will allow me to quote my own words, 'However good these eminent saints may have been, they would have been better still if they had been free from this theoretical error.' And elsewhere I speak of them as far brighter saints, more thoroughly furnished divines, and more zealous evangelists' than myself. Indeed, were I to say all that I feel on this head, no one would believe me. So I will content myself with assuring you, that the only doubt I ever feel for a single moment arises entirely from thoughts about myself. The truth appears to me as clear as daylight: my sole difficulty is to believe that it is I who see it.

6

This leads me to remark further, that the appearance of presumption in denying the common doctrine is not nearly so great now as it would have been some years since. It is surely not correct to describe me in this matter as one solitary clergyman.' Mr. Grant himself admits that disbelief in it has spread, and is spreading, with marvellous rapidity even amongst Evangelical clergymen. He intimates that in one diocese there is scarcely a clergyman who believes it; and though this is no doubt an exaggeration, yet the incident he mentions proves that there must be a very wide-spread defection. I have been perfectly astonished to find the number, both of clergymen and laymen, who had previously arrived at the same conviction with myself; several in my own congregation, whom I never in the least suspected of doubting the common doctrine. It is true that Universalism is spreading still more rapidly than the belief in destruction, but you will be greatly surprised before long to find how many will openly range themselves on the side upon which I take my humble stand.

The only other point that I should like to touch on is that of 'Rationalism.' Here we are more unfairly treated than on any other part of the controversy. Even your candour has partially failed at this point, though, I am sure, quite unconsciously.*

* To show how recklessly the word 'Rationalism' is sometimes used as a mere term of reproach, without the slightest reference to its meaning, it may be worth mentioning that a leading article upon this subject in the Rock was headed Rationalism in the Pulpit;' while its chief ground of complaint against me was that I insisted upon a too literal interpretation of Scripture, without making sufficient allowance for its metaphorical language; in other words, that I would not consent to rationalise away such plain terms as 'life,' 'death,' and 'destruction.'

The following remonstrance was addressed to the editor:

'First, as to the application of the term "Rationalism" to a belief in the "everlasting destruction" of the wicked. It is just as reasonable as was the application of the term "Irvingism" some time ago to a belief in the personal reign of Christ; when Dr. M'Neile and a few other Evangelical men were thought to have "lost their senses," and "got out of their depth," and been "led astray by the pride of intellect," and "fallen into a snare of the devil," and so forth, in presumptuously opposing the general opinion of the Evangelical world, and paralysing its missionary zeal, by "relaxing the motives and obligations" to preach the Gospel to the heathen. No; I am wrong. It is not nearly so reasonable; for the Irvingites did believe in the personal reign, while Rationalists do not in general believe in "everlasting destruction," but rather lean to universal salvation. I agree with them in denying the eternity of evil; but if that makes me a Rationalist, then to agree with Romanists in denying the claims of Mahomet must make us all Romanists. What is there in the doctrine of the nature of Rationalism? Absolutely nothing. I ground it entirely on the authority of Scripture, and maintain that it is the plain, direct, positive teaching of the whole Bible: there being only three or four expressions that are not manifestly and palpably in harmony with it, and every one of those, on careful consideration, admitting of such an interpretation as, in the language of our article, does not so expound one place of Scripture, that it be contrary to another."' It may be added, that although five leading articles, and several letters,

66

You speak of our agreeing with the Rationalists. We do no such thing. They are almost to a man Universalists. Our excellent friend Mr. Birks, who is still justly regarded as an oracle by the Evangelical party, goes more than half way with them in believing that all will ultimately be saved from sin, though not from suffering. We, on the contrary, believe that those who are sentenced to everlasting punishment will utterly perish, and be destroyed body and soul in hell. But even if we did agree with the Rationalists, why should that make us doubt the soundness of our position any more than your agreeing with the Sacerdotalists should make you doubt the soundness of your position? side of our position we stand by Francis Newman and Professor Jowett, you stand, on the positive side of yours, by John Henry Newman and Dr. Pusey.

If on the merely negative

But my chief ground of complaint lies in the assumption, which nearly all the advocates on your side make, that we are biassed in our views by semi-rationalistic principles. Some may be so, but many are not. I entirely demur to your inference from my remarks about the way in which a practical unbeliever may be turned into a positive infidel by this doctrine. I know Christians who were first led to doubt it, not in the least by feeling its difficulty, but by being struck with the unnatural meaning it assigns to life and death

had appeared in the Rock, all endeavouring to show my 'unspeakable folly' in believing that the finally impenitent will be 'destroyed soul and body in hell,' or, as the Athanasian Creed expresses it, 'perish everlastingly,' its readers were subsequently informed, in an article upon the writings of Origen, that he held, 'like Mr. Minton of modern times, that all men, however bad, though dying without repentance, and that even devils, would be finally restored to God's favour.'

xlii

LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.'

The

in Holy Scripture. But, granting that some do begin by seeing that it is highly improbable, have not many converts from Romanism begun by seeing the extreme difficulty of believing in transubstantiation? What matter is it how the investigation begins, if the enquirer becomes perfectly satisfied at last that the doctrine in question is unscriptural? We maintain with reference to eternal evil just the three positions that you maintain with reference to transubstantiation-that the texts adduced to prove it wholly fail to do so, that other texts disprove it, and that it is inherently impossible. You say that the incredibility which we allege lies only in our own minds, for that you do not feel it to be at all incredible. Romanist would say the same to you. He would say that you first conjure up a supposed impossibility, and then wrest the plainest language of Scripture to make it fit your preconceived ideas about the properties of matter. Yet you do not refrain, for fear of being called a Rationalist, from pressing him with the impossibility of his doctrine. Neither shall we. And my firm conviction that, whatever may be made of my arguments, you will entirely fail to prove your position by Scripture, arises not only from twenty-three years' study of the subject, but also from my perfect confidence that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore cannot possibly teach anything so utterly inconsistent with the character of its Author.

I am, yours faithfully,

SAMUEL MINTON.

PREFACE

ΤΟ

THE FIRST EDITION.

THE WIDE-SPREAD BELIEF in the Eternity of Evil is perhaps the most astounding phenomenon that has ever appeared in the history of the human mind. There is nothing at all to be compared to it, except the belief in Transubstantiation. No human ingenuity could invent a more absolute physical impossibility than the one, or a more absolute moral impossibility than the other. But there is this great difference between them : that the one only insults and degrades the human understanding; the other casts a fearful aspersion upon the moral character of God. And though it is no more possible to degrade man's intellect than to degrade his body, without demoralising him, yet the theory of Transubstantiation does not so directly blaspheme the Majesty of Heaven as the theory of Eternal Evil. The