The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

VI. Edward Beecher-Scholarly Repudiator of Eternal Torment

EDWARD BEECHER, D.D. (1803-1895), Congregationalist pastor, college president, and seminary professor, was a graduate of Yale, Andover, and New Haven. He was also an editor and an author. After tutoring for a time at Yale, he became pastor of Park Street Congregational church, Boston (18261830). He then served as president of Illinois College for fourteen years-from 1830 to 1844. And after pastoring the Salem Street church of Boston for a time, he served as minister of the Galesburg, Illinois, Congregational church from 1855 to 1870. At the same time he was for years professor of exegesis at the Chicago Theological Seminary. He was likewise a constant contributor to periodicals, particularly The Christian Union, and was founder of The Congregationalist, and its senior editor from 1864 to 1870. CFF2 576.4

Between 1835 and 1878 Dr. Beecher wrote eight books, the last being his noteworthy History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution. This volume, recognized as the work of a trained mind and an able teacher, was given respectful consideration by his contemporaries and was widely quoted. Edward, it will be remembered, was a Beecher, the son of Dr. Lyman Beecher and brother of Henry Ward Beecher, who similarly repudiated Eternal Torment, as did his sister, Harriet Beecher Stowe. ²⁷ Edward was similarly brought up amid avid discussions of Calvinistic Immortal-Soulism and the Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God type of literature. The incentive for this meticulous examination can easily be imagined. CFF2 577.1

1. RESTUDY OF ESCHATOLOGY ESSENTIAL AND DUE

Dr. Beecher’s erudite History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution (1878) was remarkably thorough and helpful. It was not a popular treatise but rather a reference type. Contending that much turns on the Greek word aionios, ²⁸ he painstakingly searched the historical record for evaluating two of the three main schools on the destiny of the soul-(I) Endless Torment, (2) Ultimate Restoration, and (3) Ultimate Annihilation. ²⁹ The result is a classic argument against Eternal Torment. Beecher here covers the history of the conflict as completely as any other American writer of the century, and often more convincingly. Beecher believed a fundamental discussion and decision of the issue to be inevitable, and cites Dr. Philip Schaff’s penetrating statement: CFF2 577.2

“‘Each period of Church history is called to unfold and place in a clear light a particular aspect of doctrine to counteract a corresponding error; till the whole circle of Christian truth shall have been traversed in its natural order.’” ³⁰ CFF2 577.3

This principle Schaff applies: “Finally, Eschatology, or the Doctrine of the Last Things, will have its turn.” ³¹. CFF2 577.4

And by “last things” he includes death, the Second Advent, the last judgment, and retribution in the world to come. Such is Beecher’s prologue. CFF2 578.1

2. PENETRATION OF PERSIAN-GRECIAN INFLUENCE INTO JEWRY

Beecher first deals, in chapter one, with the teaching of the Old and New Testaments on “Retribution.” Then in chapter two he takes up the extra-Biblical views adopted by the Jews in the “Age of the Maccabees.” This involves the inroads of foreign influences in the Egyptian, Persian, and Grecian periods, extending over some fifteen centuries. ³² During the third, or Grecian era, they came into perilous contact with the intriguing theory of philosophical Innate Immortality, including its transmigration of souls, and pre-existence of souls concepts, based on their divine nature thesis, and climaxing in Platonism. ³³ Beecher shows that the preponderant Jewish view, nevertheless, remained that of utter destruction, as seen in the Wisdom of Solomon ³⁴—“like smoke dissipated by a tempest.” Chapter three (“Character and Historic Documents of the Age of the Maccabees”) traces the development of the three schools on the fate of the wicked—Eternal Punishing, Utter Annihilation, and Final Restoration. Of the first he says: CFF2 578.2

“A conflict between two eternal and self-existent gods; one good, the other evil, each creating a system of his own-a conflict which involved in its issues the eternal duration of evil; though good was, on the whole, to be victorious in the conflict. This view, though promulgated by men claiming the Christian name, was generally regarded as extra-Christian and heretical.” ³⁵ CFF2 578.3

Beecher then pictures the influence of “philosophers, historians, poets,” radiating out from the “great luminaries” of Greece and Rome, with Alexandria and its incomparable library as the great center of influence. ³⁶ The resultant impress was seen in the “Apocalyptic literature” of the period. ³⁷ And Persian Zoroastrianism muddied the entire stream. ³⁸ CFF2 578.4

3. PENETRATION OF CONDITIONALISM INTO CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Chapter four (“Source of Jewish Opinions”) stresses the polluting influence of Persian theology and its Dualism on Jewish theology. ³⁹ Chapter five is on Jewish beliefs, reflected in the Apocrypha, and chapter six on the Egyptian doctrine of future retributions. Then in chapter seven Beecher touches on the Platonic basis for belief in immortality, ⁴⁰ together with the Zoroastrian dualism elements. ⁴² Chapter eight turns to the early Christian centuries and the marked influence of the Jewish Apocryphal writings. Beecher then comes to the three schools in the Christian age, particularly as influenced by Philo, the “admirer of Plato,” but who still held to annihilation —which destructionist view was sustained by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Chapter nine (“Development of Universal Restoration”) deals primarily with Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the dissolving of the world into ashes. But back of them lay the Sibylline Oracles, with their “Final Restoration,” and their “great theocratic view.” Their concept of the medium for the punishment of the wicked was that of literal fire. CFF2 579.1

4. “ENOCH’S” THEORY OF CULPABILITY OF FALLEN ANGELS

Chapter ten (“Development of the Doctrine of Future Eternal Punishment”) deals with the Apocryphal “Book of Enoch,” and its theory that it was the fallen angels that corrupted mankind, ⁴⁷ through seduction of the daughters of men. And being “immortal,” the punishment of these fallen angels would be eternal. ⁴⁸ “Sinners shall disappear and perish, while those who seduced them shall be bound with chains forever.” ⁵⁰ In chapter eleven, on Ezra, Beecher shows that the “doctrine of future eternal punishment is retained, but this basis of the system disappears.” There is now no reference to “evil angels.” But there is “resurrection” and “judgment,” and the “furnace of hell” is placed alongside the “paradise of joy.” ⁵¹ The “day of doom is the end of this state and the beginning of immortality.” ⁵² Thus there was added “a new horror to the doctrine of endless punishment.” ⁵³ CFF2 579.2

5. JEWISH CENTERS: BABYLON, ALEXANDRIA, PALESTINE

In chapter twelve (“The Contemporaries of Christ”) Beecher notes the three “Jewish Centres”—Babylon, “exposed to Persian and Oriental influences”; Alexandria, “under the influence of Greek philosophy”; and Palestine, holding to “the original and unaltered institutions of Moses.” ⁵⁴ The Pharisees, according to Josephus, adopted the postulate of the “eternal punishment of the wicked.” ⁵⁵ In chapter thirteen (“Christian Ages”) Beecher discusses the development of the three schools, and notes approvingly the researches of Constable and Hudson. ⁵⁶ CFF2 580.1

In chapter fourteen Beecher takes up the contention that Aristotle taught aion and aionios as involving “eternity” in the “absolute sense.” ⁵⁷ But Beecher labels that argument an “utter absurdity,” ⁵⁸ involving “self contradiction.” Chapter fifteen discusses aion among “The Ancients,” and chapter sixteen in the “Later Ages,” with chapter seventeen on aion in “The Septuagint,” showing it means an “age,” or “dispensation,” ⁶⁰ which is “consistent and harmonious.” Chapter eighteen (“The Peshito”) attests that “eternal torment is now only one supposition out of three.” CFF2 580.2

6. ETERNAL TORMENTISM BECOMES AUTHORITARIAN UNDER JUSTINIAN

Beecher then shows, in chapter nineteen (“Prof. Lewis-The Creeds-The Fathers”), that it was not until the time of Justinian that the teaching of “endless punishment for the wicked” took its place alongside “endless life” for the righteous. ⁶¹ The earlier creeds of the Early Church use “‘aionios’ to qualify life.” The later creeds substitute the idea of “the world to come”—such as in the Nicene Creed. ⁶² After dealing with the “free Thought” of the Gnostics (chapter twenty), ⁶³ Beecher comes to the great “luminary,” Origen, and his Universal Restoration of all fallen beings (chapter twenty-one). It was thus Origen who “interrupted” the “annihilation of the wicked” view taught by Irenaeus. ⁶⁴ Origen also introduced the concept of the “conversion of the empire to Christianity,” rather than the formerly held destruction at the coming of Christ. And Origen, who lived in Alexandria, developed this into a system of theology. Beecher then observes: CFF2 580.3

“The two great foundations of this system were preexistence and universal restoration. Without preexistence he could not explain and defend the state of things in this world in accordance with the benevolence and the justice of God. Without universal restitution he could not bring the system to a final issue worthy of God.” ⁶⁵ CFF2 581.1

That was the crux of his scheme of Universal Restoration. Origen also rejected the idea of “punishment by literal fire.” ⁶⁶ However, by the time of Justinian “all questions were settled by authority,” not by “free enquiry,” with the “fires of hell” still held to be material. “In the hands of the clergy the doctrine of eternal punishment had thus become an instrument of degrading terrorism.” ⁶⁷ Thus it was that the theory of Eternal Punishment developed into its “most despotic and debasing form.” ⁶⁸ CFF2 581.2

7. JUSTIN, IRENAEUS, ARNOBIUS, HOLD TO “ANNIHILATION.”

Reverting to Irenaeus, in chapter twenty-three, Beecher catalogues him as holding to the restoration of harmony in the universe by the doing away of “all evil.” ⁶⁹ And thus all sin and pollution would be brought to an end. The sinner who casts away the gift of life thus deprives himself of “eternal existence.” ⁷⁰ And creatures can exist only “so long as God wills them to have existence and being.” ⁷¹ Beecher then cites Philip Schaff as likewise concluding that Irenaeus held “the doctrine of the final annihilation of the wicked..., and the end of all evil thereby.” ⁷² In chapter twenty-four (“Justin and Arnobius on Annihilation”) investigator Beecher says: CFF2 581.3

“That Justin did hold and teach the final annihilation of the wicked the most eminent scholars concede. In the number of such Mr. Hudson appeals to Grotius, Huet, Röpler, Du Pin, Doederlein, Münscher, Munter, Daniel, Hase, Starck, Kern, Otto, Ritter, J. P. Smith, Bloomfield, and Gieseler.” ⁷³ CFF2 582.1

And he adds, concerning a disputed passage on aionios: “It is only by assuming, without reason, that in this passage aionios means eternal, instead of for ages, that eternal punishment can be proved.” ⁷⁴ Further, Arnobius taught the same as Irenaeus and Justin-that souls “need God in order to secure eternal existence.” ⁷⁵ This he emphasizes by stating: “Arnobius believed the fact to be that the wicked will be annihilated, in the manner above stated.” ⁷⁶ CFF2 582.2

8. ORIGEN’S RESTORATIONISM CONDEMNED UNDER JUSTINIAN

Chapter twenty-five (“Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia”) is devoted to Final Restorationism, though they differed on the pre-existence issue. ⁷⁷ They both held, however, that in the future state God will “bring ALL to immortality and immutability.” ⁷⁸ Chapter twenty-six is concerned with the Nestorians, who apparently adopted the doctrine of Universal Restorationism. They rejected the doctrines of eternal punishing and Purgatory, transubstantiation, and the celibacy of the clergy. ⁸⁰ In these chapters Beecher invokes the testimony of various renowned scholars. Then chapter twenty-seven deals with “The Fate of Origen’s Doctrine of Universal Restoration,” which was by the sixth century “regarded as heretical and dangerous.” It had been periodically assaulted until its final condemnation in the sixth century and his council. CFF2 582.3

9. AFRICAN TERTULLIAN-AUGUSTINIAN SCHOOL OF ENDLESS TORMENT

Dr. Beecher opens chapter twenty-eight (“The School of Africa and Aionios”) by contrasting the Ultimate Annihilation School of Asia Minor with the Latinspeaking school of Northern Africa (Tertullian, Cyprian, Minucius Felix, and Augustine), and its Eternal Torment avowal. ⁸² It was this Latin theology that later gave rise to the Calvinistic system in Protestantism. And this African school held that “‘the torments of the wicked will be extreme and endless.’” ⁸³ CFF2 583.1

Origen, on the contrary, had held that “aionios did not denote an absolute eternity,” ⁸⁴ whereas Augustine maintained that aionios always means endless. ⁸⁵ Beecher’s concluding observation is incisive: CFF2 583.2

“It so happened that the Latin school of Augustine, in Africa, in which the leading writers were not Greek scholars, was mainly instrumental in establishing the doctrine of endless punishment on this false basis. Even if the doctrine were true, the basis on which they placed it was false.” ⁸⁶ CFF2 583.3

10. REPUDIATION OF ETERNAL TORMENT ONLY MATTER OF TIME

Chapter twenty-nine touches on Clement of Alexandria, who taught that “all punishment is remedial, and that God uses means to reform and purify man after death” ⁸⁷ —and extending even to the “devil himself.” Jerome was likewise a “universal restorationist,” ⁸⁸ as was Eusebius, the admirer of Origen. ⁹⁰ Several chapters then retrace the ground from different angles. Then in chapter thirty-three Dr. Beecher reveals the fact that back as early as 1827, while still pastor of his first charge, the Park Street church of Boston, he became convinced that “the doctrine of future eternal punishment would have to be given up.” And now in 1878, he reasserts that CFF2 583.4

“on one point I have undergone no change, and that is, in the belief that the doctrine of eternal punishment cannot be sustained or defended on the ground on which it is placed by the orthodox generally.” ⁹¹ CFF2 583.5

And he repeats, for emphasis: “The doctrine of endless punishment, in my judgment, admits of no defense.” ⁹² Beecher maintained that the matter of ultimate punishment was still an “open question” in the early centuries. It was not, as some seek to aver, “the established doctrine of the Church, the only catholic doctrine.” ⁹³ His deliberate conclusion is: CFF2 584.1

“After a careful investigation, I have come to the conclusion that the fact alleged does not exist.” ⁹⁴ CFF2 584.2

“The doctrine of eternal punishment is... a crushing burden that cannot be borne. The Lord will remove such a burden in his day. It is only a question of time.” ⁹⁵ CFF2 584.3

This from a highly trained Congregationalist divinity school professor and college president, voiced in 1878. CFF2 584.4