that it must have been true metal to withstand the shocks of centuries.

But to come to the point: Dr. Farrar replies to our argument:

(a) That an aon is not necessarily endless; and that even in the New Testament aionios and kindred terms are sometimes applied to ages which have already come to an end.1

But surely no one ever yet implied that every con is necessarily endless; and as regards the New Testament use of these terms, Dr. Farrar's assertion may be, and is, disputed. But let it be as he says; let us admit that in some texts even of the New Testament the word denotes terminable duration; what then?

Is it not indisputable that the term may denote what is strictly endless? Is it not equally certain that in all but a few of the seventy-one texts in which the word occurs, it certainly does denote what shall last for ever. But if in a certain book a word may have a certain meaning, and if, moreover, it actually has that meaning sixty-six or sixtyeight times out of seventy, surely in the few cases that remain it should be understood in the same sense, unless there be something in the context which necessitates a different interpretation. But if in the context there be nothing of the kind; if, on the contrary, the context be strongly in favour of attaching to the term its usual meaning, surely no sensible man would hesitate to do so. And all this is true of the word aionios.

(b) Dr. Farrar objects to this, particularly to our use of the word "mean." He contends that though the word aionios" is often applied as an epithet to endless things, that conjunction no more makes the word mean endless than the fact that it is applied to spiritual things makes the word necessarily mean spiritual." It "may, in some instances connote endlessness, because it catches some of its colour from the word to which it is joined."

Precisely so. We don't want to rely on the word "mean;" ""connote" will do equally well. But we insist that the aon during which the wicked shall be punished is endless, because the sentence which condemned them is the last sentence, because the aon of their punishment is the same as that during which the devils shall be tormented,

and the saints will enjoy their bliss. Whether aionios, "means" or "connotes" all this makes very little difference to Catholics.

(c) In the third place, and as an explanation and confirmation of the preceding, Dr. Farrar relies very much on a reason which was a favourite argument with Mr. Maurice, -that eternity and duration are incompatible. Hence aionios cannot mean "endless," but only something like "spiritual" or "unseen.” "To render theæonian God' by the endless God' would rightly seem shocking to us. It means the God whom no one hath seen or can see.' So "eternal life" is not "endless life," but almost the antithesis of endless; it is "knowledge and love;" it is, in the words of St. John, "to know thee, the only God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Accordingly, "æonian fire" is not "endless fire," but as Erskine of Linlatham says, "the misery belonging to the nature of sin, and not coming from outward causes.'

But

It is easy to see that all this is but a confusion of terms. No one now denies that succession is incompatible with the eternity which is an attribute of God. Catholics did not want Erskine or Maurice to teach them that. must the term aionios always have precisely the same meaning which it has when applied to the Deity? May there not be another eternity, improperly so called because of its endless duration? May we not speak in that sense of the "eternal life" of the blessed? And may we not by another figure of speech apply the same term, "eternal life," to that which here below sows the good seed which will hereafter grow up to life everlasting? Whoever would attach precisely the same meaning to the word "eternal" wherever it is found, would surely neglect one of the first principles of interpretation.

Let me more definitely explain the Catholic answer. (a) In the first place God's eternity has no succession. But (B) we cannot imagine it otherwise than as an endless succession though we know this image to be incorrect. (7) Eternity without succession is infinite and cannot belong to creatures. Since, however, there is a great likeness between the unending life of human souls and the form of everlasting duration under which we imagine God's existence, we use the same term, "eternity," to designate both. There is yet another (8) sense in

1 So "Mercy and Judgment," pp. 394–404.

which we use the word "eternal," as when St. John says that "eternal life" is "to know God." The knowledge of God causes everlasting bliss, and everyone knows the common figure of speech which transfers to a remarkable effect the name of a cause which produces it in some special manner. Wordsworth writes:

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,

But to be young was very heaven."

We know well that life is and always was life and not bliss, youth is youth and not heaven; but the rapidity of the poet's thought shortens the expression.

Accordingly we contend that the word "aionios" has different significations. When predicated of God it excludes succession; when it applies to creatures it often means lasting for ever. But to argue, as Dr. Farrar and Mr. Maurice do, that because it is used of God it must always and necessarily exclude succession,-this surely is to misunderstand the principles of language and to fetter the powers of human speech.

(d) Dr. Farrar thinks he gives the full force of our argument in these words': "Because alwvios Con means endless life,' therefore alwvios koλaσis must mean endless punishment.'

Now, that is not the Catholic reasoning. We rely on three points: (a) The con is the aon which succeeds the last sentence; (B) the devils and wicked men get the same punishment, and we know what that means for the devils; (y) in these circumstances the same word aionios is applied to the future punishment and to the future reward.

As to this third point, it would be a mistake to suppose that even in the same sentence the same word may not have different meanings, if the circumstances and the context require it. But if the circumstances require just the opposite; if, moreover, the meaning which the context demands be the usual and almost invariable meaning of the term; the fact that in the very next and parallel clause of the same sentence the same word gets that very meaning-this fact is then no weak point. And this is the "aged and battered argument of Augustine."

Besides, the wicked shall be punished not for one con but for " cons of cons: "The smoke of their torment Dr. Clemence contends

shall rise up for ever and ever."

that "as an con may come to an end, so cons of cons may come to an end; only that which lasts through all the ages is without end."1

One is tempted in reply to borrow one of Dr. Farrar's expressions, and to complain of "a literalism which defies all the laws of human language and literature, and approaches to fetish-worship in its slavishness and ignorance." If Dr. Clemence would have us believe that there may be an end to the smoke which shall rise up for ages of ages," he would do well to quote some example of a similar use of anything like the same terms.

3° So much for the argument from the term aionios. There is another epithet applied to the fire which punishes the wicked,-ao BeσTos, unquenchable. This will be found to throw additional light on the duration of their æonian misery.

In the last verse of his prophecy Isaias cries out: "They shall go out and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched."

That text of Isaias is the basis of the New Testament teaching on future punishment. The Baptist warned his hearers that God will gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Our Lord himself uses almost the very words of the Prophet: "It is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into unquenchable fire, where their worm dieth not and their fire is not extinguished." If these expressions are to be understood in the literal and obvious sense there is an end to the whole controversy.

Dr. Farrar is more than usually vehement in dealing with these texts. He tells us of "the vast weight of moral and spiritual revelations" against us, and complains that his adversaries are "unable to co-ordinate with the rest of God's revelation the literal meaning of a few texts;" "such literalism defies all the ordinary laws of human language and literature, and approaches to fetishworship in its slavishness and ignorance." He warns his readers against "the superstitious and arbitrarily invented theory of verbal dictation," which is "the source of countless errors, miseries, and wrongs, and will always be a fatal hindrance to the right reception of divine truths." 1 Quoted in "Mercy and Judgment,' p. 385. 3 Mark ix. 42, 47.

"Mercy and Judgment," p. 406.

175

2 Matt. iii. 12. Ibid. p. 453.

Rather strong, is it not? And all because when God says that the wicked shall be punished with unquenchable fire and that their worm dieth not, we meekly bow down and whisper to ourselves: Amen, their worm never dies and their fire shall not be extinguished.

Now, if Dr. Farrar means that a disputant may always defy the force of arguments by having recourse to "moral and spiritual revelations" and to metaphorical meanings, if he means that it is superstition to believe that God took care of at least the most important of the words in which his revelation is expressed, if this is his real view there use in further discussion. Every article in any of the creeds might easily be disproved on the same conditions.

Catholics do not argue from the mere epithet "unquenchable." We acknowledge that the word aσßeσtos might be translated "violent" or "intense;" it often has that meaning when applied to fire. But it also might have its literal meaning of "unquenchable." The word itself is indefinite; its meaning has to be determined by the circumstances in which it is used.

Even these other expressions which our Lord actually made use of, "their worm dieth not and their fire shall not be extinguished,"-even these propositions, though more definite than aoßeoTos, might have their meaning restricted by the context in which they might be found. Thus in the prophecy of Jeremias God threatens the city of Jerusalem: "I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the houses of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." And there are other like expressions in the Bible.

At the same time it is manifest that in another context these very expressions might denote a truly everlasting burning; and as a matter of fact they are daily so used by the great majority of Christians.

66

i 1 Aoßeoros is from a neg. and oßevvvvai to quench. The word is often used by a sort of exaggeration to signify intense heat. In Homer, where it first occurs, it is applied to the fire which for a few hours rages in the Grecian fleet; to the gleam of Hector's helmet; to glory; to laughter; and-most frequently--to shouting (Il. xvi. 123; i. 599; xi. 50; xvi. 267, &c.) The word is used in the same

popular way in plain prose passages of the Fathers. Thus Eusebius says that the two martyrs, Cronion and Julian, were first scourged, and then consumed with unquenchable fire: and again that two others, Epimachus and Alexander, were destroyed by unquenchable fire." "Mercy and Judgment," p. 406.

2 xvii., 27; cf. Is. i., 28; Ezech. xx., 47-48.