hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec,"-" which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that within the vail; whither, as a forerunner, Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec." II. Peter ii. 9, "unjust unto the day of judg ment to be punished,”—“unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment." Rev. i. 6, "hath made us kings and priests unto God,"-" he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests. unto his God."

Some of these passages give in the Revision a shade more definiteness to the pictures which they present; e. g., Acts xxiv. 25, Eph. i. 10, I. Tim. vi. 12, II. Tim. iv. 8, Rev. i. 6. On the whole, however, the passages quoted under this class express an identical thought with only slight variation of phrase. V. Passages in which Everlasting is changed to Eternal. These are: Matt. xviii. 8, and xxv. 41, "everlasting fire," "the eternal fire." Matt. xix. 29, "everlasting life," "eternal life." "Matt. xxv. 46, "everlasting punishment, life eternal,”—“ eternal punishment, eternal life." John iii. 36, vi. 40, vi. 47, "everlasting life,"-" eternal life." Rom. vi. 22, "everlasting life," "eternal life." Gal. vi. 8, "life everlasting,""eternal life." II. Thess. ii. 16, "everlasting consolation," "eternal comfort." I. Tim. i. 15, "life everlasting,"-" eternal life." II. Peter i. 11, "everlasting kingdom,"—"the eternal kingdom."

VI. Passages in which Damnation and its cognates is changed to Judgment or Condemnation.

These are: Matt. xxiii. 33, "damnation of hell,”—“judgment of hell." Margin, Gr. Gehenna. Mark xii. 40, “damnation," "condemnation." Mark xvi. 16, "damned,"—" condemned." 1. Cor. xi. 29, "damnation,"-"judgment."

The Revised Version thus, as it ought, takes this last text out of the category of those which relate to the future state. VII. Passages in which Hell is changed into Hades. These are: Matt. xvi. 18, "gates of hell,"-"gates of Hades." Luke x. 15, "shalt be thrust down to hell," "shalt be

brought down unto Hades." Luke xvi. 23, "and in hell he lifted up his eyes," "And in Hades, etc." Acts ii. 27, "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," "thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades." Acts ii. 31, "his soul was not left in hell,"-"neither was he left in Hades." Rev. i. 18, "keys of hell and of death,” -"keys of death and of Hades." Rev. vi. 8, "Death and hell,” -"Death and Hades." Rev. xx. 13, 14, "death and hell delivered up the dead. . . . . death and hell were cast into the lake of fire,"-" death and Hades, etc."

The wisdom of this change is apparent on the face of all these texts just quoted.

VIII Passages using the term Hell or Hell Fire.

There are three of these: Matt. v. 22, "hell fire,"—" the hell of fire." Margin, Gr. Gehenna of fire. Matt. xviii. 9, the same. Mark ix. 47,"hell fire,"-"hell." Margin, Gr. Gehenna.

IX. Passages which change Bottomless Pit into the Abyss. These are: Rev. ix. 2, "the bottomless pit,"“the pit of the abyss." Rev. ix. 11, "the angel of the bottomless pit,' -"angel of the abyss." Rev. xvii. 8, "the bottomless pit,". "the abyss." Rev. xx. 1, 3, the same. A kindred passage which may be classed here is II. Peter ii 4, where for "unto chains of darkness," we read "to pits of darkness."

X. There remain some passages which do not fall naturally under any of the classes already mentioned, and which must be considered each by itself. These are:

Mark iii. 29, "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation," "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." Does this not intimate, to say the least, that persistently sinful character will be carried over into the future state? Do not the words "an eternal sin," convey to the mind as luridly dreadful a picture, as the words "eternal damnation ?"

I. Cor. ix. 27, "Lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway,"—"lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected." There seems to be no essential difference in the idea here.

Eph. iii. 21, "world without end,"-" forever and ever." If

there is any difference here, the Revision intensifies the idea. of duration.

Philip. iii. 20, 21, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself,"_" For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself."

This is an important change, but only in the sense that it makes clear and vivid the idea that in the Authorized Version is somewhat obscured under the language used. The somewhat indefinite becomes definite and clear.

II. Thess. i. 9, "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord,"" shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord." The change here is not great, but it is in the interest of greater definiteness. The idea is presented in terms if anything more clear cut in the Revised than in the authorized Version.

Heb. iv. 9, "There remaineth therefore a rest,"-"a Sabbath rest." The Sabbath rest of earth is the antitype of the rest of the skies.

II. Peter ii. 17, "to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever," "for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved." This change does not seem important.

II. Peter iii. 7, "reserved unto fire against the day of judg ment and perdition of ungodly men,"-" stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." This change presents the idea if anything in a little clearer light, but the change is but small.

Thus we have examined, one by one, the whole of these seventy-three passages in which there is any difference, merely verbal or otherwise, between the Versions on this matter of the Future State. What is our conclusion?

First, It is that, on the whole, as concerns the matter under consideration, the Revised Version is an improvement on the

Authorized Version. It makes some things clearer than they were before. We understand, e. g., a great deal better what it is to have our "citizenship" in heaven, than to have our "conversation" there while we are still in "the body of our humiliation." It straightens out for the common reader some things that were before confusing. It is not implied any longer, e. g., that Christ's soul descended into hell. The untutored reader now has it in true language, "Thou didst not leave his soul in Hades "the place of the dead, the shadowy realm of the departed, the under world. It is possible that some of the ground for the materialistic representations of future punishment that sometimes have been used, have been taken away. But if so, this has not been loss but gain. Enough fearful imagery has been left, even in some cases made more vivid, depicting in language open to any understanding the "eternal horrors" which "hang around the second death." And so,

Second, We reach the conclusion that in all essential points the teaching is unaltered. The Revised Version, as did the Authorized, presents to every reader's view an eternal state of rewards and punishments. The wicked "go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." The Revision gives no more warrant to any future probation than can be drawn from the Authorized Version. How much warrant is that? The doom of the finally impenitent here on earth is as darkly drawn. We are even inclined to think there is some additional intensity to the awful picture in the New Version compared with the old. The Revised Version, as did the Authorized, points out a Hell—a place of fearful and poignant and eternal pain-to be shunned. It points out a Heavena place of joy and eternal peace-to be gained. It points to Christ as "the hope set before us; which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that within the vail; whither, as a forerunner, Jesus entered for us."

ARTICLE VIII.-HERBERT SPENCER'S ULTIMATUM.

THOSE who study Mr. Spencer's "Synthetic Philosophy" will not need to be told that the author is a man of masterly speculative ability. He is also a lucid writer. There are few thinkers of such decided philosophic temper and habit, who present their arguments in such clear and attractive diction. And besides, though bold and fearfully sweeping in his criticism, he tries not to lose the manners of a truly cultivated and fair-minded antagonist. In his "First Principles" he starts out with the suggestion that there is a soul of goodness in things evil, and a soul of truth in things erroneous, and broadly hints that this is too often forgotten in the heat of antagonism. This looks fair, and may be taken to indicate a liberal frame of mind. Christian thinkers can appreciate such speculative genialness, though they are compelled to deny both the premises and logical deductions of the philosopher who evinces the same, and to promptly contradict some of the sweeping assertions which he makes.

Herbert Spencer is no vulgar sort of critic. He has no sympathy with the notion that religious creeds are priestly inventions. Adverse criticism, he says, destroys particular theological dogmas, but not the fundamental conceptions which underlie these. Religion is a historical factor. As such it has held its place, and will continue to hold it. "Of all antagonisms of belief, the oldest, the widest, the most profound, and the most important, is that between Religion and Science." These two factors must not remain in perpetual conflict, but they must harmonize as collateral powers of one grand economy. Hence the great English positivest elaborates a basis of reconciliation, and offers this as an ultimatum of peace. But his plan is plainly involved in more difficulty than he seems to suspect. There lies a large soul of error in his speculative argument. It imposes arbitrary mechanical limits on the freedom of the religious life. And positively it will not do in this serious business, to quietly ignore the stupendous fact of