PART SECOND. CHAPTER THE FIRST. INTRODUCTORY. Popular belief of eternal misery dissented from -Responsibility of so differing recognised-Counterbalancing considerations-Burden of proof with whom--Evidence necessary to establish the common doctrine--If contained in scripture easily and variously proved-and more forcibly established by being called in question--Truth alone desirable. It is with feelings of deep and even painful anxiety that I approach that part of our subject which is now before us. With the preceding chapters my brethren will for the most part agree, and may possibly accept them as some little service rendered to the common cause. Here, however, the approval of many will terminate, and with not a few will be exchanged for something worse than the opposite. Still I must proceed, for Truth, as I believe, beckons me on. Let me reverently follow. Yet how can I be insensible to the fact that the direction in which my guide is leading me, is scarcely that in which many of my brethren affirm Truth to lead? Beyond a doubt the opinions of wise and good men are entitled to respectful attention, and it is a grave consideration that the majority of christian people have adopted views which I find myself bound to reject; how then shall I not be sensitively alive to the circumstances of my position? Have so many of the wisest and best of men been left in error, men too whom God has signally honored? Have they been for the most part mistaking the voice of the oracle, and misinterpreting the counsels of heaven on this solemn subject? Painfully and oppressively do I feel this argumentum ad verecundiam. But, on the other hand, are not the best of men fallible { And have not many of the wisest given strange proof of their fallibility? Did not nearly all the wise and good once believe, with Pascal and Fenelon, in transubstantiation and all the other dogmas of the Romish church? Did even the mighty Luther, did the Reformers, achieve their perfect emancipation from all forms of error, and leave no work of reformation for their successors? What shall we say to the consubstantiation of the former, and to the dark doctrine of reprobation so tenaciously held in the stern and iron age that Geneva, Scotland, and even England knew? Why to this day it is Church of England orthodoxy to believe that no one can be saved who doubts the Athanasian creed; and fifteen thousand clergyman now living have solemnly sworn their assent and consent to that perilous assertion. Is it true? Nor is it so long since it was held sound doctrine among many of the evangelical dissenters that God had provided no Saviour for mankind at large, but only for a little flock, a chosen few; and it was heresy to maintain that there were glad tidings for every creature. And still the innumerable controversies, which are maintained with a spirit that only too well justifies the current phrase, odium theologicum, show how marvellously small is every man's belief in another's infallibility, and may keep the writer in countenance in replying to any who shall unreasonably press the opinions of individuals or communities, 'Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?' Besides, is it not our protestant boast, too often indeed a mere empty boast, vox et preteræa nihil, that 'the bible, and the bible alone, &c.,' and have we not for this aphorism, admirable if only it were true, complacently decreed the apotheosis of the author of so gratifying a period? Let it not then be deemed quite an unpardonable sin if we venture to construe the assertion literally, and so, pushing our way through all that look infallibility, exercise our right of sitting at the feet of the great teacher, whose words-Call no man your father on earth, no man your * Most readers will remember that the Athanasian creed professes to set forth "the Catholick faith," but in reality is chiefly occupied with a sort of philosophy, falsely so called, of the divine essence, unintelligible and contradictory, of which it daringly affirms "Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly!' master, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren, were spoken not to be eulogised on holiday occasions, or when they may serve a turn, but to be recognised as a daily rule of life; "He is our master in abstract speculation—our master in religious belief-our master in morals, and in the ordering of every day's affairs." Again, is not theology a science? Is not the word of God better understood now than in any age since the apostolic? And if no one competently informed will dispute this, let us ask ourselves whether we have reached the Ultima Thule of religious truth, so that in the ages to come, those glorious ages! there will be no discoveries to reward the diligent, and all the people of God will have nothing to do but re-publish and stereotype for all time the theological works of the present day! Believe it who can. Rather is the book of revelation perfect. In those unutterably more glorious eras that are in reserve for the church, there will be no other bible than our own to exercise the loftier powers of our happier successors to the end of the world. Nor needs it. Even in the latest age of all, the wise householder shall bring out thereof things both new and old;' and that prayer of the psalmist shall never be in vain, Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. And just as we have been compelled somewhat to modify the theology of a former day, deeming ourselves more favored than our honored forefathers, so will the holy men of a coming age take leave to consider some of the things most surely believed amongst us, not proven, while they will also bring into luminous prominence some mighty truths which the popular theology of the nineteenth century dooms to unwise neglect. There is still another consolation. Truth can stand any test. The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, and purified seven times. No weapon formed there-against shall prosper. This is my comfort. And if the popular doctrine of the real eternity (not of punishment but) of torment be of God, it cannot be overthrown. It will be the more plainly demonstrated the more it is examined, and will stand out in the bolder relief from the feebleness of the opposing arguments. The orthodox have nothing to fear. Let them put their confidence in truth, and in the God of truth. They have beside almost all christendom, ostensibly, at all events, on their part. They can well afford therefore to be calm and fair and temperate and just; they might well afford even more than this. On the other hand, if the prevailing notion be of man ;— if it be some not much examined doctrine that has come down to us from the darker ages, some unpurged-away result of the former universality of a system to which the largest inventable amount of terror was indispensable;-if, from various circumstances, the religious world have adopted it with far less of rigid investigation than they have been compelled to give to other doctrines ;-if it cannot be maintained by the fair application of those sound hermeneutical principles which are the support of the rest of the evangelical system;—and if the same sort of reasoning by which this notion is elicited from a few texts would, to a great extent subvert the very system of which it is made a part; if all, or only some of this be so, then, whatever of obloquy may be heaped upon me, or however forgetful some of my brethren may be of the law of kindness and the higher law of truth, it will ultimately be seen that no disservice, but the contrary, has been done to the great cause of evangelical religion, which I would a thousand times rather die than injure. But not to prolong these introductory observations, let us pass on to a necessary but brief remark concerning THE BURDEN OF PROOF. "It is a point of great importance to decide in each case, at the outset, in your own mind, and clearly to point out to the hearer, as occasion may serve, on which side the presumption lies, and to which belongs the [onus probandi] Burden of proof. For though it may often be expedient to bring forward more proofs than can fairly be demanded of you, it is always desirable when this is the case that it should be known, and that the strength of the cause should be estimated accordingly."* The eminent writer from whom this just remark is quoted, and to whom the present age owes so large a debt of obliga * Dr. Whately's Rhetoric, part I. chap. iii. § 2 tion, has however laid down a principle from which, though with great diffidence, I must profess my entire dissent; namely, that the onus lies with him who calls in question any received doctrine. Surely he who affirms a thing is bound to make good his assertion. Till proved, it is nothing but his mere ipse dixit; and I am not to be called on to believe it, or else be held bound to disprove it. I await the proof; when furnished, if sufficient, I believe; but not till then. Instead, however, of my attempting here what is already done to hand for us, and by a writer of no ordinary acuteness, the reader will pardon my referring him to a work in which this point is argued, and to my mind decided.* .The burden of proof then lies with those who assert that never-ending torment is in reserve for multitudes of God's intelligent, but alas! rebellious creatures. If they affirm this appalling idea, they are bound to make it good. They must bring forth their strong reasons. If it be the doctrine of revelation the proof lies at hand, and can be easily produced. Till this is done, not merely is no man bound to believe it; he ought not to believe; he must wait for the evidence. Let us therefore recognise THE KIND OF EVIDENCE DEMANDED. As the burden of proof as a whole lies with the asserters of the popular doctrine, so does it at every stage of the argument. They must make good their footing step by step from the beginning to the end. With mathematical precision must they advance, till in the face of all men they are entitled to crown their work with the letters it has often been so delightful to pronounce—Q. E. D. I have never seen this done yet. To my mind there has been a serious flaw in all the evidence hitherto presented; and I am sometimes lost in astonishment that in so solemn an argument, one so overwhelmingly awful, evidence should be admitted as satisfactory, of a kind which would never be employed on *Baptism, in its Mode and Subjects, by Alexander Carson. L. L. D. Chap. I. As it is only for the sake of this valuable chapter that the author refers to a work on this controverted subject, about which more than enough has been written, he hopes to be safe from misconstruction with the candid reader, who will do himself a wrong if he il to satisfy his mind on so important a point as that alluded to. |