come" must excite in the pursuit of heavenly blessedness. The history of the Church testifies to the fact, that great spiritual awakenings have followed the earnest proclamations of the warnings and threatenings of the Gospel. For some years I have not failed to observe, that the Christian watchmen who draw around them the greatest number of hearers in their own pulpits, or in their occasional occupancy of others, are distinguished by their selection and discussion of the grave subjects of Scripture, and their preaching is followed by abiding moral and spiritual results. In contrast, I have noticed that the pulpit addresses of a sentimental and speculative character, a vapid and rhetorical representation of a decorous religionism, is unaccompanied by any special power, the effect dying away at the end of the ringing harmony of periods, the abatement of the glow of poetry, and the ceasing of oratory. Is it too much for us to draw this inference, assuming that God speaks to us in providence, and that He is likewise the Author of all holy desires, just counsels, and good works," that He has set His seal of blessing upon the preaching of the most awful verities of His own word? Think of the restraints from evil which would be removed by the denial of the everlasting punishment awarded by God, to transgressors dying in a state of disobedience or indifference to His laws! Let the unholy man be assured, that after all his sins and crimes nothing more is to be feared than annihilation, or a "terminableness" of being after some period of punishment, or an ultimate entrance into celestial felicity, and a very ardour will be communicated to his pursuit of evil. When passion and apparent selfish interest are in the ascendant in a man's heart, nothingness of being, or the belief of a subsequent restoration to blessedness, would be but feeble barriers to check indulgence in sin.

But let me seriously propose this question to you. What, if this great doctrine of eternal punishment be true? If the amount of Scripture testimony demonstrate that it is not an open question, and that divergence of opinion on the duration of future punishment, can be shewn to be unreasonable? What, if all our apprehensions of it are but shadows of the appalling reality? Does not the Psalmist teach us that God's wrath is full as great as men fear it is, and more so? Assuming its terrible realness, is not its not its exhibition exhibition and enforcement in the Christian pulpit appropriate, and always seasonable? It is a doctrine belonging to the whole scheme of Christianity, and affecting all the exhortations of Scripture. Admitting only the probability of its reality, we should be greatly at fault in not directing attention to it. What enterprises and toils are originated and sustained by probabilities. Has Bishop Butler stated it too strongly, when calling probability "the guide of life?" That omission of the consideration of this subject which you propose, could only be justified by a positive knowledge of its contradiction of ascertained religious truth, by its clearly admitted opposition to the dictates of reason, or by palpable evidence of its impossibility. Then indeed its exposition in the pulpit and elsewhere would be wrong and mischievous. After a dispassionate examination of the controversy on this momentous subject, that eminent prelate, Bishop Ellicot, whose erudition and fine character you will with me admire, thus sums up his careful survey of the whole matter. "Calm and cool reason leads us

these plain and sober considerations. First, that the balance of Scripture teaching would seem to be clearly in favour of the darker view. Secondly, that the mysterious law known by the general name of the Enhancement of Sin in the individual, and so

* Psalm xc, II.

D

powerfully sketched out by Müller and others, points the same way. Thirdly, that since hope on this subject is speculative, and fear practical, it is the commonest prudence to have regard to the reasons of fear in our life and conversation. Fourthly, that if man, in his period of probation, join those powers of evil against whom he was presumably called into being to contend, it is but reasonable to believe that he will share their doom.*" The late Archbishop Whately writes: "Some have ventured to conjecture, and afterwards confidently to teach, that the condemnation of the wicked in the next world will not be final; which, they contend, is inconsistent with the goodness of God; and that all will at length be brought to immortal happiness. Now, whether this their doctrine be true or not, I scruple not to say, it is highly presumptuous in any one to assert it; since it is wholly unwarranted by Scripture; and therefore, even if their opinion be right, they cannot possibly know it to be right. The expressions used in speaking of the rewards of the faithful, and the punishment of the disobedient, are the very same, denoting that they have no end; as, for example, Matt. xxv., 46, These shall go away into everlasting punishment.' Have we any warrant in Scripture for saying that the same word is to be interpreted literally in one part of the sentence, and in the other figuratively?"

ALIQUIS. It is plain, then, that the real point for us to be agreed upon is, whether the Bible does teach that men who die unforgiven pass into eternal misery?

NEMO. Yes, that is the vital question. If the doctrine be not in the Word of God, let it be surrendered; if clearly unveiled there, we are bound to accept it, although it may exceed our compre

"The Church and the Age," 1870, p. 66. "Sermons on Future State," p. 216.

If

hension, afflict our feelings, and find no counterpart in the instructions of creation and providence. it be a subject of revelation it must be new in nature, and while not opposed to reason, yet beyond its reach as to the ground on which it rests, and the discovery of its utility in the universe of being. On some points I judge we are agreed. Are we not one on the authority of the Bible? Do we not accept it as a truly inspired production? Or, do we admit a human and erring element in it, and yet maintain that the Word of God is contained in the Bible? If this were our view, the inquiry might be pressed against us, who is to be the judge between the Divine and the human in Scripture? We must entertain a less ambiguous view of Holy Scripture to find it of any service

to us.

ALIQUIS. These questions bring before us a profound controversy. The Inspiration of the Bible is the greatest question of our age. It underlies all doctrines, and is at the root of all theological teaching. It is the one central and essential postulate in Christian theology. For my own part I have been led to the conclusion, that we must accept Holy Scripture as given to us under Divine dictation and guidance, and, therefore, however incomprehensible in some portions, believe it to be free from error. And yet, while I would battle for the integrity and veracity of the Word of God, I would concede to an intelligent inquirer one or two points. I would tell him that the Bible is written in popular language, the language of appearances, rather than in the the language of technical and philosophical accuracy. Its mission is not to inculcate philosophy upon masses of men, but in popular terms to impart instruction on

matters

needful for their peace on earth, and their endless welfare. I would further concede, it is possible that

errors may have crept into some of its versions. In transcribing version after version, it is quite possible that an error may be committed, an error in words without affecting any truth of substantial import. You know what a handle has been made. of the assumed discrepancies in different versions of Holy Scripture, and yet in critical reality I can see very little in it. One of the greatest scholars of our country spent thirty years of his life in diligently collating different versions, for the purpose of restoring the original true text, and the verdict of a life time spent in this investigation was, that as far as the discovery of any substantial error went, he might just as well have saved himself the trouble. These concessions, and it may be one or two similar ones, I can make without abandoning my faith in the Bible as an inspired and authoritative revelation of truth from God to man.

NEMO. I see nothing in these concessions to be dissatisfied with, or to stumble at, for we may claim truth for every thing that comes from God, while admitting the possibility of error in anything that comes from man. On the matter of these transcriptions I would also admit, that, in the case of a single letter, there may be a false idea conveyed with regard to numbers. It is possible, in Hebrew writings, as well as in our our own, to mistake one one figure for another. And further, in the sixty-five treatises, written by different hands, at different times, and in different places, which form the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, I see nothing suspicious in those apparent discrepancies which some have so greatly paraded. If there had been no no variation of representation, there might have been the appearance of a mutual agreement to palm something like a human volume on mankind. These discrepancies do not disturb the truthfulness of the Bible record, but prove that