which are not consonant to her constitution. The identity of the Church of England with the Church before the Reformation can only be maintained on the principle that the people and not the succession of bishops constitute the Church. The civil ruler and the Parliament representing the laity reformed the Church, and in this sense the Church of England reformed itself.

Baptismal regeneration is a subject that has been much in controversy, and much of the disputation has arisen from the want of a common definition of the word regeneration. That men who had been baptised were reckoned regenerated in the early ages of Christianity is not to be denied. A convert was believed to be what he professed to be, and so everyone that had been initiated into the Church was reckoned a new

born man. This form of speech continued in the Church and was carefully retained by our Reformers, just because it was primitive, and, so, Catholic. When associated with the idea of the transmission of grace by the Church, regeneration was naturally connected with the act of baptism in every case. When mixed up with the doctrines of Calvin, which are now generally admitted to have been the doctrines of our Reformers, it took the form of regeneration on condition of the fulfilment of promises made in baptism, or, to speak more Calvinistically, it was only for the elect, as grace once given could never be lost.

The senses in which regeneration was understood were many. The Tractarian writers, as we have seen, took it in the sense of absolute purity. The baptised child was spotless as an angel, the holiest thing on earth. Some made it the sowing of a seed of good, which if cared for might bear much fruit. Those who followed reason more than theory asked for the evidence that the mere act of baptism produced any internal effect. If it did it must be momentary, for children of the Church of England duly baptised do not show more signs of grace and goodness than the children of Baptists or Quakers who have not received baptism.

The tendency in the negative direction has been followed as far as the denial of all external authority in religion. Men have become famous according as they have lifted up the axe

advanced Biblical critic in 1810 would have closed the Speaker's commentary with dismay and indignation '1 but Froude must have forgotten Bishop Marsh. Alexander Geddes may be reckoned as one born out of due season, and his obscure position as a Roman Catholic priest under the ban of the authorities of his Church may have helped to stifle any influence which he might have had. Moreover, all he said was an importation from Germany, and it might as well have been taken to the centre of the dark continent as to the England of that time.

The Essays and Reviews' controversy was finally minimised to the question of the inspiration of the Bible, and never-ending punishment, both of which were left open, as no article defines or decides either. They have since been calmly discussed by men of different denominations and different views. Canon Farrar2 made Never-Ending Punishment the subject of a course of sermons, which were published under the title of Eternal Hope.' The preacher's object was to prove an intermediary state in which probation or discipline continued until the day of judgment, in opposition to the ordinary belief that the final condition of every man is determined at the end of this life. Four views of Eschatology were considered. The first was called Universalism, the doctrine that all men will be ultimately saved. This was set aside not as untrue but as not clearly taught in the Scriptures, and because it is impossible for us to estimate the hardening effects of persistence in evil. The second was called Annihilation, or Conditional Immortality, which meant that after another probation the finally impenitent would cease to exist. This was described as the ghastly conclusion, that God will raise the wicked from the dead, only that they may be finally destroyed. The third was Purgatory, which, if without the Romish accretions and regarded simply as a purification by fire is not inconsistent with Scripture. The fourth is the common view the most untenable of all.

The preacher maintained that his views accorded with Catholic theology both before and since the Reformation, for no decree or dogma of the Church Catholic had ever declared punishment to be everlasting, or condemned those who

believe in final restoration. His views were opposed only to the present Catholic or general opinion, which was founded on a misunderstanding, and a mistranslation of the original words of Scripture.

These words were chiefly three, damnation, hell and eternal. The first really meant judgment, condemnation, and the word by which it is translated, probably meant the same at the time when our translation was made. Hell, in the Old Testament, is Sheol the underworld. In the New it is represented by three Greek words Tartarus, which is an intermediate state, Hades, also an intermediary place, and for both good and bad, and Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, into which the corpses of criminals were cast, and where a fire was kept constantly burning for the purification of the air. The word translated eternal is often predicated of things which are finite. It does not necessarily mean everlasting, and often it means merely indefinite. Literally it is age-long, in a secondary or spiritual sense, it is that which transcends time. The Jewish Gehenna was not a place of endless torment, and according to the Talmud there was only temporary punishment for the worst of sinners. There is nothing in Scripture to prove that the fate of every man is at death irreversibly determined. We may be lost here as well as in the other world, but as Christ came to seek and to save the lost, there is hope that the vast majority at any rate of the lost may be found.

Carlyle had spoken of miserable degraded beings on whom the genius of darkness had set his seal and whom it was impossible ever to command by love. But Jesus Christ never spoke in this fashion of any class of men. There was hope for the very worst, and even beyond the grave the love of Christ may constrain those whom it did not reach in this life. On the other hand we know not how long or how far some men may continue even beyond the grave to harden themselves against this love. The consequences of sin may be irreversible, so that eternal hope gives no encouragement to those who make light of sin.

Canon Farrar's sermons gave rise to considerable con

the Contemporary Review, when all was said about it that could be said.1 Some of the writers were very hostile. Canon Farrar said that nine-tenths of what they had triumphantly refuted was what he had never maintained. The majority, however, more or less agreed with him. One saw in the popularity of these sermons the increased weight given to the verdict of the moral sense on every doctrine prepared for man's reception. Another said that the light of real knowledge cannot be carried beyond the sphere of time and space which now conditions all our powers of knowing, and it would have been well for the progress of theology if long ago, these limitations had been admitted. The subject was summed up in the words of Butler, that everyone would be equally dealt with and would receive according to what he had done. As, however, we dare not limit the mercy of God, so on the other hand none can tell to what awful depths the wickedness of man may reach, or what irremediableness of punishment may cleave to it in the way of natural consequence. Wickedness may make a hell upon earth, and so it may in the future make a hell as everlasting as itself. A third writer said that he pleaded for the destruction of the work of the devil in the universe. He hoped that hell would be destroyed, Christ triumphant gathering the spoils of His cross and passion here and in all worlds. Another critic' said that if ever there was a Catholic doctrine, it was that of never-ending punishment. It had been taught by all Churches in all ages, by Fathers, Schoolmen, Reformers, zealous Roman Catholics and ardent Protestants. But if tried by Bishop Butler's rule, that reason is 'the only faculty which we have to judge of anything, even revelation,' it stands condemned. A necessary part of belief in revelation is that God will be just, which he could not be if punishment is endless. Nothing which the worst of men could do in the compass of his three score and ten years could possibly deserve such a punishment as the endless torment of the

1The papers afterwards collected by James Hogg, and with an Essay by De Quincey on the meaning of 'eternal,' were republished under the title of the 'Wider Hope,' 1890.

2 Professor Jellett.

3 Principal Tulloch.

hell of orthodox theology. The preacher thought that the Roman Catholic religion was more merciful than the Protestant, because it taught a Purgatory after this life, but Purgatory was only for the perfecting those who were to be saved. The picture which Roman Catholic writers had made of the never-ending torment of the lost was as revolting as anything to be found amongst Protestants. A very high Churchman1 boasted that whatever might be the popular doctrine no council had ever formulated a decree against universal restoration. Origen's doctrine was not condemned. The creeds of the Church are silent on the subject. The words in the Athanasian which might seem an exception, are simply the words of Scripture, with no attempt at an explanation of what is meant by eternal. An advocate of conditional immortality objected to the assumption that the soul was naturally immortal. Its life depended on the life-giving Spirit, and everlasting destruction was for those who refuse to submit to the moral government of God. Farrar's doctrine was described as giving to the generality of defiant men a cheerful and hopeful view of their ultimate destiny. The last that we need mention3 took the broad ground that we cannot believe the sin of this infinitesimal moment of time which we call life will remain engraved on the character throughout eternity. Past failure may supply a new stimulus for the future.

Canon Farrar replied to his critics. The substance of the reply was that he only advocated an intermediary probation or disciplinary state after death, and that the grace of God extended to the life to come. To the objection of giving hope to defiant men, he answered that so long as they are defiant, so long they must remain in outer darkness, which is alienation from God. It was finally maintained that Gehenna and æonian distinctly exclude the senses which have been popularly attached to them. The popular interpretation of them has been all but universal since the days of St Augustine. The original meaning has been gradually obscured by uncritical ignorance, but it has never been lost sight of by learned men.

In a symposium on the Inspiration or Infallibility of the