tion, of the ages hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself," and again, that "on us the ends of the ages are met." In this passage therefore the word, aiúvios, whatever it does mean, cannot mean "everlasting" or never ending. This does not prove that therefore God is not everlasting, any more than His being called the "God of the whole earth" proves that He is not also "God of heaven;" but the use of the same word, both as to "God" and the "times" here spoken of, does surely demand that we should carefully inquire what the writer intended by this expression. My conviction is that here as elsewhere αἰώνιος means "connected with the ages," the truth which lies under this term having to be learnt from what is elsewhere revealed in the same Holy Scriptures respecting these "ages." The Church in these days has little to say of the "purpose of the ages." Few see that these "ages," of which we read so often in the New Testament, are but the fulfilment or substance of the "times and seasons," of the Sabbatic year and Jubilee, under the old law, and all point to those "times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, when He shall send Jesus Christ who before was preached," and when in due order liberty and cleansing will be obtained by those who now are in bondage and unclean, and rest be gained by those who are now without their rightful inheritance. But our Lord's words, "This is life eternal [that is, the life of the age or ages] that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent," sufficiently show that to know the only true God, as the sender of His Son to be a Saviour, and to know that Son as a Saviour and Redeemer, mark and constitute the renewed life which is peculiar to the ages. Eonial or eternal life therefore is not, as so many think, the living on and on for ever and ever. It is rather, as our Lord defines it, a life, the distinctive peculiarity of which is, that it has to do with a Saviour, and so is part of a remedial plan. And so of the rest, whether redemption, salvation, spirit, fire, punishment, or inheritance, all of which in certain texts are called "æonial,” the epithet always refers to the same remedial plan, wrought out by God through "worlds" or "ages." But I cannot here go further into the proof of the true meaning of this word. Enough if what I have said lead any to examine these Scriptures more closely, and to look for themselves into what they testify of the "purpose of the ages."

But Mr. Oxenham has two or three questions, to which he asks an answer. First, "If Christ had intended to teach the doctrine

* Heb. ix. 26; 1 Cor. x. 11. As shewing that the aiŵves and xpóvoi aiúvioi are identical, see Rom. xvi. 25, and Col. i. 26; and 1 Cor. ii. 7, and 2 Tim. i. 9.

† And yet Mr Oxenham says, "There is nothing anywhere in the language of the New Testament to suggest that alúvios means anything less than everlasting' (p. 726). I have gone into the proof of it, Restitution," &c., pp. 48-68.

of eternal punishment, could He possibly have taught it in plainer or more direct terms?" (p. 627). To this, I answer, Yes, Christ could have said "endless," a word often used by His professed disciples, but which He never used.* Secondly, "If He did not intend to teach this doctrine, could He possibly have chosen language more certain à priori to mislead?" (p. 627). This cannot be so briefly answered, for it touches the whole question, why the God of Israel, our Saviour, is a "God who hideth Himself;" why His revelations have ever been with reserve and under a veil, whether of type under the Old, or of parable even under the New, Covenant? The fact however is that He has always thus spoken. Nor has the other fact, that many for a while would therefore misunderstand the revelation, kept God from still pursuing the same method of speaking to fallen men by type and shadow and parable. What if when He said, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one," and again, "He that eateth me shall live by me," some should misunderstand the words? their misunderstanding only proved that they were yet unfit for that truth which would shine out of the mystic words so soon as the hearers were inwardly prepared for it. For He has many things to say unto us, which we cannot bear at first, and our misapprehensions of His meaning, though they show us what we are, do not really hurt us, if we still walk humbly with Him.

The argument therefore which Mr. Oxenham presses, that the doctrine of eternal punishment stands precisely and exactly on the same ground as transubstantiation (pp. 628, 629), weighty as it may be to one who looks "from a Roman Catholic point of view," may help others to see the real worth or worthlessness of proofs like this from Holy Scripture. On this point therefore I will only add, that both as to transubstantiation and eternal punishment, Mr. Oxenham, instead of understanding, is I believe only misunderstanding, our Lord's most blessed words. But it is in Scripture as in the books of nature and providence; not only will our sensereadings never solve the difficulty, but such readings need to be corrected again and again if we would possess the real truth.

Mr. Oxenham has yet another question which he seems to think unanswerable, as proving that "there is no repentance in the grave." "What mean," he asks, "those repeated warnings about the thief in the night, the sudden return of the master of the house or of the bridegroom, the two men in one bed, the two women at the mill, the two men in the field, of whom one was taken and the other left?" (pp. 437, and 729). I reply, They mean that the prize of being joint-heirs with Christ, if lost now, as Esau lost the birthright, is lost for ever. Once let us, who hear the Gospel, while we orm dieth not," &c. are equivalent to

*It is sometimes said that the words, "Their worn endless. But on this see " Restitution," pp. 123-128.

are in this life sell our birthright, and then though we may cry "with a great and exceeding bitter cry," the glory of the firstborn is for ever gone from us, and we shall find no place or means for reversing our choice, though when too late we do so carefully with tears. But I do not on this account believe that even the Esaus have no blessing; for I read, "By faith Isaac blessed both Jacob and Esau concerning things to come;" and so, while the birthright is for ever lost, Esau yet has hope as "concerning things to come," and will one day get a blessing, though never the blessing of the despised birthright. Only if we here suffer with Christ shall we reign with Him; only if like Him we lose our life shall we save it for the kingdom.

In conclusion, one word as to the necessary results of looking at the question "from a Roman Catholic point of view." From that point of view universal restitution cannot be seen. Therefore, so it is assumed, it cannot be. But they make poor discoverers who conclude there is no land when they can see nothing but sea; so are they poor learners who deny a truth simply because they do not yet see it. But the Roman Catholic point of view has, if I err not, another disadvantage, for with those who look out from it authority is ever taken for truth, instead of truth for authority. Truth, according to the Roman theory, cannot be got save by authority. God did indeed once speak to men. The "Word of the Lord came" in bygone times to prophets and apostles; but all this is past; revelation is complete and concluded. We are now only to learn what we are taught by those authorities which have been ordained, like the sun and moon, to enlighten all nations. What must be the result when, according to Scripture, "the sun is turned into darkness, and the moon into blood;" when those ordinauces in Church or State which have been set for lights give no light, but only blood or darkness; when "the stars," or " angels of the churches," are "fallen to the earth," and have "opened the bottomless pit, so that the sun and air are darkened as with the smoke of a great furnace?" What must be the darkness of those who in such straits have no knowledge of a present Lord, to guide and teach men by His Spirit, who therefore put darkness for light and light for darkness, and bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter? Not of this kind was the faith of that Apostle whom the Church of Rome professes to follow. No Church authority, but the truth itself, taught him that Jesus was the Christ. Flesh and blood did not reveal it, but the Father who is in heaven. Peter believed the truth, because it was the truth, and this, spite of its being rejected and condemned by the assembled council of that nation which had been set apart to bear witness to the truth. Thus believing the truth, because it was truth, he had the witness in himself. On the other hand, the very power to recognise truth

seems gone, when men have once decided that authority, not truth, is for them to determine everything. Any lie thenceforward may be their truth. Some antichrist has but to sit in the temple of God, and his dicta are the words of God.

I will only add the expression of my sincere thankfulness that the pages of the CONTEMPORARY have been open to the examination of this subject. Nothing, perhaps, has made more so-called infidels than the assertion that the Gospel declares unending torments. No question, therefore, can be of greater moment, nor can any theology which blinks the question meet the cravings which are abroad, and which I cannot but believe are the work of God's Spirit. Church reviews, however, seem as yet generally unable to give this question a fair hearing. For the "restitution of all things" is to the Church what the "call of the Gentiles" was to Israel; and those who, like Paul, can receive the "wider hope," like him must be content for a season to be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes in Israel. They may, like the Apostle, even "expound the law and the prophets from morning to evening," but some only will "believe the things spoken, and some will not believe." God's purpose, however, as declared in Scripture, cannot be set aside because the Church is blind to it. And my conviction is that the special opening of this truth, as it is now being opened by God Himself, everywhere, is an evident sign and witness of the passing away of present things in Church and State, and of the imminent judgment of apostate Christendom. But a voice yet says, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith." May that Spirit yet more fully guide us into His own truth, and as a means yet more fully open those Scriptures, which, like the world around, contain unknown and undiscovered treasures, even the unsearchable riches of Christ, laid up for lost creatures.

ANDREW JUKES.

THE PULSE OF EUROPE.*

THE

HE pulse of Europe is unquestionably beating rather quick. Let us see, by attention to the other symptoms of its condition, whether this heightened pulse must be taken as denoting the commencement of serious derangement, or whether there is any reason to hope that it is the result of a temporary cause, and one not likely to lead to danger.

We may first look at France, from whose disturbances so many sudden and grievous maladies have had, if not their source, at least their overt beginnings.

* This paper is written in compliance with a special request of the Editor. It is, indeed, in great part a reply to questions put by him; and in order to make it thoroughly intelligible to the reader, some extracts from his letter are subjoined :—

"I suppose that, to feel the pulse of Europe' just now, one would first put one's fingers upon the wrist' of the Bosphorus.

"The seat of fevered action u ay be far off, either in the heart at Paris, or the head at Berlin, or the stomach at St. Petersburg. But whether originating with one or several of the great organs, the quickened and irregular flutter of the whole blood makes itself most obvious at Constantinople, and, under the name of the Eastern Question, seems the gravest disturbance through which Europe is soon destined to pass. Such a disturbance might perhaps become either a chronic malady or a bracing change for the whole system according to the treatment now to be adopted; and I should greatly like your opinion on the subject.

"Near the root of the matter, as I venture to think, lies the question of the real relation in the Turkish Empire itself between its Christian and Mahommedan populations. Are they becoming, or tending to become, worse or better neighbours? Is fanaticism on both sides becoming intensified, and if so to what causes is it traceable? Is the jealousy of Western innovation on the part of the old school parallel merely to the jealousy of the old school in Christendom which has developed into Ultramontani-m (a natural jealousy of the new learning' as of their destined destroyer, which is inseparable from dying superstitions, and stimulates them to their last convulsive efforts, their lightening before death')? or has the successor of the Prophet still any real