HELL AND THE DIVINE VERACITY. 



495 



could never take this view — not even in my or- 

 thodox boyhood, when such texts made life a 

 burden to me; so that my judgment was then 

 vehemently biased not against, but in favor of, 

 the traditional interpretation of them. That the 

 literal meaning of each of those passages is the 

 true one, still seems to me probable. At any 

 rate, it is certain that, taken collectively, they 

 breathe an ascetic spirit which is in glaring con- 

 trast to the smooth and polished Christianity of 

 our day. A popular preacher, complaining of 

 rationalists that they had no moral standard, 

 once said to me, " When I am in doubt, I refer 

 to my Bible : " almost as if his Bible was unlike 

 other Bibles ; certainly as if the Bible was a lucid 

 encyclopasdia of doctrine and morals. Nor did 

 my friend herein go far beyond what is held by 

 most orthodox Protestants. They have forged a 

 vast shield of texts, which they use to their own 

 satisfaction against Romanists (Ingentem clipeum 

 informant, unum omnia contra Tela Latinorum) ; 

 and therewith they hope to quench the fiery darts 

 of the combined wicked — of Romanists and ra- 

 tionalists together. Our object, on the other 

 hand, has been to show that the Bible is not 

 such a handbook as they suppose ; and that, in 

 fact, if the way of doctrinal transgressors is hard, 

 that of Bibliolaters is not easy. And if, con- 

 sciously or unconsciously, orthodox Christians ex- 

 ercise the rbht of dropping inconvenient texts 

 out of the Bible, they should not be wroth with 

 their liberal brethren who do likewise; for the 

 game, in very truth, is one at which two can play. 

 Here, then, is our point. If the Bible contains 

 plain commands which we have a right to dis- 

 obey, may it not contain plain assertions which 

 we have a right to disbelieve ? 1 Thus the Neo- 

 christian would be in no lack of orthodox prece- 

 dents, if he contended that the statements about 

 hell were Oriental hyperboles ; or that they were 

 an extra deterrent mercifully given to the Jews 

 in their low state of piety, or rather of culture 

 and civilization — an adaptation to the hardness 

 of their hearts, or perhaps to the softness of 

 their brains ; or that they were a needful conces- 

 sion to a prevailing superstition: for the Bible 

 was written a Judceis, ad Judaios, apud Judceos ; 



1 Sir J. Fitzjames StepheD says (" Liberty, Equal- 

 ity, and Fraternity ," p. 315) that some Scriptural com- 

 mands are " understood by those who believe in the 

 supernatural authority of Christ as a pathetic overstate- 

 ment of duties, . . . peculiarly liable to be neglected." 

 Every argument that can be used to justify such a 

 "pathetic overstatement" of duties will serve to jasti- 

 fy a pathetic overstatement of the penalties whereby 

 those duties were enforced. 



and superstition, like nature, non nisi parendo vin- 

 citur. Perhaps, indeed, it will be objected that 

 our analogy between disobeying Divine commands 

 and disbelieving Divine assertions does not hold. 

 Let us, then, give an example of each kind. It is 

 plainly declared that the observance of the Sab- 

 bath — an observance binding in regard to the 

 day, the obligations, and the penalties — was to 

 be perpetual, and forever. 1 And this perpetual 

 ordinance, originally imposed on Israel, extends 

 to all who have adopted Israel's law.' 2 It is also 

 affirmed that the house, kingdom, and throne of 

 David should be established forever. Compare 

 these two statements with the statement that hell 

 is to be perpetual. If, by a prophetic license, 

 perpetual means transitory in regard to the Sab- 

 bath and the house of David, why not in regard 

 to hell ? Or (what is much the same thing), if 

 we may give a non-natural interpretation to two 

 of these propositions, 3 why not to the third ? 



Impartial readers will probably think that I 

 have already made out my case ; but, as the sub- 

 ject is very important, and as the prejudice about 

 it is inveterate, I will carry the inquiry somewhat 

 deeper. To reasonings like the above it is com- 

 monly objected that (according to the Bible) 

 God can neither lie nor repent. Now, it is ob- 

 vious that this objection is at once refuted by 

 the fact that it proves the biblical veracity from 

 the Bible, making the Bible arbiter in its own 

 cause. But I will let this pass, as I wish as far 

 as possible to meet orthodoxy on its own ground : 

 e/c rod o-rSfiaros o~ov Kpivw ere. The Bible, then, 

 asserts that God neither lies nor repents. But, 

 in the very same chapter, 4 God is described as 



1 Exodus xxxi. 16, 17. 



2 Matthew v. 18. Cf. Matthew xxiv. 20. 



3 Thus, it is commonly maintained that the throne 

 of David spiritually survives in Christianity. To test 

 this interpretation, let us put a parallel case, which 

 we can consider impartially. One was told at. school 

 that Virgil's Bnperium sine fine dedi is a signal in- 

 stance of an uninspired prophecy failing. Yet it might 

 be at least as plausibly urged that the Roman domin- 

 ion survives in the papary, as that the Davirlic throne 

 survives in Christianity. But to any such pitiful mis- 

 interpretation of Virgil's words a sufficient answer 

 would be that, before the Roman Empire ceased, no 

 one dreamed of so explaining the poet's meaning. 

 Even so we may ask, Did the Jews, before the time 

 of Nebuchadnezzar, dream of spiritually evaporating 

 the plain prediction about David? 



4 1 Samuel xv. 11, 29. In this singular chapter a 

 still more startling contrast occurs: Samuel (verse 

 22) expresses the noble sentiment that " to obey is 

 better than sacrifice ; " yet, at that very moment, he 

 was meditating the most hideous of all sacrifices— a 

 human sacrifice (verse 33). 



