knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave" (hades). | grandeur of the terms, So that faith is made by the scriptures attainable to the heathen after death," independent of the scriptural doctrine of eternal punishment. as used in the scriptures, in relation to great events, consists partly in the difficulty of setting the limit to to them, and the inadequateness of human chronology. The cons in this vast sense are terminable by laws of their own, unknown to us, but in strict harmony with the great subject to which they refer. Hence every object, as punishment and happiness, has its separate con... Thus it happens, that everything in this world, possibly without a solitary exception, has We deny the position of T. U., that this "doctrine must cease to be believed," upon just the same grounds as we should deny the allegation of the Atheist, who impugns the existence and duration of an intelligent First Cause or Moral Governor of the universe: both are matters of revelation, couched in the same terms, expressed in correlative language. The religion of the New Testament, by which we understand Christianity, is not progressive, it is an objective reality-the legislative code of God's grace adapted to every contingency of possible moral life in this ever-varying world of sin. We most heartily thank T. U. for the complete confirmation he has afforded of our views of the terms con and œonios, and although he has produced them together with quotations from eminent authorities in opposition to us, we respectfully submit that he has not only failed in its own separate con: his purpose, but he has substantiated our-how many entities, position more fully than we had ourselves so many œons.” hoped to do. The following parallelism will convey conviction to the candid mind intuitively, of the unsettled and incoherent logic possessed by the advocates of limited punishment, while the only valuable points in T. U.'s reasoning will be found to agree with ours-are, in fact identically the same-and fully support the view that the duration of punishment inflicted on the finally impenitent, is co-extensive with the immortality of their nature. T. U. says, p. 139, We have remarked quoting M. de Quin- as follows, pp. 8 and cey: 10: as the punishment of the wicked in a future world,-a term which refers to the duration of its subject merely, irrespective of any other idea which may or may not be attached to, or inherent in the nature of the person or thing spoken of. The generic idea presented in this term (aiōnios) is that of continuity - permanent existence -duration; and any quali-fication which it may receive must arise from the essential nature of the subject to which it is attached; thence it necessarily implies the longest period of which the subject is capable. In other words, the predicate with which it is associated is extended to the utmost limit of its subject." (See also the texts of scripture referred to in the paragraphs quoted from.) T. U. observes, p. 138, "the passages of scripture which point to the final restoration of the wicked would be contradicted by applying to their punishment the word under notice," viz., aionion," in the sense commonly attached to it." We would seriously ask our friend T. U. to point out to us those passages of scripture making the declaration of restoration to the wicked condemned at the bar of Christ; we have hitherto been unable to meet with anything of the kind, and frankly confess not only our ignorance of the existence of such passages, but our complete and hopeless scepticism of ever being able to find them. "The general significance of the word (aiōnion),in its classic use, is that of permanence, continued or lasting duration; hence its application to life, time, eternity, fc.... The personal being, the attributes T. U. must really have misapprehended and kingdom of the the purport of his language, when he says, Godhead, are express-"the word rendered 'punishment is not ed by the same term vengeance or torture," but "a moral dis 66 cipline; not a wretchedness, with no chance or design of restoration." "The word here (Matt. xxv. 46) rendered 'punishment' properly signifies correction for the benefit of the offender, and the word refers to corrective discipline in every case." How sad it is that sentiments like these should be penned in such direct contrariety to fact! Kolasin, the original for "punishment," is only used twice in the New Testament, Matt. xxv. 46, and 1 John iv. 18: in the first place it is associated with endless duration, intensifying the punishment to the utmost degree; in the second place, it is translated in the authorized version by the word torment-its classic use, in a generic sense, "cut off, clipt, restrained;" hence the deprivation of liberty, the horrors of the prison, with its primitive discipline, became associated with the sense of the root or primitive idea, and it became, in its general application, significant of the tortures inflicted upon the imprisoned, equally with the original peculiarity of the term as denoting cut off from pleasure, liberty, and happiness. We ourselves feel that it would be preferable for T. U. to apply to the fountain head of Rationalism, rather than to drink in knowledge from the adulterated streams. Kant, the father of Reason, is majestic in his superiority, compared with the many echoes and pasteboard imitations exhibiting in these latter days. The humility of that profound thinker regarded these solemn truths as super-sensuous -as mysteries beyond the province of pure reason. He feared to approach those solemnities which his daring imitators have impiously attempted to hurl into oblivion. There is a book possessing the full perfection of reason, illumined with the Sun of Righteousness, to which we would direct attention, as the only source of information on this and kindred topics. A few words more, and we have done. We fear the air of learned mystery thrown around this subject may have given rise to some uneasiness upon the question in the minds of those of our readers who read the scriptures only in our mother tongue, so beautifully preserved in the authorized version. To such we say, be of good cheer; give your doubts and fears to the winds; the words of the authorized version, referring to this subject, are equally potential, and are as truthfully expressive, as the words in the original. The learned man, if he possess the most perfect and complete circle of knowledge ever attained by human industry, has not on this subject any advantage over the man of common sense, who can read, and speak, and understand plain English only; in fact, such a one would be more free from bias and prejudice, and hence would arrive at a more correct judgment. Of this may we be confident, that everlasting is everlasting still, and that while "the everlasting God" sitteth in the heavens and ruleth the universe, "he is over all, God blessed for evermore;" and while the word of truth denounces the righteous sentence of "everlasting punishment" upon the finally impenitent, we rejoice that the Lord Jesus ever liveth to make intercession for us," and that "he will save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him." Birmingham. L'OUVRIER. NEGATIVE REPLY. WE shall be spared the necessity of any lengthened reply, partly by the valuable assistance rendered by N. and T. U., but chiefly because our friends on the other side, declining to enter upon the discussion on the broad grounds which we at first presented, have confined themselves to minor points, or have attached more importance to the letter than the spirit of the Bible. Many of their objections were anticipated and met in our opening articles; hence time and space may now be spared. desire, and have attempted, to harmonize the conflicting elements which appear in their view of the question, but have failed. More particularly we refer to the mode in which they explain away the unchanging love of God, by setting over against it his justice, as if these were antagonistic, while, in fact, they mutually sustain and illustrate each other. We are not surprised at their inability to reconcile these apparent differences. Upon such a principle of interpretation we cannot perceive an alternative. It strikes us that all the affirmative We have been surprised and pained by writers labour under a difficulty. They the tendency to dogmatize which is found in more than one of the articles referred to, and by the gratuitous assumptions with which we are occasionally favoured. We have yet to learn what is affirmed by "L'Ouvrier," that "to deny the eternal duration of the punishment inflicted on the finally impenitent, involves a denial of the infinite duration of the Divine existence, . . . . of the perpetuity of the happiness of the blessed in heaven, and of the immortality of the soul." And it does not of necessity follow that the ultimate restoration of all, in which we believe, and in support of which we presented in our first article an argument based upon quoted passages of scripture, must be effected by precisely the same modus operandi as that with which we are familiar; neither is it fair to require of us a detailed exposition of such plan or agency. And that "L'Ouvrier" says so, does not prove our "folly" in making this statement. So far as we are able to perceive, the main position of all the affirmative writers consists in the assumption, that if God's existence be eternal, and if the happiness of the righteous be in perpetuity, ergo, the punishment of the wicked must be endless. And why? Mainly because in some instances the same word is applied to express duration. But when reminded that in a variety Passing by the suppositious use assigned cases this term has reference to things of by "Benjamin," we will glance at that an essentially opposite nature, J. F. tells us, advanced by "Clement" (p. 132), viz., “in "In all cases wherein the word is applied in deterring from sin." How, then, is it that scripture, the idea of duration, as embodied comparatively so few are now "deterred" by in it, is commensurate or co-equal with the "the dread exhibition of God's wrath upon duration of the subject of which it is the sinful men throughout eternity?" If there predicate.... When the word is employed be such a "salutary influence," where is it about subjects that are evanescent in their manifested? Are there not innumerable innature, it must have a corresponding mean- stances daily met with, of men deliberately ing; for an attribute cannot exist after its persisting in a course of known guilt, alsubject is destroyed. But when it predi- though this same "fear" has oft been precates anything, or qualifies anything that is sented to their minds? We firmly believe predicated, of a subject whose nature and that many of the backslidings which we are organization are eternal, it also has a per- pained to witness, are traceable to the selfpetuity of meaning-an idea of duration ishness originated by the mere desire to equal to the duration of the subject about escape some threatened personal evil, which which it is employed." Now this, although first led them to make an avowal of faith, clear and somewhat plausible, does not meet when in reality there was none, but simply the difficulty. It needs first of all to be a desire to be rid of the fear which haunted shown that there exists a reasonable neces- them. And to this may be attributed, in a sity for such unending punishment, otherwise great measure, the limited success of a the analogy fails. Benjamin," indeed, preached gospel; for many of its advocates appears to believe in the doctrine of moral have chosen to abandon the good old way of necessity, for he dwells with remarkable self-precedent and injunction, and have adopted complacency upon the effect-eternal punish-the merely declamatory. Hence, we do not ment following the cause-present sin. We doubt, however, whether his supra-humanitarian view will meet with much favour, even among his own adherents. It carries upon the face of it an absurdity, representing God as an inactive and powerless spectator of the incorrect motions of a beautiful mechanism, while, for aught that is said to the contrary, the entire race is hurrying on to irremediable perdition. But we deny that there exists, inter se, such a necessity for the eternal punishment of the wicked. The Deity possesses self-derived infinity, and we cannot conceive of a termination to his existence, or of any change in his state and attributes. So with the blessedness of the righteous; we are taught to consider it as intimately dependent upon God-its continuance and increase result from his presence; were that withdrawn, a termination would be put to all their happiness. Here, then, we see an end worthy of God; but not the less so in the ultimate restoration of the fallen, for here his wisdom and power combine to carry out the plan which his love designed, but not at the expense of justice; while, on the other supposition, an infinity of punishment has to be endured, literally without an object. 66 wonder at, however much we lament, the result. "Clement" is shocked at our impiety in "representing the God of love as cherishing vindictive feelings, when he thus punishes his guilty creatures;" but he will allow us to remind him that we did not thus represent God, but denied that he is animated by those lower motives which actuate us (p. 14, col. 1). We now proceed to a brief examination of those minor points which have arisen in the course of the debate. We perceive that each of the affirmative writers has adopted the notion which was exposed in our opening article (p. 15), that Christ came principally to deliver men from hell, and upon this their reasoning is based. It is needless for us to do more than refer to our remarks at page 14. "Benjamin" appears to be involved in a mist; and, having failed to realize the exact idea, he has not succeeded in presenting it to his readers. We doubt whether he has studied the philosophy of his own nature, or he would have been more certain and explicit in his remarks. Were it not for the serious nature of the subject, we should feel disposed to some sarcastic turns which his article might fairly be made to bear. 66 66 "Clement" labours under a mistake, if he supposes that we ground our argument on a one-sided or partial view of the revealed character of God." We do not forget "his character as the Supreme Ruler, Lawgiver, and Judge of moral and accountable beings;" and accordingly, in our first article, considered the question in the light of God's "holiness and justice." But Clement attempts to disprove that these "forbid the eternal punishment of the wicked," although we might, in perfect fairness, appropriate the greater part of his reasoning to strengthen our own position. With all due respect, we consider that he has avoided the real point at issue, by slurring over the difficulties started more particularly at page 13, col. 2. He objects to the term, "favourite representation," applied to the love of God, as being unscriptural; but he surely does not forget that this is the attribute of which most frequent mention is made, and that love is the fundamental principle of the gospel. We may ask, On what other ground than that assigned can we explain the frequent and emphatic allusion to it? And how is it that men are principally enjoined and encouraged to imitate this, manifesting it first to God, and then to the entire human family? We have next (p. 130) a remarkable admission with regard to the degree of punishment; and we have also to thank "Clement" for this unintentional support. If a difference in degree be allowed, and we think no reasonable man will deny it,-how can the conclusion be avoided, that there is also a difference in duration? The explanation volunteered in answer to our inquiry, why so many retain the "everlasting" as literal, while they reject the "fire and brimstone," does not appear particularly lucid; at all events, our comprehension is so dull, as not to perceive its force. Neither can we discern the logical acumen which asserts that "the number of the condemned has really nothing to do with the question." To us it appears to have everything to do with it, simply because every addition to that number is necessarily a deduction from the ranks of the redeemed, which, on this supposition, would constitute a permanent loss. Did " Clement" ever trust himself seriously to estimate the comparative numbers? Take even the present population of the world, and how overwhelming the majority of those who "love not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"! The "satisfaction" of which "Clement" speaks is very different to that which we understand. To us it appears impossible that Christ can be "satisfied" while one soul remains unsaved (p. 15, col. 2). It is needless to enlarge upon these points, or even to iterate what was advanced in our opening articles. To those we again beg to refer, and are content to allow them to speak for themselves. There is one point, however, upon which both J. F. and "Clement" have seized, and which, we are bound in honesty to acknowledge, is indefensible as it stands. We refer to the sentence, "It is a remarkable fact that all the denunciations of the Divine anger are directed, not against the sinner, but against his sins." In saying this, we had no idea of separating the sinner from his sins, although it might be made to bear that construction. Still it appears to us that the true meaning was explained immediately after (p. 13, col. 1), so that it was an error of terms, and not of sentiment. IS THE NOTION OF A PLURALITY OF INHABITED WORLDS, ETC. However, we cheerfully abandon the terms, at the same time reiterating the sentiment, that God never will and never can hate man, fallen though he be; and hence we are prepared to anticipate that his unchanging love will devise some plan whereby all obstacles shall be removed and all opposition subdued. In conclusion. Were it possible to believe the opposite of our present conviction, a radical change would be effected in our sentiments towards God. We might fear and even obey him, but love him we could not. But our inmost soul recoils with an 173 instinctive loathing from such a representation, as alike opposed to the known attributes of God, and to the dictates of our own reason. It is mere cant to say that God is equally happy whether men are saved or not; as if God possessed litttle or no interest in the matter. What! did he create man as an ephemeral toy, and endow him with high and God-like faculties, to be the mere sport of circumstances, and ultimately to perish everlastingly? Nature and revelation indignantly answer-No! SIGMA. Philosophy. IS THE NOTION OF A PLURALITY OF INHABITED WORLDS CONSONANT WITH SCIENCE AND REVELATION? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. "True philosophy will never be found to con- | upon questions of a speculative character, I tradict scripture." would respectfully claim attention to a few arguments in support of the opinions which I hold. 66 CERTAIN fundamental physical facts being announced in scripture, and man being endowed with senses capable of surveying these, and with reasoning powers capable of making use of such observations, the attempt at extending his knowledge on subjects of which precise information has not been vouchsafed us, is not to be deemed presumptuous; for in such attempts he is evidently but exercising the intellectual gifts with which he is so wonderfully endowed, and the research, if properly conducted, will illustrate more and more the greatness and wisdom of God. Intensely interesting as the consideration of all philosophic disquisition unquestionably is, a still higher dignity attaches to it if, while inducing to the study of the Mosaic records on these subjects, it might haply induce to the belief in Him of whom Moses wrote, even of that Triune God, who, as a winding up to the six days' work, said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'" Feeling, as I do, the vastness of the subject, and the comparatively few data given on which to build an argument, it is with diffidence that I take part in this discussion; but, being aware of the kind indulgence extended by a thinking public to all endeavours to throw the light of truth The first point at issue is, as to the definite meaning of the proposition, "that the notion of a plurality of worlds is not consonant with science and revelation." Is it that we are to inquire whether these worlds are inhabited at all, either by angelic beings, spiritual essences, or any ethereal forms?" or whether the inquiry is limited to the question, "Are they inhabited by man?" I think, with H. D. L., that the latter is intended; for, were this limitation not insisted upon, our opponents would escape from part of their difficulties, without giving us the chance of reply; and for this reason, that all things being possible with God, it would be as easy for him "to put the soul of man into an elephant" (as "Threlkeld" says), as into man. Thus, all the "physical" arguments to be adduced from science would go for nought, as they would all be met and replied to by a simple statement of God's omnipotence. The very word "science" ought of itself to be sufficient to upset the view of the scope of the question taken by the other side: its undoubted meaning is "knowledge." Now, if we know nothing of the inhabitant, and |
