parted? At the moment of the new birth? Consistently with this theory, it ought to be; for assuredly the Bible teaches that believers have life at once, by virtue of their union to Christ. He is the Life-giver from whom the influence AT ONCE proceeds-the Living Vine on whose stock they are at once engrafted, and from which they derive the principle of life. If by "eternal death," is meant merely the extinction of man's compound nature, then the words "eternal life" must denote a re-creation, regeneration commencing at the period when the fallen mortal is united by his faith to the immortal God. But what Christian is sensible of such a change wrought in his constitution, at and after the time of his believing? Or are we to suppose that the immortal principle is imparted on the dissolution of the body? But we are met by the denial of a separate state of being. Is it required, then, for the soul to continue in a state of torpor for a lengthened period, that it may assume its immortality in connexion with the body on the morning of the resurrection? Can it then possess no inherent living principle as pure spirit? Else what did the Lord mean when he said, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have?" And if the soul cannot have immortality, except in union with an immortal body, we ask, with what kind of body are the wicked raised? certainly not with one in all respects like that which they have now, else how could they endure the sufferings of hell? Yet, on the theory of Non-Eternitists, it must be mortal, and what is impossible to conceive, the immaterial soul, thus re-imprisoned, must, by reason of his union, go to corruption too. All these are states of things as inexplicable by reason, as opposed to revelation. And in what respect could annihilation be a punishment to beings CONSTITUTED mortal?

It strikes us that a theory which makes so much of abstract immortality, as "the great object of our Lord's redemption," depreciates exceedingly the spiritual blessings involved in salvation, without which mere existence would be a comparative blank. Such a view is also likely to disparage the value of the great propitiation, and of the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul of man.

III. In defence of the theory of annihilation, it has been argued that an eternity of torment is inconsistent with the perfections of God, especially with his attributes of justice and of mercy.

It is said that it is impossible "to discover any proportion between the guilt of the transgressor, and his terrible punishment, as popularly taught." "The popular representation is vindictive and sanguinary," especially as it is "inharmonious with the at

* Vide pp. 103, 104, 105.

tribute of love."* "This view of future punishment comparatively few intelligently and rationally receive, and even these not unhesitat ingly." This is certainly an assertion bold enough to make, but that is not the point. There is, we think, a serious error lurking behind such expressions. "We feel that the doctrine is widely discrepant with God's character; that it stands out in its own solitary tremendousness, and without any analogy in his historic transactions, or present manifestations; but, on the contrary, at irreconcilable variance with them. We cannot meditate upon the subject in this view without secret pain, and a marring of our conceptions of the ever-blessed God." Might not such words suitably come from the lips of a Unitarian, or a Deist? Have we, then, accurate moral perceptions of the character of God, and must not faith be in habitual exercise to repress the doubts which even an intelligent Christian might entertain, were he to listen to the voice of his independent reason?

As to eternal sufferings being an unjust infliction for the sins of a mortal, here is at once a "petitio principii." We answer, that no mortals will endure it. The sins which they committed in this, their probationary state, have been fruitful in the formation of evil habits, which, in their consequences, reach onward into eternity. As it was the immortal soul that sinned, that shall endure the punishment, in degree, before the resurrection; and in full measure, when the body is made capable of the endurance of the sufferings of hell. It is not for the guilty culprits to object to the severity of their punishment, that they cannot discover any proportion between it and their guilt. Is not this the plea of the self-righteous one-I have committed no glaring crimes; my sins so few, so trifling, so venial, cannot merit, and therefore cannot receive, such a punishment as is denounced. Is not the pride of man's heart the reason of the plea in either case? Are there not passages in the gospels which distinctly speak of DEGREES of punishment to be endured? but what are the degrees in the punishment of annihilation, if that can be called a punishment, to which a creature's native constitution has necessarily consigned him? As to the attribute of Divine love, is not that constantly represented in the Bible as most free and sovereign, and not necessary in its exercises? If there were an obligation to show mercy, would not there be an obligation to fetter law, and trammel justice? If it is contrary to the Divine nature to allow the creature to suffer eternally, where is the line to be drawn? Does it not easily follow, that it must be contrary to that nature to allow any continuance of suffering, any after this mortal life?

* Vide p. 105.

any at all? But who will say this in the face of every-day experience? The extinctionists, to be consistent, should avow it as their creed, that, at the day of judgment, in the general conflagration of the world, the wicked shall be consumed; or, to be more consistent still, they should allow that there is a resurrection for the just alone. If it is the Divine mercy which must decide the kind of punishment, does it not appear an arbitrary act to raise these miserable beings merely to hear their dreadful sentence, and immediately to destroy them? Or if, as Mr. Ham evidently believes,* there will be "very grievous suffering, to be followed by a final annihilation," does not the attribute of mercy appear as inconsistent with such a punishment as with that of an eternity of suffering? But is not all this reasoning in the dark? Have we knowledge of the elements of the sufferings of the wicked in hell? The representations in the word of God, of hell, as well as of heaven, are couched in figurative language, necessarily so in condescension to our finite understandings. Heaven must be a state widely different from what the mere letter of these illustrations will imply, and so must hell. In either case, figures are heaped one another, that we may obtain as vivid a view as may be of the two states. But it is unsafe to go beyond "what is written."

upon

Mr. Ham's view is most contradictory, inasmuch as it denies that eternal punishment means anything but annihilation, while, notwithstanding, he owns his belief in "a state of very grievous" suffering to precede it. Eternal punishment must mean one of these things or the other; it cannot denote both. Who ever heard of a criminal being sentenced to the punishment of death after a period of years, the term to depend on the blackness of his crime? Why, if he deserves to die, justice and mercy both require that at once he die. The only ground of reason which we can conceive for such a mode of punishment, would be the opportunity afforded for the reformation of the offender; and supposing he was reformed, it would be cruel then to require his death.

In the torments of hell, the reformation of the criminal is out of the question, because the Judge who passed the irrevocable sentence upon them, knows that they are incorrigibly wicked. The punishment of death, in the painfully literal sense attached to it by Mr. Ham, is not that which God has appointed, but they are transported to hell, as to a penal settlement, incapable of the fruition of life, the subjects of spiritual death, a death to holiness and to happiness.

But if annihilation be the punishment, is it not more reasonable to expect that those not

* Vide p. 131.

fit to live will be at once destroyed, as Korah and his rebel company were "swallowed up quick?" If sin must be blotted out of the universe in the extinction of all the sinners, why not at once? if there is no hell now, why people a hell with innumerable millions of the wicked hereafter? Why not permit them to die off? Why not rather destroy the archfiend and his associates now? Why did not the seed of the woman so bruise the serpent's head, as that he should cease to be? Why was he not annihilated, in place of being banished from the courts of heaven? Or, to go back farther still, why was sin permitted to exist at all? So we may reason, and, in consistency, must reason, with such views; but that it is not dangerous ground to tread, who will say? "Let God be true."-Who can say that sin would not speedily reappear in the persons of fresh offenders? and who can say that the knowledge of immortal spirits enduring the just consequences of their sin throughout eternity, may not conduce to preserve inviolate the integrity of those that people heaven? Who can say that those holy angels, in whose presence (Rev. xiv. 10,) the wicked are tormented, may not, in the spectacle of the dreadful and necessary consequences of sin, derive a fresh motive to obedience? It may be a necessary part of the moral government of God, that sin be developed in all its consequences, for ever and ever. Annihilation is, besides, an idea which we cannot grasp. The crushing of a spirit is not like the crash of the most beautiful piece of mechanism ever constructed-it is not the crushing together of a livid mass of the flesh and bones-it is not the destruction of matter, of fire, of wind, of light-for spirit is in its nature something inconceivably more subtile and ethereal than these. The light of

heaven may be confined, the electric fluid may be absorbed, the elements may all undergo a change, but they cannot be destroyed. And if it be so with matter, who can imagine the mind, the immaterial soul, as naturally mortal? Is not an extinct spirit a contradiction in terms?

And now let us inquire what are the teachings of the Holy Spirit on the question of the punishment of the wicked?

Mr. Ham follows his predecessors in setting aside passages which, certainly to an ordinary reader, speak of the eternity of hell torments. Mark ix. 47, 48, is such a passage," Cast into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched." Because in Isaiah (lvi. 24) a similar passage occurs respecting the perpetual fires in the valley of Tophet, into which the bodies of malefactors were thrown-is it fair to say, therefore our Lord refers to the burning of the bodies of sinners in material fire? Does not the connexion show that in the one case the carcases, and in

the other the souls, are referred to? The Jewish doctrine appears in the Apocrypha, Judith xvi. 17, and Ecclus. vii. 17, the scenes in Tophet being proverbially referred to as applicable to the punishment of the wicked "for ever." In Rev. xiv. 11, we read that "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." This is compared with Isaiah xxxiv. 8-10, where the language employed is certainly "not incompatible with a limited duration;" but it is going rather too far in arbitrary criticism to say that similar expressions must be similarly interpreted, though the contexts widely differ. Besides, the cases are not parallel. Between the streams and dust of Idumea, and the wicked spirits in hell, there can be none but a forced analogy. It is a new explanation to give of the "unquenchable fire," that "the fire is fitly termed so, because it will utterly destroy by a resistless inextinguishable energy." We do not mean to deny that many passages which refer to hell torments are strongly figurative, but then there is something behind the figure. The smoke of torment is a strong figure; so is that of fire and brimstone. It is not necessary to believe that literal fire and smoke are intended, any more than by outer darkness is denoted the utter absence of light; for we know that light is essential to life. As the physical elements of the blessedness of heaven are but the attendants of what are spiritual, so we believe that the physical sufferings of hell are but a part, and a small part, of the sufferings of the lost.

The "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth" of sinners who dwell among the "everlasting burnings," denotes the experience of sensible and acute suffering. They have no rest day nor night," but are to be "tormented with fire and brimstone, for ever and ever. These and similar passages seem clearly to indicate real existence in the endurance of mental as well as physical torment. None can be said to dwell with annihilation, none can be tormented, none be restless, in a state of annihilation, least of all “for ever.” What do Non-Eternitists mean by speaking of annihilation as an "eternal punishment?" If spirits are annihilated once, are they not in that moment punished, and beyond that moment incapable of punishment? Their language does strike us as being an unworthy quibble upon words.

After all that has been said about the meanings of the words "ever," and "eternal," and "everlasting," we believe that any impartial searcher of the Scriptures will find little difficulty in distinguishing by the connexion when the words are to be taken in the unlimited sense. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew xxv. 46. * Vide p. 131.

So of the words destruction, perdition, corruption. The first is a general expression for the punishment of the wicked. "Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," Matt. x. 28. Perdition denotes a loss or deprivation of happiness; corruption, when used of spirits, as in 2 Pet. ii. 12, is necessarily figurative. We were quite startled to read, (p. 154,) in Mr. Ham's book, that "the recorded sermons of the apostles, and also their writings, are comparatively deficient of allusions to the subject of future punishment at all, and, what is more astonishing, there is a marked absence of strong emotion whenever they have occasion to refer to the subject. Were this true, as it is not (for see the 2nd Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude) was it not frequently and feelingly alluded to by the Great Teacher himself? Assuredly it is with reason that the doctrine is dwelt upon in the modern preaching of the gospel. That man has not read aright the human heart, who does not see that there must be an appeal to motives of fear, as well as to those of love.

Infidels, and bad men of every class, dislike the doctrine of an eternity of torment, because it operates as a weight upon their conscience; and yet this very doctrine is most present to their mind when they come to die. If a good man like Job wished for annihilation on account of his acute bodily sufferings and temporal distresses, is it a matter for surprise that bad men should wish it for fear of the consequences of their sins? Judas might desire it, and perhaps in his suicide did dream of it; but in such a case it could not be said "it was better for that man that he had never been born." If the denial of an eternal duration of future punishments be a heresy in itself, and involving doubts in other doctrines of revelation, it is a duty which we owe to the truths of our holy religion, and to the God of Truth, to expose the error, and to warn the unwary. Ours is not the age when it is safe to stretch out the hand of charity, so as to encourage latitudinarianism. We are to guard jealously in their purity and integrity, the holy oracles entrusted to our care.

The contradictions in Mr. Ham's views have been referred to; one singular instance occurs to us. In the 2nd Lecture, p. 51, he says, "Nor can I think that the blessed Jehovah needs to kindle a hell;" and yet in the 3rd Lecture, p. 157, we are told, "The punishment which awaits such will be long, awful, and dishonourable, enough to be worthy the name of vengeance." "The ingredients in that blood-red cup will be potent enough to stir up the most pungent remorse. The fire will be keen enough to stimulate the 'weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth;' and the whole scene horrible enough to be worthy the name of damnation." (The italics, as in other quotations, are his own.)

A little lower in the same page, (p. 158,) it is asked, "Is there nothing terrible in that portentous silence which shall intervene between the first resurrection' of the believers in Christ, and that resurrection which shall call up the shrouded wicked from the sleep of the grave ?" We should say, there is nothing terrible to a wicked man to be in a state of unconsciousness.

We would hope that the contradictions involved in the denial of the orthodox doctrine, as well as the serious consequences of such denial, may lead Christians to hold fast more firmly the "faith delivered" to them; and also that well-meaning, but sadly-mistaken writers like the present, may live to acknowledge that they have erred.

LATEINOS, (from Lateinus,) is "The Mark or the Name of the Beast," "Having seven heads and ten horns:" It being "the name of a man:" and containing "the number of his name:" x§s', i.e. 666. Rev. xiii. 1, 2, 11, 16, 17, 18. In fact, Lateinos is the proper appellative "mark, or the name" of the Latin kingdoms, pagan and papal, which are the special subjects of the seven heads and ten horns of the Apocalyptic beast, in St. John's Vision, and is, therefore, the solution of St. John's enigma. Also a necessary refutation of all existing hypotheses in Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Latin, French, English, etc., by the establishment of Lateinos. By the Rev. Reginald Rabett, M.A., author of a previous work on the number "666""Laudism" (after the lapse of two centuries) revived under the appellation of "Puseyism:" and "the antichrist of priesthood." 8vo. pp. 322.

William Edward Painter.

THIS is so extraordinary a title-page, that nothing could justify it but a wish, on the part of the respected author, to convey, through its medium, some realizing conception of the design of his work. We are not a little afraid, however, that it may have the effect of deterring ordinary readers from encountering the examination of a volume with so formidable a title. This we should greatly regret, for Mr. Rabett is a writer of no ordinary sagacity and learning; and, as it respects the main object of his book, viz., to prove that Lateinos is the mark or name of the beast, having seven heads and ten horns, we strongly incline to the conviction that he has well nigh demonstrated his point. At all events, we must ask of every scholar that he will read Mr. Rabett's work, before he allow himself to listen to any of the other schemes of interpretation of this enigma which have been resorted to. If he is right, and at present we believe that he is so, all other schemes must be untenable.

We wish that our author had abridged his argument, which, in our judgment, would have rendered it more forcible. And we are not without a feeling that he should have been a little more patient and forbearing to those who differ from him. A really learned writer can afford to be charitable; and we do believe that a more charitable man than Mr. Rabett does not live. We commend his work to the notice of all students of prophecy.

NORTH BRITISH REVIEW. No. XXII. 8vo. Hamilton, Adams, and Co.

WE congratulate the friends of revealed religion, and of sound scriptural orthodoxy, upon the improved state of the periodical press, especially in the department of our larger reviews. Time was, and we can remember it, when sceptics and high churchmen, in Edinburgh and London, had hold of all the great quarterly organs. Now it is far otherwise. The Christian current of our quarterly literature is now strong and steady, supplying an effectual break-water against all the power and stratagem of the enemy.

The North British Review is nobly performing its work in defence of the truth. There is no faltering or hesitancy in its course. It is bold in the advocacy of great principles; and its ability is equal to the moral purpose which it uniformly displays.

The present number is fully equal in merit to its predecessors. The article on Morell's Philosophy of Religion is well argued out theologically; we only regret that the author's theory of the human mind is not assailed with equal determination. We believe it will turn out to be as incorrect and visionary as his theory of Inspiration. Both we believe to be dangerous in the extreme. When we read his History of Philosophy, we knew that he would apply his principles to the gospel. He has done it; and what a chaos he has sought to introduce!

WE have been greatly refreshed by the perusal of this number of the British Quarterly. It contains several articles of standard value, equally vigorous in sentiment and composition. The critique on the writings of Thomas Carlyle is the very thing that was wanted. It is manly and discriminating, and weighs in an even balance the defects and excellences of this original, but somewhat eccentric, writer. It was high time that something effectual should be done to counteract the doubtful, not to say pernicious, tendency of much that Mr. Carlyle

has written. Any man who professes, as he does, to be a great moral reformer, ought to be able to show, which he has never yet done, that he is in possession of means equal to the end at which he aims. We rise up from the perusal of Mr. Carlyle's best writings, and feel oppressively the lack of an objective Christianity. We have no belief in man as his own regenerator, nor has Mr. Carlyle himself, with all the German virus that has got into his soul.

on

The next article which has deeply arrested our attention in the present number of the British Quarterly, is the one on Morell's "Philosophy of Religion," Newman "the Soul, her sorrows and her aspirations;" and Froude's "Nemesis of Faith." This is a powerful and well-reasoned essay, and I will go far, with sound and sober thinkers, to annihilate the pretensions of the three writers. Mr. Morell's philosophy and religion are shown to be at equal fault. Mr. Newman's sentimentalism is vigorously exposed. And Froude's infidelity is shown to be the result of his erratic ecclesiastical course.

The Review of Benjamin D'Israeli is most severe and cutting, full of wit and genius, and withal just and faithful.

Other articles are of a high order; but we cannot venture on further remark, except to express an earnest wish that the British Quarterly may continue to enjoy the patronage which it so richly deserves.

INDEX TO SCRIpture ReadinGS; containing

above one thousand references to chapters or paragraphs for the various purposes and occasions of private and family reading, and for the use of District Visitors and Scripture Readers. By H. N. CHAMPNEY, author of "Texts of Scripture arranged for use in Family Worship." 18mo. pp. 24. 6d.

Wertheim and Macintosh.

THIS Index will be found of vast service to the Bible-student, in his private readings of the word. The selections, so far as we have been able to test them, have been made on an enlightened principle, and not by the mere jingle of words. We beg earnestly to recommend this volume, which is not to be judged of by its size, to all who covet earnestly an intimate acquaintance with the word of God.

THE COMMUNION TABLE, or, COMMUNICANT'S MANUAL: A Plain and Practical Exposition of the Lord's Supper. By the REV. JOHN CUMMING, D.D., Minister of the Scottish National Church, Crown Court, Covent Garden. Small 8vo. pp. 240.

Arthur Hall, Virtue and Co. If this is not one of the author's most brilliant productions, it is, at least, one of his

most useful. A beautiful vein of scriptural illustration and devout feeling runs throughout the entire volume, and renders it a peculiarly fitting companion for those who wish to understand the nature of the ordinance of the Lord's supper, and to enter upon its observance in a suitable frame of mind.

The subjects treated are all appropriate, and are handled with the author's usual ability.

They are as follow: 1. The Law and Limit of Ordinances. 2. The Institution of the Communion. 3. The First Communion. 4. The Subject of the Communion. 5. Communicants. 6. The Communicant's heart. 7. The Passover Lamb and Feast; or, Christ and the Communion. 8. Daily Bread; or, Thoughts for a Communion-Sabbath. Cleaving to the Saviour; or, After Communion. 10. Communicants, the Lights of the World; or, after Communion Duties. Appendix.

9.

We can very conscientiously recominend this volume to Christians in the earlier or more advanced stages of the religious life. It is a thoroughly practical and valuable manual.

Funeral Sermons preached on occasion of the death of the late REV. THOMAS STARK, Sen., Pastor of the United Presbyterian Congregation of Forres, by the REV. JAMES SCOTT, Inverness, and the REV. A. L. SIMPSON, Forres, with a short Memoir. 8vo.

John Millen, Forres.

THE removal of such standard-bearers as the late Mr. Stark, of Forres, from the church militant, may well call forth the importunate prayers of those who have power with God, that He would raise up other men of kindred spirit to maintain the cause of truth and righteousness which he so earnestly espoused. He was one, in a sense, of the old school; but he had power of the highest order, by which he raised a depressed cause, and kept up, to his dying day, one of the best congregations in the North of Scotland.

The funeral sermons of Messrs. Scott and Simpson are productions highly creditable to their respective authors, and gratifying tributes to the memory of a great and good We have, in our memoir department, made full use of the admirable sketch of the deceased, by the Rev. A. L. Simpson, who has well embodied the distinguishing characteristics of our late lamented friend.

man.

STUDIES of FIRST PRINCIPLES. By JAMES BALDWIN BROWN, A.B., London. With a Preface, by the Rev. THOMAS BINNEY. Small 8vo.

Ward and Co.

THERE is much that is striking and excellent in these "Studies." Their author we