the particulars are substantially true, although coming to us in different, but not contradictory, accounts. We both believe, then, that the Bible is the inspired truth of God, and not a mixture of truth and error, which every reader, to the best of his judgment and conscience, is to ascertain and settle for himself?

ALIQUIS. Truly, for I cannot but see that this notion of inspiration would deny us the existence of infallible and authoritative truth, and make man's judgment its only test and measure. What in Scripture is not given direct from the Almighty, is so guided and overruled as to include no error, and therefore it is in every part trustworthy and absolute in its teaching.

NEMO. You well know that on matters of investigation and discussion something must be taken for granted. We have narrowed the circle of our inquiries by the hearty acceptance of the foregoing postulate, that the Bible is an inspired book and Our ultimate appeal. The Bible everywhere professes to be a statement of positive truth, and to come from God, who loves truth above all things, and we may assume that this great and serious question of the doom of evil-doers will find a representation in its pages.

Touching modern talk on the inspiration of genius, as being on a par with the Inspiration of the Bible, I have been struck with the distinctness with which the greatest of our human writers disclaim the assumption of the word, when applied to themselves or their compositions. As a rule, their famous works, instead of assuming inspiration, are prefaced by earnest invocations for help, from a source superior to themselves, and they would shrink with horror at the idea that they were bearers of an unearthly and Divine message to their fellow men. So much would I aver for the humility and honesty of real

genius, albeit some of its admirers may say far higher things for it. On the other hand, how plainly a Scripture writer claims Divine Inspiration, his humility and honesty compelling him to affirm, that he did not "receive the gospel of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ;" another of his avowals being, that what he taught he spake "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." If we can abide by the above account of Inspiration it will greatly help us in our conversations. Holy Scripture is the foundation of religious teaching, and we shall further agree, that it "containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith." Then I will concede to you that our faith in a subject like the one before us, can only be claimed by positive and abundant evidence. Not a few doubtful expressions, but a multitude of explicit declarations, must furnish the ground of our acceptance of such an awful doctrine as the eternity of future punishment. Having agreed then that the Bible contains the true and explicit record of Divine truth, this question of endless woe resolves itself very largely into a question of grammar, or the meaning and construction of words. The expressions of Scripture must be taken in the sense common to the authors who used them, until some other signification is shewn by the context, or by other statements of those authors, to be required. "The common meaning is the most probable one in each case, the common meaning, not necessarily the literal one, for reasons which Whately gives.* What the rule means is that, if in nine instances out of every ten, a word has one meaning, the probabilities are as nine to one, that it has the common meaning in any new

* Whately's Logic, book iii., sec. 10.

instance. Of course, the burden of proof rests with the man who takes it in the odd sense." The Scriptures are not designed merely or principally, for the study of scholars and critics, but for the instruction of the multitudes, for the guidance of ordinary and unlettered readers. The highest The highest scholarship may be turned to a great account in the examination of Scripture, but the masses of the people have not the opportunity of acquiring erudition, nor is their lack of it an obstacle to the knowledge of God's Word. It is the disposition a man brings to the study of the Holy Volume, rather than a critical apparatus, that God recognizes and rewards. "The meek will He guide in judgment; and the meek will He teach His way.'

ALIQUIS. I do not see that I can object to these conditions of Scripture investigation. Acknowledging, as we have, the necessity and the possession of a revelation, we are bound unreservedly to abide by its teaching on man's origin, nature, and destiny. I see with you, it must follow, that a correct understanding of the language of Scripture can alone give value to any professed interpretation of it.

NEMO. I have the rather referred to this matter because some expounders of Scripture, as you know, tell us we are not to be guided so much by the letter as by the spirit of the written Word. The passages in Scripture which plainly speak of hell and torments, and future woe, are deemed by them. offensive and rude. Under the plea of reverence for the Divine perfections, such individuals disclaim belief in an endless retribution, professing that by it their moral sensibilities are outraged, and assuming a power to comprehend the Divine perfections, and grasp the scheme of God's government. The obvious. meaning of the words of the infallible record, cannot well be evaded, but they tell us that a discord

exists between the letter and the spirit of the Bible, and by an arrogant assumption, pretend to separate the chaff from the wheat! They will not endure, professing themselves, indeed, unable to endure the idea, that multitudes of our race are doomed by an infinitely merciful God to an interminable existence of woe. But what a liberty is this to take with the sacred text. It is the usurping of a jurisdiction, to which no man's reason, or moral instincts, is adequate. Where is the warrant for such assumptions? It is one of the clearest and fastest conditions of human thought and reasoning, that conclusions should not embrace anything which was found in the premises. If we admit these vagaries we shall destroy all definiteness in the teaching of God's Word.

For myself I will say I enter upon the examination of this weighty subject with no other desire than to reach the truth as it comes to us in the plain words of Holy Writ. I do not ascribe to you, or to anyone who entertain opinions at variance with my own, anything else than honesty and uprightness of motive and judgment; and further, on this appalling topic it would be a relief to me if I could be convinced, that the theory of annihilation, or that of universalism, or any of their modifications, could be sustained by the legitimate interpretation of Holy Scripture. This I state for one reason among others, I wish to disavow the "vindictiveness " and "savagism " with which the advocates of future punishment are assailed. Devoutly would I use the words of the Bible, and say; "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." I further state this, however, without the least possible idea that this affecting doctrine is inconsistent with the perfect compassion and rectitude of the character of Jehovah, our guide and authority being the

declarations of God's most Holy Word. With the utmost honesty, and after an examination of the subject extending now over many years, I am compelled to own, if the matter is to be settled by an appeal to the Word of God, that the warrant for a belief in the endless woe of the wicked, is as strong as the warrant for a belief in the endless blessedness of the righteous. I am held to the conclusion, that the two beliefs must stand or fall together. Such phraseology as "everlasting punishment," " "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," "eternal damnation," and "tormented for ever and ever," I cannot see how, after all that has been written to the contrary, can be tortured to signify disciplinary inflictions, extinction of being, or any condition of condemnation and sufferings which shall have a termination. The important passage before us, on which my discourse was based, contains as calm and authoritative a prediction of the interminable woe allotted to the unrighteous, as it does of the state of eternal blessedness awarded to to the righteous. You tell me that there is sudden rhetorical expression in the sentence"; that Christ "dialectically grasped the metaphorical notion of eternity, and deliberately intended to express it;" or you tell me, as the final alternative, that a limited duration must of course be attached to the life, as well as the punishment; but, as a sufficient reply to these assumptions and twistings, I ask you to look at the Saviour's words throughout the chapter, and to think of His purity and benevolence as a teacher, and say whether eternal life and eternal punishment, the application and appeal of His previous instructions, could be declared in words more unambiguous and emphatic.

a

ALIQUIS. That is truly a frightful conclusion to reach. On the principles of exegesis agreed upon, I

E