spired hand of a former master, implies in himself the possession of a like inspiration.

All truth is one; and the deeper the penetration of two great minds the nearer do they approach. The works of both Kant and Aristotle in ethics are needed, and, one might almost add, no others. One point especially in which Aristotle fails us and where Kant's glory shines brightest, is the presentation of the only feeling, or correlate to feeling, that his vigorous system admits reverence for the law. This "spring" of action is enough; but as much as this is needed. This humbles the haughtiest, be he king or philosopher. Back of this no mortal can ever go. To him who would still ask, when morality has been shown to be ordained by reason, Why should reason be obeyed? no answer can be given but that contained in these great words: "How naked reason, independently of every other spring, can be itself active and spontaneous, i.e. how the mere principle of the validity of its maxims for universal laws, independently on every object man may be interested in, can be itself a spring to action, and beget an interest which is purely ethical; to explain this, I say, how reason can be thus practical, is quite beyond the reach and grasp of all human thought, and the labor and toil bestowed on any such inquiry is fruitless and thrown away. The idea of a pure cogitable world, as an aggregate of reasonable beings, to which we ourselves belong, although still parts in a physical system, is a most fertile and allowed idea for the behoof of a reasonable faith, all knowledge falling short on this side of it. Nor can the august ideal of a universal kingdom of ends in themselves fail to excite in man a lively interest in the moral law, since mankind can only then figure themselves its inhabitants, when they most industriously adhere to the imperatives of freedom, as if they were necessary laws of the physical system."

VOL. XXXV. No. 138.

[To be continued.]

37

ARTICLE III.

CHRIST'S WORDS ON THE DURATION OF FUTURE

PUNISHMENT.

BY REV. CEPHAS KENT, RIPTON, VT.

-

[PREFATORY NOTE. The design of this Essay is to furnish aid in determining the proper signification of those words in the New Testament which are chiefly employed in teaching the doctrine of future retribution. The Great Teacher uttered these words. What do they mean? In order satisfactorily to answer this question, their use must be examined. To facilitate this, a table of references has been prepared, pointing out all the places in the New Testament where the words are found. The completeness of this list brings to the careful student of the English Bible, as well as to those acquainted with the original language, the great means of forming an independent opinion as to the teachings of Scripture in the use of these words.

But further, these words are understood to derive much of their sig nificance from a Hebrew word of like import in the Old Testament. It is therefore claimed that the Greek words in question cannot be fully explained without a faithful comparison with the corresponding word in Hebrew. To answer this claim, and as preliminary to the discussion, the use of this Hebrew word has been examined, and a list of references made out marking all the places in the Old Testament in which the word occurs.

These lists together are a complete concordance of these words. In them the reader has before him, or within easy reach, the entire basis of the argument on the subject in question, so far as it depends on the use of these words.

The result brought out in this Essay derives its force from the fulness of the references and from the facility thus furnished to any patient investigator to detect and point out any fallacy that may be thought to be discovered, and to satisfy his own mind in respect to the just weight of the argument.]

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. Εξής, Αιών, Αιώνιος.

THE question whether our Saviour taught the doctrine of eternal punishment is to be determined by appeal to his verbal utterances on the subject, and to the general outlook of his instructions. If these do not help us to give a clear,

definite, and unhesitating answer, it must remain in doubt till a new revelation is given us.

Were the seventeen hundred and eighty-two years which have passed since the last of the Gospels was written to be dropped out of existence, or buried in utter oblivion, leaving us the Bible as we now have it, the proper means of ascertaining the truth on the subject before us would be precisely what they are now. For, since the completion of the inspired volume there has been no voice from heaven to teach us with authority how its instructions are to be interpreted. We are, therefore, to take the Bible as we find it, and learn what it means from itself.

The Old Testament Scriptures, as I understand, are the only writings in the Hebrew language in existence of as early a date as the last of the prophets; the traditions of the Talmud not having been reduced to writing till about the year A.D. 150. It follows from this that the meaning of Hebrew words is to be learned from their use in the Hebrew Scriptures, unaffected in the least by the new meanings, or modifications of meaning, which were introduced into the language hundreds of years afterwards.

Almost the same may be affirmed of the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation is said to have been made from the Hebrew about two hundred and fifty years before the birth of Christ. Although doubt is entertained by learned men whether the work was completed at so early a period, the quotations from it in the New Testament by the writers of the Gospels and by the apostles are proof that it was in existence in the time of Christ, and was in common use among the Jews. It is written in what is called Hellenistic Greek, or the Greek as spoken by the Jews in Egypt. This differs somewhat from what is known as classic Greek, or the Greek language in use among educated men to whom Greek was their mother-tongue. The meaning of Greek words in the Septuagint is therefore to be finally determined by their use in this book, comparing them also with the original Hebrew, and not by their use in classic

Greek, or even the Hellenistic Greek in use two or three hundred years afterwards, and modified by prevailing or popular systems of philosophy or religion.1

It is exceedingly important to bear in mind, while endeavoring to understand the words of the Great Teacher on our subject, that at the close of the Old Testament canon of Scripture, the meaning of its language was fixed. No changes which the lapse of time or other causes might subsequently bring about in its use could alter the meaning of that book. The same is true of the Hellenistic Greek of the Septuagint in the time of Christ, and of the words of the New Testament after its various documents passed from the hands of those who wrote them. Keeping this in mind, it will be seen how cautious we must be in the use of arguments as to the meaning of the writers drawn from a different use of words in Talmudic Hebrew or classic Greek, or Hellenistic Greek as used after the times of the apostles and under the influence of the gnostic philosophy or other prevailing errors.2

Christ used the word alov in some of its forms, and its derivative adjective alúvios. How came he to use them? He found them in use among the people, and in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. There can be no doubt that he employed them in the sense which they generally bear in that book. What is that sense? And how can we determine it? We need not inquire how they were employed by the historians, poets, and philosophers of ancient Greece, or even by the Christian Fathers, so-called, of the early centuries. It is enough to ask, simply, what is the sense of the Hebrew words to which they correspond. In this way, and by examining their use in the New Testament, we can judge with reasonable certainty as to their meaning in the instructions of the Saviour on the subject of future retribution.

If the words in question were of infrequent occurrence, it would be natural to seek help in determining their meaning from their etymology or history. But here there is no need of this. They are found in so common use and in so various

connections that there is little danger of misinterpreting their true significance in any place where they occur.

Let us examine them. First is.

Our interest in the examination of this word for the purpose now before us grows out of the fact that the Greek aláv and alvos are so often employed by the Septuagint translators to express its meaning in their version as to assure us that when we understand the meaning of we also know the meaning of alov and alovios. The table of references appended to this Article points out its occurrence in the Old Testament four hundred and forty-five times. Careful attention has been given to each one of these in the original, and no single instance has been discovered in which it does not relate to duration. There are two in which, in our version, it is rendered the world. In one of these (Ps. lxxiii. 12) the translators, as it seems to me, miss the point of the writer. They have it: "These are the ungodly, who prosper () in the world they increase in riches." But the writer designed to give expression to the intensity of what he soon acknowledges to be his unreasonable and wicked dissatisfaction and impatience at the way things were managed: "These are the ungodly, and they are always prosperous: they heap up riches; while I find that there is no use in trying to be good, for I am plagued all the day long." 5

The other place where is translated the world is Eccl. iii. 11. This is the meaning given to this text in Buxtorf, and Gibbs's Gesenius. But as no parallel passage is referred to by either to favor such a construction, and as eternity, in the connection, to say the least, gives as good a sense, it is proper to regard such translation as merely conjectural and without warrant. With these two passages thus disposed of, it is proper to say that is invariably has respect to duration.

The plural form occurs twelve times, but without any meaning different from that conveyed by the singular, as may be seen by consulting the following references: 1 Kings viii. 13; 2 Chron. vi. 2; Ps. lxi. 5; lxxvii. 5, 7; cxlv. 13; Eccl. i. 10; Isa. xxvi. 4; xlv. 17 (twice); li. 9; lvii. 11.