the feet’”; “‘powder’ ground down”; “‘vessel dashed in pieces’”; “‘garment eaten by the moth’”; “‘consumed into smoke’”; as “‘tow’ and ‘tares’ ‘burned in the fire.’” CFF2 387.4
7. THREE DISTINCT CLASSES OF PASSAGES
These “three distinct classes of passages,” interpreted literally and grammatically, are impossible to reconcile with the postulate of everlasting torment. Maude therefore comments that man, “mortal by nature,” becomes “immortal only in Christ.” On such a platform there is reconciliation of all “Scripture testimony.” It therefore follows that “mortal man” would have to be “made immortal in order to so suffer,” and that is “morally inadmissible”—that a “mortal creature should be made immortal to be punished forever.” Such a punishment could never be just, for (citing Dean Sherlock) “such punishments as exceed the proportion of nature, must exceed the proportion of justice also.” CFF2 388.1
Moreover, the fact of man’s “natural mortality” affords the key by which the difficulties may be “unlocked.” Thus the Greek word aionios (“age-lasting”) and the expression eis tons aionas ton aionon (“unto ages of ages”) depend on the subject to which they are applied—“a duration co-incident with that of the subject spoken of.” Thus George Sidney Smith, of Trinity College, defines aionios as “continuous duration as long as the subject is capable of.” As pertains to God, it is “equivalent to eternity,” for God ever did and ever must exist. In like manner, to the “saved” it likewise means unending future existence. But to the lost, they “do not and cannot signify an eternal duration,” for that is not man’s natural inheritance, but God’s supernatural gift, conferred only on those who are “in Christ.” CFF2 388.2
8. FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION
Again, the class of passages seemingly indicating universal salvation are obviously intended to express the “final deliverance of God’s universe from all sin and suffering,” not “that every individual of Adam’s race will and must share in the glory of that sublime consummation.” Moreover, there is a basic difference “between the destiny of the human race and the destiny of every individual of the race.” CFF2 388.3
There are those who turn away from the proffered life, to whom the Life-giver says, “Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.” They perish, while the righteous abide forever. Thus there is complete harmony—the “suffering of the lost” will terminate with their loss of consciousness. And not being immortal, “the sinner’s final doom is destruction, and not eternal torment.” CFF2 389.1
9. ETERNAL SUFFERING INVOLVES CHARACTER OF GOD
Maude maintains that the dogma of “eternal suffering” involves nothing less than the “moral character of God.” Since God is love, a large proportion of His intelligent creatures could not reasonably “exist to all eternity in extremest misery.” Both concepts cannot be true. If the first is true, the second must be false. And contrariwise, if the second be true, then the first is not. Maude’s final point is on Grant’s misuse of the term “annihilation” versus his inconceivable torment for countless “millions of years”—neither of which positions is held by the Destructionist. Such alternatives are not those of the Conditionalist. CFF2 389.2
That was the essence of Maude’s epochal article that stirred such widespread discussion. CFF2 389.3