AN ESSAY

ON THE

SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE

OF

IMMORTALITY

BY THE REV. 

JAMES CHALLIS, M. A. , F. R. S. , F. R. A. S. 

PLUMIAN PROFESSOR OF ASTRONOMY AND EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY IN THEUNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, AND FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE. 

 _Anagke gar moi epikeitai ouai gar moi estin, ean me euaggelzûmai --1 Cor. Ix. 16

RIVINGTONS

London, Oxford, and Cambridge

MDCCCLXXX

RIVINGTONS

London . . . . . . _Waterloo Place_

Oxford . . . . . . _Magdalen Street_

Cambridge . . . . _Trinity Street_

[_All rights reserved_]

{1}

AN ESSAY

ON THE

SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY. 

Considering that under the existing conditions of humanity, disease, and decay, and death abound on every side, it is surprising that theword "immortality" obtained a place in systems of philosophy, theauthors of which must be supposed to have been unacquainted with divinerevelation. It is not surprising that in the absence of such aid thebelief of immortality should not have been firmly held, or that by somephilosophers it should have been expressly disavowed. Even in theCanonical Scriptures, the words "immortal" and "immortality" occur onlyin the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, and consequently not till "lifeand immortality had been brought to light through the Gospel. " It is aremarkable circumstance that these words are met with more frequentlyin the Apocryphal Books, 2 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, andEcclesiasticus, than in the Canonical Scriptures. The {2} explanationof the apparent silence of the Scriptures, especially those of the OldTestament, on so essential a doctrine, will, I think, be found to begiven by the course of argument adopted in this essay. 

It may, further, be noticed that, according to philosophical dogma notderived from the teaching of Scripture, immortality is regarded as aprinciple, or innate quality, in virtue of which the human soul isexempt from the experience of death or annihilation. On this accountGreek and Roman philosophers speak of "the immortality of _the soul_, "and even in the present day the same terms are used, the soul beingregarded as _per se_ immortal. But neither in the Scriptures, nor inthe Apocrypha, is "immortality" qualified by the adjunct "of the soul;"the reason for which may be that since death, as far as our sensesinform us, is an _objective_ reality, the writers judged that mortalityand freedom from mortality could only be predicated of _body_. Itmust, however, be taken into account that according to the doctrine ofScripture there is "a spiritual body" as well as "a natural body, " sothat while the natural body is, as we know, subject to the law ofdeath, it may be true that the spiritual body is capable ofimmortality. This point will be farther discussed in the course of theessay. 

To account for the absence of any direct announcement of man'simmortality in the Old Testament, and for its being sparingly mentionedin the New {3} Testament, the following argument seems legitimate andsufficient. These Scriptures, as already intimated, give nocountenance to the idea that the soul of man possesses any innateprinciple of immortality; on the contrary, they reveal immortality byrevealing _the means_ by which the spirit of man is _made_ immortal. As, according to natural science, the external world, both the animatepart and the inanimate, has become such as we now perceive it to be byprocesses of generation and development, so there is reason fromScripture to say that a spiritual world is being created in ananalogous manner, and that to this creation all other creations aresubordinate and contributory. Moreover, we, the subjects of thiscreation, are so constituted that we are conscious of, and canourselves take cognizance of, the means by which it is effected. Theseconsiderations may be applied to account for the mode in whichimmortality is treated of in the Bible. It concerns us, above allthings, to discern and feel the operations whereby our spirits areformed both intellectually and morally for an immortal existence; and, accordingly, Scripture is full of instruction, addressed both to theunderstanding and the heart, concerning those means. Thus, althoughthe final effect is not directly named till the scheme of the spiritualcreation is completely unfolded, it is yet true that the whole of theScriptures from beginning to end has relation to man's immortality. 

{4}

Not only did the philosophy of Greece and Rome fail to substantiate thereality of an immortal existence; other philosophical systems, as wellthe mystical conceptions of Eastern nations, as the metaphysicalspeculations of modern Europe, have equally failed to arrive atcertainty respecting this verity. Now, it will be found, I think, tobe established by the argument of this essay, that in all theseinstances the cause of failure is the same. The doctrine cannot, infact, be understood and believed without an understanding of the meansby which the immortal spirit is _formed_, and the ascertainment ofthose means is beyond the power of unaided human intelligence. Although the evidences of an immortal destiny may be in us and aroundus, they cannot be discerned apart from enlightenment by a divinerevelation as to the purpose and end of the whole creation. 

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments profess to be a revelationof the mind and will of the Creator of all things. If they are reallysuch, they must be capable of giving the information which, as saidabove, is necessary for certifying the doctrine of man's immortality. I shall, therefore, with express reference to the title of the essay, first make the _hypothesis_ that the Scriptures are indeed a revelationfrom God, written to reveal His will and His acts, and on this ground Ishall proceed to inquire what information can be derived from themrespecting the {5} _creation_ of the spirit of man for an immortaldestiny. The character of the information obtained may possiblysuffice to establish both the truth of the hypothesis and the certaintyof the doctrine of immortality. 

Before commencing the argument, it will be well to state on whatprinciples, and according to what rules, Scripture will be cited forconducting it. It will be supposed that the Holy Scriptures, as awhole, consist of words of God written for our sakes; and although theywere written by human authors, under diverse circumstances, and invarious ages, the several parts are still to be regarded as havingvirtually but _one author_, the Holy Spirit, and as constituting onthat account a consistent whole. This view is almost necessitated bythe noticeable circumstance that very little information is given inthe Scriptures themselves respecting the authors of the writings, orthe time and place of their composition. This is true, for instance, of such cardinal books as the four Gospels. Respecting these mattersenough is said to show that human hands have been employed to write thebooks of Scripture, while so much has been left unsaid that we mustinfer that this kind of information is of little moment by reason ofthe _internal_ evidence the Scriptures contain of their divineauthorship. Such evidence, it seems to me, is especially given by thefact that the Scriptures present a faithful _transcript_ of {6} theworld as it has been and is, in respect to the calamities, wars, andrevolutions that have befallen nations, and those weaknesses andwickednesses of individuals and peoples, the accounts of which are sogreat a stumbling-block to the "unstable and the unlearned. " Thesevery accounts, it is possible, may be intended to tell us, if rightlyinquired into, why these things are so, why there is evil in the world, and what shall be the end of it. The world has existed, it isbelieved, nearly six thousand years, and at this day we see that manysuffer from sorrow and pain, labour and poverty are the lot of a verylarge proportion of the populations, calamities by fire and water arefrequent, plague and pestilence still visit the earth, cruelty andmurders are rife, and so far from there being an end of wars, neverbefore have men fabricated such potent implements for killing eachother. Such facts as these constitute, after all, the difficultieswhich beset humanity, and it may be presumed that, with the intent ofaccounting for their existence, they are put on record in the word ofGod. On the broad principle that the Author of a world like this willhave vouchsafed reasons for its being such as it is, I accept theScriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the word of God written forthis very purpose, and instead of cavilling, as some do, atdifficulties which probably have no other foundation than their ownignorance, it will be my {7} endeavour to make use of Scripture forexplaining the perplexities and difficulties which actually surroundthe facts of human experience. The discussion of the particularquestion I have taken in hand will give occasion for employing theScriptures in this manner, and in doing so I shall quote from all partsindiscriminately, regarding the whole as sufficiently authoritative andtrustworthy for the purposes of the argument. 

The above-mentioned general purpose the Scriptures may be supposed tobe adequate to fulfil, whether as expressed in the Hebrew tongue, or inthat of the Septuagint, or as translated in the English version, notwithstanding that, as must be admitted, faults of transcription, ortranslation, or interpretation have given rise to many verbal errors. But the difficulties produced by these imperfections are of slightimportance in comparison with the great difficulty of discovering howand on what principles to interpret the Scriptures so as to derive fromthem the particular doctrines they are designed to teach. Amid thegreat diversity of views that exists relative to modes ofinterpretation, it may safely be maintained that the foremost and chiefrequisite for making true deductions from the Scriptures is to have_confidence_ in them as being depositions of Divine wisdom. Men ofscience, in their endeavours to discover the secrets of Nature, arebaffled again and again, and yet by little and {8} little they obtainaccessions to knowledge just because they never doubt but that Nature, if rightly interrogated, will give them true answers. It seems, therefore, reasonable to expect that the words of God, handled onprinciples analogous to those which have been successfully applied inacquiring knowledge of His works, might be found capable of answeringthe hard questions which are now, more, perhaps, than in past times, agitating men's minds. This philosophy, having a surer basis than thatof any mere human intellectual system, might be expected to succeedwhere these have failed. The bearing of these remarks on the mainsubject of the essay will be seen as we go on. 

Commencing now, after the foregoing preliminaries, the generalargument, I remark, in the first place, that since, as matter of fact, all men die, they cannot partake of immortality unless they arerestored to life after death. We have, therefore, to inquire both asto what the Scriptures say concerning _death_, and what they revealconcerning _resurrection_. Again, it may be taken for granted that asin the natural world, so in the spiritual world, the Creator of allthings effects His purposes by operating according to _laws_. On thisprinciple St. Paul in Rom. Viii. 2 speaks of "the law of sin anddeath, " meaning that sin and death are invariably related to each otheras antecedent and consequent. By an irrevocable law {9} death isordained to be "the wages of sin" (Rom. Vi. 23). Of ourselves we canjudge that it does not consist with the power and wisdom of anomnipotent and omniscient Creator that the sinful should live for ever. But if this be so, it must evidently be true also that immortality, being exemption from death, is the _consequence_ of freedom from sin, that is, of perfect righteousness. This is as necessary a law as theother. 

Hence the inquiry respecting the means by which man is made immortalresolves itself into inquiring by what means he is made righteous; and, as the first step in this inquiry, we have to consider what Scripturesays concerning the entrance of sin and death into the world. If sinbe defined to be doing what is contrary to the will of God, asexpressed by a command, righteousness, being its opposite, will consistin acting according to His will. Hence sin and righteousness bothimply that a revelation of the will of God has been antecedently made, either directly by a command or law, or by the voice of conscience. Itis on this principle that St. Paul says, "apart from law sin is dead"(Rom. Vii. 8), and in another place speaks of "the righteousness _ofthe law_" being fulfilled (Rom. Viii. 4). Accordingly, when Adam wasplaced in the garden of Eden, a _command_ was expressly given him fortrial of his obedience. 

{10}

The narrative in Scripture of the circumstances under which sin wasfirst committed is deserving of special consideration on account of theinstruction it conveys. It states that Eve, knowing that God hadcommanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good andevil, yet, being deceived by the serpent and enticed by her owndesires, "took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to herhusband with her, and he did eat" (Gen. Iii. 6). Thus, as St. Paulwrites, "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in thetransgression" (1 Tim. Ii. 14). But both partook of the forbiddenfruit, and by so doing both sinned alike against their Maker, the deedbeing sinful, not as considered by itself, but by reason of theantecedent command, which made it an act of _disobedience_. 

If we assume that the account of Eve's temptation is to be taken asliterally true, so that the tempter had actually the form of a serpentand addressed to her _spoken_ words, these facts will have to beregarded as altogether _miraculous_. There are good reasons foradmitting this view, when it is considered, first, that the informationwhich this portion of Scripture gives equally concerns all of everyage, and in order that it might be intelligible to all, it wasnecessary that in the infancy of the world it should be conveyed by_objective_ representation; and, again, that various instances are metwith in the Bible of analogous {11} teaching of essential doctrine bymeans of miracles. The translation of Enoch, the Deluge, thedestruction of Sodom, the plagues of Egypt and deliverance of Israel, the giving of the law from Sinai, the passage of Jordan, the ascensionof Elijah, and the resurrection of Christ, are all symbolic miracles, the interpretations of which have intimate relation to the doctrine ofman's immortality. This being understood, I shall proceed to discussparticularly the meaning of the Scriptural account of the beginning ofsin through temptation by the serpent, and on the supposition that thefacts as recorded are real but symbolic, I shall endeavour to deducefrom them their doctrinal signification. 

The first question to consider is, Why is the tempting spirit called a_serpent_? The Scripture affirms that "the serpent was more subtil(_phronimôatos_) than any beast of the field" (Gen. Iii. 1); and ourLord, addressing his apostles, said, "Lo, I send you as sheep in themidst of wolves; be ye, therefore, wise (_phronimoi_) as serpents, andharmless as doves. " Yet, as we know, the serpent is not endowed in anyspecial manner with sagacity or reason. The fact is, the epithet"subtil" is applied to the serpent with reference to its form andmovements, which convey the abstract idea of subtlety on the sameprinciple that the words "tortuous" and "twisting" have an abstractmeaning when we speak of "tortuous policy, " {12} or "twisting themeaning of a sentence. " Now this subtle entity--this serpent--althoughpresented to Eve in bodily form, was not the less that spirit of evil, the personal existence of which, on the hypothesis that the Scripturesare true, as well as its influence on human minds, must be admitted. Accordingly our first parents were tempted by what St. Paul calls "thewiles (_tas methodeias_) of the devil" (Eph. Vi. 11). 

Again, the statement in Gen. Iii. 6, that "when the woman saw that thetree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and atree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, anddid eat, " is in accordance with what St. John teaches as to "the lustof the flesh, " "the lust of the eyes, " and "the pride of life, " beingopposed to "doing the will of God" (1 John ii. 16, 17). Also, as wehave seen, Adam was associated with a partner, who, having beenovercome, in consequence of such desires, by the wiles of Satan, committed sin, and then induced her husband to do the same. Thus, since the world at that time consisted of these two individuals, it isan obvious inference, as well as one of great significance, that Adamwas tempted just as all his offspring are--that is, by the world, theflesh, and the devil--and, as all his offspring do, yielded to thetemptation. 

Although Adam was created in the image of his Maker in respect to beingendowed with powers of {13} understanding and reasoning, and althoughhe was made capable of learning and doing righteousness, he was notoriginally _made righteous_, forasmuch as he sinned: but those whom Godmakes righteous sin no more, because all the works of God are perfect. "The first man Adam was made a living soul, " the breath of life beingbreathed into his nostrils (Gen. Ii. 7). He thus partook of naturallife, but not of spiritual life. He was, as St. Paul says, "of theearth, earthy, " and all we who are descended from him "bear the imageof the earthy" (1 Cor. Xv. 47, 49). The mind (_to phronêma_) of thisnatural man is at "enmity with God, " and "neither is, nor can be, subject to the law of God" (Rom. Viii. 7). This accounts for ourperceiving in children from their very infancy a spirit ofdisobedience, this spirit being derived through natural descent fromthat which our first parents exhibited in the infancy of the world. The author of the Apocryphal Book, 2 Esdras, writes: "The first manAdam, bearing a wicked heart, transgressed, and was overcome; and so beall they that are born of him" (iii. 21). In the Wisdom of Solomonthis passage occurs: "Wisdom preserved the first formed father of theworld, that was created alone, and brought him out of his fall" (x. 1). But it is to be remarked that the word here translated "fall" is_paraptôma_, the same word that St. Paul uses in Rom. Iv. 25 and v. 16, to designate "_our_ transgressions. " {14} Cruden in his Concordancegives under the word "fall" an elaborate statement of received viewsrespecting "the fall of man, " although that word, as the Concordanceshows, does not once occur in the Canonical Scriptures in any relationto the sin of Adam. 

It is very noteworthy that after the account of Adam's sin in Genesis, no express mention is made of it in subsequent Canonical Books, till wecome to the fifth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, wherethe introduction of sin into the world by _one man_ is prominentlyadduced in an argumentative passage which appears to me to have beenmuch misunderstood. [1] The reason that a fact which is so essential anelement in theological systems is so little adverted to in theScriptures, I consider to be, that these systems have hitherto notrecognized an analogy which may be presumed to exist between God'snatural creation and His spiritual creation. From what is stated inGenesis i. And ii. There is reason to say that the natural creation wasat its beginning without form, and dark, and unfurnished, and that bythe power of the Creator, operating, we may presume, according to laws, it was brought into the state of order, light, and adornment (_kosmos_)which we now behold. Hence, arguing from analogy, we {15} might inferthat the spiritual creation has its beginning in the reign of sin anddeath, and that by the power of the Spirit of God, operating accordingto law on our spirits, it has its consummation in the establishment ofrighteousness and life. 

This analogical inference suffices, I think, to explain why, after thebrief initial account of the entrance of sin and death into the world, the purport of the whole of Scripture is to record the subsequentprevalence of sin, and to reveal by what means grace abounded in thegift of righteousness, and how it abounded all the more because the lawof sin and death "passed" from one man "upon all men" (Rom. V. 12). The apostle Paul argues that whereas "_death_ reigned through one, _much rather_ shall they who receive the abundance of grace and of thegift of righteousness reign in _life_ through one Jesus Christ" (Rom. V. 17); and in accordance with this doctrine he adds (v. 20), "The lawentered by the way (_pareisêlen_) _in order that_ the offence mightabound, but where sin abounded grace did much more abound. " It seemsimpossible to draw from such sentences as these any other inferencethan that, according to the scheme of the spiritual creation, the reignof sin and death is the necessary antecedent of the evolution of lifefrom righteousness. 

The apostle sums up his argument by saying (v. 19), "For as by thedisobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so also by theobedience {16} of one shall the many be made righteous" (_dikaioikatastatêsontai oi polloi_). It is evident that "the many" hereincludes all that are born in the world, in contradistinction to "theone, " Adam, who was created, and from whom all have descended bynatural generation. Now, considering that righteousness and life, asnecessarily as their opposites sin and death, are related to each otherby law as antecedent and consequent, the above revelation that "allwill be made righteous" is as direct an assertion of the immortality ofall men as could possibly be made. It is, therefore, of the greatestmoment, as regards our argument, to ascertain on what grounds we aretold that all will eventually be "made righteous" through the obedienceof Jesus Christ, and what is the exact meaning of this doctrine. Thepurpose of this essay will be completely fulfilled if it should beshown that these questions admit of being satisfactorily answered. Butbefore attempting to do this, it is necessary to have a preciseunderstanding of the previous assertion that through Adam'sdisobedience "the many were made sinners. " This preliminary inquiry Inow proceed to enter upon. 

If we adopt the view expressed in a passage already quoted (2 Esdrasiii. 21), we shall, in effect, admit that the transgression of Adam was_the consequence_ of his "bearing a wicked heart, " and that all who areborn of him sin because by _natural generation_ they {17} have receivedfrom him the same wicked heart. According to this view it must besupposed that "the wicked heart" is in respect to goodness a _tabularasa_, and that till goodness be formed in it, it is led by naturaldesires to do evil. Certainly the moral phenomena exhibited by veryyoung children accord with this supposition; and it may reasonably bepresumed that St. Paul, in giving to the Romans, to whom he had notpersonally preached, a synoptical statement of the doctrines he wasaccustomed to teach, did not set before them the Scriptural account ofthe introduction and prevalence of sin in any manner not intelligibleto ordinary minds from common experience. 

What then are we to understand by the assertion that "through thedisobedience of one man the many were made sinners"? In answer to thisquestion it is to be said that the word _parakoê_ may be taken in thispassage to signify "disobedience" abstractedly, and not a special actof disobedience, because _upakoê_ in the next clause does not requireto be taken in a specific sense, but rather as referring to that holyspirit which was in Jesus Christ, in virtue of which his will wasalways in subjection to the will of his heavenly Father, and he became"obedient unto death. " According to this interpretation, "disobedience" is here put for that wickedness of heart the antecedentexistence of which the sin of Adam gave {18} evidence of, and which, bybeing transmitted from father to son through natural generation, hasmade all men sinners, to the end that all may be eventually maderighteous by spiritual generation. 

It is true that the sin of Adam, being the first violation of a commandreceived from God, first made disobedience an objective reality, andthat thus sin entered into the world. But although _actual_transgression had this beginning, it does not follow that the_proneness_ of the heart of man to transgress was contingent on Adam'ssin, or thereby came into existence. On the other hand, it willprobably be urged that to ascribe its existence to any other cause is"to make God the author of sin. " In answer to this objection it may besaid that if it were valid as regards God's moral essence, one mightwith as good reason urge that it was inconsistent with His power andintelligence that the natural creation should have its beginning indarkness and chaos. However, whether or not this view be accepted, Ishall assume that the reality of the natural wickedness of the humanheart is admitted, and consequently the remainder of the argument, inasmuch as it has reference to the means by which the wicked heart issubdued and made righteous, will in either case be the same. 

The relation of "one" to "many, " considered only as a natural fact, isso peculiar and essential an {19} element in the past history andprogressive development of the human race, that it might well besupposed to be specially significant with respect to their futuredestiny; and, in fact, St. Paul has taught us to draw the reasonableinference that whereas through the first Adam the many, by a law fromwhich they cannot rid themselves, have been made sinners, _à fortiori_through a "second Adam" the many will be made righteous. The course ofour argument, consequently, now demands an inquiry as to the means bywhich the many will be made (_katastathêsontai_) righteous through theobedience of Jesus Christ. The future tense is particularly to benoticed. 

As soon as it was shown by the sin of Adam that the natural man isincapable of obedience to the will of God, a preordained dispensationwas begun, whereby the natural man is converted into the spiritual manand made fit for immortality. This dispensation was introduced by a_promise_, the terms of which could be understood by Adam and Eve afterthey had learned that the spirit of evil (in whom is "the power ofdeath") through their disobedience brought death into the world. Thepromise was given in the words "he (_autos_, _Sept. _) shall bruise thyhead, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. Iii. 15). Hebrewcommentators have, I think, rightly taken this passage in the sense--he("the seed of the woman") shall bruise thee at thy _ending_, and thoushalt bruise him at his {20} _beginning_. The promise, accordingly, signifies that the power of Satan would prevail _at first_, and for atime, even to putting to death the Son of God (Luke xxii. 53), but that_in the end_ that power would by the Son of God be overcome (Luke x. 18). And since with the victory over the spirit of evil an end is putto evil itself, the promise is, in effect, that Adam and his race shalleventually be exempt from death and evil, and partake of a happyimmortality. 

But in the very next sentence _conditions_ are annexed (Gen. Iii. 16-19). Because of the imperfection of the natural man, and hisopposition, through the subtlety of Satan and the desires of the flesh, to the will of his Maker, labour and sorrow, pain and _death_, wereordained to be his lot, in order that he may _thereby_ be made meet topartake of the promise. It is by reason of these conditions that thepromise becomes, in effect, a _covenant_, in which of necessity twoparties are concerned: God on His part promises happiness andimmortality, but to be received only on the above-stated conditions;and man's part is to submit to the conditions, as being ordered by a"faithful Creator, " and to look in faith for the fulfilment of thepromise. Here, then, are all the essentials of a covenant, excepting_surety_ for its fulfilment, which on acknowledged principles ofjustice might be asked for by man, seeing that he has to satisfy theconditions before he enjoys the benefit. Such security is amply {21}given by God, as will be shown in the sequel of the argument. Inshort, this covenant admits of being described in terms exactly suitedto human covenants, because the providence of God has so ordered these, that, together with other purposes, they answer this, the principalone, of making intelligible the divine covenant. This same covenantmight with more exactness be called a _will_, or _testament_, becausefrom its very conditions the benefit it confers cannot be received tillafter _death_ (see Heb. Ix. 16, 17). Also, because this covenantedpromise runs through the whole of the Scriptures, they have beenappropriately named the Scriptures of the Old Testament and of the NewTestament, not, however, as signifying that the Old Testament issuperseded by the New, but that it reveals an earlier stage ofdevelopment of the same covenant. 

The character and purpose of this covenant began to be unfolded at thethreshold of the world's history, on the occasion of offerings beingbrought to God by Cain and Abel. Abel's offering consisted of "thefirstlings of his flock and the fat thereof, " and was, therefore, proper for expressing, by visible tokens, the character of the covenantin three essential particulars: first, that it is a covenant of _life_, the animals chosen affording _food_, and that of the choicest kind, forsupporting life; secondly, that the covenanted life is entered uponafter death, the animals being _slain_ {22} for food; thirdly, thatpain and death, although, according to law, consequent upon sin, wereordained, not alone for the judicial punishment of sin, the animalsthat were slain being "_harmless_, " but for rendering the spirit of manmeet to partake of the future life. Abel was himself in his death thefirst witness (_martus_) to this truth, and by the same means manychosen servants of God have been "purified and made white" (Dan. Xii. 10). The offering of Cain was also proper for food, but as consistingof "fruits of the ground, " it was not, like Abel's, susceptible of anymeaning relative to the covenant. Grace was given to Abel to select anoffering which, as being significant of the covenant, was accepted byGod; but the same grace was not given to Cain. "The Lord had respectto Abel and to his offering: but to Cain and to his offering He had notrespect. "

The narrative goes on to say that because the Lord had not the samerespect to Cain's offering as to Abel's, Cain was "very wroth, and hiscountenance fell, " and that on this account he was rebuked. It shouldbe noticed that the terms of the rebuke have no reference to the choiceof offering, but to "doing well, " implying that Cain's conduct was not"righteous" like that of Abel. To quiet his troubled spirit, he istold that it is God's pleasure that he should stand towards his brotherin the relation of protector and ruler. Cain repudiated this relation{23} and slew his brother, acting thus as the unrighteous world, ofwhom he may be regarded as the representative, have always actedtowards God's elect, whom Abel typified. These remarks will afterwardsbe seen to bear on the general argument. 

The distinction which God made between the offerings of Cain and Abel, and His express approval of Abel's offering, might serve to make known, at the time and in succeeding generations, the purport of the promisemade originally to Adam, and the ordained conditions of its fulfilment. In fact, the special acceptance by God of Abel's offering may be lookedupon as the primary institution of _sacrifice_. The researches of menof learning have abundantly shown that the sacrificing of animals was avery ancient and wide-spread religious practice, but have leftaltogether unexplained how it _originated_, and whence arose the customof ratifying a covenant between man and man by _killing_ animals; forwhat reason also the slaying of _innocuous_ and _helpless_ victims cameto be the principal act of religious worship among the Jews, and why itwas thought among the Gentiles that such sacrifices _pleased_ the gods. These questions do not appear to admit of answers apart frominformation derived from Scripture. The answers will, I think, befound to be given by what, in reliance on such aid, has been alreadysaid, and by what remains to be said, {24} respecting the covenant ofimmortality. It is quite possible that, as has happened with respectto other practices, that of sacrificing animals was continued longafter its original signification ceased to be understood. This may beaffirmed of the ratifying of covenants by killing victims (which nosane person nowadays would think of doing), and generally of thesacrifices offered by Gentile nations in honour of their gods, whicheventually became mere matters of _custom_, without any distinctappreciation of their intrinsic meaning. In such cases all clue fromtradition or history fails, and the explanation of the sources of thepractices can be looked for only in the records of Scripture. 

It might, however, be questioned whether Abel himself, in making hisoffering, understood that it had the symbolic meanings ascribed to itabove. The answer to this inquiry, given on the authority of what issaid in Heb. Xi. 4, would seem to be that he did so understand it, inasmuch as it is stated that he brought an acceptable offering _byfaith_, and, according to Heb. Xi. 1, faith may be defined to be anintelligent belief and hopeful expectation of the covenanted life. Also, as bearing on this question, it may be mentioned that in passagesof Scripture where Abel is subsequently spoken of (as Matt. Xxiii. 85, Heb. Xi. 4, 1 John iii. 12), his _righteousness_ is specially referredto. Now, since to do righteousness {25} is to do what is pleasing toGod, and, as we are told in Heb. Xi. 6, "without faith it is impossibleto please God, " it follows that Abel's righteousness was theconsequence of his faith. In fact, according to St. Paul's teaching, faith and righteousness are by law related to each other as antecedentand consequent (Rom. Iii. 27, 28). Consequently we may here draw aninference which forms an essential part of the general argument forimmortality. For since we have admitted, as a necessary andself-evident principle, that righteousness is the foundation ofimmortality, and Scripture presents to us in Abel an instance of theattainment of righteousness by faith, it follows that _faith is a meansof partaking of immortality_. This doctrine will be farther treated ofin the sequel; but in the mean time it will be well to explain that Iconsider "righteousness" to consist in obedience by word and deed tothe "royal law" according to which, in a perfect social state, everyone would do to others as he would that they should do to him. Thisrelation between man and man should, I think, rather be called_righteousness_ than _morality_, because the latter word is derivedfrom _mores_ (manners), and does not etymologically denote "rectitude, "whereas the Greek word for righteousness (_dikaiosunê_) refers to thedeciding of what is morally right by a judge, and the office of ajudge, as respects social relations, is the {26} highest that men areappointed to discharge towards their fellow men. It should also benoticed that the "faith" I am speaking of does not consist in believingwhat is not understood, which seems to be a psychologicalcontradiction, but in believing _in consequence of_ understanding. "Byfaith we _understand_ that the worlds [or ages (_tous aiônas_)] wereframed by the word of God" (Heb. Xi. 3). In short, the faith spoken ofin Scripture is the basis of all intellectual, as well as of all moralexcellence, and is inclusive of what is usually called "talents, " or"gifts. "

The same covenant, under different typical circumstances, was renewed, first with Noah (Gen. Ix. 8-17), and afterwards with Abraham (Gen. Xvii. 1-8). The faith of Noah was exhibited not only in building anark in obedience to God's command, but also in sacrificing cleananimals on coming out of the ark. These sacrifices, being offeredimmediately after the world had been destroyed by the baptism of theFlood, were peculiarly significant of an understanding and acceptanceof the covenant of a life to come. After the mention made in theEpistle to the Hebrews of the faith and obedience of which Noah gaveevidence by building the ark, it is said of him that "he thereby becameheir [inheritor] of the _righteousness_ which is according to faith"(Heb. Xi. 7). Such righteousness, we have already argued, entitles thepossessor of it to immortality. 

{27}

So also Abraham, when God promised that the land of Canaan should begiven to his seed, "builded an altar to the Lord" (Gen. Xii. 7, 8), forthe purpose, it may be presumed, of sacrificial worship, testifyingthus not only belief of the fulfilment of the particular promise, butfaith also in the covenanted future life. That Abraham's faith, whilehe sojourned in Canaan, was directed towards the experience of theworld to come, is plainly declared in Heb. Xi. 10, where it is assertedthat "he looked for a city having foundations, whose builder and makeris God. " It was in consequence of such faith that the gift ofrighteousness was reckoned to him as a _favour_, and "he was called thefriend of God" (James ii. 28). Now, the above-mentioned renewal of thecovenant was made with Abraham, not solely in respect to his beingfather of the Hebrew nation, but in respect also to his being typicallyfather of all that believe of all times and nations (compare Gen. Xvii. 1-8, with Rom. Iv. 11, 16, 17). And all this elect seed receive, incommon with their spiritual father, the gift of righteousness throughfaith--are saved by faith; so that the doctrine that faith is the meanswhereby the elect are made meet for immortality, which was inferredfrom the history of Abel, is exemplified in a more comprehensive mannerby what is recorded of Abraham. 

We have argued above that the patriarchs Noah {28} and Abrahamtestified their belief and acceptance of the covenant of life bysacrifice. But in the patriarchal times the only surety for thefulfilment of the promise was the direct word of God. With theexception of what is said of Melchisedek, who typified a High Priest tocome, no mention is made of the mediation of priests till thepriesthood of Aaron was regularly constituted. From that time thepriest was mediator between God and the people, and in virtue of hisoffice gave assurance of the fulfilment of the covenant to those who, by offering clean animals for sacrifice, signified their acceptance ofits conditions. The priest gave such assurance by mediatoriallyreceiving the offerings, and representing, by sprinkling the blood ofthe slain animals, _the purifying effect of the suffering of death_. After the ordinances of the law had been instituted, Moses said to thepeople, "I have set before you life and death: choose life" (Deut. Xxx. 19). Seeing that no one can escape the death which is the terminationof the present life, this choice between life and death necessarilyrefers to the covenanted life, the fulfilment of the conditions ofwhich secures from death in the world to come. The author of theApocryphal Book 2 Esdras, who was wiser, I think, than the author of"The Divine Legation of Moses, " has shown that he so understood thepassage; for after saying (vii. 48, 44), "The day of doom shall be theend of this time, and the {29} beginning of the immortality for tocome, wherein corruption is past, intemperance is at an end, infidelityis cut off, righteousness is grown, and truth is sprung up, " he adds(in _v. _ 59) with reference to this description of the life to come, "This is the life whereof Moses spake unto the people while he lived, saying, Choose thee life, that thou mayest live. "

Sacrifice remained the chief symbol of religious faith up to the timeof that great sacrifice of the Son of God, the acceptance of which bythe Father sealed the covenant of everlasting life, and made all othersureties sure. The ground of assurance lies in the fact that JesusChrist in his life and death went through all the experience whereby_our_ spirits are formed for immortality. "He learned obedience by thethings that he suffered" (Heb. V. 8). He was made perfect "throughsufferings" (Heb. Ii. 10). "He made him to be sin (_hamartian_;compare Gal. Iii. 13) for us, who knew no sin, that we might be madethe righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. V. 21). Joining with thesepassages that remarkable one in which Christ is spoken of as "a priestwho is made according to the power of an indissoluble (_akatalytou_)life" (Heb. Vii. 16), it is evident that our community with him insuffering, in death, and, as we have reason to hope, in resurrection, is ample surety to us for the fulfilment of the covenant ofimmortality. For as death is the dissolution of life, indissoluble{30} life means exemption from death, and is, therefore, identical withimmortality. 

That suffering in the flesh is efficacious, as is argued in theforegoing doctrine, towards doing away with sin, may be maintained onthe authority both of St. Paul and St. Peter, the former apostle havingsaid, "He that is dead has been justified from sin" (Rom. Vi. 7), andthe other, "He that has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin" (1Peter iv. 1). But here it is particularly to be noted that this effectis not produced upon _all_ who suffer in the flesh. These apostles arespeaking of such as have faith; and it is only when suffering isaccompanied by a faith which apprehends the covenant of life, andespecially lays hold of the surety for its fulfilment given by thesuffering and death of the Son of God, that it avails to free from sin. The elect, who through the grace of God have such faith, are drawn bythe perfect love, and the _sympathy_ in its strictest sense, which weremanifested by the obedience unto death of Jesus Christ, to follow theexample of his obedience, and thereby to attain to righteousness. Bythis reasoning it is shown, _but only so far as regards the elect_, that "the many are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. " It willin the sequel be argued that the death of Christ has another aspect anda wider effect. 

As there was no more occasion for signifying acceptance of the covenantby sacrifice after the sacrifice {31} of Jesus Christ, that form ofreligious worship came to an end. Thenceforth faith in the covenantwas to be expressed by means of symbols which pointed to the sacrificemade once and for all time on the cross. The ordained symbols are_bread_ and _wine_, taken in the Lord's Supper. The minister of theGospel has succeeded to the Jewish priest in respect to giving _surety_officially for the fulfilment of the covenant, and on that account maywith propriety be called a _priest_. There is no longer an altar, because the acceptance of the covenant is not, as in the Jewishworship, indicated by sacrifice, but by partaking of _food_ in theforms of bread and wine at "the _table_ of the Lord. " The Christianminister, in delivering these symbols to the worshippers, gives, invirtue of his mediating office, sureties for the fulfilment of thecovenant of eternal life; the worshipper who partakes of them in faithreceives them as such sureties, and looks for the fulfilment of thecovenant. No doubt this office should be discharged by a good and wiseminister, who has been regularly appointed thereto; but for theefficacy of the ordinance the chief requisite is _faith_ on the part ofthe recipient--an intelligent faith such as that which has just beenmentioned. 

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is justly regarded as the centralordinance of the Christian religion, and, therefore, of necessity hasrelation to the means whereby immortality is secured. In fact, {32} ineach of the four records of its institution given in Scripture, theword "testament" (_diathêkê_) occurs: in St. Matthew and St. Mark wehave, "This is my blood of the New Testament, " and in St. Luke and 1Cor. Xi. , "This cup is the New Testament in my blood. " What is themeaning of "testament" in these passages, and how is the testamentrelated to the "blood" of Jesus Christ? It is worthy of notice thatthese questions have received no special consideration in the recentcontroversies respecting the Lord's Supper, although in order to arriveat the full signification of that ordinance it is clearly necessary tobe able to give answers to them. As far as regards the general meaningof the testament, or covenant, its relation to our immortality, and thesurety for its fulfilment given by the blood (i. E. The death) of JesusChrist, enough, I think, has been said in the foregoing arguments; itremains to inquire, for more complete understanding of the doctrine ofthe Sacrament, what relations the symbols _bread_ and _wine_ have tothe _Body_ and _Blood_ of Christ. 

"Bread strengthens man's heart, " and "wine makes it glad" (Ps. Civ. 15). To strengthen the _heart_ is to produce confidence. Now, it maybe asserted that confidence and joy, being incorporeal entities, arethe same in essence under whatever external conditions they aregenerated. They are the same whether experienced in consequence oftaking {33} bread and wine, or in consequence of understanding andaccepting the covenant of life made sure by the body and blood ofChrist. Although physical science is wholly incapable of informing us_how_ the _corporeal_ elements bread and wine produce in those whopartake of them _feelings_ of strength and gladness (the antecedentsand consequents not being in the same category), we can yet understandthat the Creator of all things might by His immediate will attach tothose substances such effects, not alone for the sake of man's body, but for the higher purpose of thereby informing his spirit that thereis cause for confidence and joy in the broken body of the Lord, and hispoured-out blood. This view is justified by the language of St. Paul, where he says, speaking of the Son of God, that "all things werecreated through him and _unto_ him" (_eis auton_, Col. I. 16); fromwhich doctrine it may be inferred that our Lord, having regard to thecognizable effects of bread and wine spoken of by the Psalmist, said ofbread, "This is my body, " and of wine, "This is my blood, " because hisbody and blood, when "spiritually discerned, " have _the very sameeffects_. 

But why did Christ say, "This _is_ my body, " "This _is_ my blood"? Theanswer to this question may be given at once by pointing to a rule inScriptural teaching, according to which the symbol and the thingsymbolized are expressed in _identical_ terms. {34} The Bible musthave been read to little purpose by those who have not discovered thatthis characteristic pervades all parts both of the Old and the NewTestament. On this principle, when speaking to the Jews, our Lord madeno distinction between his own body and the visible temple atJerusalem, just because his body was the proper habitation of the HolySpirit antecedently to, and comprehensively of, the dwelling of theSpirit in any temple made with hands. St. Paul also employs liketeaching where he says, "They are not all Israel that are of Israel"(Rom. Ix. 6), the first "Israel" meaning God's elect of all nations andtimes, and the other the Jewish people, by whom the elect are typified. The rationale of this mode of teaching appears to be, that we could notspeak, or even think, of abstract verities, such as that Jesus Christis to us the author of life, and strength, and joy, without perceptionsand feelings antecedently derived from external realities; and the moreclosely abstractions are viewed by the intervention of their necessaryobjective antecedents, the more exact and effective will be ourknowledge. I venture here to express the opinion that all thecontention and diversity of views that have arisen aboutTransubstantiation and the Real Presence are referable to thenon-recognition of the above-mentioned principle of Scriptural teachingby symbols, and generally to an inability to understand and rightlyinterpret the {35} concrete and symbolic language of Scripture. Defectof knowledge in this respect has given occasion to many errors. Withregard to the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, I am ofopinion that the above-mentioned dogmas, and the forms of worshipconnected with them, which appear to be rightly designated as_superstitious_, have had the effect of very much keeping out of viewthe relation of that ordinance to the _covenant_ which, through thedeath of Jesus Christ, makes immortality sure. Perhaps it shouldrather be said that the superstitious practices give evidence that "theblood of the new covenant" is not understood. 

From the preceding discussion I draw the conclusion that our Lord, insaying of the wine, "This is my blood of the New Testament, " expressedthe doctrine that his blood (signifying his death) is both the _pledge_and the means, through faith, of partaking of the joy (signified by thewine) of a new and ever-lasting life. The Testament is new because itcontains the promise of a future inheritance under better sureties thanthose of the old covenant of the Law. 

After having thus considered what the Scriptures say concerning_death_, we have next to inquire what they reveal concerning_resurrection_. As preliminary to this inquiry, it may be remarkedthat the foregoing arguments relative to Christ's partaking with us indeath, are such as point directly to the conclusion that {36} we shallparticipate with him in resurrection. In St. Paul's teaching (1 Cor. Xv. 12-19) Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of the dead areevents so necessarily related that, "if the dead rise not, Christ wasnot raised up. " But the fact of Christ's resurrection wassubstantiated by so many witnesses, who saw him alive after his death, that we may with certainty infer, according to this doctrine, that thedead will rise. It is, however, to be observed that the argument ofthe apostle in the passage just quoted is expressly addressed to thosewho have faith and knowledge, and cannot be adduced in proof of thedoctrine of the resurrection of all men. For evidence as to the truthof this doctrine recourse must be had to other parts of Scripture. 

For the present purpose it will suffice to cite two remarkable sayingsof our Lord, recorded in St. John's Gospel. He first says, "The houris coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son ofGod: and they that hear shall live" (John v. 25); and then (in _vv. _ 28and 29 of the same chapter) he says, "The hour is coming in which allthat are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth;they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they thathave done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" (_kriseôs_). Thefirst passage refers to a _partial_ resurrection, inasmuch as it makesmention of those only who shall hear the voice of the Son of {37} God, and hearing shall live; whereas the other passage asserts that _all_who are in sepulchres (_mnêmeiois_) shall hear his voice, and dividesthese into two classes--those that have done good, who rise to _live_(the class just before mentioned), and those that have done evil, whorise to be _judged_. The assertion in _vv. _ 28 and 29 is, accordingly, a revelation respecting the resurrection of all the dead, and is to betaken as comprehensive of the other; so that the class that willpartake of "the resurrection of life" are the same as those of whom itis said in the first passage that they will hear the voice of the Sonof God and will _live_. As far as regards the distinction into twoclasses, this doctrine agrees with that preached by St. Paul, where heaffirms that his unbelieving countrymen "themselves allowed that therewould be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust"(Acts xxiv. 15). It may here be remarked that it is not necessary toinfer from its being said in John v. 28, 29, that "all that are intheir graves shall hear his voice and come forth, " that all will rise_simultaneously_. Rather the separate mention in _v. _ 25 of those thathear and live, and especially the assertion that the hour in which_these_ hear is not only coming, but "_now is_, " would seem to applyexclusively to the resurrection of "the just, " and to indicate thatthis resurrection is antecedent to that of "the unjust. " However, tosettle this question, {38} which is a very important one, recourse willnow be had to other passages of Scripture. 

On the principle of regarding, for application in this argument, the_whole_ of the Canonical Scriptures as authoritative, it is legitimateto refer to the Book of Revelation for information respecting theresurrection of the dead. Now, in Rev. Xx. 5 we have in express terms, "This is the first resurrection. " And again, in the next verse, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: onsuch the second death hath no power. " It is evident, therefore, thatthis is the resurrection of the just, and that those who are thus"blessed and holy" are thenceforth exempt from mortality. Thisconclusion has a very important bearing on our argument; for, onturning to _v. _ 4 of the same chapter, we find that the partakers ofthis resurrection are described as martyrs "who were beheaded for thewitness of Jesus, and for the word of God, " and generally as those who"received not the mark of the beast on their forehead and on theirhand, " which may be interpreted as meaning that by intelligent faithand righteous deeds they overcame their spiritual adversaries. Itseems, therefore, allowable to infer that this is the company of thosewho in Scripture are so often called "the elect, " who by suffering, experience, and hope, are in this life "sealed" unto the day ofredemption (Rev. Vii. 2-8, and Eph. Iv. 80). 

{39}

It is, besides, said of these chosen ones that they "lived and reignedwith Christ a thousand years, " but that "the rest of the dead lived nottill the thousand years were finished. " It would thus appear that adefinite interval of long duration is interposed between theresurrection of the just and the unjust. It is also to be particularlynoticed that the seer, speaking of what pertains to that interval of athousand years during which the spirit of evil is "bound, " says that he"saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them"(Rev. Xx. 4). This must refer to the judgment undergone by those whohave part in the _first_ resurrection, because the rest of the dead donot rise to be judged till the thousand years are ended. As to theelect being judged, the teaching of St. Paul is very explicit, where hesays, identifying himself with the general company of the faithful, "Wemust all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one mayreceive the things done through the body, according to what he hathdone, whether good or bad" (2 Cor. V. 10. So also Rom. Xiv. 10). Itis not expressly said in the passage above quoted who they are who saton thrones and had judgment given to them; but the information issupplied in Matt. Xix. 28, where we read, "Jesus said to them [that is, as the context shows, to Peter and the other apostles], Verily I say toyou, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son ofman shall sit on the {40} throne of his glory, ye also shall sit ontwelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. " A likerevelation, addressed exclusively to the apostles, is given in Lukexxii. 28-80. "The twelve tribes of Israel" is the symbolic designationof the elect--those that are sealed (see Rev. Vii. 3-8). 

It must now be taken into account that the experience and the deeds of_the present life_ alone determine whether any individual is or is notof the number of the elect. Those only who by the favour of God arejustified in this life by works done through faith are reckoned among"the just" who partake of the first resurrection. But Scripturenowhere asserts that their spiritual state differs at theirresurrection from what it was at the time of their death; rather, itnegatives this assumption by describing their state in the interval asthat of "_sleep_. " Consequently, not being yet "made perfect, " theyhave need to pass through the judgment just spoken of (compare 1 Cor. Iii. 11-15), in order that by the completion of their _spiritualcreation_ they might be made meet for immortality. To them, althoughthere is judgment, there is no "_condemnation_, " and, therefore, no"second death. " Such, it seems to me, is the Scriptural doctrine ofimmortality, as far as regards _the elect_. 

Before proceeding to speak of the judgment of the whole world, it willbe appropriate to consider here what judgment is abstractedly, and whatare its {41} purpose and effect. These questions can only be answeredby means of what is matter of human experience, and in terms derivedtherefrom. Now we all know that kings, judges, and magistratesadminister justice and judgment for the purpose of making righteousnessand truth prevail, and that for the same end they inflict punishment onthe guilty. Whatever is this is judgment, and what is not this is notjudgment. The portion of the Scriptures which speaks in plainest termsof the object and effect of judgment is, perhaps, that contained inPsalms xcvi. , xcvii. , xcviii. , and xcix. If the words of these Psalmsdo not refer to the judgment that is to come upon the earth and thewhole world in the future age, they will require to be taken in anon-natural sense. But such a sense is here inadmissible, becauseconsistently with what may be inferred, as said above, from _humanexperience_ respecting judgment, namely, that its purpose is to causerighteousness and truth to prevail, this Scripture declares in termsexpressive of the highest joy and exultation that for this end theworld is judged. 

Let us, therefore, now inquire what Scripture reveals respecting thejudgment and immortality of the rest of mankind--those who are notnumbered among the elect. First, it is clearly implied in Rev. Xx. 5, that they live again at the end of the thousand years. Next, as wehave already inferred from the words of {42} Christ recorded in John v. 29, they rise to be _judged_. If, as we have argued, it is needfulthat even the elect should be judged, much rather must judgmentovertake the unbelieving and the unrighteous? We are, moreover, expressly told who is to be the righteous Judge: "The Father hathcommitted all judgment to the Son" (John v. 22). The sinners who, acting "through ignorance" as agents of Satan, arraigned, condemned, and put to death the blameless Son of God, were not alone guilty, inasmuch as it was appointed that they should make manifest andconsummate the wickedness that reigns in the heart of the collectiveworld. For this reason Jesus Christ, in fulfilment of a justretribution, is ordained to be Judge of all the world, and of Satanalso. 

Respecting the _outward means_ by which judgment is executed on theungodly, many things seem to be said in the Book of Revelation; butfrom being expressed in symbolic language, they are generally "hard tobe understood. " I shall make no attempt to give explanations of thedetails of this symbolism, such an inquiry not being necessary for mypresent purpose; but a few remarks on the contents of the Apocalypsewhich have a general relation to the purpose and effect of judgment mayhere be appropriately introduced as bearing on the question ofimmortality. In the first place, it may be stated that its propheticlanguage and symbols resemble in so many {43} particulars what we meetwith in various parts of the prophecies of the Old Testament, that itmight almost be regarded as an epitome of these prophecies. This viewis supported by the announcement made in Rev. X. 7, which affirms that, "in the days of the voice of the seventh trumpet, when he shall beginto sound, the mystery of God shall be finished, according to the gospelHe declared (_os euêggelise_) unto His servants the prophets" (see alsoRev. Xxii. 6). It is here to be particularly remarked that after thesounding of six trumpets severally significant of judgment, it isproclaimed that the mystery of God would be finished at the sounding ofthe seventh and last, this consummation having been antecedently madeknown as a _gospel_ to the Old Testament prophets. This textaccordingly agrees with the tenor of the argument previously adducedrespecting the final effect of judgment in establishing the reign, somuch to be desired, of truth and righteousness. At the end of thejudgment "the temple of God is opened in heaven, and there is seen inHis temple the ark of His covenant" (Rev. Xi. 19). This is thecovenant of immortality, which, having been originally made (as hasalready been indicated) with Adam after his transgression, wasafterwards renewed with Noah and with Abraham, was represented bysymbols and proclaimed orally by Moses in the wilderness, and, finally, was confirmed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 

{44}

Equally remarkable is another revelation, which tells us that theelect, the one hundred and forty-four thousand who have been madeperfect by the experience they have gone through in the thousand yearsof the first resurrection, are joined with the Son of God in theexecution of the general judgment. In Rev. Xix. 14, it is said that"the armies in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in finelinen, white and clean. " This clothing proves that the attendant armyconsisted of the saints made perfect in righteousness, as will beevident by comparing _vv. _ 7 and 8 of the same chapter. In _v. _ 15 itis asserted respecting "The Word of God, " that "he shall rule thenations with a rod of iron;" and he says himself, speaking of hisfaithful followers, "To him that overcometh and keepeth my works untothe end will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them witha rod of iron" (Rev. Ii. 26, 27). Also we have in Psalm cxlix. 6-9, "Let a two-edged sword be in their hand, to execute vengeance upon thenations, punishments upon the peoples; to bind their kings with chains, and their rulers with fetters of iron; to execute upon them thejudgment written: this honour have all His saints. " Moreover, St. Paulwrites to the Corinthians: "Do ye not know that the saints shall judgethe world?" "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" In short, thedoctrine of Scripture on this prerogative of the saints is veryexplicit. 

{45}

Again, it is uniformly affirmed in Scripture that every one will bejudged "according to his works. " Of course, "words" are included in"works;" for our Lord said expressly, "Every idle word that men shallspeak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment; for bythy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt becondemned" (Matt. Xii. 86, 87). It would seem that the judgment, asbeing conducted by _external_ means, takes account of human _thoughts_only so far as their consequences are manifested by overt deeds andspoken words. It is not the less true, according to the doctrine ofthe Lord himself (in Mark iv. 22, and Luke viii. 17), that in the dayof judgment all secret and hidden things will be revealed. The wordsin St. Mark, "neither was anything kept secret but in order that(_hina_) it should come abroad, " seem expressly to indicate therelation in which things hidden in the present age stand to therevelations of that day. St. Paul also writes to the Romans, speakingof them who have not received the law by direct communication: "Theyshow the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciencebearing them witness, and their thoughts, one with another, accusing, or also excusing, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ" (Rom. Ii. 15, 16). (This, I think, should be the translation of the passage. ) It may benoticed that {46} here again "gospel" is mentioned in connection with"judgment. "

Now, the very terms, "judgment according to works, " imply that theworks brought into judgment are not all equally bad, and that there maybe both "good and bad;" which also may be inferred from the passagejust quoted from the Epistle to the Romans. In fact, it is not toomuch to assume that all the deeds and experience of the present lifeare contributory in different ways to the final purpose of thejudgment. We have already argued, in accordance with what is said in 2Cor. V. 10, that the saints will be judged according to their works, and from 1 Cor. Iii. 11-15, we learn that their works will be tried byfire, but they themselves will be saved, "yet so as by fire. " We havenow to enter upon the important inquiry as to whether Scripture revealsan analogous dispensation with respect to the rest of mankind. 

Hard as it may be for us to conceive by what means the deeds andexperience of all men, the living and the dead, will be brought underreview in the day of judgment, that so it will be is undoubtedly theteaching of Scripture. Our understanding of this wonderful event mayperhaps be assisted by taking into account what St. Paul said to theAthenians: "In Him we live, and move, and have our being;" whence itmay be inferred that all our works and {47} words, and even feelingsand thoughts, are known to God. With reference to this question, itwould, I think, be legitimate to call to our aid the knowledge of theexternal creation, which has been so largely extended in the presentday. After long attention given to the acquisition of such knowledge, I seem to see that it points to the conclusion that all the forces ofnature are resident in a universal aetherial medium, extending throughall space, and pervading all visible and tangible substances, by theintervention of which all power is exerted, whether it be by theimmediate will of God, or mediately, by that of angels or of men. (Iassume that there can be no exertion of power apart from the will andconsciousness of an agent. ) Consequently the Spirit of the Universemust be cognizant of every exertion of power and of its effects. Tothis consideration another of peculiar significance is to be added. The faculty which we possess to a limited extent, depending on bodilyconditions and organization, of _remembering_ the consequences ofexerted power, whether as operating ourselves, or being operated upon, must be conceived of as pertaining, without any limitation, to theCreator of the aetherial substance and the Source of all power. Inthis manner it seems possible to understand how all actions and allevents may be written down (speaking metaphorically) in the Book ofGod's _remembrance_, and so be brought into judgment. 

{48}

The universality and the character of the future judgment are declaredin Rev. Xx. 11-13, with particular reference to the presence andmajesty of "One who sat on a great white throne, " who, doubtless, isGod the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. The seer says in thispassage, "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and thebooks were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book oflife: and the dead were judged out of those things which were writtenin the books, according to their works. " The mention made of "thebooks" indicates that what is here said of the general judgmentpertains exclusively to God the Father, by whose almighty power andomniscience, as I have endeavoured to show in the preceding paragraph, all the deeds and experience of the present life are held inremembrance to be brought under judgment. But it would be an error tosuppose that this general judgment is different from that the processand results of which, as effected through the Son of man and hisattendant armies, are symbolically described in previous parts of theApocalypse. The judgment was ordained by decree of the Father, andprearranged by His wisdom, and in accordance therewith it is executedby the Son, who, apparently on this account, speaks thus of himself:"To him that overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne, as Ialso overcame and sat with my Father in His throne" (Rev. Iii. 21). This throne {49} which the Son shares with the Father may be presumedto be the seat of power exercised in judgment (compare Rev. Ii. 26, 27). Why "the book of life" is mentioned in connection with the booksfrom the contents of which the dead are judged, will be shown in thesequel of the argument. 

There are other considerations relating to the future judgment which itis necessary to enter into in order to complete the argument for theimmortality of all men. We live in a world in which sorrow and painand death abound everywhere and at all times, and although these areactual consequences of sin, inasmuch as they would be non-existent ifsin did not antecedently exist, it is not the less true that the _law_which in the present time of imperfection connects suffering with sin, tends in its operation towards bringing on eventually a state ofperfection. Thus there is a final cause for that law. I have already(page 14) illustrated this doctrine by reference to the process wherebythe actual condition and adornment of this earth were elaborated by theoperation of physical laws out of a state of darkness and chaos. Thisview is corroborated by the noticeable fact that suffering in thislife, whether caused by the three scourges, war, pestilence, andfamine, or what we call accident, or by the injustice and cruelty ofmen, by no means in proportion to guilt, since even the innocentthereby sometimes suffer. Now, as all {50} human deeds and experienceare taken cognizance of in the great day of judgment, it must beadmitted that sufferings of the kind just mentioned will be included inthe account. In what way, and with what effect, will, I think, be tosome extent indicated by the following considerations. 

Besides the principle of animal life (_psyche_) which man partakes ofin common with the creatures of a lower order, there is within him aspirit (_pneuma_) which is being formed, educated, and built up, allthe time that it is the tenant of a corporeal "vessel. " On account ofthis law of progressiveness, the spirit of a child, as we can all see, differs in its feelings and its understanding from that of a man. Inshort, spirit perfected is the principle of immortal life. Now, duringour waking hours our spirits are replete with consciousness andthought, which, however, at the moment of falling asleep depart fromus. The spirit is then taken into the keeping of the angels of God, tobe by them restored into its place in the body at the moment of wakingup and of return to consciousness. In like manner at death the spiritsof all men, good and wicked, pass into the custody of the Creator ofspirits, to wait for the return to consciousness by being on themorning of their resurrection again united with body, --not, however, with the same natural body, but with a spiritual body (1 Cor. Xv. 44). The union of spirit with bodily essence appears to be a {51} necessarycondition of human consciousness, and to have been ordained for thespecial reasons that we are destined to live hereafter not onlyindividually, but in _social_ relations also, and that only through themedium of body is there communion between one man's spirit and that ofanother. 

This being understood, it is next to be observed that in the formingand building up ("edification") of spirit, the human _will_ isconcerned, and that, according to a man's choice of action, his spiritmay be educated for being good or for being wicked, may be sanctifiedor defiled. There is, in short, no act or experience in human lifewhich in this respect is indifferent. But what the spirit is thus madeduring its passage through this life, such it is when it is taken intothe hands of its Creator, and such, as we may conclude from theteaching of Scripture and from its having in the mean time existedapart from body, it will be, with all its imperfections, on the day ofits resurrection. It has already been maintained that, because ofimperfection, it is necessary that even the elect should be judged, tothe end that by this means their spirits may be made perfect. But ourconcern now is with the effect of judgment on those who are not of thenumber of the elect. For the purpose of illustrating what I am aboutto say on this head, I shall begin with making an application of theargument in a particular instance. 

{52}

I have recently seen it stated, among the news of the day, that it isthe practice of a barbarous African king to cut off the heads of twelveor more of his subjects, merely to pay a compliment to a distinguishedvisitor. Are we to think that this transaction both begins and endshere? Although we have no ground for asserting that the victims inthis case are to be counted among God's elect, inasmuch as they must besupposed to be devoid of the faith and righteousness which arenecessary to constitute a title to that high privilege, we may yetbelieve that the bodily suffering they endured was contributory to theformation of their spirits for their future destiny. If even those whohave "understanding"--elect saints--have undergone sufferings and been"beheaded" in order that thus they might be "purified and made white, "(compare Dan. Xi. 33-35, and xii. 10, with Rev. Xx. 4), why should wenot believe that the sufferings of those poor Africans, who are equallychildren of God, had like effect? That suffering is in this mannerefficacious is proved by the sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross, who, after having proved by his miracles that he had all human illsunder control, _voluntarily_ submitted to be made perfect by enduringshame and pain, that thus he might both exemplify and justify the waysof God in the creation of immortal spirits. This sacrifice is a fulland sufficient explanation of all the evil in the world. When, therefore, in the time of the {53} resurrection of the unjust theslayer and the slain, in this instance, appear before the judgment-seatof God, and are condemned, as not being among those who are saved inthe first resurrection, to undergo the second death, is it notreasonable to conclude that the tribulation and pain of that event willfall much more heavily on the murderer than on those he slew, and thatthe punishment and sufferings that have still to be endured in orderthat the final purpose of the judgment may be accomplished, will beinflicted with far greater severity on him than on them? (See on thispoint what is said concerning the future judgment in the Wisdom ofSolomon vi. 3-6. )

On this principle many apparent anomalies in the present age of theworld admit of explanation. Why, for instance, is so large aproportion of mankind condemned, irrespective of their deserts, to bepoor, and to labour with their hands in anxiety for the maintenance ofthemselves and their families? We have reason from Scripture to saythat such conditions of life, if united with the _faith_ that looks forbetter things to come, may be counted among means ordained by God forpreparing the spirits of His elect for their destined inheritance("Hate not laborious work, neither husbandry, which the Most High hathordained" [Ecclesiasticus vii. 15]). And where such faith is absent, may we not still say that conditions of the present life to which thegreat mass of mankind are {54} subject must be contributory to formingtheir spirits for their future existence? Leaving out of considerationwho are the elect, and who not, which God only knows, can we think thatthe patience of the labourer and artisan, the endurance of theseafaring man, and the devotedness of the soldier, who at the call ofduty, and in spite of the promptings of self-preservation, exposeshimself to almost certain death on the field of battle, have norelation to their future destiny? As regards, especially, the spiritof self-sacrifice of the soldier, so opposed to all the calculations ofpersonal interest, it seems to me that the desire of glory, or theexpectation of reward, will not wholly account for it, but rather thatit is indicative of there being in the warrior's breast an undefinedconviction that he better fulfils the purpose of life by braving apainful death than by living at home in ease. It is worthy of remarkthat although in Scripture war is spoken of as a calamity, theoccupation of a soldier is nowhere condemned, but is rather commendedon account of its disciplinary effect and abstractedness from theaffairs of life (see 2 Tim. Ii. 3, 4). It should be observed that thedifferent kinds of human experience adverted to above are all supposedto stand apart from personal acts done in violation of the dictates of_conscience_. Such acts will doubtless be tried by the course of thegeneral judgment, and will have effect in the condemnation of theoffenders, and {55} in punishment awarded according to the guiltinessof their deeds. 

The calamities of human life may be put generally under the two headsof "tribulation" and "slaughter"--different kinds of sorrow andtrouble, and different kinds of death. These constitute the groaningand travailing of the whole creation unto the time being (_a chri tounun_), spoken of by St. Paul in Rom. Viii. 22 and called in St. Markxiii. 8, the beginnings of sorrows (_ôdinôn_). But in the time of theworld to come, the same forms of suffering have their consummation andending. In Rev. Vii. 14, mention is made of "_the_ great tribulation, "and at the same time of "a countless multitude who come out of it. "This can be no other than that "great tribulation" respecting which ourLord said, according to St. Matt. Xxiv. 21, that it will be "such aswas not since the beginning of the world to this time, _nor ever shallbe_, " and according to St. Mark xiii. 19, that "those days shall beaffliction such as was not from the beginning of the creation which Godcreated unto this time, _neither shall be_. " The identity of theevents spoken of in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse may also beinferred from the words _cheimônos_ (tempest-time) and _sabbatô_ (onthe sabbath) contained in Matt. Xxiv. 20, the former referring to thestorm of indignation and wrath which proceeds from "the Lamb" when hecomes to execute Judgment, and the latter to the time in which the {56}judgment takes place, which is designated the sabbath, or seventh day, as following upon the termination of the present age of the world, andalso as being that sabbath of which, as said in Luke vi. 5, "the Son ofman is Lord. "

Again, in proof of the doctrine that the process, or effect, of thegeneral judgment is characterized in Scripture as "slaughter, " Isa. Xxxiv. 1-6 may be cited, it being said in that passage that "theindignation of the Lord is upon all nations, " that "he hath deliveredthem to the slaughter, " and in connection therewith that "all the hostof heaven shall be dissolved, and the heaven shall be rolled togetheras a scroll" (compare Rev. Vi. 18-14). Of the same import is theprophecy in Rev. Xiv. 14-20, at the end of which the treading of "thegreat winepress of the wrath of God" is described in terms closelyagreeing with those in Isa. Lxiii. 1-4. We have, besides, theremarkable passage, Rev. Xix. 17-21, which represents the fowls ofheaven as being called together to feast on the flesh of the slain, after great slaughter had been wrought by "the sharp sword" whichproceeds out of the mouth of him who is called "The Word of God. " Thissword represents the cutting and destructive effect of the words ofjudgment and condemnation which the Son of God will pronounce onsinners when he comes to judge the whole world. It is not necessaryfor my purpose to interpret particularly the symbolism {57} containedin the passages just quoted; it suffices to draw from them the generalinference that, as regards _all_ men, trouble and pain and death in thepresent age of the world are the beginnings of an [oe]conomy forforming spirits for immortality, which is destined to be consummated inthe age to come. 

To complete the argument from Scripture it only remains now to takeinto consideration those passages which expressly reveal the effect ofthe general judgment, and to ascertain what relation the revelationshave to the question of immortality. These passages are of two kinds, some being composed entirely of symbolic language requiringinterpretation, while others are expressed in terms that may be readilyunderstood. The former must be supposed to admit of being interpretedconsistently with the plain meaning of the other kind. Accordingly, for the purpose above mentioned, I proceed now to offer aninterpretation of Rev. Xx. 11-15, this passage evidently giving asynoptical account, in symbolic terms, of the process and the effect ofthe general judgment. 

I have already adverted (p. 48) to the contents of _vv. _ 11 and 12, sofar as they refer to the Person of the Judge, and to His judging thedead, according to their works, "out of the things written in the_books_. " "The great _white_ throne" (_v. _ 11) is evidently the seatof righteous judgment. The inspired writer, in order {58} to accountfor his seeing in vision the dead, "small and great, standing beforethe throne, " reveals, besides, that "the sea gave up the dead that werein it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them" (_v. _13). Now, the context hardly allows of taking "the sea" here in itsliteral objective sense, requiring rather the interpretation that thenatural sea symbolizes by its invisible depths the incognizable stateof the dead before resurrection. In the "new heaven and earth, " whichis the end of all creation, "sea exists no longer" (Rev. Xxi. 1). Hades, as apparently might be inferred from the proper sense of theword, signifies that invisible state of departed spirits which, as justsaid, is symbolized as being concealed in the depths of "the sea, " andalso, as I have already pointed out, has to death a necessary relationof sequence ("Hades followed with him" [Rev. Vi. 8]). This explainswhy Death and Hades are represented as a conjoint power havingpossession of the dead. In Rev. I. 18, as well as in Rev. Vi. 8, theyare mentioned in close connection, and in the latter passage power issaid to be given to them in common. 

I take occasion to make some remarks here on 1 Peter iii. 19, as thesense of this passage might be thought to be contradictory to themeaning assigned above to Hades. It affirms that "in spirit Christwent and preached to the spirits in custody {59} (_en phylakê_). " Now, the literal meaning of the concrete terms, "went and preached"(_poreutheis ekêruxen_), is _excluded_ by "in spirit" going before, andthey consequently require an abstract interpretation. It has alreadybeen argued (p. 50) that the word "custody" applies to departed spiritsin the sense of their being in the _keeping_ of the Creator of spirits;whence it follows that "spirits in custody" and "spirits in Hades" havethe same meaning. But neither of these expressions signifies anythingas to _locality_, for the simple reason that locality cannot bepredicated of spirit apart from body. The abstract interpretation ofthe passage of St. Peter may, I think, be reached by the followingargument. The word _ekêruxen_ above cited is not that ordinarily usedwith respect to preaching the Gospel, and therefore it is the more tobe noticed that where Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness" (2Peter ii. 5), the Greek word is _kêruka_. May we not hence infer thatNoah, by "the spirit of Christ" which was in him (compare 1 Peter i. 11), preached to the unbelieving and "disobedient" of his day, and thattheir spirits, although the world in which they lived was so long sincedestroyed by the Flood, are, together with all other departed spirits, still in God's custody, to be hereafter raised up and judged? We arefarther informed respecting Noah's preaching, which consistedapparently of deeds rather than of words, that "by preparing an ark forthe {60} saving of his house, he condemned the world, and became heirof the righteousness which is according to faith" (Heb. Xi. 7). 

We have now to inquire what interpretation may be given to the symboliclanguage (in Rev. Xx. 14) which affirms that "Death and Hades were castinto the lake of fire, " and that "this is the second death, the lake offire. " The first mention of the lake of fire occurs in Rev. Xix. 20, where it is described as "burning with brimstone, " and both "thebeast, " and "the false prophet" associated with him (_ho met autou_), are said to be "cast alive" into this lake. But the rest (_oiloipoi_), namely, "the kings of the earth and their armies, gatheredtogether to make war against him who sat on the horse and against hisarmy, " were slain by the sword that proceeds out of his mouth, that is, by the sharp and searching words of righteousness and truth, wherebyhe, "The Word of God, " judges and pronounces condemnation in the lastday (compare John xii. 48). In Rev. Xx. 7-10, we are farther told thatSatan, after being let loose from prison at the end of the thousandyears when "the rest of the dead" live again (v. 5), and aftercollecting together all the _risen_ nations of the earth, "the numberof whom is as the sand of the sea" (v. 8), leads them to theirdestruction in battle against the God of heaven, and is himself "castinto the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast {61} and thefalse prophet" (v. 10). Consequently, "Satan, " who is opposed to Godthe Father, the God of heaven, "the beast, " which, as signifying thespirit of the world, is opposed to the Holy Spirit, and "the falseprophet, " who is the symbolic representative of all _anti-Christian_power objectively opposed to the Son of God, are all three cast into alake of fire "_burning with brimstone_. " But of Death and Hades it isonly said that they were cast into a lake of fire. Their being castinto the depths of "a lake" signifies that they become incognizableentities, and "lake of fire" indicates that they remain such by anirreversible law, fire being the symbol of force of law (see Deut. Xxxiii. 2). For this reason "the lake of fire" is put in apposition(in _v. _ 14) with "the second death, " which is the extinction of death. Now, Satan, the beast, and the false prophet, being regarded as_personal_ existences motived by _will_, and in that respect unlikeDeath and Hades, are cast not simply into a lake of fire, but into alake burning with brimstone, which apparently signifies that from thetime these "adversaries" cease to have cognizable existence, theirantecedent power and influence will be regarded by those who were oncesubject to them with antipathy and abhorrence, so that any return tothe same subjection will (as we say) be morally impossible. When inthe end God has become "all in all, " no antagonism remains; all {62}enemies have been subdued. Any one who is unwilling to accept theforegoing interpretation might reasonably be asked in what other way hecan explain why, of all created things, _brimstone_ is speciallymentioned with reference to this "mystery" (see Rev. Xvii. 5, 16). 

In the last verse of the passage under consideration we have, "And ifany one (_ei tis_) was not found written in the book of life, he wascast into the lake of fire" (v. 15). It is to be observed that thelake of fire is not here said to be burning with brimstone. Thissentence must accordingly receive an interpretation analogous to thatgiven above with respect to Death and Hades. When the final judgmenthas had complete effect, there will no longer be objective existence ofany whose names are not in the book of life, because all will have beenmade meet for the inheritance of life. For this reason "the book oflife" is mentioned (in _v. _ 12) in immediate connection with the bookscontaining the records according to which the judgment is transacted. I am well aware that the preceding interpretations do not accord withviews entertained by many in the present day. I remember to have hearda sermon on the text, "This is the second death, " in the course ofwhich the preacher did not once advert to the word "This, " but gave adescription, the most terrible his imagination could supply, of what hejudged to be the second {63} death. We find revealed in Scripturerespecting "the terrors of the Lord"--the anguish and tribulation, theslaughter and destruction, proceeding from His wrath in the day ofjudgment--quite enough to deter sinners from going on in sin, withoutgratuitously adding the doctrine of the perpetuity of evil, thepreaching of which seems to have the effect of hindering the belief andexpectation of the impending realities of that great day. Besides, itmay well be asked how such preaching can be reconciled with the Gospelrevelations, stated in language devoid of symbol, which are containedin Rev. Xxi. ; to which I shall afterwards have occasion to callattention. But, first, it will be necessary to inquire what is thedoctrine of Scripture respecting future "punishment" and "torment. "

On proceeding to this part of the argument it will be proper to revertto a principle which has already been admitted as self-evident (p. 9), namely, that a state of perfect righteousness and a happy immortalityare so essentially and necessarily related that one cannot subsistwithout the other. It is, however, to be said that this doctrine isnowhere expressed in such words in Scripture. In fact, the abstractterms, "essentially and necessarily related, " are altogether unlike anyScriptural mode of expression. Yet it may be that the truth which wethink we understand when we express it in such terms may admit of being{64} _extracted_ in a more definite form from the concrete language ofScripture; and, in order that our argument for immortality may be shownto rest entirely on a Scriptural foundation, I shall now endeavour toshow that this is the case with respect to the above-stated doctrine, by citing and discussing various passages of the Old and New Testament. 

In the first place, I remark that righteousness and salvation, righteousness and peace, are so often and in such manner mentionedtogether in the word of God, that we may thence infer that, accordingto a law of the Divine (Economy, personal righteousness is a conditionnecessarily antecedent to salvation (safety) and peace (see Ps. Xxiv. 5, and lxxxv. 7-18; Isa. Xlv. 7, 8, xlvi. 18, li. 5, lxii. 1, and manylike passages). For, on the other hand, it is twice expressly declaredthat God has said, "There is no peace to the wicked" (Isa. Xlviii. 22, and lvii. 21). So in Rev. Xiv. It is affirmed respecting sinners (whoare comprehensively described as those who worship the beast and hisimage, and receive the mark of his name on the forehead or the hand--intheir beliefs or their deeds) that "they have no rest day nor night"(_vv. _ 9 and 11). Of the same sinners it is also declared that "theyshall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured outwithout mixture into the cup of his indignation; and shall be tormentedwith fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in {65}the presence of the Lamb" (v. 10). The fire of the torment is theoperation of the holy law of righteousness which they have broken, andthe brimstone by the offensiveness of its smoke represents theself-condemnation and reproach of conscience with which they aretormented when their sins are laid bare in the presence of the holyangels and of the _Lamb_, who by reason of their sins was slain. Lastly, we are told that "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever. " The general signification of "smoke, " regarded as asymbol, appears to be, effect or consequence. Thus, in the remarkablesymbol of "a smoking furnace" seen in vision by Abraham (Gen. Xv. 17), the fire of the furnace may represent the operation of the law, and thesmoke may symbolize "the abounding" of the sins of mankind consequentupon that operation (see Rom. V. 20; also compare 2 Esdras iv. 48). But in the passage before us we have "smoke of torment, " of which smokeit is said that it "ascends up for ever and ever, " signifying, it wouldseem, the perpetuity of the _effect_ of the torment. Thisinterpretation accordingly agrees with that previously given (p. 61)relative to "the lake of fire burning with brimstone. " There is, however, this difference to be noted, that whereas the present passagerelates especially to the effect of the _pain and torment_ attendantupon the _process_ of being judged, the other speaks of the effect ofthe second _death_ to {66} which the wicked, after being tried by thejudgment, are condemned. 

The portion of Scripture contained in Matt. Xxv. 31-46, gives, concerning the awards to be respectively adjudged to the righteous andunrighteous, and the final consequences of the judgment, certainrevelations, symbolically expressed, which are made by the Lordhimself, the future Judge. In order to complete the argument fromScripture respecting the effect of judgment, we must endeavour tointerpret these revelations. "When the Son of man shall come in hisglory, and all the holy angels with him, he will sit on the throne ofhis glory: and all nations will be gathered before him: and he willseparate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep fromthe goats; and he will place the sheep on his right hand, and the goatson his left" (_vv. _ 31-33). We are thus told that all of all nationswill come into the presence of the Judge, and that he will separatethem into two portions, as distinct the one from the other as sheep arefrom goats. From what is said farther on we gather that one portionare "the just" (_oi dikaioi_, _v. _ 37), and the other the unjust; butno mention is made of a particular process of separation. Consequentlythere is nothing here which contradicts the conclusion before arrivedat (p. 38), that the just are separated from the unjust by partaking ofthe first resurrection; rather, that conclusion is in {67} accordancewith this revelation respecting the place of honour "on the right hand"being assigned to the just, and their being prepared to receive it whenthe whole assembly, just and unjust, are gathered together before theJudge. In _v. _ 34, as also in _v. _ 40, the Judge is called "the King"(_ho Basileus_), forasmuch as he is "the faithful and true" One, who"in righteousness judges and makes war, " and to whom belongs in aspecial manner the title of "King of kings and Lord of lords" (see Rev. Xix. 11, 16). 

We have next to consider the statements of the grounds on which theawards are made, which are very remarkable. "Then shall the King sayto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit thekingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I washungry, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I wasa stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came to me. Then shall therighteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fedthee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we theesick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer andsay to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto oneof the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" {68} (_vv. _84-40). What is chiefly noteworthy in these words is, that the Judgeidentifies himself with suffering humanity, and accounts as "brethren"even "the least" of those that suffer, having, when he "dwelt amongus, " participated in the toils and afflictions to which sinful man issubject (although "in him was no sin), " and submitted in the end to theshame and pain of dying on the cross, although he had shown by hismiracles that he had power over death and all the ills of humanity. Asis written in Isaiah liii. 4, "He hath borne _our_ griefs and carried_our_ sorrows. " This the Son of God voluntarily took upon himself outof love and compassion towards us, knowing that, by ordinance of hisFather, the Creator of spirits, "we must through many tribulationsenter into the kingdom of God" (Acts xiv. 22), and be made heirs ofimmortality, and that consequently we had need of such assurance ofobtaining the appointed inheritance as that which is given by hispartaking with us of life, death, and resurrection (see what is said onthis part of the subject in p. 29). Besides this, the sympathy ofJesus Christ with human suffering, which was also shown by his miraclesof healing, is specially a reason for giving _practical_ proof, by actsof benevolence and mercy towards our fellow men, that we partake of thesame spirit. It is with reference to such _outward_ evidence of faithand righteousness, that the decision of the Judge, given {69} in thepassage above quoted, is pronounced. It seems, too, from the questionsput to the Judge by the company of the righteous, and the answer theyreceived, that their acts of kindness and mercy, done in humility andfaith, were accepted by the Judge, out of his sympathy and communitywith the sufferers, as done to himself, although the doers had not hadprevious knowledge or expectation that their good deeds would be soaccepted. 

The sentence pronounced on the unrighteous, and the reasons for it, arethus stated in _vv. _ 41-45: "Then shall he say also to them on the lefthand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the [oe]onian fire (_to pur toaiônion_, i. E. The fire of judgment in the future _aiôn_) prepared forthe devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat; Iwas thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took menot in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and yevisited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, whensaw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or inprison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily, I say to you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of theleast of these, ye did it not to me. " It should be noticed that theterms of this award are the exact contraries of those of the award tothe righteous. On the one hand, the King says, "Come, ye blessed of myFather, inherit {70} the kingdom prepared for you from the foundationof the world;" on the other, he says, "Depart from me, ye cursed, intothe [oe]onian fire prepared for the devil and his angels;" and theaccount of what the Judge further says to the unrighteous, and of whatthey say to him, although somewhat briefer than that relating to therighteous, is made up of exactly opposite particulars. On thisprinciple, since the decision respecting the righteous is pronounced onthe grounds of positive works of righteousness done in humility andfaith, that respecting the unrighteous has regard only to the_omission_ to do such works through presumption and unbelief. The sameexhibition of opposite circumstances and qualities, and the sameprinciple of condemnation for sins of omission exclusively of those ofcommission, are observable in the two other symbolic representationscontained in the same chapter--the parable of the ten virgins, and theparable of the talents. In short, the general purport of the chapteris to indicate, that in the sight of the righteous Judge sins ofomission, not less than sins of commission, demand condemnation andpunishment; the reasons for which appear to be that both kinds areequally violations of the royal law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour asthyself" (James ii. 8), and perfect obedience to this law is thenecessary foundation of a _common_ immortality. 

It only remains now to speak of the final issue of {71} the judgmentstated thus in _v. _ 46: "And these shall go away into eternalpunishment, but the righteous into external life. " It must be admittedthat the first clause of this sentence, taken as it is usually taken, expresses the perpetuity of evil, inasmuch as "punishment" is an evil. But after this has been conceded, there is still something more to besaid on this doctrine. It is evident from the context that by "these"is meant the ungodly just before spoken of, who, having shown, by theirneglecting to give proof of love towards their neighbours, that thelove of God is not in them (see 1 John iv. 20), are counted as enemies, and as such must be punished. For there is no neutral position: allwho do not obey the commands of Christ are opposed to him, and all thatis opposed to him is destined to be brought under subjection. Further, it is to be noticed that although the final decision is expressedgenerally in accordance with the before-mentioned principle ofemploying exactly opposite terms relatively to the righteous and thewicked, here the opposite of "eternal life" is "eternal punishment, "and not "eternal death, " the latter expression being nowhere found inScripture. May it not hence be argued that, as among men thepunishment of the guilty has not for its purpose the infliction of painand penalty, but rather is the means employed to the end that laws maybe obeyed, so the end of divine punishment is for correction, and for{72} giving effect to and establishing the law of universalrighteousness. If it should hence be inferred that the word "eternal"is applied to future punishment with reference to that permanence of_effect_ which, as has already been indicated (p. 65), is symbolicallyrepresented by the perpetual ascent of "the smoke of torment, " againstthis inference it might reasonably be urged that "eternal" ought to betaken in the same sense relatively to the "punishment" of the wicked, as relatively to the "life" of the righteous, and eternity is herepredicated of the one just as of the other. Now, although thisreasoning appears to be irrefragable, the additional arguments fromScripture which I am about to adduce will, I think, show that theremust be some other way of regarding the doctrine of future punishment, which, although not inconsistent with that to which the foregoinginterpretation of Matt. Xxv. 46 has conducted, differs from it eitheras to point of view or comprehensiveness. 

In the first place, it is to be observed that in our Lord's discoursesdoctrine was very generally taught by parables and symbolic language, which required to be interpreted in order that the abstract andspiritual truths thereby conveyed might be understood. (This remarkapplies to the whole of the passage, Matt. Xxv. 31-46, brought underreview in the foregoing discussion. ) In Mark iv. 34, it is said that"without a parable he spake not to them, " that is, {73} to themultitude, and that "in private he explained all things to hisdisciples. " Being asked by the disciples, when he was preaching to agreat multitude assembled together on the sea-shore to hear him, why hespake to them in parables, he answered, "Because it is given to you toknow the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is notgiven. For whosoever hath, to him it shall be given, and he shall havemore abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken awayeven that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables, becauseseeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do theyunderstand" (Matt. Xiii. 10-13). It is here affirmed that althoughparables from their very character are expressed in terms which the useof the senses renders intelligible, there are those who do not or willnot understand them, who for this reason, on the principle of notgiving to those who have not, are spoken to only in parables, so thatthey continue in ignorance. As every effect or consequence implies theantecedence of the _purpose_ of an agent, with respect to thisconsequence we find it stated in Luke viii. 10, that our Lord expresslyaddressed the disciples in these words: "Unto you it is given to knowthe mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables, _thatseeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand_. " To aselected few is granted the favour of being able to discern, _throughthe objective sense_ of {74} parables, the interior significationwhereby mysteries of the kingdom of God are revealed, whilst from therest--the multitude--although the objective sense is the same to themas to the others, the knowledge of the mysteries is withheld. This isevidently a dispensation analogous to that according to which, asChrist declared, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. Xxii. 14). It is also in accordance with views expressed in a previous partof this Essay respecting the distinction between "the elect" and therest of mankind. 

It is further to be considered that the Lord promised the apostles thatafter his departure from them, "the Holy Spirit would teach them allthings, and bring all things to their remembrance which he had said tothem" (John xiv. 26), and it may be assumed that after the Day ofPentecost this promise was fulfilled, and that they were thenenlightened to discern the spiritual meaning of his doctrine. In thisway it may be accounted for that while Christian doctrine restsfundamentally on the words and deeds of Christ as recorded in theGospels, it is taught in the Acts of the Apostles and the apostolicalEpistles in terms of a more abstract character, which, in fact, may beregarded as unfolding the spiritual import of the teaching, the life, and the death of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul, although he was notone of the originally selected apostles, had special grace and {75}power given him for understanding fully and teaching the doctrine ofChrist. Now, this apostle, so gifted with understanding and knowledge, writes in his Epistle to the Romans: "By the obedience of one shall themany be made righteous" (v. 19); the context evidently showing that the"one" is Jesus Christ, and that "the many" are _all_ the sinful sons ofAdam. I have already adverted to this text (p. 19), and calledattention to the significance of the future tense, "shall be maderighteous. " According to our argument, when they have been maderighteous, they are _saved_. Hence, quite consistently with thispassage in the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul has said in his firstEpistle to Timothy (iv. 10), "We trust in the living God, who is theSaviour of all men, especially of those that believe. " If thissentence had not contained the last clause, there might have been someexcuse for questioning whether St. Paul preached the doctrine of theeventual salvation of all men; but inasmuch as he adds, "especially ofthose that believe, " it is as clear as words can make anything clear, that he taught that all are saved in the sense in which he taught thatthose who believe are saved. The reason for making the distinctionexpressed by the word "especially" is, I think, sufficiently apparentfrom the doctrine, previously maintained in this Essay (pp. 88-40), that the elect righteous are raised up first, and partake already ofsalvation, honour, {76} and glory, during a certain interval precedingthe resurrection of the rest of mankind. 

Now, since all that are saved, as being at rest and in felicity, arefree from sin and evil, this teaching of St. Paul is directly opposedto the doctrine of the perpetuity of evil which is usually inferred(see p. 71) from the saying of our Lord in Matt. Xxv. 46. Thusapparently there is irreconcilable contradiction between the teachingof Christ and the teaching of St. Paul on a most momentous subject. Since, however, the same spirit of wisdom was in the apostle as in hisLord, it is not possible that there can really be such contradiction;and because, consequently, the seeming contradiction must beattributable to our defect of knowledge, or inability, to interpretrightly the allegorical teaching of Christ, we might do well, althoughno solution of the difficulty should be at hand, to accept this gospelof salvation, in the confidence that, as being declared by St. Paul inplain terms, it must be true Christian doctrine. 

I am not, however, prepared to grant that the solution of theabove-mentioned difficulty is not discoverable; and accordingly I makebold to indicate a line of argument by which, as it seems to me, asolution is attainable. The first step in this argument is to admitthe reality of that analogy between God's natural creation and Hisspiritual creation which has already been taken into consideration (seep. 14), {77} and to infer therefrom that the spiritual creation isactually in progress towards a foreordained perfect consummation. Forthe purpose of illustrating this view by way of contrast, I may mentionthat I once heard a sermon in which the preacher, who was regarded inhis day as a leader of religious thought, advanced the theory that theword "remedy" expressed the central idea of the divine scheme ofsalvation. According to this theology, which looks backwards ratherthan forwards, the prevalence of sin and mortality, and the need of aremedy for the many ills and errors that beset humanity, werecontingent on Adam's transgression. It may be granted that this is sofar true, that sin and death entered into the world because Adam wasnot made incapable of sinning. But this theory overlooks thepossibility of there being a _final_ cause for the actual facts ofhumanity, and seems to be a substitution of _propter hoc_ for _posthoc_. The analogy of the natural creation points to a different, andapparently a juster, view of the divine [oe]conomy, according to whichthe reign of sin and death in Adam and all his posterity is a necessarypart of a prearranged scheme, now actually in progress, which isdestined, by its completion hereafter, to make, not one man only, but acountless multitude, incapable of sinning and meet for immortality. Onthis point, however, after what has been already said (see p. 57), there is no occasion to say {78} more here. I proceed, therefore, tothe next step, which is to indicate certain inferences that may bedrawn from the character of progressiveness which pertains at presentto the spiritual creation. 

It may, in the first place, be asserted that "the law of opposites, "referred to in pp. 69 and 70, is a necessary accompaniment of thatgeneral law of progression. The author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, who certainly put on record many wise sayings, has thus stated the lawof opposites: "Good is set against evil, and life against death: so isthe sinner against the godly. So look upon all the works of the MostHigh, and there are two and two, one against another" (xxxiii. 14, 15). Now, evidently this duality will cease, and unity be universallyestablished, when, as argued in the preceding paragraph, thepredestined consummation is reached, and the purpose of the wholecreation, external and spiritual, is fulfilled. This doctrine of thetermination of evil appears to have been understood and proclaimed bythe writer of the fourth Book of Esdras, in which we meet with thefollowing emphatic declaration: "Take heaven and earth to witness; forI have broken the evil in pieces, and created the good: for I live, saith the Lord" (ii. 14). In the mean while, as being subject toconditions of earth, and time, and space, we are also subject to thislaw of duality and antagonism, so that we have no knowledge orperception of anything of {79} which we do not also know the_opposite_. For this reason it is not possible to make known theconditions under which men are saved without at the same time statingthe conditions under which they are _not_ saved. This will account forthe _oppositeness_ and _parallelism_ of the statements in Matt. Xxv. 46, concerning the consequences to the wicked and the righteous oftheir respective deeds, as well as for many statements of likecharacter in other parts of Scripture. But this does not explain whythe punishment of the wicked is said to be "eternal. " Relatively tothis question I submit the following considerations. 

Recurring once more to the position, that the existing order of thingsis part of a progressive scheme, the purpose of which is to createimmortal souls, it may, I think, be reasonably assumed that there isnothing in human cognizance or experience, whether it be thought orfeeling, word or deed, which is not contributory in some manner to thisend. If a mechanist, after planning a machine for a certain purpose, introduced in the execution of it parts which contributed nothingtowards effecting that purpose, would not this be considered to be animperfection? Such imperfection is wholly inadmissible in theworkmanship of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator. Accordingly, since, as being conditioned by _time_, we are capable of entertainingthe thought that the punishment of the wicked in the world to come may{80} be eternal, many, in fact, having professed their belief that soit will be, we must conclude, on the above principle, that even thisthought is contributory towards the eventual bringing in ofimmortality. But it will be asked, in what way? To this question wemay give the general answer, that as such thought is operative on humanaction, and implies the existence of _time_, it must be reckoned aspart of the total of human thought and experience conditioned by time, which was ordained from the beginning to be the means, whether in thisage or in the age to come (_aiôn ho mellôn_), of forming spirits forimmortality. Then, again, we have reason from Scripture to infer thatthe immortal spirit is in effect "spiritual _body_" (1 Cor. Xv. 44), composed of functional parts or qualities constituting it such a wholethat it is adapted for communion with other spirit; in which case the_temporal_ processes of creation above mentioned might be supposed tobe designed to give to immortal spirit a character appropriate to itsdestiny. And we may, at least, be certain that Jesus Christ knew whatwas required for accomplishing his Father's purpose of creating spiritswhich, while retaining _individuality_ and _will_, would be incapableof sinning, and that in his wisdom he employed such manner of teachingas would either now or hereafter conduct to that end. 

I take occasion to observe here, parenthetically, that whereas, according to the above argument, the {81} word "eternal" (from_[oe]etas_) is applicable to punishment because we can think of eternalpunishment by thinking of time, the word "endless" is not in the samemanner applicable, simply because it does not explicitly indicaterelation to _time_. The Greek equivalent of the English word"everlasting, " and of the Latin word "_sempiternus_, " namely _aidios_from _aei_, is used in Rom. I. 20, and in Jude 6, in the sense of_aiônios_, and, as involving like the latter the conception of time, issimilarly applicable to future punishment. But besides "_eternal_life, " we have in Scripture "_indissoluble_ life" (_xôn akatalytos_, Heb. Vii. 16), the remarkable epithet _akatalytos_ not beingetymologically expressive of time, and therefore not wrongly, althoughnot strictly, translated by "endless" in the Authorized Version. Nosuch epithet is applied in Scripture to "punishment" or "torment. "(See more on this question in an Appendix to the Essay. )

Reasoning analogous to that employed above relative to the assertion inMatt. Xxv. 46, that the wicked "go away into eternal punishment, " isapplicable to other declarations of like tenor in various portions ofScripture. One of these, recorded in Matt. Xxvi. 24 as having beenspoken by the Lord to the "_twelve_, " demands special notice. Translated literally according to the tenses of the Greek, this passageis, "Woe to that man through whom the Son of man has been betrayed!good was it for him, if that man was not {82} born. " The translationin the Authorized Version, "it had been good for that man if he had notbeen born, " may be taken to convey, regard being had to difference ofidiom, the true sense of the original. Exactly the same passage occursin Mark xiv. 21, where our translators have given, "good were it forthat man if he had never been born. " Although this translation, ascontaining the word "never, " deviates still more than the other fromthe literal rendering, it may be justified on the principle that thedeclaration, in whatever form it be made, is one in which _time_ entersas a necessary element, whereby alone it is within the reach ofthought. Accordingly, this saying of our Lord, regarded as havingrelation to experience in the world to come, is in the same category ashis assertion of the eternity of future punishment, and would appear, by applying the argument already expounded (p. 80) with respect to thatdoctrine, to be in like manner contributory towards generating in thespirit of man an incapability of sinning. It is farther to be takeninto account that these words were addressed by the Lord to his_apostles_--to the elect of the elect--with particular reference to thesin of _betraying_ the Son of man, which was exemplified by the outwardact of Judas, who also by his self-destruction exhibited the damnatorypower of the inward consciousness of such guilt. The exceedingsinfulness of such apostasy as that which Judas, chosen to be {83} anapostle, was guilty of, may be assigned as the reason that it wasdenounced by our Lord in terms which do not appear to have been appliedto any other kind of "transgression" (compare Acts i. 17, 25). 

In Heb. X. 26, 27, we are taught that "if we sin wilfully after that wehave received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no moresacrifice for sins, but a certain looking for of judgment and fieryindignation, which shall devour the adversaries. " This is apostasy notof the same degree and character as that of a chosen apostle, but stillis such that "the called" are not exempt from falling into it, as isclearly implied by the tenor of this passage. To those who thus falland do not repent, is reserved "the fiery indignation" (_pyros zylos_), which is destined hereafter to devour the adversaries. It may bepresumed that the adversaries thus specially referred to are those ofwhom it is said in Rev. Xx. 9, that having been deceived by Satan, after their resurrection at the end of the thousand years, and gatheredtogether in warfare against the beloved city, they were _devoured byfire_ from God out of heaven. Accordingly their destruction isidentical with the second death. 

2 Peter ii. 20, 21, is a passage of like import to that justconsidered. It is therein asserted of those who are overcome by thepollutions of the world after having escaped them through the knowledgeof the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that "it had been {84} better forthem not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they haveknown it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. " Thismay be taken to signify that the punishment in the day of judgmentconsequent upon sin and error arising out of ignorance, will be "moretolerable" than that which will be inflicted on those who haveknowingly apostatized from the way of truth. 

What is said in Matt. Xviii. 6, "Whoso shall offend one of these littleones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone werehanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of thesea, " may be accounted for on the principle that any form of death ofwhich the body is susceptible in this world is rather to be endured, and less to be feared, than the punishment which, through the judgmentin the world to come, awaits the enemies of Christ who put astumbling-block in the way of them that humble themselves as littlechildren and believe on him. 

Analogous principles may be applied to account for the declarationsmade in Scripture respecting blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In St. Matt. Xii. 31, 82, it is recorded that our Lord said, "All sin andblasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy of the Spiritshall not be forgiven to men. And whoever speaketh a word against theSon of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaketh against theHoly Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, {85} neither in this world, nor in the world to come. " The same doctrine is thus expressed in St. Mark iii. 28, 29: "Verily I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven tothe sons of men, and all blasphemies whatever wherewith they mayblaspheme. But whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hathnever forgiveness, " but is subject to the judgment in the future _aiôn_(_enochos estin aiôniou kriseôs_). From the latter evangelist we alsolearn that our Lord spoke these words because the scribes fromJerusalem had said, "He hath an unclean spirit. " It is particularly tobe noticed that both passages declare in the fullest manner that allmanner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, at the same timethat they pronounce that blasphemy (not sin, _amartia_) against theHoly Ghost is not forgiven. To account for this apparentcontradiction, it must be remembered that the forgiveness, or_remission_ (_aphesis_) of sin, necessarily implies antecedence of lawand transgression of the law; and whereas St. Paul teaches that "thelaw entered that transgression might abound" (Rom. V. 20), it is quiteconsistent with this doctrine to find that in the gospel of Christprovision is made for the remission of all sin and blasphemy. Now, such remission consists in "repentance towards God and faith towardsour Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts xx. 21); and therefore, when the gift ofrighteousness (i. E. The grace of Christ) is received, the believerbegins to partake {86} of a spirit such as that which was "withoutmeasure" in Christ. This is essentially a _holy_ spirit, theantecedent of which in Jesus Christ was perfect righteousness. Therefore the scribes blasphemed when they said of Christ, "He hath anunclean spirit, " it not being possible that a perfectly righteous bodycan be the vessel of an unclean spirit. 

But it is possible that the faithful, after receiving the grace ofChrist and fellowship of the Spirit, may by unrighteous conduct "grievethe Holy Spirit" (Eph. Iv. 80), and even by persistence in sin defilethe gift of the Spirit which had been imparted to them. In theforegoing passage from St. Matthew xii. , it is said that there isforgiveness for one who "speaketh against the Son of man, " whichexpression may signify, generally, wilful and overt opposition to "thelaw of Christ" (Gal. Vi. 2); but that there is no forgiveness for onewho _speaks_ against the Holy Spirit, i. E. One who by wilful and_overt_ conduct does violence to the sanctifying influence of the HolySpirit which he has already partaken of. Of such an one it is writtenin Heb. X. 29, "he hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hathcounted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholything, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace. " But not everysin committed after faith and the baptism of repentance has thiseffect. The apostle John tells us that although all unrighteousness{87} (_adikia_, transgression of the strict law of Christ) is sin, there is sin of a believing brother which is not unto death, and may berepented of in this world; and there is sin unto death, respectingwhich prayer for repentance would be unavailing (1 Epist. V. 16, 17). This is "the blasphemy of the Spirit, " which is not forgiven in thisworld, because forgiveness implies repentance; neither is it forgivenin the world to come, because beyond the grave there is no repentance. What remains for such sinners is the "[oe]onian judgment" (see p. 69)mentioned in St. Mark iii. 29, and "the sorer punishment" spoken of inHeb. X. 29, which is the same as the condemnation to the second deathconsequent upon that judgment. (I take occasion to remark that in Markiii. 29, instead of _kriseôs_, some early manuscripts have_amaritêmatos_, which, as far as I can see, does not admit of beinginterpreted consistently with the context and the usage of _enochos_. )

There is still another passage--Mark ix. 42-50--which, on account ofits peculiar significance, it is necessary to discuss with reference tothe Scriptural argument for immortality. It will suffice forconducting the discussion to cite _vv. _ 43 and 44, the literaltranslation of which is as follows:--"If thy hand cause thee to offend, cut it off: it is well for thee to enter into life maimed, rather thanhaving two hands to go into geenna, into the unquenchable fire, wheretheir worm dieth not, and the fire is not {88} quenched. " Theconcluding part of this text is evidently derived from Isaiah lxvi. 24, where the prophet reveals that the Lord has said respecting theworshippers, consisting of "all flesh, " that shall come before him when"the new heavens and the new earth" are established, that "they shallgo forth and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressedagainst me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire bequenched: and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. " This passagehas so important a bearing on the sense of that quoted above from St. Mark, that we must by all means endeavour to find out itsinterpretation. Respecting Biblical Interpretation, Burnet in one ofhis treatises has enunciated two principles, which cannot but beassented to: first, that besides the portions of Scripture which have aliteral or historical meaning, there are others which must be takenallegorically; and, secondly, that an allegorical meaning, is to beadmitted when the literal sense involves an absurdity, or contradictionto the nature of things. [2] The right application of these principlesmay be said to constitute a large portion of the science of Scripture. But in applying them it is often difficult to decide, respecting aparticular passage, whether it is to be {89} taken literally orallegorically; and again, after deciding that the passage must beallegorical, there is generally the still greater difficulty ofdiscovering what the true sense is. In illustration of the second ofthe above principles Burnet cites, apart from the context, _vermemnunquam moriturum_, and admits that these words have an allegoricalsignification. This plainly follows from the single consideration thatthe worm (_skôlêx_) here spoken of is literally that which is seen tofeed on dead bodies, and to say of it that it does not die iscontradictory to experience. When, however, the same author goes on togive as the allegorical sense nothing more definite than "_extremammiseriam_, " it may well be asked, By what kind of induction has thisconclusion been reached? The feeble worm which feeds on mortal remainspresents to our sight nothing capable of causing pain or misery. Rather it may, I think, be asserted that Scripture here adverts to thisnatural fact for the purpose of indicating by a distinct and visibleemblem that there is a living principle which destroys mortality, andwhich for that reason alone is not itself subject to death. If we beguided solely by what _we see with our eyes_, this appears to be theonly allegorical sense that can be attributed to the first clause ofMark ix. 44. [3] We have next to inquire as to the {90} interpretationof the other clause, and what is the mutual relation between the twoclauses. 

Although the worm which devours dead bodies is not emblematic ofanything that causes pain, the case is quite otherwise with respect tothe emblematic meaning of _fire_. It is evident that fire which is"unquenchable" is not natural fire, and consequently may be taken tobe, as has already been assumed, the devouring fire of judgment and ofcondemnation consequent upon violation of the law of righteousness (seep. 88). The destruction of the impenitent unrighteous by the operationof this law (which is their second death), is attended with pain andwoe such as will not have been before, nor will be after. It wasinferred (p. 84) from our Lord's teaching in Matt. Xviii. 6, that anyform of _death_ of which the body is susceptible in this world israther to be endured than falling under condemnation in the world tocome. In Mark ix. 42-48, we are taught that any form of bodily _pain_, as that of losing a hand, a foot, or an eye, is to be preferred toentering with the body whole into the "_geenna_ of fire. " This is, infact, at once the greatest and the _last_ of human suffering andtribulation. For it should be noticed that at the end of this verypassage (v. 49) it is said that "every one shall be salted [made'good, ' _v. _ 50] with fire, " signifying the effect finally produced bythe unquenchable fire. And with this agrees the emblem {91} of theworm that "dieth not, " taken as indicating that the final effect of thetorment of the judgment is to swallow up death, and to bring in, byestablishing the reign of righteousness, life and immortality. Thesignification of one emblem must be taken in conjunction with that ofthe other. 

Moreover, by giving particular attention to the context of Isa. Lxvi. 24, it will be seen that what is there revealed is quite in accordancewith the above interpretation. For, first, in _v. _ 16 we have, "Byfire and by his sword [the sword of the Word of God spoken of in Rev. Xix. 15] will the Lord plead with all flesh, " that is, in the judgmentwhich has been appointed for the trial and tribulation of all men. Then, by taking into account what is said in _vv. _ 22 and 23, we maygather that "all flesh, " having become denizens of "the new heavens andthe new earth" in which, as St. Peter declares (2 Epist. Iii. 13), righteousness dwells, "come to worship the Lord. " Of _theseworshippers_, consisting of "all flesh, " it is affirmed that "theyshall go forth and look upon the carcases of the transgressors, " which, on account of the ill savour coming up from them, will be "an abhorringto all flesh" (compare Isa. Xxxiv. 3). Thus there is here represented, but by a different figure, the same truth as that which has alreadybeen deduced from the ascending up for ever and ever of the brimstonesmoke of torment (see pp. 61 and 65); namely, {92} that the subjectingof all the deeds and secrets of the present life to the scrutiny ofjudgment, and the consequent condemnation of all the unredeemed to thepains of a second death, will have the effect of making sin against a"faithful Creator" to be seen and felt to be so hateful and abominablea thing, that such sin will cease to be possible, notwithstanding thatall men will retain individuality and volition. For all will thus atlength be made new creatures incapable of sinning. This remark mayserve to introduce the final stage of the general argument, which I nowproceed to enter upon. 

I have been endeavouring to show that the symbolic assertions in Rev. Xx. Respecting "the lake of fire" and its "burning with brimstone, " thecasting therein of the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, andtheir being tormented "day and night for ever and ever, " the judgmentof all the dead, small and great, according to their recorded deeds, "the second death, " and the casting into the lake of fire of "any onenot found written in the book of life, " do not necessitate, as iscommonly thought, the conclusion that evil, which had a beginning, fulfils no purpose and has no ending. As to this question the seergives, in Rev. Xxi. 1-4, the following explicit revelation: "And I sawa new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earthpassed away; and there is no more sea. And I saw the holy city, newJerusalem, {93} coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a brideadorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwellwith them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be withthem, their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes;and death shall be no more, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shallthere be any more pain: for the first things passed away. " Now, itseems hardly possible that the announcement of the termination of evilcould be made in terms more direct and more intelligible than these. Hence, according to acknowledged principles of Biblical interpretation, we must not attribute to the above-mentioned symbolic and lessintelligible passages any meaning inconsistent with that announcement. The arguments I have adduced respecting the interpretation of thefigurative statements contained in the latter half of chap. Xx. Aredirected to showing that these figures do, in fact, admit of meaningsconsistent with the gospel revelations given in chap. Xxi. 1-4. It isof so much importance, as regards the Scriptural doctrine ofimmortality, to establish this point, that I propose now to supplementthe former arguments by additional considerations. 

In the Book of Daniel (xii. 6, 7) we read of "a man clothed in linen, who was upon the water of a river, and held up his right hand and hisleft hand unto {94} heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever, "that at the end of an appointed time a certain purpose would beaccomplished, and "all these things be finished. " This refers, as thecontext shows, to "the time of the end" of the present age (_aiôn_). The announcement made in this manner by the man clothed in linenindicates that he is the precursor of the angel of whom, in _vv. _ 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 of Rev. X. , the apostle John relates as follows: "I saw amighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and a rainbowupon his head, and his face as the sun, and his feet as pillars offire; and, having in his hand a little book open, he set his right footupon the sea, and his left foot upon the earth. . . . And lifted up hishand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, whocreated heaven and the things therein, and the earth and the thingstherein, and the sea and the things therein, that time shall be nomore; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, in the timewhen he is about to sound his trumpet, also [_kai_, merely indicatingthe apodosis] the mystery of God is finished (_etelesthê_, aor. Ind. ), according to the gospel He made known to His servants the prophets. "The soundings of the seven trumpets are significant of progressivesteps in the general judgment; the days pertaining to the voice of theseventh angel are those immediately preceding the actual sounding ofhis trumpet, which announces the {95} completion (as indicated by thenumber seven) of the mystery of God's creation in time, and marks theend of the age (_ho aiôn ho mellôn_) following upon the conclusion ofthe present age. When all that pertains to this final interval "isfinished, " there is no more succession of events whereby time iscognizable, and therefore time is no more. The might, and gloriousinvestiture, and majestic attitude of the angel who proclaims thistruth, conspire to point out its great significance. The little bookin his hand is the word of prophecy by which we learn these mysteries. 

It is, no doubt, beyond the limit of our thoughts, conditioned as weare by time, to conceive of a state of things in which time is no more. Apparently for this reason commentators have proposed to translate, _chronos ouk estai eti_, "the time shall not be yet, " or "time shall nomore intervene. " The former of these translations is excluded by theusage of _ouk eti_ in the analogous affirmations in Rev. Xxi. 1, 4, andthe other, which is an arbitrary comment rather than a translation, isfor the same reason excluded. (I have preferred _ouk estai eti_ to_ouketi estai_, because the words occur in the former order in each ofthe three instances in Rev. Xxi. ) There can be no question as to thephilological correctness of the translation, "time shall be no more. "The unwillingness to admit it appears to have arisen solely from afixed persuasion, gratuitously and very generally entertained, thattime {96} has a _necessary_ existence, and therefore cannot come to anend. Some have affirmed that when time ends, eternity begins; which isa self-contradictory dogma, because eternity (from _[oe]tas_) isessentially time. The teaching of Scripture on this point is directlyopposed to these views; for the apostle Peter tells those for whosesake he wrote his second Epistle, to bear in mind "this one thing, thatone day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years asone day" (2 Epist. Iii. 8). This is equivalent to saying that time isnot an independent entity, but that both its existence and its qualityare determined by the _will_ of the Creator of all things. It is invirtue of our being made in His image, and partaking intellectually ofthe divine nature, that we are capable _in thought_ of givingindefinite and arbitrary extension to time, whether it be past time ortime to come. This faculty, as I have already argued in p. 80, is tobe placed in the category of the different conditions, whetherdepending on experience of the course of time, or on affections of ourbodily and mental constitutions, under which the spirit of man isformed for immortality. All such conditions are determined by thepurpose for which they are imposed, and when that purpose is fulfilledin the perfection of humanity the conditions come to an end. It isthus that the being conditioned by time eventually ceases. 

It will be proper here to meet an objection to the {97} doctrine thattime will have an end which might be drawn from the expression, _eistous aiônas tôn aiônôn_, which frequently occurs in Scripture, andseems to be indicative of an unlimited succession of ages. So far astime is under human cognizance, and has relation to human experience, Scripture speaks in express terms of only _two_ ages--the present one, which lasts to the end of the _generations_ of men in the existingorder of things; and the age to come, which embraces the course of thejudgment of all who lived in the first age, and terminates with thesecond death of those who had no part in the first resurrection. Whenit is said of the Creator of heaven and earth, that He is "fromeverlasting to everlasting" (_apo tou aiônos meôs tou aiônos su ei_, Ps. Xc. 2), and that "He liveth for ever and ever" (_ho zôn eis tousaiônas tôn aiônôn_, Rev. X. 6), the word _aiôn_ is not used to signify, as in the instances of the two "ages" just mentioned, an intervalhaving beginning and ending, but is to be taken in an abstract sense, derived from our ordinary perception of the existence and quality oftime, and from the faculty which, as said before, we possess ofthinking of time as indefinitely extended. The first of the citedpassages affirms what in these days we should express by saying thatGod is necessarily and essentially self-existent, and the other, whatwe mean by saying that He is necessarily and essentially a _living_God. But {98} Scripture uses no such terms as these, because it iswritten on the principle of employing in an abstract sense only suchterms as are rendered intelligible by personal sensation andobservation, and by experience drawn under actual conditions from theouter world. It is thus that the word "age" acquired its primarymeaning, before it was susceptible of the abstract application justmentioned. 

There is also to be said, as a reason for accepting this doctrinerespecting our relation to time, that Scripture teaches analogousdoctrine respecting our relation to _space_. When our Lord astonishedhis disciples by saying that the passage of a camel through the eye ofa needle is not an impossibility, he explained that "this is impossiblewith men, but not with God; for with God all things are possible" (Markx. 25-27). By this saying he asserted that space, and the mutualrelations of body and space, are such as they are by the will and powerof God, and by the same power might be changed. Considering, therefore, that "the new heavens and the new earth" constitute a "newcreation, " it is quite in accordance with the above inference from ourLord's words to find it said of "the new Jerusalem, the holy city, "that "the length, and the breadth, and the height of it are equal"(Rev. Xxi. 16). For a city to be such as to conform to thisdescription, it is plain that material substance and space must {99} berelated to each other in an entirely new manner, unrecognizable bypresent experience. The apostle Paul adverts to the eventual status ofthe spirit of man with respect to time and space where he says, "I ampersuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nordepth, nor any other creation, will be able to separate us from thelove of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. Viii. 38, 39). (In this sentence the recognized passage of time, the powers[_dynameis_] of nature, and the measurable qualities of space, seem allto be regarded as things _created_. ) Also corresponding to the changein the external creation it is revealed that there will be a change ofthe outward man, the natural body giving place to the "spiritual body. "It would appear, therefore, from the whole of the foregoing argumentthat our spirits, after being bound by earthly and temporal conditions, undergo complete transformation, being conjoined with bodily essencerelated in a new manner to _space_, and being also released from thecondition of _time_. But although this mode of existence may be anecessary condition of the immortal state, especially as such stateembraces associated members, it is not the sole, nor the principal, condition of immortality, as the remainder of the argument will show. 

It has already been noticed that St. Peter {100} characterizes "the newheavens and the new earth" by saying that "righteousness dwellstherein. " This is as much as to say that it is a perfect _social_state, whose end is at once the glory of God and the happiness of man. The words of the apostle (2 Epist. Iii. 13) signify that the newcreation, by satisfying this condition, is the fulfilment of anantecedent promise. Now, the argument of this Essay is in entireagreement with this doctrine, inasmuch as it was from the first assumed(p. 9) that immortality cannot consist with any other than a state ofrighteousness, and then (pp. 19 and 20) it was argued that after Adam'stransgression a _promise_ was made that himself and his race wouldeventually be exempt from the power of Satan and attain to immortality. The passage Rev. Xxi. 1-4, quoted in p. 92, seems to certify thecomplete fulfilment of this promise and to indicate the manner of itsfulfilment. But there are other passages in this concluding portion ofthe Apocalypse, which might be thought to bear a contrarysignification, to which, therefore, our attention must now be directed. 

In xxi. 8 we have, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and theabominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, andidolaters, and all lies, shall have their part in the lake whichburneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. " If wegive to this symbolism, as consistency requires, {101} aninterpretation analogous to that applied to Rev. Xx. 10, we shallconclude that sinners of all classes will eventually have no cognizableexistence, transgression being brought to an end by the effect of thegeneral judgment and the pains of the second death. This may explainwhy it is added, "which is the second death. " It is worthy of remarkthat "all lies" are said to have their part in "the lake" although thecasting of lies into a lake is objectively an impossibility. But thisvariation of the designation ("lies" being put for "liars") may beintended to signify generally that all transgression disappears, because transgressors cease to be cognizable _as transgressors_. 

There is another thing to be noticed respecting the same passage: itcontains no such clause as, "They shall be tormented day and night tothe ages of ages, " which occurs at the end of Rev. Xx. 10. Thisomission may be accounted for on the principle stated in p. 96, according to which expressions involving time are not applicable to thecondition of things in the new creation, in which time exists no more. 

I take the occasion to remark here that the above-cited clause appearsto be the only passage in the Apocalypse which asserts the perpetuityof _personal_ experience of torment, as distinct from the perpetuity ofits effect; also that the personal subject of the verb_basanisthêsontia_, according to grammatical rules, would be the devil, the beast, and the {102} false prophet, each of which is represented aspersonal, and endowed with volition and power. But these, as I havemaintained in p. 61, are the powers which, according to the law ofopposites, are antagonist to God the Father, the Holy Ghost, and theSon of God; and the assertion that they are tormented for ever and evermay be taken to mean, according to the principle of interpretationexplained in p. 97, that they exist _necessarily_, but only as theyexist, when subdued, in the contempt and hatred in which they are heldby those who have felt their power and have overcome it, this spiritualeffect being a condition of immortality. (See end of p. 61. )

It remains to speak of one other subject connected with the revelationsmade in the Apocalypse, which, understood as it respects our argument, is of very great moment, inasmuch as it has relation to the means bywhich the spirit of man is endowed with immortality. The Son of God isnamed in the Apocalypse "The Word of God" (xix. 18), "King of kings andLord of lords" (xvii. 14, and xix. 16), "the root and the offspring ofDavid, the bright and morning star" (xxii. 16), and by other titlesexpressive of honour and dignity; but no name occurs so frequently, andin such various applications, as "the Lamb. " What, it may be asked, isthe reason for this? In order to answer this question let us take intoconsideration some instances, specially {103} significant, in whichthis name occurs. From what is recorded in chap. V. 6-13 as havingbeen seen in vision by the apostle, we are instructed as followsrespecting the character and office of the Lamb: "In the midst of thethrone [the seat of the Lord God Almighty] and of the four livingbeings, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had beenslain, having seven horns [emblematic of perfect power] and seven eyes[perfection of wisdom], which are the seven Spirits of God sent forthinto all the earth. " And he came and took out of the right hand of Himwho sat upon the throne a book "sealed with seven seals. " "And when hehad taken the book, the four living beings and four and twenty eldersfell down before the Lamb. . . . And they sung a new song, saying, Thouart worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thouwast slain. " Then "an innumerable company of angels" (Heb. Xii. 22)was heard to say with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slainto receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, andglory, and blessing. And every created thing which is in heaven, andon the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and allthings in them, were heard to say, Blessing, and honour, and glory, andpower be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever. "

Then follows in chap. Vi. The opening of the seven {104} seals, which, from the descriptions given at the successive openings, appear tosymbolize the various kinds of human experience, both good and evil, which mark the course of events in the present world, all centering inthe work of redemption by the sacrifice of the Son of God; on whichaccount the Lamb _slain_ can alone open the seven seals and disclosetheir meaning. At the end of what is said relative to the sixth sealmention is made of "the great day of the wrath of the Lamb, " which, because by reason of the sins of men he was so unjustly slain, isordained to be seen and felt by the whole world after the terminationof the present age (see Rev. I. 7). The expectation of that wrath, although none can escape it, all but very few in the present day areunwilling, through terror or unbelief, to entertain. The state ofterror of all classes at the signs of the approach of that day appearsto be described at the end of the chapter. (See vi. _vv. _ 15-17. )

Next, in chap. Vii. , comes the sealing of all the elect, representedsymbolically by the sealing of twelve thousand of each of the twelvetribes of Israel, the number twelve specially signifying election. Then in _vv. _ 9-17 is recorded a most wonderful vision. The seer says, "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, whom no man couldnumber, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standingbefore the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white {105} robes, and palms in their hands: and they cry with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God who sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb. "This multitude whom no man can number, the number of whom is elsewheresaid to be as "the sand of the sea, " must embrace all that are not ofthe number of the elected and sealed one hundred and forty-fourthousand, and their ascription here of praise to God for salvationaccords with the teaching of St. Paul, that "God is the Saviour of allmen, especially of those that believe. " This is made still plainer bywhat is said respecting this multitude clothed in white robes in _vv. _14-17. The seer is told by one of the elders that "These are they whocome out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes, and madethem white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before thethrone of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple; and He thatsitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. And they shall hunger nomore, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, norany heat. For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will feedthem, and will lead them to fountains of waters of life; and God willwipe away all tears from their eyes. " It is evident that therevelation here made is _proleptical_, describing a state of thingsidentical with that which in Rev. Xxi. 3, 4 (before quoted in p. 93), is said to pertain to the new heavens and the {106} new earth. Theexplanation that may be given of this anticipation of the subsequentrevelation is referable to a principle which governs much that iscontained in Scripture, although it has been generally overlooked--theprinciple, namely, of following sometimes an order determined by_relativity_, although it sets aside order as to time. This, however, is not done except for some purpose. In the present instance, theeffect of declaring the salvation of all men in immediate sequence tothe sealing of the elect for salvation, is to indicate that the generalscheme whereby all eventually partake of salvation consists of relatedand progressive parts to be unfolded by course of time. 

The name of "the Lamb" is also given to our Lord in various otherpassages, which, with the view of contributing to the general argument, I proceed now to cite and make some remarks upon. The accuser of thebrethren (Satan) is overcome by those who loved not their lives untodeath, "on account of the _blood_ of the Lamb" (xii. 10, 11). Thebeast will be worshipped by all dwellers upon earth "whose names arenot written in the book of life of the Lamb _slain_ from the foundationof the world" (xiii. 8). "A Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with himan hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written ontheir foreheads. . . . These are they who follow the Lamb wheresoever hegoeth. {107} These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits toGod and to the Lamb" (xiv. 1, 4). The worshippers of the beast "shallbe tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angelsand in the presence of the Lamb" (xiv. 10). Those who have gotten thevictory over the beast "sing the song of Moses the servant of God, andthe song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, LordGod Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of the nations. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou onlyart holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee, becausethy judgments are made manifest" (xv. 2-4). The law given by Moses, and the gospel of Jesus Christ, constitute together a great andwonderful [oe]conomy, redounding to the praise and glory of God, and tothe salvation of man. Kings of the earth "shall make war with theLamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is Lord of lords andKing of kings, and they that are with him are called, and elect, andfaithful" (xvii. 14). 

The marriage of the Lamb and his bride--that is, the union of Christwith the whole assembly of the redeemed--does not take place till "thewife has made herself ready, " till she has arrayed herself in the finelinen, clean and white, which it was given her to put on, the finelinen being "the righteousness of saints" (xix. 7, 8). This doctrineaccords well {108} with the view taken throughout this Essay, namely, that righteousness (the "unspeakable gift, " 2 Cor. Ix. 15) is necessaryas an antecedent condition of salvation, and therefore of immortality. It is further to be noticed that this union between the Lamb and thebride is not perfected while time lasts, requiring the condition of anew creation. For it was not till the first heaven and the first earthpassed away that John "saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming downfrom God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband"(xxi. 2), and that "the Lamb's wife" was shown to him by "one of theseven angels that had the seven vials full of the last seven plagues"(xxi. 9). The performance of this office by an angel who in theantecedent judgment had been a minister of wrath and punishment, may betaken to be significant of the _means_ by which the gloriousconsummation is brought about. 

Finally, we have in the following concluding portions of apocalypticprophecy a description of what may be said to constitute the joy of themarriage supper, namely, the perfection through righteousness, not onlyof the union between Christ and the elect Church, but also of thatbetween God and all peoples. Speaking of "the holy city Jerusalem, "John says, "I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty and theLamb are the temple of it. And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the {109} moon, to shine on it; for the glory of God gavelight to it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof. And the nations shallwalk by the light of it, and the kings of the earth bring their gloryinto it. And the gates of it shall not be shut by day, for there willnot be night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of thenations into it. And there shall not enter into it anything unclean, and that worketh abomination and lying, but only they that are writtenin the Lamb's book of life" (xxi. 22-27). The seer goes on to say, "And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, comingforth from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of thestreet of it and of the river, on the one side and the other [the riverbeing in the middle of the street, and the tree spreading from one sideto the other], was the tree of life, producing twelve fruits, andyielding its fruit according to each month; and the leaves of the treeare for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse;and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servantsshall serve Him: and they shall see His face, and His name shall be ontheir foreheads. And night shall be no more: and they shall have noneed of light of a lamp, and light of the sun; because the Lord Godwill give them light, and they shall reign to the ages of ages" (xxii. 1-5). 

The foregoing citations, and indeed the whole tenor of the contents ofthe Apocalypse, clearly point to the {110} conclusion that what issymbolized by "the Lamb" and "the Lamb slain" runs through all itteaches respecting the course of experience and future destination ofthe race of man--is "the lamp" that enlightens the whole. Now, I thinkI may assert that the reason this is so is given by the argumentsadduced in this Essay. It has been maintained that on the day thatAdam fell into disobedience by the wiles of Satan, his Creator made apromise by covenant that he and his offspring should in the end befreed from the power of Satan and evil, and partake of immortality. The terms of the covenant were that man must pass through toil, andpain, and death, that thereby his spirit might be formed for receivingthe gift of an immortal life. Evidence of an intelligent belief of theefficacy of these conditions was given by the faithful of old by theirsacrificing clean animals, and surety for the fulfilment of thecovenant was given on God's part by a favourable acceptance, eitherdirectly or mediately, of this expression of their faith. In processof time the only begotten Son of God, out of sympathy with sufferinghumanity, and from knowledge of his Father's purpose towards us, satisfied in his own person the very same conditions, and thus at onceexemplified and justified the means by which that purpose isaccomplished. At the same time he made sure the grounds for belief ofthe fulfilment of the covenanted promise, first by marvellous {111}works before he suffered, which showed that he had command over all theills of humanity, and after his death, by resurrection from the gravethe third day, which gave proof of the reality of a power that couldovercome death. The miracles of Christ are an essential part of thework of his ministry, inasmuch as they were needed to prove that hepossessed power greater than that of his adversaries, and consequentlythat he submitted _voluntarily_ to be "led as a _lamb_ to theslaughter, " and to endure all the pain and indignities of the cross. Out of love towards those whom he vouchsafes to call his brethren, heshowed how they must undergo physical suffering and the pains of deathin order that their spirits might be formed for an endless life. Itwas with understanding and belief that the way to life was made sure byfellowship with Christ in suffering, that some of the most favoured ofhis faithful followers, apostles and apostolic men, willingly sufferedafter his example. 

But pain and death are not in this way efficacious for salvation, unless they be accompanied by a faith which lays hold of the covenantand promise of life made and ratified from the beginning by God, andwhich looks for the fulfilment in the world to come. Those who, havingthis faith, do good works are God's elect, who live again at the firstresurrection, to die no more. The rest of mankind, although they gothrough suffering and death, and although their {112} sufferings arenot without effect in forming their spirits for immortality (such isthe virtue of the sacrifice of the Son of God "for the sins of thewhole world"), rise to be judged for their unbelief andunrighteousness, and to be condemned to undergo a second death. TheLamb slain is appointed to execute the judgment and take vengeance onthe unrighteous. What better title could there be for his undertakingthis "strange work" (Isa. Xxviii. 21), than his having so cruelly andunjustly suffered at the hands of sinful men? Yet the portions ofScripture we have had under consideration necessitate the conclusionthat the consecration of the way to life through death by the death ofthe Son of God, which applies to the death of believers, applies alsoto the second death of unbelievers; so that this death also is followedby life. But here a difficulty presents itself which needsexplanation. Although Scripture speaks of a first resurrection and asecond death, it makes no mention of a _second resurrection_. This, Ithink, may be accounted for as follows. 

By considering the context, both preceding and following, of theclause, "This is the first resurrection, " in Rev. Xx. 5, it will beapparent that "resurrection" does not here mean simply returning tolife after death, but may be taken to embrace the whole period of thethousand years, together with all that concerns "the happy and theholy" who {113} have part therein. This interpretation is inaccordance with the sense in which our Lord speaks of resurrectionwhere he says, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given inmarriage, but are as the angels, of God in heaven" (Matt. Xxii. 30). That "the resurrection" (_hê anastasis_) designates a state orcondition of life into which the elect of God are _introduced_ byreturning to life after death, is still more explicitly signified bythe following corresponding passage of St. Luke (xx. 34-36): "Thechildren of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they whoare accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection fromthe dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage: neither can they dieany more; for they are equal to the angels, and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. " Now, it may certainly be inferredfrom what is said in Rev. Xx. 5, that the rest of the dead, who have nopart in this first resurrection, return to life at the end of thethousand years. But they return to life to be judged, condemned, andsuffer death again. This, therefore, is in no sense a resurrectionanswering to the description above given of the first resurrection, andaccordingly is not called in Scripture the second resurrection. Whatreally corresponds to the holiness and happiness of the firstresurrection state is the finally perfected and all-comprehending statecalled "the new heaven and the new earth, " life in which, according toour {114} argument, comes out of the second and last death, and isunconditioned by time. This is the heavenly state which is describedin Rev. Vii. 11-17, xxi. 2-4, and 10-27. Thus, although this may beregarded as that subsequent resurrection to which "the firstresurrection" by its very designation points, it is not called "thesecond resurrection, " because it is not, like the first, limited orconditioned by _time_. 

The portion of the Apocalypse which is strictly symbolical andprophetical begins at _v. _ 1 of chap. Iv. And ends with _v. _ 5 of chap. Xxii. The first three chapters, including the epistles to the sevenChurches, and the verses from chap. Xxii. 5 to the end of the book, maybe taken to be respectively introduction and conclusion, the contentsof which, although strictly related to those of the intermediatesymbolical part, are not of a character so exclusively figurative. This circumstance has to be taken into account in proposinginterpretations of passages contained in them. Now, there are certainpassages in the concluding part which appear to be contradictory to thedoctrine of salvation maintained in this Essay, and accordingly, beforebringing the argument to a close, I shall endeavour to ascertain thetrue interpretations of these passages. 

The angel who showed John "these things" (xxii. 8) says of himself, "Iam the fellow-servant of thee, and of thy brethren the prophets, and ofthose who {115} keep the words of this book;" and yet this speaker isnot distinguished from him who afterwards says (_vv. _ 12, 13), "Lo, Icome quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to each according ashis work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, thebeginning and the end, " who, without doubt, is the Lord himself. Thismay be accounted for by the following considerations. This angel, ofwhom it is twice asserted that he refused to receive worship profferedto him by the seer (xix. 10, and xxii. 9), is the same that is spokenof in Rev. I. 1, with reference to "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his servants things which mustshortly come to pass, " in these terms: "He [Jesus Christ] by sendingsignified it [the revelation] through his angel to his servant John. "In certain passages in the introductory part of the Apocalypse, as Rev. I. 8, 17-20, and throughout the epistles to the seven Churches, theLord speaks in his own person; and this again he does expressly in somepassages in the concluding part, as xxii. 7, 12, 13, 16, 20; andalthough the speaker in _vv. _ 10 and 11 appears to be the same as thespeaker in _v. _ 9, who certainly is the angel, such words as those twoverses contain could hardly have been uttered by any one but the Lord, and, at least, they may be attributed to him on the principle that whatthe Lord does through his ministering angel may be said to be done byhimself. It is as {116} ministering to Jesus Christ that the angelcalls himself a "fellow-servant" of prophets and apostles, and, generally, of those who keep the words of this revelation. For thesereasons in the following remarks I take _vv. _ 10 and 11 as spoken byJesus Christ. 

The words addressed by the speaker to John are (_vv. _ 10, 11): "Sealnot the sayings of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand. He who is unrighteous, let him commit injustice still; and he who isfilthy, let him be filthy still; and he who is righteous, let him dorighteousness still; and he who is holy, let him be holy still. Lo, Icome quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each as his workis. " This passage has been interpreted as meaning that in the world tocome the conditions of the righteous and the wicked are irrevocablyfixed. 

I would rather say, having regard to the precise opposition of theclauses of which it is composed, that the passage declares that in theend unrighteousness and filthiness are irrevocably separate from theiropposites righteousness and holiness; and to account for the terms inwhich this statement is made, it may suffice to refer to the principlethat according to the concrete, or objective, teaching of theApocalypse, holiness and filthiness would not be spoken ofabstractedly, that is, apart from holy and _filthy_ persons, and inlike manner righteousness and unrighteousness would not be mentionedapart from their necessary {117} antecedents, _personal_ righteous andunrighteous _deeds_. The expressions "commit injustice" and "dorighteousness, " which do not occur in the English version, are exactrenderings of the Greek. 

Another passage which, as bearing on our argument, requires to be takeninto account, is _v. _ 15 of the same chapter, which asserts that"without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, andidolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie. " This isexpressing in concrete language, such as is constantly employed inScripture, that there is no unrighteousness in the city of God. Suchlanguage, being concerned only with _objective_ realities, cannotexpress a _negation_, and, consequently, cannot assert thatunrighteousness is _not_ within the city. Hence it is not possible, except by means of such terms as those actually employed, to expressconcretely that the city of God is free from all unrighteousness. Bycomparing Rev. Xxi. 8 with the interpretation here given of Rev. Xxii. 15, it will be seen that the exclusion from the city of God of allthings sinful and abominable is declared to be effected by "the seconddeath. "

I have now completed the argument respecting man's immortality which Iproposed to found upon the words of Scripture. I have argued on thehypothesis that for this purpose the Scriptures are trustworthy andsufficient, and I have admitted that we {118} can know nothing forcertain concerning our immortality apart from the declared will of "Himwho alone hath immortality" (1 Tim. Vi. 16). Accordingly, Scripturemust be consulted in order to learn what God has willed respecting thedestiny of man. The principal result of this inquiry is, that by thewill of God righteousness and salvation are so inseparably connectedthat only as being personally righteous can man be saved and partake ofimmortality. The question, therefore, as to the immortality of all menresolves itself into inquiring whether, and by what means, all men aremade righteous. Arguments relating to this inquiry may be said toconstitute the whole of this Essay. I am prepared to expect that itwill be objected to these arguments that they are _new_, and on thisaccount that the conclusions drawn from them are not _true_. I admitthe validity of this inference if the arguments and conclusions arereally new, but I maintain that in so far as they are founded upon, andcorrectly supported by, Scripture, they cannot be new, because we mustnot suppose that the Scriptural doctrine of man's salvation was notfully understood before these days--for instance, in the days ofprimitive Christianity. As the objection on the ground of newnesscannot be sustained, the only course left to the objector is to examinethe arguments, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are soundand strictly Scriptural. 

{119}

I think, however, it is possible that Scriptural doctrine, as taughtoriginally by prophets, apostles, and apostolic men, may have become soobscured and mixed up with human traditions and accretions, thatbringing it again to light would appear like promulgating new doctrine. This remark leads me to state on what authorities I have chiefly reliedin the composition of this Essay. I may say at once that my views havebeen determined for the most part by long study of St. Paul's Epistleto the Romans, and the Apocalypse of the Apostle John. I was not, however, able to accept St. Paul's Epistle as it is translated in theAuthorized Version, nor could I agree with any commentary upon it thathad come before me. For these reasons I published a revisedTranslation, with Introduction and Notes (Deighton, Bell, & Co. , 1871), which may, perhaps, claim consideration, if on no other ground, becauseit is the production of a mind not unacquainted with classical studies, but trained especially by mathematics and the pursuit of physicalscience for inquiring respecting the method and laws of divineoperation. I have stated in the preface to that work (p. X. ) theparticular bearing which, as it seemed to me, such studies have on theinterpretation of St. Paul's Epistle. Under the influence of the samemental training, I was induced long since to direct my attentiontowards the interpretation of the Apocalypse, and I purpose {120}shortly, if God be willing, to publish the fruits of my researches. Any reader of this Essay will perceive that it contains much whichdepends on views which I entertain respecting the general scheme andthe symbolism of the Apocalypse. 

With respect to the interpretation of symbolical Scripture, I have notabstained from having recourse to books which, although they are notincluded in the Canon of Scripture, are specially adapted to revealprinciples on which the prophetical and symbolical parts of CanonicalScripture may be interpreted. I refer to three books in particular, the fourth Book of Esdras, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd ofHermas. There is historic evidence that these books were largely madeuse of in the days of primitive Christianity. The first has obtainedan honourable place in the Articles of the Church of England, owing, nodoubt, to the traditional influence which the Church of Rome still hadat the time of the Reformation. In the midst of much error andsuperstition pervading that Church, she faithfully performed the partof keeper of the ancient sacred writings, and to her we are indebtedfor the preservation for ecclesiastical use of that most instructivebook, although at the Council of Trent it was not admitted into theRomish Canon. The other two books above mentioned were long regardedby the Primitive Church as being useful for instruction in doctrine, and of {121} authority little less than that of Scripture; inattestation of which assertion it may be stated that the CodexSinaiticus contains the whole of the Epistle of Barnabas, and a portionof the Shepherd of Hermas, although no other early Christian writingsare in the same manner associated with the Canonical Books. 

In drawing inferences from the above sources of information, I haveendeavoured to keep closely to the rules of induction which haveconducted to such signal discoveries in Natural Philosophy, and torefrain from accepting any inference which the Scriptural data did notjustify. The modern advances in physical science, which have shown inwhat path we must proceed in order to reach a knowledge of God's works, indicate, it may be presumed, that an analogous method is to be pursuedin order to gain a knowledge of His word. But it will, perhaps, besaid, that if the knowledge of what is revealed in Scripture beobtainable only by means such as those which have been exemplified inthis Essay, the considerations that must be entered into are so remotefrom common apprehension, that but very few can be supposed to beendowed with capacity for understanding them. This, it must beadmitted, is actually the case, and, besides, is in conformity with thearbitrament according to which God grants to an elected few gifts andgraces which He withholds from the many. 

Yet it seems to be the will of God to vouchsafe at {122} certain timesand places, and among certain peoples, a more than ordinary measure ofknowledge; and perhaps we shall not err in believing that the prophecyin the Book of Daniel, "Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shallbe increased" (xii. 4), is being fulfilled in our time and nation. There is also a remarkable passage in the Apocalypse, which seems toreveal that before "the time of the end" (Dan. Xii. 4), the gospel inits most comprehensive sense will be preached among all nations: "And Isaw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the [oe]onian gospel[i. E. The gospel pertaining to the future age] to preach to those thatdwell upon the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue andpeople, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give Him glory becausethe hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and fountains of waters" (Rev. Xiv. 6, 7). I cannot forbear noticing the coincidence of the plain meaning of thewords of this prophecy with the views advocated in this Essay: first, in respect to calling the gospel "[oe]onian" and thus asserting itsapplicability to the future age; next, in its announcement of thegospel in connection with the advent of "the hour of judgment;" and, lastly, in the loud call the angel makes to the dwellers on earth togive glory and worship to the Creator of heaven, earth, sea, and thefountains of waters. 

{123}

But the dulness of hearers and incapacity to understand the doctrine ofScripture are not the only obstacles those will have to contend againstwho undertake to preach "the [oe]onian gospel. " There are theinterests and attractions of the present world, which, since the loveof them is necessarily disturbed by the announcement that the world tocome offers what is much more to be desired, operate, sometimes it maybe in a manner which is not suspected, in hardening the heart againstlistening to and receiving that gospel. I think that in this way onlycan it be accounted for that the passages of Scripture whichunequivocally declare the salvation of all men are comparativelyunattended to, whilst belief is generally expressed in those supposedto be of opposite import. I am apprehensive that on the same accountsthe arguments by which I have endeavoured to show that the latterpassages admit of being interpreted consistently with the others, willreceive little attention. 

There exists, moreover, in the present day so long-standing and sogeneral an inability to discern the inner and true sense of Scripture, "the letter which killeth" having been preferred to "the spirit whichmaketh alive, " that it has become a matter of much difficulty tocomprehend and explain the terms in which the gospel in its entirety istherein proclaimed, and either to give, or to receive, instructionwhich may conduce to an intelligent acceptance of it. {124} Inaddition to which there prevails a tendency to rely on traditional andformal doctrine, and to assign to it an authority co-ordinate with thatof Scripture, although as having had its origin at times when primitivefaith and knowledge had in great measure declined, and "the mystery ofiniquity" was already working, it cannot but be mixed with a humanelement of untruth. This tendency, which appears to be attributable toa consciousness of inability to form an independent judgment of thetruths of Scripture, operates at present in creating a prejudiceagainst all attempts to go beyond the boundaries by which Scripturalknowledge is assumed to be circumscribed. Nevertheless, regarding itas a duty to employ the opportunities and the ability which God hasgiven me in making such an attempt, I have endeavoured to place thedoctrine of the salvation and immortality of all men on a Scripturalbasis, and I have now only to ask for an unprejudiced consideration ofthe arguments I have adduced for that purpose. 

[1] See the notes to Rom. V. 12-20, given in pp. 36-38 of my"Translation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans" (Cambridge: Deightonand Co, 1871). 

[2] The treatise referred to is entitled "De Faturâ, Bestauratione, "and the passage cited is very near the end of it. This treatise is anappendix to another, the title of which is "De Statu Mortuorum etResurgentium. "

[3] So far this explanation of Mark ix. 44 is the same as that which Ihave given in a letter to the editor of the _Clerical Journal_, whichis inserted in the number for June 5, 1862 (p. 526). 

{125}

APPENDIX. 

I have allowed to stand in the Essay (pp. 76-81) the views I held atthe time it was composed respecting the interpretation of Matt. Xxv. 46, because I considered that these views, although in certain respectsthey are inconsistent with those I maintain in this Appendix, mightcontribute, by comparison with the latter, towards an understanding ofthe passage. The interpretation which, after long consideration, Ihave finally adopted, was first published in two letters, containedunder the head of "Correspondence, " in the numbers of the _Guardian_for December 27, 1877, and January 16, 1878. With the view of offeringsome additional arguments in support of that interpretation, and makingit more generally intelligible, I propose to begin with producing _inextenso_ the two letters referred to. 

"ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 

"Sir, "After reading attentively the letters of your correspondents to whichthe sermon of Dr. Farrar has given occasion, it appeared to me thatsome views in addition to those which have hitherto been proposed, andin certain respects controverting them, may be worthy of consideration. I beg, {126} therefore, to be allowed space for making the followingremarks:--

"We are taught in the Scriptures that hereafter there will be a newconstitution of the universe, 'new heavens and a new earth whereindwelleth righteousness' (2 Peter iii. 13), and that in this perfectsocial state 'there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain' (Rev. Xxi. 4). To reconcile thisrevelation, so intelligible and so comprehensive, with the meaning ofpassages which seem to say that the punishment of the wicked will be'endless, ' presents a very great difficulty. We are not at liberty insuch cases to accept some parts of Scripture and reject others in orderto get rid of the difficulty, but must believe that the truth, if itshould be reached, will establish the consistency of all, and thatseeming contradictions are only due to our ignorance. I propose forconsideration the following solution of the above-stated difficulty:--

"Jesus Christ in his ministration on earth said, in the course ofgiving instruction to his _disciples_ (Matt. Xxiv. 3), 'These [on theleft hand] shall go into eternal punishment, and the righteous intoeternal life' (Matt. Xxv. 46). Considering that in all he said and didhe had in view his Father's purpose of making the spirits of men meetfor immortality, it may be asked, In what way was such teachingcontributory to this end? May we not conclude from our Lord's words, apart from all other inferences, that eternal life is necessarilypreceded by righteousness, and eternal punishment is as necessarilyconsequent upon sin, and that the knowledge of these divine decreescontributes to the formation of spirits for the life to come? Thisinference might be accepted as abstractedly true; but then the questionarises, What is meant by _duration_ as signified by the word 'eternal'?It should be remarked that in the statement of the doctrine I haveemployed the word 'necessarily' in a sense that is not unusual, and isgenerally thought to be intelligible. But it is to be taken intoaccount that no such use of the term occurs in Scripture, where, infact, it would be wholly {127} incongruous. The reason of this is thatthe Scriptures contain no abstract truths which are not expressed, orexpressible, in terms understood from the facts and conditions of humanexperience. This may especially be said of the discourses of our Lord, in consequence of which they are much misunderstood by the many who areincapable of discerning the spiritual through the literal, who, as hesaid, 'have eyes and see not, and ears and hear not. ' Assuming, therefore, that there is truth in speaking of righteousness and life asbeing _necessarily_ connected, as also of sin and punishment as beingin like manner connected, we have to inquire in what way these abstracttruths are expressed in the language of Scripture. I venture to makeanswer that this is done by its recognition of a special faculty we areall conscious of possessing, that of thinking and speaking of time (andspace also) as indefinitely extended. (The mathematician knows thatwithout the supposition, whether as to greatness or smallness, of _adlibitum_ extent of space and time, he is unable to conduct hisreasoning. ) On this principle Scripture speaks of duration through'ages, and ages, ' because by such emphatic reference to our capacityfor thinking of unlimited duration, the anterior necessity of certainabstract truths, as especially the being and attributes of Deity, andthe characters of divine judgment, is expressed in terms drawn fromcommon thought and experience. 

"But the omnipotent Creator, who, for purposes towards us, made timeand space to be what we perceive them to be, has also the power tochange or _unmake_ them. If it were not so, there would be a powerabove that of the Creator, which is impossible. The difficultyconcerning the duration of future punishment appears to be attributableto a preconception tacitly, perhaps unconsciously, entertained by mostpersons that time and space have an independent existence, although theteaching of Scripture is directly opposed to this view. St. Paulspeaks of 'height' and 'depth' as of things _created_ (Rom. Viii. 39);St. Peter has, 'One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and athousand years as one day' (2 Epist. Iii. 8); and in {128} Rev. X. 6 itis expressly said that when the scheme of redemption is finished 'timeshall be no more. ' The foregoing argument suffices, I think, to showthat 'endless' and eternal are not convertible terms, for the specialreason that the latter is significant of time as being derived from_[oe]tas_, whereas the other has _per se_ no necessary relation totime. (For the same etymological reason I consider 'eternal' to bepreferable to 'ever-lasting. ') I cannot forbear adverting here to aserious misstatement, as it seems to me, in Mr. Churton's letter in theGuardian of December 12 (p. 1714). He says that the teaching of HolyScripture as to the matter of _duration_, is precisely the same withrespect to eternal life and eternal death, having apparently overlookedthe remarkable expression in Heb. Vii. 16, 'indissoluble life' (_zôêsakatalytou_), in which endlessness is signified by an epithet notexplicitly indicative of time. No such epithet is applied in Scriptureto future punishment. This difference is of great importance whentaken with reference to the declaration in Scripture that time itselfhas an end. 

"It would certainly appear that the apostle Paul did not teach that thefuture punishment of the wicked will be endless; otherwise, how couldhe have written, 'God is the Saviour of all men, specially of thosethat believe' (1 Tim. Iv. 10)? Is not this to assert that all aresaved in the same sense that some who believe are saved, although theremay be difference as to the order or mode of the salvation? We knowthat in the present age faith avails to save if it rests on theassurance given by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ that bypassing through the same gate of suffering we are prepared to enterinto life; for such faith yields the fruit of patience andrighteousness. But _in the age to come_ there is neither faith, norrepentance, nor _probation_, but 'a certain fearful looking for ofjudgment and fiery indignation' (Heb. X. 27). The appointed Judge isthe Son of man, who, having suffered an unjust and painful death at thehands of sinful men, is entitled to execute the vengeance on sinners. All men are judged; but the elect, {129} who have been sealed by faithand good works, escape condemnation, and are those that are 'specially'saved. The rest are condemned to undergo _the second death_. This isthat 'threefold woe' and 'great tribulation' so plainly foretold inScripture. It was by these 'terrors of the Lord' that St. Paul soughtto 'persuade' men, and not, as it would seem, by saying that the miserywill be without end. As matter of experience, the preaching of thishopeless destiny does not deter from sin, but only makes sad tenderspirits whom God has not made sad. Why should we not rather believethat the purpose of avenging justice is fulfilled when that great andfinal tribulation (Mark xiii. 19) has availed, in virtue of thesuffering whereby the Son of God 'consecrated' the way to life, for the_purification_ and salvation of the condemned, seeing that even saintsand martyrs have need to be purified by suffering (see Dan. Xii. 10)?This view reconciles all apparent contradictions, and accords with thegospel declared in Rev. Xxi. In making the foregoing statements I havenecessarily tried to be brief; but I hope, ere long, to be able topublish a justification of them by arguments drawn at greater lengthfrom Scripture. 

"Cambridge, December 21, 1877. "

"ETERNAL LIFE. 

"After the publication of my letter in the _Guardian_ of December 27(p. 1786), I received from various quarters interrogations andarguments, which led me to see that there was an omission in one partof my reasoning, by supplying which the whole of the argument might bemade much more complete. In particular, it was maintained by mycorrespondents, I admit quite logically, that if eternal punishment inMatt. Xxv. 4:6 could be taken to mean punishment which has an end, byparity of reasoning 'eternal life' must there mean life which has anend. As I find that the same argument has been adduced in thecorrespondence of the _Guardian_, I hope I may {130} be allowed, notwithstanding the length to which the discussion of the subject hasgone, the opportunity of a supplementary letter for showing how, byrectifying the above-mentioned defect, the views I have proposed meetthis difficulty. 

"In the Scriptures definite mention is made of only two ages, thepresent age and the future age, or, in other words, 'this world and theworld to come' (Matt. Xii. 32). The plural ages (_aiônes_) and 'agesof ages' are expressions to which we can by no mental effort attach adefinite signification, and consequently, as I endeavoured to show inmy former letter, they admit of various abstract applications. As inthe present age, so in the age to come, there is a _succession_ ofevents which take place under conditions of time. These events havereceived comparatively but small attention in the theology of thepresent day, apparently because it is not generally seen that they arespoken of much more largely by the prophets of the Old Testament thanin the New Testament, in which it is assumed that the old prophets areunderstood; and again, because the epitome given in the Book ofRevelation (see Rev. X. 7) of the communications vouchsafed to theprophets is expressed in symbols which we find it hard to interpret. There are, however, passages in the New Testament which expressly makeknown the relation of deeds and events of the present age to those ofthe age to come; as especially our Lord's discourse 'as he sat on theMount of Olives, ' and the apostles 'Peter and James and John andAndrew' asked Him privately to tell them what would be the sign of hiscoming, and of _the end of the world_ (_tês synteleias tou aiônos_). There is also that remarkable passage in which St. Matthew records thatJesus said to Peter, 'Ye who have followed me, in the regeneration whenthe Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall siton twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ' The number'twelve' in Scripture symbolism always signifies 'election;' the judgesmay be presumed to be of the order of prophets and apostles--the electof the elect--and the twelve tribes of Israel the whole number of theelect (see Rev. Vii. 4-8). Now, these {131} twelve times twelvethousand, symbolizing the complete number of the redeemed of every ageand nation, are 'the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb, ' and beingmade perfect by suffering and judgment, farther on in the events ofthat age 'follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth, ' and together withhim execute the final judgment on the whole world (Rev. Xix. 14), inclusive even of the judgment on Satan and his angels. This doctrineseems to have been generally taught in the days of the apostles, inasmuch as St. Paul writes to the Corinthians (1 Epist. Vi. 2, 3), 'Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?' 'Know ye not thatwe shall judge angels?' Even in the Psalms we read, 'This honour haveall His saints' (see Psalm cxlix. 6-9). 

"On these premises, it seems to me, the following argument may befounded relative to the interpretation of Matt. Xxv. 46. In thatchapter the _separation_ between the sheep and the goats is spoken ofas initiatory to the general judgment, and the chapter closes with anexposition of the principles on which the judgment is conducted asregards both the one class and the other. The details and theprocesses of the judgment, together with its _results_, are to besought for in the writings of the prophets and in the Book ofRevelation. Now, when account is taken of all events of that futurelife, it may be said, I think, with truth, that the righteous who liveand act in it throughout, when that life begins enter into 'eternallife, ' the word 'eternal' being applicable because that age has atime-limit. _This_ eternal life, the mention of which was omitted inthe former letter, merges into endless, or indissoluble, life, whentime is no more, and words expressive of time cease to haveapplication. In an analogous manner the unrighteous may be said to gointo 'eternal punishment' when they enter upon the experience of thefuture age, the limit of the effects of the judgment and punishmentwhich they are doomed to undergo being a 'second death. ' However greatand terrible may be the woe and tribulation attendant on that event, weknow as matter of experience of life at present, that death, of itself, is but a passage into another state of existence. We have, {132}therefore, no right to affirm that after the effects of judgment andpunishment are accomplished, the second death is not a transition intothat state of things in the new heavens and new earth which isdescribed in Rev. Xxi. Rather, may we not conclude that eternal lifeand eternal punishment terminate alike with the end of time, and thatin the consummation of all things both are merged in indissoluble life, that God may be all in all? This conclusion appears to meet thedifficulty stated at the beginning of this letter. 

"I take this opportunity for expressing my approval of the arrangementof the New Lectionary, by which chapters of the Book of Revelation arenow read more frequently than formerly before the people, this portionof Scripture being indispensable for communicating to them the doctrineof Jesus Christ in all its integrity. 

"Cambridge, January 12, 1878. "

The difficulty experienced in the present day of rightly apprehendingthe doctrine taught by our Lord in Matt. Xxv. 46, and in like passages, arises, according to the arguments contained in the Essay and in theforegoing letters, from the little attention that is paid in theChristian doctrine now generally accepted to what the Scriptures revealrespecting "the age to come" (_aiôn ho mellôn_) as distinguished from"the present age" (_aiôn outos, aiôn ho parôn_). The designation "age"applied in common to both, indicates that each has a beginning and anending. The future age begins at the termination of the present age, the separation between them being the epoch of a resurrection of thedead--not, however, of all the dead, but "a resurrection of the just, "that is, of those who have been prepared and sealed by faith, andsuffering, and good works, in the present life, for immediate entranceinto a new state of life. It is said of these that "they cannot {133}die any more, and are the children of God, being the children of theresurrection" (Luke xx. 36). These are they who "have part in thefirst resurrection, " of whom it is further said that "they _lived_ andreigned with Christ a thousand years, " whereas of "the rest of thedead" it is said that "they _lived_ not till the thousand years werefinished" (see Rev. Xx. 4, 6). It is plain, therefore, that there willbe a time of _separation_ of the one class from the other--the time of_threshing_, when the tares are separated from the wheat; and thatwhilst the elect at that time enter into the _[oe]onian_ life (that is, the life of the age to come), the rest of the dead when they live againenter into a state in which they undergo "[oe]onian punishment" (thatis, punishment that pertains to the age to come), ending eventually inthe second death, which, however, in common with all divine punishment, is inflicted for producing a certain effect foreordained in thecounsels of the Almighty. (Respecting this effect, see what I havesaid in the Essay and at the end of the first of the foregoing letters. )

That the words of the passage in St. Matthew might be understood, atleast by the disciples to whom they were addressed, in the sense aboveindicated, may be inferred from the knowledge of the religious Jews ofthat time respecting the events of the future age, as conveyed to themby the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament, with which theywere familiar. In proof of the general diffusion of such knowledge wemay cite the response of Martha to the Lord respecting the resurrectionof Lazarus, "I know that he shall rise again at the resurrection in thelast day" (John xi. 24), and the common belief of a resurrection of thedead entertained by the numerous sect of the Pharisees, as well as theparticular character of the unbelief of the smaller body of Sadducees(see Acts {134} xxiii. 8, where it is stated that "the Sadducees saythat there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but thePharisees confess both"). It is hard to perceive etymologically howthe word _aiôuios_ could have received the meaning "ever-_lasting_. "There is, in fact, a very remarkable passage of the Apocalypse in whichthat meaning is quite excluded: "And I saw another angel fly in themidst of heaven, having the gospel of the age to come to preach(_euaggelion aiônion euaggelisai_) unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with aloud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of Hisjudgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and thesea, and the fountains of waters" (Rev. Xiv. 6, 7). It is evident thatif _aiônion euaggelion_ here meant an everlasting gospel, the eventwhich the good news is intended to announce would never come. It may, perhaps, be asserted that this passage of the Apocalypse refers to agospel announcement taking place at the present time, considering thata distinctive feature of this age is a large increase of the knowledgeof the facts and laws of nature, and that possibly, contemporaneouslywith such knowledge, God may vouchsafe a fuller understanding of theBook of Revelation, and a discernment of the [oe]onian gospel itproclaims (compare Dan. Xii. 3, 4). That the true interpretation ofthe Apocalypse will eventually be reached is implied by the words, "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book" (Rev. Xxii. 10). 

On reconsidering the arguments of the Essay it occurred to me that itwould be proper to take notice in the Appendix of one other subject. In pages 9, 15, and 63 the doctrine that immortality is dependent on astate of perfected righteousness is regarded as "self-evident. " I{135} now think that the use of that term is objectionable, inasmuchas, according to the title of the Essay, every such statement ought torest wholly on Scriptural ground. I propose, therefore, to adduce herepassages of Scripture which indicate an intimate relation betweenrighteousness and life. Out of many texts which might be cited forthis purpose, I have selected two, as follows. First, when under thelaw, Moses said to the Israelites, "I have set before you life anddeath: choose life, " they must have understood his words as signifyingthat on condition of submission to the will of God and obedience to Hisrighteous laws, they might look forward in faith to the enjoyment ofthe future covenanted life. (See what is said on this text in p. 28. )Again, the same dependence of life on righteousness forms an essentialpart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, although taught in a differentmanner. St. Paul, for instance, has given in Rom. V. 18, the followingsummary of Christian doctrine. Therefore as through one transgression(__di henos paraptômatos_), unto all men, unto condemnation (_eiskatakrima_), so through one righteousness (_di henos dikaiômatos_, i. E. The obedience unto death of Jesus Christ), unto all men, untolife-justification (_eis dikaiôsin zôês_), where, it should be noticed, _zôês_ is not a dependent genitive, but, as in many instances in NewTestament Greek, a genitive of quality. Thus this text declares thatthe justification of all men, which is their being eventually maderighteous through the operation of the Son of God, has the quality ofconferring _life_. 

Transcriber's notes:

This book contains many fragments of Greek, so many that the conventionof using "[Greek:. . . ] to indicate transliterated Greek passages wasabandoned in favor of using underscores to indicate Greek material.