494 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



lie Eschatology and Universalism." In that work 

 the doctrine of eternal punishment is upheld ; 

 and it is not thought blasphemous to represent 

 God as the author of hell. Yet the same work, 

 referring to some one who has suggested that 

 the accounts of eternal punishment in the Gos- 

 pels may have been exaggerated for a moral end, 

 pronounces that suggestion to be " little short of 

 blasphemous." In short, God is too good to de- 

 ceive, but not too good to condemn. .Now, if 

 Mr. Oxenham were alone in maintaining this 

 paradox, I should not be at the pains to contro- 

 vert it ; for, differing from him Mo ccelo (totague, 

 let me add, gehenna), I feel that between him 

 and me, except on some minor topics, there is no 

 common ground for argument. 



But, unfortunately, there are many Protes- 

 tants and even nibblers at liberalism who hold 

 vaguely, and perhaps unwittingly, what this able 

 writer has stated clearly and forcibly. It is 

 mainly with these, and wholly for their sake, that 

 my present discussion is set on foot. In fact, 

 my article is a plea for that generally valuable, 

 yet generally unvalued, body, the Neochristians — 

 those transformed and regenerate Ishmaels whose 

 hand is against no man, though every man's 

 hand is against them. And the motive of this 

 plea is an earnest desire that the religious reform 

 which is inevitable should be kept as far as pos- 

 sible within the Christian lines. Still, a measure 

 of reform which is to avail against revolution, 

 has often to be somewhat drastic ; and the first 

 advice which should be offered to our Neochris- 

 tian friends is, that they should at once give up 

 the old foundation, for which their modest struct- 

 ure is unfitted, and on which pandemonium may 

 so easily be built. But, before entering on their 

 defense, a word of personal explanation is re- 

 quired. Mr. Mill certainly held that a Being who 

 could create hell would be, strictly speaking, not 

 a God, but the very reverse. Yet, in the chapter 

 by him from which I have quoted, the popular 

 language is repeatedly adopted for the sake of 

 clearness ; and to the supposed author of hell, 

 the name " God " is applied. In the present ar- 

 ticle that example will be followed. It will also 

 be found convenient to assume, unless when the 

 contrary is specified, that the Church is right in 

 pronouncing certain writings to be genuine and 

 certain marvels to be historical. But it must be 

 understood that I am not bound by these assump- 

 tions. It should, moreover, be explained that, 

 zealous though I am on behalf of the Neochris- 

 tians, I in no wise commit myself to either of the 

 recognized forms of Jseochristianity, either to 



Mr. Tennyson's Christianity without hell, or to Mr. 

 Arnold's Christianity without God. My position 

 will be rendered yet clearer by my adding that I 

 expect the various orthodox sects, with their 

 chronic civil war, to continue in a state of heed- 

 lessness not wholly unlike that which the gos- 

 pel attributes to the antediluvian world : they will 

 preach, they will write, they will cavil, they will 

 give in to cavils, till science comes and destroys 

 them all. Wherefore, of the Catholic and the 

 orthodox Protestant it may be said, as of Lausus 

 and Pallas, that neither is destined to overwhelm 

 the other, but that rnox illos sua fata manent ma- 

 jore sub hoste. 



Doubtless, to satisfy Mr. Oxenham personally, 

 the foregoing explanation was not needed ; for he 

 clearly thinks me an honest (if somewhat raven- 

 ous) wolf in wolf's clothing, and has even singled 

 me out as the representative of the common ene- 

 my into whose hand timid or treacherous friends 

 (seemingly Broad Churchmen) are playing. It is 

 possible that the simplest way of opening our in- 

 quiry will be to quote and expand from a former 

 article a passage from which he has made an ex- 

 tract. "The wiser among us," I said, " are seek- 

 ing to drop hell out of the Bible as quietly, and 

 about as logically, as we already contrive to disre- 

 gard the plain texts forbidding Christians to go to 

 law, and Christian women to plait their hair," ' or, 

 it might have been added, to be unveiled in church ; 

 bidding all Christians work miracles on pain of 

 damnation ; 2 bidding them choose psalms and 

 spiritual songs as a vent for their mirth ; forbid- 

 ding them to jest; 3 to take judicial oaths; to 

 hope for exemption from " persecution " 4 (in the 

 plain sense which the early Christians attached 

 to that world) ; to receive interest for loans, or 

 even to receive back the principal; 5 to be rich, 

 or to ask rich people to dinner ; 6 to receive an 

 unorthodox person into their house, or even to 

 wish him " God speed." That this last prohibi- 

 tion was meant literally is proved by the tradition 

 about St. John and Cerinthus ; and I have heard 

 an Evangelical divine, only too plausibly, adduce 

 the passage to prove the sinfulness of entertain- 

 ing Catholics. That some of the other texts I 

 have referred to were not meant literally, is com- 

 monly and conveniently assumed. Personally, I 



1 Fortnightly Review, January, 1876, p. 125. 



2 Mark xvi. 16-18. 



3 Ephesians v. 4. Cf. Matthew xii. 36. 

 * 2 Timothy iii. 12. 



B Luke vi. 34, 35. These and the other texts against 

 usury were taken literally, until the needs of civiliza- 

 tion refuted them. 



« Luke xiv. 12. 13. 



