the whole phrase "eternal life," and "eternal death," what is included in the terms "life" and "death," according to Scriptural usage, without any epithet annexed. It is no doubt true, that the blessed life of the Christian is begun on earth, and consummated in heaven. But there is still another idea connected by our Saviour with this life in the word eternal, namely, that it will be enduring; that it will endure for ever. "Your fathers," says he, in another passage, "ate manna and died. He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." So the Apostle Paul, "Prophecies shall fail and tongues shall cease, but charity never faileth."

On the whole, therefore, we leave the Essay and Letter of Professor Maurice with the conviction, that, though his general doctrinal view is agreeable to reason, to the attributes of God, to the character of Christ, and to the spirit of the Gospel, his mode of defending it, so far as the meaning of the term alános is concerned, is dark, confused, and utterly erroneous. The writer has yet to learn to study the Scriptures by the help of lexicon and concordance, and to bend his mind to a conformity with established principles of interpretation. Spiritual discernment, or that Divine inspiration which Professor Maurice claims for the true Christian, is a mighty help for the attainment of truth. We cheerfully concede to him the possession of it in large measure. But when one undertakes to give the meaning of a teacher or writer, it is a sin against the Holy Spirit, as well as against common sense, to set at defiance the established laws of language.

And now, perhaps, some reader, if any have followed us thus far, may have the curiosity to ask, what is our mode of escaping from the conclusion, that the fearful doctrine which Professor Maurice has called in question, the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked, is a doctrine of Christ. We cannot, at the close of an article already long, go into a full examination of so important a subject. We will content ourselves with making a few remarks on one of the principal passages relat ing to it, namely, Matthew xxv. 46. Many of our remarks, however, will apply as well to other passages, particularly those containing the words for ever and ever; the word alános being derived from the noun aióv, which

is thus translated. We set out, however, with the declaration, that we do not undertake to maintain positively and with confidence, that our Saviour did not understand the term alávios, or rather the Hebrew diy or the Syriac Dy as denoting everlasting or eternal in the strictest sense. 'But we will endeavor to show that we have good reasons for entertaining strong doubts whether he did, and for believing that he understood the term in a miti gated sense, as implying long duration, but not eternity in the metaphysical sense of the expression; or at least, that he meant the whole passage Matt. xxv. 41-46 to be understood in a sense not inconsistent with forgiveness of sin and restoration to holiness in the world to come. We allow also, and maintain, that the Common Version gives as correct a translation of the verse under consideration, as any which the English language admits, though, to avoid misapprehension, it would have been better to use the same word in both parts of the sentence. We should prefer, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life," as it is rendered in the version of Wickliffe, and as he renders the term throughout the New Testament. But we have no objection to the word eternal, as in this connection it would have precisely the same import.

But that the proposition may be understood as not declaring the strict eternity of the punishment of the wicked in the metaphysical sense of the term, is rendered probable from the following considerations.

1. The Greek word alovios, and still more the corresponding Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac terms, are, in their ordinary, and not exceptional, signification, used in a more indefinite sense, and with a much wider application, than the English words everlasting and eternal. This appears from all the lexicons,* from the numerous passages above quoted from the Old Testament and the New, and from many others, which might be adduced. These passages show that the original term denotes long and indefinite duration, whether relating to the past or the future, and that it is often applied to things which have had a beginning, and which have had, or will have, an end. Thus it is applied to the Mosaic statutes, to

*See especially Gesenius on Diy, and Schleusner, Wahl, and Robinson on ἀἰώνιος.

the Jewish priesthood, to the time in which a person might be held as a slave, to the doors of the temple, to ways, to landmarks, to waste places, to the possession of the land of Canaan, to the times of the ancient prophets, to the mountains and hills, and other similar things. On the other hand, it appears with equal clearness that the term is applied to God, to the spirit of God, and to the future happiness of the good, as denoting the longest conceivable duration, duration without beginning or without end. But whether long continued or whether infinite duration is denoted, cannot be determined from the word itself. This must be determined from the subject to which it is applied, from the connection, and other considerations. In fact, the different meanings so run into each other, that it is sometimes difficult to say which meaning is intended.

2. There is a popular use of language for the purpose of impression, and a philosophical use of language for the purpose of the accurate statement of a doctrine. There is also a plain, proper use of language, and an emotional, figurative, hyperbolical use of it, in which expressions must be very much limited by the reader or hearer before they can be understood as representing literal truth. Now the expressions everlasting fire, everlasting punishment, occur in a passage which all regard as in a high degree figurative; in which, for the purpose of vivid impression, the great truth that all men will be rewarded or punished according to their deeds, to their conformity to the laws of Christ, is set forth in a kind of scenical representation borrowed from the style of Oriental judicature. In such a passage a strict, metaphysical use of language is not to be expected, but the reverse. But it will be asked, Would our Saviour have used figurative or hyperbolical language on so important a subject? I answer, that highly figurative or hyperbolical language may almost be styled the common dialect of Orientals. Compare John iii. 26, "Behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him"; and verse 32, "And what he hath seen and heard he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony." Was it not hyperbolical language when our Saviour told the Pharisees that they made their proselytes twofold more the children of hell than themselves; when he threatened that all the righteous blood from the

time of Abel should be visited on that generation; when he said that the sin against the Holy Ghost should never be forgiven in this world, or in that which is to come? And was it not hyperbolical language, we would ask the advocate of endless torments, when he said, "I, if I be lifted up, shall draw all men unto me"? Of this hyperbolical use of language there is a striking instance in Psalm xxi. 4, "He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever." In our own language a similar usage prevails. Thus we hear of the eternal disputes about the slavery question, of perpetual trouble, endless vexation, everlasting disquiet. We do not say that any of these expressions are exactly parallel with those of our Saviour in the verse before us; but they show that his language may have been used in a hyperbolical, or, at least, in a loose, popular sense, unless there be some decisive consideration which leads to an opposite conclusion.

3. It is important to be observed, that the great design, the subject-matter, of the passage in which the term under consideration is contained, was not the settlement of any question respecting the duration of future punishment. The design of the passage was to exhibit the hateful nature of sin, the awful consequences which attend it, and the exclusion of all sin and misery from the kingdom of Christ in its consummation. If the question had been expressly proposed to Jesus, how long the punishment of the wicked would endure, and he had intended to answer that it would be strictly endless, we admit that aivos, or rather the corresponding Syro-chaldaic term, would in all probability have been used. But it cannot be pretended that such a question had been raised. Our Saviour was answering no doctrinal question, and laying down no dogma or principle, essential to be believed, concerning the duration of the punishment of every individual. He did not undertake to decide the point which is now in dispute in reference to the duration of punishment. His evident design was to impress upon his hearers the great truth, that, when his kingdom should be completely established, the retributions of sin would

* It is doubtful whether atoios, or aévvaos, is a stronger expression. The former occurs in the New Testament only twice, Rom. i. 20 and Jude 6, the latter a few times in the Septuagint.

be terrible in their nature, and lasting in their duration. It was not necessary for this purpose, that the terms which he employed should be understood in a strict or philosophical sense, and as laying down an absolute dogma in regard to the duration of the punishment of individual sinners. If our Saviour had been asked, whether it was not possible that some youth, who was cut down before he had heard his voice, might have an opportunity of faith and repentance in the future life, would he not have answered, Him that cometh to me, at whatever time, and from whatever place, I will by no means cast out? Or, if he had been asked whether punishment were strictly endless, would he not at least have answered, It is endless only for those who persevere for ever in wickedness, who resist for ever that Divine grace which never will be withdrawn; but so long as sin exists misery must exist with it?*

If we have been correct in our statements, there is no ground in the word aiovios, in itself considered, or in the general character of the passage in which it occurs, in favor of giving it its strict and metaphysical rather than its looser signification. But there is one consideration which favors a different conclusion, namely, the antithe sis of everlasting punishment to everlasting life. In the phrase everlasting life, here and elsewhere, it is said, the term must be used in its most unrestricted sense. To this we answer, that the word must undoubtedly be used in the same general signification in both clauses of the verse. But in view of what has been said of the manner in which the different meanings of the original term run into each other, of the popular character of the language, and of the general design and highly figurative character of the whole passage, we do not think it necessary to construe it so strictly when applied to the subject of punishment, which must be according to one's deeds, as when applied to the blessed life, which is not the re

*This hypothetical doctrine of endless punishment is maintained by Nitzsch, in his System der Christlichen Lehre, which is the most popular work on systematic theology in Germany, and is generally regarded as orthodox. See page 416, sixth edition. The English translation of this work is the worst specimen of translation from the German which we have ever seen. There is not a page in which some misrepresentation of the meaning of the author does not occur. The above-mentioned view was also maintained by Schott, in his Epitome Theologiæ, p. 131, and, in the last century, by Doederlein, in his Instit. Theol., Vol. II. p. 188.