Isaiah speaks of a time when God's anger will cease in the destruction of the enemy (chap. x. 25). The same principle is illustrated in the 21st chapter of Ezekiel, verses 3, 4, 5, where Jehovah states that His sword will go forth out of its sheath against all flesh, and shall no more return. It is not necessary to say that in the consummation of God's purpose, His loving kindness will triumph over all exhibitions of anger, which have for their object the extirpation of evil. In the absolute sense, therefore, His sword of vengeance will return to its sheath, but not in the sense of failing to accomplish its purpose. So that the worm that preys upon the wicked will disappear when the last enemy, death, is destroyed, and the fire that consumes their corrupt remains will die with the fuel it feeds on; but in relation to the wicked themselves, the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. The expressions were borrowed from Gehenna, where the flame was fed, and the worm sustained, by the putrid accumulations of the valley.

The statement in Matt. xxv. 46 is more apparently in favour of the popular doctrine, but not more really so when examined. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life eternal." Even taken as it stands in the English version, this does not define the nature of the punishment which is to fall on the wicked, but only affirms its perpetuity. The

nature of it is elsewhere described as death and destruction. Why should this be called "aionian" (translated "everlasting")? Aionion is the adjective form of aion, age, and expresses the idea of belonging to the age. Understood in this way, the statement only proves that at the resurrection, the wicked will be punished with the punishment characteristically pertaining to the age of Christ's advent, which Paul declares to be "" everlasting DESTRUCTION from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2

Thess. i. 9). The righteous receive the life related to the same dispensation-a life which Paul declares to be immortality (1 Cor. xv. 53).

It is usual to quote, in support of the eternal torments, a statement

from the Apocalypse, They shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Rev. xiv. II; XX. 10). On the face of it, this form of speech does lend countenance to the popular idea, but we must not be satisfied with looking on the face of it in this instance, because the statement forms part of a symbolical vision, which has to be construed mystically in harmony with the principle of interpretation supplied in the vision. If Apocalyptic torment "for ever and ever is literal, then the beast, the woman with the golden cup, the lamb with the seven horns and seven eyes, are literal also. Is the orthodox believer prepared for this? Surely, Christ is not in the shape of a seven-horned lamb, or a man with a sword in his mouth; surely, the false Church is not a literal prostitute, or the Church's persecutor a literal wild boar of the woods. If these are symbolical, the things affirmed of them are symbolical also, and torment (or judicial infliction, for this is the idea of basanizo, the Greek word), "for ever and ever" is the symbol of the complete and resistless, and final triumph of God's destroying judgment over the things represented.

Failing Scriptural evidence, the orthodox believer takes refuge among "the ancient Egyptians, the Persians, Phoenicians, Scythians, Druids, Assyrians, Romans, Greeks, &c.," and among "the wisest and most celebrated philosophers on record." All these people-the superstitious and dark-minded heathen of every land, the founders of the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God-all these believed in the immortality of the soul, and, therefore, the immortality of the soul is true! Logic extraordinary! One would think that the opinion of the ignorant and super

stitious in favour of the immortality of the soul would be rather against, than for, the likelihood of its being true. The Bible does not rate our ancestors very highly as regards their views and ways in religious things. Paul speaks of the period prior to the preaching of the Gospel (and referring to Gentile nations), as "the times of IGNORANCE (Acts xvii, 30). Of the wisdom which men had educed for themselves, through the reasonings of "the wisest and most celebrated philosophers," he says, "Hath not God made FOOLISH the wisdom of this world?" "The wisdom of this world is FOOLISHNESS with God (1 Cor. i. 20; iii. 19). Wise men will prefer being on Paul's side. The orthodox believer glories in the wisdom of ancient philosophy and paganism, which Paul pronounces foolishness. What can we do but stand with Paul? Paul says that immortality was brought to light by Christ in the Gospel? (2 Tim. i. 10). If so, how can we' believe in the version of it put forward by the "wisest and most celebrated philosophers," centuries before Christ appeared, and whose wisdom Paul, speaking by the Spirit, pronounces "foolishness?" Either Christ brought the truth of the matter to light, or he did not. If he did, the doctrines before his time were darkness; if the doctrines before his time (rejoiced in by the orthodox believer) were not darkness, but light, then Christ did not bring the truth to light in the Gospel, for in that case, it was brought to light before the gospel was preached.

But many who were once orthodox are losing their orthodoxy, and are beginning to see that the teaching of the Bible is one thing and popular religion another. The following extract, from a work just published in America ("The Theology of the Bible," by Judge Halsted), will illustrate this. "The Rev. Dr. Theodore Clapp, in his autobiography, says he had preached at New Orleans, a zealous sermon for endless

an

punishment; that after the sermon, Judge W., who, says he, was eminent scholar, and had studied for the ministry, but relinquished his purpose, because he could not find the doctrine of endless punishment and kindred dogmas, asked him to make out a list of texts in the Hebrew or Greek on which he relied for the doctrine. The doctor then gives a detailed account of his studies in search of texts to give to the judge; that he began with the Old Testament in the Hebrew; and prosecuted his study during that and the succeeding year; and yet he was unable to find therein so much as an allusion to any suffering after death; that, in the dictionary of the Hebrew language, he could not discern a word signifying hell, or a place of punishment in a future state; that he could not find a single text, in any form of phraseology, which holds out threats of retribution beyond the grave; that to his utter astonishment it turned out that orthodox critics of the greatest celebrity were perfectly familiar with these facts; that he was compelled to confess to the judge that he could not produce any Hebrew text; but that still he was sanguine that the New Testament would furnish what he had sought for without success in Moses and the prophets; that he prosecuted his study of the Greek of the New Testament eight years; that the result was that he could not name a portion of it, from the first verse in Matthew to the last of Revelations, which, fairly interpreted, affirms that a portion of mankind will be eternally miserable. The doctor concludes by saying it is an important, most instructive fact, that he was brought into his present state of mind (the repudiation of the dogma) by the Bible only-a state of mind running counter to all the prejudices of his early life, of parental precept, of school, theological seminary, and professional caste.'

Yes, the Bible and the seminaries are at variance on this important subject. The seminaries light up

the future of the wicked with a lurid horror, which the worthy of mankind even now feel to be a great drawback from the satisfaction of the prospects of the righteous. How can there be perfect joy and gladness with the knowledge that fierce Despair reigns among tormented millions in another place? The Bible gives us a glorious future,

unmarred by such a blot. It exhibits a future free from evil-a future of glory and everlasting joy to the righteous, and of oblivion to all the unworthy of mankind—a future in which the wisdom of God combines the glory of His name with the highest happiness of the whole surviving human race.

IF

F human nature be essentially mortal, and if death in relation to it is the destruction of all its manifested powers, what is the true relation of a future life to our perishing race? Many jump to the conclusion that the position taken in the two previous lectures involves a denial of future retribution, and even the rejection of the existence of God. That this is a great mistake, will presently be made apparent. The view of man's mortality certainly leads to a modification of popular views, but not with the effect stated. And the modification it leads to is borne out by the testimony of the Bible with an explicitness that removes all difficulty from the path of a devout mind.

There is a natural aspiration for immortality in the human breast. The lowest forms of human nature, such as idiots, and barbarous races, may be destitute of it, but where human nature has developed to anything like its natural standard, there is a craving after the perfect and unending. We seem mentally constituted for them. Death comes as an unnatural event in our experience. We dislike it; we dread it; we long for immortality; we aspire to live for ever.

It is customary to argue from our desire for immortality that we are actually immortal. This is the principal argument used by Plato, who may be said to be the father of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. The argument is universally employed by believers in

the immortality of the soul to the present day. It is astonishing that its logic should have passed unquestioned so long. It would readily appear absurd in the case of any other instinct or desire. A hungry man, for example, desires food, is this a proof he has had his dinner? The argument turns the other way. If we desire a thing, our desire is evidence that we are yet without the object of desire; for, as Paul says, "What a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" If we experience a longing for immortality, it is a proof we are destitute of it.

The existence of such a desire, however, proves a great deal in its place. It proves immortality as a possibility in the economy of the universe. No instinct or desire exists in nature without a corresponding object on which it acts. Are we hungry? There is food to be eaten. Are we curious? There are things to be seen and known. Have we benevolence? There is benefit to be conferred, need to be supplied, and suffering to be alleviated. Have we conscience? There is right and wrong. Have we marvellousness? there is incomprehensibility in heaven above and earth beneath. Have we veneration? There is God to adore. And so on, with every feeling throughout sentient nature. On this principle, the spontaneous craving for immortality and perfection proves the existence of the conditions desired, and the possibility of their attainment; and though we may be ignorant as