"It has been well alleged, (viz., by Dr. Gray,) that the desire for immortality (even if the fact be admitted) can no more prove that it is the necessary portion of every individual, than the desire of happiness proves that it also is the inalienable portion of every one. It may be even safely granted, that the instinctive desire has been implanted by God; and even then it by no means amounts to proof that man is sure of it, any more than the instinctive desire of happiness, also implanted by God, proves that therefore every man is sure to be happy."

In reply to this, we would say, that the author mis-states the case with regard to the universal desire for happiness. The true inference from that desire is, not that happiness will be co-extensive with the human race, but that it has been. The former would of course be untrue; the latter is a historical fact. The desire is in both cases best accounted for, by assuming the reality of its object: but in the one instance the reality belongs to the past; in the other to the future. Mr. Dobney and Dr. Gray think, that the desire of happiness is explained, by supposing that happiness is within the reach of the subjects of this desire. That this is not the true method of accounting for it, and that our own is, the case of the fallen angels shows, who “walk through dry places seeking rest and finding none." They desire happiness because they have once tasted it, not because they will ever taste it again. This case, therefore, of the desire for happiness, by no means supports Mr. Dobney's notion of a contingent immortality. His citation in its favour of Rom. ii. 7, where the apostle speaks of "those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honour, and immortality," (sic) by which last term he understands merely endless existence, will no better serve his turn, until his readers shall have been brought needlessly to believe the apostle guilty of such a palpable Hysteron-proteron, as his interpretation supposes. What would he himself think of a man who should stop him in the streets, to tell him that he was "seeking for a wig, a blue bag, briefs, a black robe, red tape, and a lawyer ?”

The next argument examined by our author, is that founded on the great capacities of the soul. All that he has to say to this is, that the majority of men have not manifested great capacities. Now this we must, however reluctantly, set down as mere trifling. Difference in degree does not imply difference in kind. Honest Hodge and Newton are members of the same family; and if the powers of the one demand eternity for their developement, so do those of the other. The argument from the tendency of the soul to perpetual progression, is treated with the same nibbling kind of criticism. Some men, we are gravely told, tend downwards "from the man to the brute, rather than from man to the Divinity." We say in reply, Take the whole race, trace its history; deny, if you can, the steady, onward march of human nature, the very antithesis of the mute creation in this respect, and then, and not till then, the argument may be abandoned. The downward tend

ency of some minds may be accounted for, otherwise than by assuming the soul's mortality; the upward growth of others, and of the whole race, only by supposing the deathlessness of the spirit of man. The vanguard and the rear are separate parts of the same army, not two different hosts. And even his mechanics might have taught Mr. Dobney, that a body once put in motion will move forwards for ever, if its velocity throughout any given space be uniform. As for the author's assertion, (which would be far more pertinent if true) that we see progression in some animals below man, we deny it altogether, and demand instances. The histories of Canine, Simian, and Elephantine

advancement, have, as far as we know, yet to be written.

The argument drawn from the instances in nature, of seeming reviviscence after temporary death, of course, brings no conviction to Mr. Dobney's mind. We should marvel if it did. It was never framed against his school, but against a far larger section of the doubters. It is, as Dr. Gray rightly states, an argument from analogy (not to prove immortality, but) to silence the objections of those who urge the phenomena of death as fatal to a belief in a future state at all. Most men, when once satisfied that a soul has weathered the storms of Cape Death, will allow her safe range in the still waters of eternity. Mr. Dobney is peculiar. He doubts not, with us, that the patient will survive amputation, but would like to be satisfied that so soon as all is over he will not die of himself! A similar line of remark applies to his exceptions drawn from the present anomalous aspects of the moral world, since he admits that this proves a future state.

Our author next proceeds to canvass the Scripture evidence for the immortality of the soul. On the account of man's creation, in which it is said, (Gen. ii. 7) that "God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul," he remarks, that in other passages, (e. g., Gen. vii. 15, 22,) the "breath of life" is attributed to the lower animals; and that in Gen. i. 20, these are also spoken of as possessing a "living soul." All this is, we think, beside the mark. The force of the text, as an argument, is in the words, man became a living soul." Materialism," says Mr. Coleridge, "will never explain those words;" and we do not expect from Mr. Dobney better success. A thing was created into that which it was not before, and which none of God's other earthly creatures are ever said to have become,—a person. It is this which constitutes "the difference of expression when man is spoken of, and when the animals are."

66

Against the view that immortality is one of the attributes belonging to man, as having been created "in the image of God," our author cites 1 Tim. vi. 16, "God alone hath immortality." This he would interpret literally; forgetting that thus understood, it denies immortality not only to the lost but to the saved: not only to devils but to angels! We would remind him that the word abavaria, frequently in

Greek authors, denotes "existence without either beginning or end," and can only be so taken in this passage.

Mr. Dobney now quits the Old Testament and comes to the New :—

"What then does the New Testament reveal concerning immortality? We have not found it the inherent, absolute, and inalienable prerogative of man, as man, prior to our entering the school of Christ; what shall we find here? Much about 'life,' 'eternal life,' 'immortality;' but what? We will bring the various passages together, and then see to what conclusion they conduct us."-p. 70.

Mark x. 30;

Rom. ii. 7—

Accordingly he quotes all those texts (Matt. xxv. 46; John iii. 15, 16—v. 24—vi. 40, 47, 54—x. 28—xvii. 2; vi. 22, 23; Gal. vi. 8; 1 Tim. i. 16; Tit. i. 2; 1 John ii. 25—v. 11; Jude 21) which speak of "eternal life" as the portion of the righteous, and also those (John iii. 36; 1 Cor. i. 18; Rom. ix. 22; Phil. iii. 19; 2 Thess. i. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Heb. x. 39; 2 Pet. ii. 12—iii. 7; Rev. XX. 14) which threaten "the second death," "destruction," "perdition," &c., to the ungodly. He thus states his views of these passages::

"Of course we are not unaware of the common practice of explaining ‘life' to mean happiness, and immortality' to mean an eternity of bliss; while 'destruction,' 'perdition,'' death,' are explained to mean an eternity of miserable existence. Nor is it to be denied that 'life' is often used in the sense alleged. But that it is invariably used so, no one will affirm; while, on the other hand, it is frequently to be understood in its primary and common signification. Waiving, as I am compelled to do, all investigation into the precise force of the words, as used in the numerous passages now adduced, I present them merely as illustrative of the manner in which the Scriptures uniformly speak of the future portion of the two opposite classes of mankind-the pious and the ungodly. And it does seem to me, that unwarrantable liberty is taken when these words, touching the future state, are invariably taken in their secondary sense; their primary being set aside, chiefly because interpreters have previously determined that all men, without exception, are immortal; which assumption, of course, necessitates their seeking for some other than the natural interpretation, when immortality is promised on the one hand, and destruction threatened on the other."-p. 71.

Mr. Dobney is dissatisfied with the common interpretation of such texts. Is his own preferable? He would explain them literally. The words "eternal" and "everlasting" are important terms in most of them. For the sense he attaches to these and other like terms of duration, we must turn to his seventh lecture, where we find the following lexicographical gem :—

"Even when these words are used in their extremest sense, they do not teach that the object to which they relate must therefore endure for ever; their force being this, and no more than this, that what is predicated shall endure so long as the object of which it is predicated shall continue."-p. 75.

This new definition of the terms αιωνιος, αἴδιος, εις τους αιώνας, εις τον auwva, i, &c., was evidently ground out of a logical and not a philological mill, in answer to the question, "What one meaning can be put upon (we intend no double entendre) these words, which shall allow a strictly literal interpretation of every text in which they are employed? And we must confess that so cleverly has the problem been solved, that the only fault we can find with the result is, that instead of a necessity for some half-dozen cases of catachresis, (Gen. xiii. 15; Ex. xii. 14—xxi. 6-xvii. 18; Lev. xxv. 46; Josh. iv. 7; 2 Kings v. 27, &c.) we are only presented with as many scores of most edifying truisms, with here and there a stray contradiction in terms. Thus, "the everlasting God" (Gen. xxi. 33) is, "the God who shall endure so long as he shall continue." His "everlasting kingdom" (Ps. cxlv. 13) is, "a kingdom that shall endure so long as it shall continue." "The righteous shall go into life eternal," (Matt. xxv. 46,) means, "the righteous shall go into life that shall endure so long as they continue." The words, "who shall be punished with everlasting destruction," (2 Thess. i. 9,) may be thus rendered, if both the terms "everlasting" and "destruction" are to be interpreted according to our new mystagogue's canons, "whose souls, by way of punishment, shall endure annihilation so long as they shall continue."

But we forbear. We tremble to think of the lengths to which our author's reasonings would naturally lead us. They not only provide the ungodly with another Saviour than Christ (viz., ultimate annihilation) from eternal doom, but they just as certainly rob the righteous of everlasting bliss; for not content with denying, that reason furnishes proof of the immortality of a single soul, he precludes the possibility of revelation's establishing it even as regards the saints, by emasculating the only terms in which it could be taught. We might ask him, were it necessary, what neglected Suidas, or Hesychius, or Phavorinus, he has to allege for his new meaning of "co-during," instead of "ever-during," which he attaches to the terms in question? But we anticipate the apprehension that there would be all too cruel an auto de fé of ingenious speculations, were such bigoted old gentlemen to be allowed to "rule the roast." Common sense will do stern justice by Mr. Dobney's theory; and we, for our parts, shall weep no tears of grief. Nothing would distress us more than that the churches of Britain should be afflicted, like those of America, with the pestilence of universalism in any shape whatever.

In laying down our pen we would only add, that whilst for the opinion presented and defended in these lectures of Mr. Dobney we feel no manner of respect, the advocate is one to whom, without flattery, we can say, "Talis cum sis utinam noster omnino esses."

The Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon, with Selections from his Correspondence. By Horace Twiss, Esq. 8vo. 3 vols. London: John Murray. 1844.

WHATEVER View may be taken of the political principles of which the late Lord Chancellor Eldon was the type and champion, there can exist but one opinion as to the claim which his well-written "Life" has to the attention of every Englishman. With those principles we are not suspected of having any sympathy, and their very rapid decline has rendered the persons who maintain them the objects of pity rather than of aversion. Lord Eldon was no ordinary man; and it would have been to us the occasion of deep regret had no adequate record of his remarkable life been preserved. This regret we are not doomed, however, to suffer, his intelligent and industrious biographer having succeeded in preserving in the volumes before us an instructive and interesting narrative of the private, professional, and political life of a man, whose name will hereafter serve to designate an epoch in English history.

There have been those who contrived to keep themselves for a time before the eyes of the nation, to charm and dazzle by their eloquence, to surprise by their professions and efforts, and anon disappoint and vex by their failures, creating admiration by their varied endowments, and disgust by their abuse of them. Over their tombs friendship has not been seen to weep, nor enmity heard to triumph. Not only have such men been-such men are. Lord Eldon was not of this class. He was throughout his long life a sincere and honest man, pursuing his straightforward course, never deceiving his opponents by honeyed accents of praise, nor betraying his party in the hour of weakness, like some who serve, or wish to serve, under every administration. You always knew what the man stood for, and where to find him. There was no danger, if you were his political opponent, that he would approach you with a deceptive smile, or a servile obtrusion of service; there was no possibility of meeting him in your camp spying out the means of some ungenerous attack. He was the avowed, determined, and honourable foe, standing before you ready for battle.

No one can fail to read without deep interest and pleasure the history of a man who spent eighty years in the steady pursuit of a great and honourable end,-who rose from comparative obscurity in a provincial town, to the dignity of lord high chancellor of England,— who for a long time enjoyed the confidence of, and was mixed up with the political movements of, his age, of which indeed he might say, magna pars fui,-whose legal lore was so extensive,