warns and reproves Mr. Maurice; at a writer in the 'Tracts for Priests and People,' who warmly sympathizes with him; at the National Review for January, 1863, which thrusts him on one side. No one of these writers pretends to be clear about Mr. Maurice's meaning. Bishop Ellicott is obliged to add: 'If I rightly understand a sentence somewhat long and embarrassed, the meaning seems to be,' 1 &c. We shall wait till he has made his meaning clear.

1

Of other writers opposed to us (as the two above mentioned, and the author of Forgiveness after Death,') and of Bishop Colenso, we feel it a duty to speak plainly; for the subject is too serious to admit of vain compliments, or of personalities uttered for the mere sake of controversial rivalry. Unfortunately, we have not time left us for a detailed examination, but a few words must be said concerning each.

The remarks in Tract No. 5 for Priests and People, by the Rev. C. P. K., do seem to us (let what abatement is thought proper on the score of our prejudice be duly made) to be superlatively weak. We are told, for instance, that the whole subject is involved in the deepest mystery.' Who ever doubted this? But so is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; so also that of the Incarnation and of our Redemption through Christ. The question is not, Is this mysterious? but, Is it true? If to say that a doctrine is mysterious is equivalent to an insinuation that it is untrue, it would be much simpler to say at once that revealed truth has no existence: for, from first to last, it is all involved in the deepest mystery.

But a great deal 'resolves itself into sensible imagery.' Undoubtedly there is no other method of conveying truth to our minds. Modern philology has wellnigh demonstrated that in every language all mental ideas must needs be expressed by words originally applied to the things of sense. Sir W. Hamilton has pointed out that in Greek, Latin, German, English, Hebrew, and Sanscrit, the word for soul comes from roots signifying breath, wind, air. He did not mean thereby to insinuate the non-existence of the soul. If we believe in Heaven, which S. John describes in the sublime book which closes the Canon by terms drawn from objects of earthly splendour; if the New Jerusalem does not 'resolve itself into earthly imagery' in such wise as to fade away, how dare we cease to believe in hell because its existence is announced in a similar manner?

2

1 'Destiny of the Creature,' p. 159. It is only fair to quote also some words, with which we fully sympathize:-'It is easy to understand how a writer, whose 'heart is so truly wide, and whose sympathies are so noble and generous, should 'have been led into unguarded statements upon this momentous subject. Such statements are, however, not the less to be deplored.'

2. Lectures on Metaphysics,' vol. i. pp. 134, 135.

We had fully intended to go step by step through the arguments of the other writers alluded to. The tone of the Tract 'Forgiveness after Death' must be very highly commended. It is certainly most charitable and temperate; yet we cannot help wishing that both this writer and the author of the able article in the National Review had studied more deeply and extensively before committing their thoughts to print. We must frankly own to some surprise at the slenderness of the apparatus with which these clever and really earnest thinkers have undertaken to demolish the toils of ages.

We had also intended to consider at length the causes of the present state of feeling on these subjects: they are numerous and somewhat complex. At present we must content ourselves with remarking that we believe that many of the impugners of this solemn and awing dogma would be among the first to recoil from the results of their own teaching, if that teaching were once received on anything like an extensive scale. Was there no connexion between the denial of hell and its semi-realization upon earth, for a brief space, during the Reign of Terror in Paris under Robespierre? On this point it is well to reflect upon the following very thoughtful remarks of Balmes :

'These reflections upon the nature of the development of the human mind in this century, and the ideas which have arisen touching the eternity of future punishment, are susceptible of being applied to many analogous subjects. Man has imagined that he could change and modify the Divine laws in the same way that he does those of human legislation; and thus, he has undertaken to introduce into the sentences of the Supreme Judge the same softness that he has given to those of earthly judges. The whole system of criminal legislation tends evidently towards the diminution of punishments-making them less afflictive, depriving them of all their horror, and economizing the suffering of mankind to the utmost. More or less, all of us who live in this age are affected by this softness; the penalty of death, stripes, all that conveys any notion of horror or suffering, is to us insupportable; and all the efforts of philosophy are required, and all the counsellings of prudence, to preserve in our criminal codes any vigorous punishments whatever. Far be it from me to oppose this current; and would to God it were now needless for the good order and government of society to cause to be shed blood or tears! But it is requisite that this exaggerated sentimentalism should not be abused; that it should be observed that all is not philanthropy that hides itself beneath this veil, and that it should not be forgotten, that well-founded humanity is something more noble and elevated than that egotistic and weakly sentiment which will not permit us to see others suffer, because our feeble organization compels us to participate in their pains. A person is horrified at the sight of a destitute fellow-creature, but he has a sufficiently hard heart to refuse him the smallest alms. What in such a case are his sensibility and humanity? The first, an effect of physical organization; the second, pure egotism.'

*

*

*

*

*

'This present century is so accustomed to excuse the crime, and interest itself in the criminal, that it entirely forgets the compassion which, on certainly more just grounds, is due to the victim; and would with all

good will leave the latter without any reparation at all, solely in order to spare the former those sufferings he so richly deserves. Let the dogma of Eternal Punishment be called, as loudly as possible, cruel and harsh; let it be said that so tremendous a doom is irreconcileable with Divine Mercy: we will reply, that far less could the absence of such a punishment be with the Divine Justice or with the good order of the universe: we will say that the world would be handed over to chance, that a large portion of its events would display the most revolting injustice, if there were not a terribly-avenging God who awaits the guilty beyond the grave, to demand from him an account of his perversity during his wanderings on this earth.' What orthodox teacher has ever persisted in the denial of the Eternity of Punishment? Anabaptists have denied it—yes; but they were fain to overthrow society at large. Socinians deny it; but then, they also deny the Divinity of our Lord. Whiston denied it; but then, Whiston was an Arian, and (so far consistently enough) he denied at the same time the eternity of future happiness-a thought which, as the Poet Young justly says, would 'unparadise the realms of light' themselves. Sir J. Stephen assailed it; but Mr. Hopkins has shown the laxity and want of correct views on the Incarnation which underlie his generous sympathies. Mr. Maurice seems to impugn it; but is Mr. Maurice thoroughly trustworthy on the doctrine of The Atonement? Bishop Colenso disbelieves it; but then, who can say at what point in the path of disbelief Bishop Colenso may ultimately pause? Far be it from us to seek merely to point an argument by the introduction of an unpopular name; but is there, in all seriousness we would ask it-is there no warning in the circumstance that Dr. Colenso's downward career took its commencement from this starting-point ?1

And if any still think (as it has been said to us by one who had much claim to respectful sympathy-as it has been said too by others, both before and since)-Surely God is as good as I am; and I would have everybody saved if I could' it must be answered that the whole force of such considerations turns upon the meaning that is to be attached to the word good. We too often mean by it easy-going, kindly-tempered, but without any real hatred of sin as it exists about us, or, alas! within uswithout any keen sense of what it is in the sight of God. 'Perhaps,' says Bishop Butler, Divine goodness-with which, if I mistake not, we make very free in our speculations-may not

1 That Commentary (in which Bishop Colenso denies the eternity of punishment) was written long before- at a time when I had no idea of ever holding my present views' ('Colenso on the Pentateuch,' Part I. p. 148). Most fully can we believe this assertion. No man knows where such denials may lead him. A very distinguished Presbyterian minister told us that he attributed a good deal of the tendency to Universalism, in a particular part of the country, to the influence of a layman who took deep interest in religious questions. He added that this layman was believed to have lately insinuated doubts as to the Personality of the Holy Spirit!

be a bare single disposition to produce happiness, but a dispo'sition to make the good, the faithful, the honest man happy.' Until we can more nearly see things as God sees them, we must be pronounced no sufficient judges of the case. His mercies and His judgments are alike unsearchable. May we learn aright to fear the one, and to obtain through Christ the other for evermore!

Some sixteen years ago, the writer was a bystander, while a conversation bearing upon the subject was carried on between some men well fitted to sustain such a discussion. The question at issue was not the truth of the Church's doctrine-for on that all were agreed-but the wisdom and propriety of having some preacher who should make it his special province to bring forward in due season, more prominently than was usually done, 'the terror of the Lord.' One, since mysteriously removed by illness from a sphere of much usefulness, said, 'Yes, perhaps ' it might be well if some one would make it his business to preach the severer side of truth; but he ought to be a very humble 'man.'

We cannot give to these words the effect produced upon the hearers by the quiet thoughtfulness of the speaker's tone of voice, still less the impression caused by the consciousness that his character gave him a peculiar right to utter such a strain of warning. But that warning, in itself, seems to us well worth repeating. Strange as it may seem, it is no less true than strange, that the office of proclaiming terrible verities to one's fellow-creatures does most signally expose the preacher to the temptation of spiritual pride. How this comes about it is not very needful to inquire. Whether there lurk within the teacher's breast some pharisaic thought that he is not as other men are, that his very denunciations secure him from being a castaway, or in whatever other way Satan may be enabled to lead such a man astray, the fact is evidenced by our experience in daily life, and by the evidence of Church History. It is the brave, the fervid, but, alas! the over-denunciatory Tertullian, who becomes a Montanist and severs himself from Christ's Church. It is the eager condemner of all heresy, Nestorius, who himself becomes heretical, and teaches a divided Christ. For our own sakes, as well as for the truth's sake, we have the deepest need to be watchful, and to remember that the proclamation of such terrors does entail upon those who announce them the culture of a special humility.

But even such considerations, all-important as they are, may be pressed beyond their due limits. In the first place, we must take care that we do not use them as instruments of self-deceit,

and persuade ourselves that we are withholding the sterner elements of truth from a sense of our own unworthiness; while, in reality, our silence proceeds from cowardice, from love of popularity, or from an evil heart of unbelief. If we think that we are not pure enough, not humble enough, to handle themes so full of awe, it must be remembered that we are, of ourselves, equally unfit to speak of the glories of heaven and the redeeming love of God. But whatever authority we have to teach the one, that same authority urges us, in its due place, to announce the other likewise. And if, in an age but too prone to an excessive sentimentalism, they who utter such unwelcome truths be stigmatized as hard of heart and pitiless, it may well be asked whether it is the Christian teacher's mission to please men, and whether the bestowal of such gratification be a necessary mark of the true servants of Christ?

And yet, indeed, there is a sense in which, perhaps, a higher praise than any upon earth may be in store for those who fearlessly attempt to declare, so far as in them lies, the whole counsel of God. Among the many millions of souls who have departed this life in the faith and fear of Christ, there must be numbers who owe their first serious thoughts, under God, to the agency of a wholesome terror of the Divine Judgments. Few, it has been said, and, we believe, with perfect truth-few have fallen into hell who ever thought much about hell. It is the obstinate aversion to that which contravenes our own weak views of sinit is the determination to explain away the plainest and most emphatic words, that constitute men's real danger. And if by plain and simple enforcement of Christ's words we should be permitted to rouse any minds to a sense of their peril, and to lead them to seek for salvation through Christ; if thus we should save a soul from death, and, by God's mercy, meet that spirit in the world unseen, what triumph of this earth could bear the most distant comparison with such a victory over sin and Satan?-what gratitude for any kindness here below could be like the gratitude of that soul, towards one who had been a partial instrument in winning for it its eternal bliss?

Need we add, that while the circumstances of our time appear to call for contributions of this nature to our theological literature, we must earnestly endeavour, on this as on all other topics, to preserve the proportion of the faith? Such an essay as the reader has now been studying must, in the very nature of things, be somewhat one-sided. Of necessity, it speaks much of God's justice, and but little of His mercy. Yet, far be it from us to forget that in His works and, much more, in His Word, mercy occupies by much the larger space, and ever 'rejoiceth against judgment. Far be it from us to place fear as a motive on the