(5.) Eumelos was descended from Pheres, and therefore also an Aiolid. Il. ii. 711. (Vid. ibid.)

(6.) The father of Jason is not mentioned in the Poems. Tradition represents him as the son of Aison. If so, he is one of the Aiolidai.

d. We have at least two distinct lines expressly given :

It may be observed that Eumelos is not one of the fighting warriors, but that Glaukos is. Eumelos was therefore probably senior. This equalizes the two lines.

e. It is plain that we are to understand Aiolos to be the son either of Zeus, or more probably of Poseidon, with whose worship in post-Homeric times the name is closely associated; because Bellerophon is called coû yóvos. Il. vi. 191.

For the connection of the Aiolian name with Phoenician or foreign extraction, see Anax Andron. The historical name in the Iliad thus has the same significance as the mythical name Aiolos in the Odyssey.

The special features of the two characters are doubtless represented in the name; and the question arises, can they be traced up to the adjective aiolos?

Hahn suggests that aiódos (meaning tattooed, as he thinks) stands for a warrior; but in Homer we have absolutely nothing of tattooing; nor is there any etymological connection between the name Aiolos and the character of a warrior.

If Aiolos refers to motion only, and if it is specially related to the navigators of that day, might it possibly have relation to the changes of the wind, or to the movements by sea from place to place of a maritime people, or (in the sense of versatile) to the various characters of merchant, marauder, and kidnapper, in which they appeared by turns? This last approximates to that latest sense of alólos in which it was applied to the mind, as in αιολόβουλος, αἰολόμητις.

If Aiolos has in Homer's time acquired (see aióλos) the sense of variegated or parti-coloured, may the name there (indicating as it does distinctly a race of foreign origin) refer to the elaborate and parti-coloured ornamentation of garments? While the Aryan races kept to a notable simplicity and unity of colour, the Semitic people, says Professor Rawlinson, affected the most elaborate ornamentation. The same may have been true of the Hamite population of Canaan, as Sisera, in the capacity of Jabin's general, was to receive "a booty of dyed garments and of parti-coloured cloth."+

W. E. GLADSTONE.

* Albanesische Studien, p. 247 (Jena, 1854).

Fifth Monarchy, chap. v. vol. iii. p. 345, 2nd ed.

Mr. Espin's Commentary on Judges, v. 30 in the "Speaker's Bible."

THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS: THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE AND OF THE CHURCH.

A REPLY TO THE REV. H. N. OXENHAM.

RUTH, like Christ, age after age is on its trial before men; but while it is being tried, it is really trying everything. Passed on from one tribunal to another, from high-priests to rulers, like Him who was the Truth, and always on its first appearance misunderstood, misrepresented, and even rejected as a deceiver, by those who should be foremost to welcome it, it is yet, by the very judgment men pass upon it, revealing what they are, and sifting all who come in contact with it. In this trial, some of those least valued by the world by their very weakness and griefs are prepared to recognise as divine that which the learned and self-satisfied agree to cast out. These, attracted to the truth, even though they little understand, and at times may even doubt and deny it, first giving themselves to it, and only so fully receiving it, cannot but in due time become its witnesses, content, even if it is mocked and misrepresented and slain and buried out of sight, for its sake to be cast out and misrepresented with it, in the faith that, spite of its rejection, it yet must prevail, and that, though slain, it will surely rise again.

Some months ago a truth, which in every age has been knocking at men's hearts, and has here and there always found some few believers, and which in these last days everywhere is winning many to receive it-I mean the truth, or hope, as some are content to call it, of the final salvation or restitution of all-was brought before the readers of this REVIEW, in an article by Pro

fessor Mayor, with words, not of suspicion or condemnation, but of sympathy and commendation. And the testimony of one-I may say at once my own testimony-who, in opposition to the current opinion of the professing Church, had shown that Scripture, spite of apparent passages to the contrary, taught that the love and purpose of God, far wider and deeper than many even of His most loving children had thought possible, would not cease to work for the recovery of the lost, until all should be found and restored to Him from whom they had been beguiled or fallen, was recommended in these pages to the attention of the Church and world. Since then, in four consecutive numbers of this REVIEW,* the same hope or truth of final restoration has been vehemently assailed, and again put upon its trial; the testimony of those who hold this hope, especially of the writer of the present paper, accused of error and irrelevancy; and the contrary doctrine of endless perdition argued at length with skill and learning by one, Mr. H. N. Oxenham, who has already and deservedly made himself a place in the literary world. Little does the critic seem aware, that while he thus becomes both witness and judge, and declares and decides that this or that is truth, and this not truth, he is really being tried himself by what appears to be on trial, and, like the judges of the Truth of old, is showing by his treatment of that which is before him exactly where and what he is. Few remember this eternal law, that our views of any object absolutely and necessarily depend upon our state or standpoint, that is, on what and where we are, and the measure of light or darkness which we have to see by; and conversely, that by our views we may learn where we really are, like the mariners in mid-ocean, by our observations discovering our true position; that whether it is of nature, in any of her varied kingdoms, or of Scripture, or of God and of His Christ, or future judgment, or of the things of this life, as to what is pleasure, gain, or honour, the view which each has tells us his state, that is, where he really is. If men can believe another, though their views differ, their creed may be one; for our belief on any question may be beyond our view, and may confess some truth, which may either be wholly unseen, or of which our first very differing views are but the partial apprehensions. But if we will each only believe so much of any fact or truth as we can see, our view must not only depend upon, but also show exactly, where we are. Mr. Oxenham, by his views of future judgment, shows us where he is, while at the same time it is no less true that where he now is accounts for and explains many of his views. But a man may say, "I get my views from the Church, or from the Bible, or from the Creeds, and these cannot be wrong." I

upon

*CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for Jan., Feb., March, and April, 1876.

answer, How much do you understand the Church, or the Bible, or the Creeds? The Church may speak the truth, and not only may you wholly misinterpret and misapply her true testimony, but she herself, because she is God's witness, may like Caiaphas utter words, as when he said, "It is expedient that one man die for the people," of the true sense of which she may herself be quite ignorant. How often in teaching the young are we made to feel that, even with the truest words, we can make them see only just so far as they have learned to see. Whether it is in Greek or mathematics, something more is needed than true teaching-even the power to receive and digest what is communicated. And how often, as he advances, does the teacher himself learn, that, even while he has been teaching truth, the truth has been far wider and deeper, and even other, than he has at the time conceived it. If I err not, it is so with all the Church's teaching. How much is there in the order of the Christian Year far beyond the thought of the Church herself, which ordained and arranged this order? She had her own thought, for instance, in the appointment of All Souls' Day; but God through her by the same day may have been bearing a far wider and still more blessed testimony. This is true too of the Creeds, which not only may confess far more than the Church's children apprehend, but confess it for reasons, and in relation to matters, which as yet they have not thought of. Why, for instance, is the Church an article of faith, as in the words, “I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church," when "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence or conviction of things unseen?" Or why in the Creeds is the Church linked, not with Christ, whose body she is, but rather with the Holy Ghost; or why, again, is she linked with the forgiveness of sins, as when we say, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins?" Is it only because she is herself forgiven, or because also she is God's appointed instrument and means for others' forgiveness? And, again, how far does our view of this "forgiveness and remission of sins," or of the "one baptism," through which it is effected, exhaust the great mystery? The answer each may make to these questions will give his view; but does this view measure or fathom the depth which is here spoken of? And so of Holy Scripture, how much do we see of its meaning? Should we without an apostle's help have seen the two covenants, law and gospel, in Hagar and Sarah? Or how many would have detected what the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us is intended by the omission of father and mother in Melchizedek's history? The eye only sees what it has learnt, and brings with it power, to see. It is not enough to have a revelation before us. We need We need eyes and heart to read that revelation. Do what you will before a babe, it does not see it. A man may say, "I take my view of the sun's

rising from what I see." The question is how much he really sees. What a lesson it is that this sun-rising, perhaps the grandest and clearest of all natural phenomena, is not the truth, but only an appearance of it. In every department of knowledge, therefore, that which marks the man is that he has learned to distinguish what really is from what appears so. No one can do this at first. Therefore God gives us fathers and teachers to help us in our first endeavours to understand His books, whether of grace or nature. And we are no more fit at first, simply because we have the Bible in our hands, to be our own teachers and guides or the guides of others, and no more intended for it, than we are fit, because nature is before us, to be our own astronomers, our own architects, or our own engine-drivers.

But it may be said again, If a thing is proved it will be clear. Clear to whom? A proof is a proof, but not to every one. Take the proof of the Binomial Theorem. To whom is it a proof? Surely not to every one; not even to all those who can use the forms of this theorem. So as to the proof from Holy Scripture of what is God's purpose toward the lost. The clearest proof may be, and must be, and there is mercy in it, no proof to some.

All this, which is the necessary result of our being such as we are, and of the nature of God's words and works, all of which to us at least are veils to cover truth, even while they are also revelations, has a direct bearing upon the question under consideration, as to what God has revealed respecting the future of those who die here impenitent. For it is to what is revealed, or said to be revealed, that I confine my consideration, and more especially to what is revealed in what we call Holy Scripture. Some, by far the greater number of those who accept the Bible as a revelation from God, have understood it as teaching that the lost are lost for ever, and will suffer everlasting punishment. As to what this everlasting punishment will be they differ; some, like Mr. Oxenham, making it mainly a pœna damni, others contending for a pæna sensus; but that it is to be endless has been the view of the majority of those who take Scripture as their guide a view which they receive on the authority of our Lord's express words. On the other hand, all through the ages, another witness has been heard, the witness I grant of a minority, but of a minority which has included some of the most thoughtful in the Church, to some of whom, as to Origen, we owe more even as to the very letter of Scripture than perhaps to any others. These, believing the Scripture to be divine, while they confess that at first sight it seems in many places to teach the doctrine of everlasting punishment, see in it another teaching, just as express, if not far more plain, not resting on any single word such as aiúvios, but on the character and purpose of Almighty God, that His lost shall all at