The circumstances under which these pages came to be written are rather peculiar. I am in favor of church unity, and I had thought of writing something that would tend to bring the churches into closer harmony. I am persuaded that their unity of doctrine is greater than is usually supposed; I endeavored to make this apparent by citing a long list of doctrines on which the churches tacitly agree.

But in all faithfulness I had to recognize a striking difference of opinion when I came to speak of the doctrine of future punishment. On this profound question I had to recognize that there are honest differences of opinion. These could not be summarily dismissed by a hasty yea or nay.

There are three views that are entertained, which may be expressed thus: Extinction; Restoration; Endless Suffering. Not only do these different views prevail among different churches; they prevail also among individuals in all the churches. In fact, it would be hard to find a thoughtful church of any name in which each of these views is not represented.

While there is this diversity of view, there ought surely to be toleration. It is a profound subject; I am very conscious of that; yet I think there may be ultimate harmony if we are only candid enough to lay aside all prejudice, and give the matter our serious and impartial consideration. And surely, it is worthy of that. In my view, there is a right conception of the matter, which if generally entertained would go far to lift a dark shadow from the heart of the world.

For myself, I may say that I was brought up in an orthodox church that professes to believe in endless suffering. I had not, even at a mature age, examined that doctrine critically. In fact, I shrunk from examining it; I think most people do who professedly accept it. It is the doctrine of the church, and the easiest way is to assume that it is all right. If it was formulated by our learned and pious ancestors, the usual idea is that it's good enough for us.

A thoughtful mind, however, could not but recognize that there is a serious difference on this question in different churches that are admitted to be evangelical. Not only that, but there is a difference between thoughtful men in the same church. Hence, I was led to adopt, and to state, my own views here. The arguments that I was thus compelled to use expanded far beyond my expectation. Then I recognized that a plea for unity along with the advocacy of a contested vital doctrine, do not hang well together. Moreover, the space that I felt compelled to give to this doctrinal defense, induced me to cut it loose from my plea for unity, and present the matter separately.

* * * * *

On this most serious question I must say that I have read but very little. Even Dr. Farrar's standard work on "Eternal Hope" I have not read. But I considered this to be no serious disadvantage, on the whole. I conceived—and I think it was no undue egotism—that my own originality and naturalness would balance in a large degree the completeness which otherwise I might have attained. I think it is no small advantage to see the natural working of an open mind, not warped by other people's opinions and arguments.

But there was more than that. It is said of Christ that He is "The true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." I cannot but think that I have had some illumination from that Source. Once in the night season, when I wished above all things to sleep, I was kept awake, and an idea came to me that was never in my mind before. In the morning the idea was written down. The following night the same thing would occur again, and again a new thought was written down. The same thing continued for weeks, with hardly an intermission.

It did not strike me until afterwards that this might be a special, divine illumination. Yet why should it not be, except that I was utterly unworthy? But then I remembered that it is to "every man," however unworthy he may be, that this divine Light comes. So it may come to many when they do not know it.

In this case it was not really so surprising. When we think of the Power and Grace that are so bound up with the theory of Restoration that are as yet so little recognized, might we not expect special, divine aid in making known such a glorious revelation? As I have noticed elsewhere in this treatise, neither of the two alternative theories brings anything like such glory to Christ as the theory of Restoration. Is not this an overwhelming argument that the theory is true?

At all events, there is now more toleration for such views than there was some time ago. I know that many Congregational ministers hold to the doctrine of Conditional Immortality; and there is no bar to such views in that church. Dr. Farrar's "Eternal Hope" does him no discredit to-day in the Episcopal Church. So with Dr. Edward White's doctrine of Conditional Immortality. But there are some who still hold tenaciously to the orthodox faith, and are quick to resent any departure from it.

Well do I remember a conference that was held in Dr. Parker's Tabernacle in London several years ago. The occasion was the meeting with the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. The large church where we met was nearly filled with ministers. During Mr. Beecher's talk one of these zealots for orthodoxy flung out the inquiry, "Do you believe in everlasting punishment?" Beecher—manly man that he was—immediately responded that he did not. At once there was an uproar. The great majority, I believe, whether in sympathy with Mr. Beecher or not, would have allowed the matter to pass in respectful silence. But there was a small minority who felt bound to stand up for orthodoxy. For a time there was great confusion. I remember Parker's dignified protest. "Brethren," he said, "this is a Conference; it is not an Inquisition."

Truly, it does seem strange that men should be ostracised for not believing that the great majority of mankind is in everlasting fire! That is really the sum and substance of their offending. It seems that is an offense for which no greatness or goodness can atone. In the case referred to the man who was condemned was confessedly head and shoulders above his peers. Yet we boast of our culture and progress, and our emancipation from medieval darkness. Truly, it would be funny, if it were not sad.

* * * * *

On the occasion referred to I had no sympathy with Mr. Beecher's view, nor for several years after. But the idea took hold of me about five years ago. So far as I know, it came spontaneously; no, perhaps not spontaneously, but as a direct suggestion from the unseen. I had been reading nothing that would naturally lead up to it; I had no former leanings in that direction; nor was I in contact with any person who would suggest it. But suddenly the idea took hold of me, and pursued me night after night with new arguments. All the time there was nothing in my reach along this line that I could read; and I had read almost nothing beforehand. So I sought for nothing, realizing that it might be better to present the case solely from my own point of view.

I mention these matters in no spirit of egotism, but simply to show that the matter occurred to me at a time unlooked for, and without any extraneous help. If I had resorted to outside aids, I might perhaps have made the argument more complete; but would I have made it more convincing?

* * * * *

I am not in the habit of ventilating these views on all occasions; but in certain cases lately there were some remarkable results. For instance: I met a Presbyterian minister whom I knew, and we drifted into these ideas. I said I would give him one argument for universal salvation, and one only. When I had stated the argument he said it was absolutely conclusive, and that there could be no such thing as endless torment.

Lately, I met a Presbyterian D.D. on the train, and we drifted into these questions. He argued the case strongly from the orthodox point of view, and I defended the more liberal theory. We argued the question for two hours. When we were at the end of our journey he frankly confessed that he was quite with me, and that he "had gone through the mill." Yet that D.D. is supposed to be orthodox. I believe he is one of many who suppress their honest inner convictions.

A teacher in the Methodist body, a man of deep thought, and fine culture, during a few minutes' conversation, endorsed several of my views, and began to advance some of his own.

Lately, I visited a highly cultured Christian lady, who was once a member of my congregation, and I referred casually to some of these ideas. Thinking afterwards that I might really have done her an injury by merely mooting such a subject, I went back the next evening, and went into it fully. The result was that she expressed her hearty concurrence in such views.

Cases like these convince me that the public mind is more open than it was some time ago, and that when the matter is presented reasonably, in many instances it will be accepted. Surely, the light of God is beginning to shine into our gloom!

* * * * *

I suppose that the contracted view of divine love and power that prevailed in former times was largely due to the failure of men to see that God rules in all worlds and through all time. Because grace does not take effect in the case of every person now and here, it was concluded that this was a part of the divine decree; for could not God do as it pleased Him? But now we realize that this life is not all; that divine love and power are from everlasting to everlasting; that we see here but "parts of His ways;" that the great redemptive scheme may be completed in the ages to come.

* * * * *

In this treatise I have chiefly in view the great mass of people who believe in the plain statements of Scripture, and also in reason. And I will say this, for the sake of those who have been brought up with the idea that the Scripture teaches eternal torment, that there are many incorrect Scripture translations, and that these largely account for the long persistence of the old theory. Its origin is really due to the Roman Catholic Church, which invented it to keep its adherents in due subjection.

It is well to note that in two of the views I have referred to there is a degree of harmony. In the theory of Extinction and that of Restoration there is a tacit repudiation of endless torment. That seems to be an intuition in harmony with our highest range both of thought and feeling, when thought and feeling are not unduly warped by tradition. The old theory may sound orthodox; it may be consecrated by many tender memories; but I would ask if you have thought over it seriously, and if in your inmost soul you believe it. Then be faithful to that inner conviction. It is the light of God. It is what Carlyle calls "the direct Inspiration of the Almighty."

* * * * *

Pending the final solution of this great problem, I think there ought to be enough charity to disagree, with all good will and mutual confidence. And in all contemplated union of the churches this liberty ought to be clearly recognized. For this question, though of tremendous importance, is not a saving one by any means. Men, of whose goodness there can be no question, hold different views. Truth is greater than orthodoxy, and is sometimes to be found outside of orthodoxy. In this connection, the words of Professor Faulkner, of Toronto University, are well worth pondering. He says: "The fear of not being orthodox is, in my opinion, the reason why theology is under a cloud at the present time."

Closely related to this subject, it may be opportune to quote an article of mine that lately appeared in the "Homiletic Review" on the "Doctrinal Basis of Union in Canada."

The contemplated organic union of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches in Canada has not yet been consummated. One thing that involved some delay has been the discovery of a basis of doctrine that would suit the three churches. At length such a basis has been formulated. It contains one statement, however, which I am rather surprised to see. It says that the doom of the finally impenitent will be "eternal death," Now what does that mean? Might it not be honestly taken to mean two very different things? Might it not be taken to mean "eternal torment" or "eternal extinction?" The manifest ambiguity of such a statement would seem to me highly objectionable. I quoted the phrase to two thoughtful friends, and asked them what it meant. They made a long pause, and said they did not know.

If the phrase has been adopted on purpose to make it the expression of the two views referred to, such a course is surely wanting in candor and honesty. To be sure, it is a Scriptural phrase, but inasmuch as it is taken to express two very different views, it ought not to be adopted. By all means be clear and simple and straightforward.

There has been too much vagueness on the part of preachers on this most solemn theme. Lately I heard a preacher speaking of unsaved men as "miserable failures, going out into the darkness." Now what did he mean? Either he has no definite idea himself, or he judged it unwise to express it. Does not such a statement as I have quoted pander directly to infidelity?

Surely, the time has come when we ought candidly to recognize that on this question there may be a legitimate difference of opinion. There are men whose godliness and ability are beyond all question, who hold diverse views on this matter. Whether it be the theory of eternal torment or extinction or Restoration that is held, let us concede all honor and confidence to the men who hold it. The more of that spirit we really possess, the sooner will the divine light break upon our souls.

With regard to a basis on which conscientious men can really unite, is it well to go so much into detail? Mere creeds will never conserve the truth. Men will think, whether we will or no; and men will have diverse views. Do we not put a premium on dishonesty by constructing a creed for all details, and expecting men to subscribe to that creed? Have we not had too much of that in the past? A noted official in the Methodist body told me lately that he does not believe in eternal torment, but that if it were known, he would lose his position. But eternal torment is in the Methodist creed, and he had profest his adherence to it. It is so with many Presbyterians. I have spoken privately with several, and not one profest to believe in that doctrine. But we say, "Truth is mighty and will prevail." Yes, I believe it will; but it would surely prevail faster if we were always loyal to it. Besides, is there anything that makes more directly for degeneracy of character than such evasion?

To avoid all peril of this kind, how would it do to take for a basis of doctrine this simple statement. "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God?" Or, "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to contain the Word of God?" Then, with further "light breaking from God's holy word," we would not need to expunge anything from our creed, or add anything to it.

For the present, let us be faithful to the light we have. As Canon Farrar well says: "There is but one failure; and that is, not to be true to the best one knows."

* * * * *

It will be noted that throughout this discussion I have made no attempt to indicate anything of the nature of the divine reformatory processes in the next life. That is far beyond me. The principle may be the same that operates now, but the details may be very different, and the effects produced may be quick or slow, just as in this life. We have instanced the case of Saul's conversion as exceptionally thorough and immediate. There may be somewhat similar cases in the next life; we do not know; but there is reasonable ground for hope. Then too, as now, there may be cases of incorrigibility which ages may be required to redeem.

* * * * *

Mistranslations of certain passages of Scripture on this subject are so numerous, and in some cases so utterly opposed to the original, that I made out a list of them, to be presented here. On second thought I have omitted them, for the reason that this treatise is intended more especially for plain, common sense people, who do not trouble much about translations, but who are dominated largely by reason and good sense. For those who give more attention to translations, I could wish that some competent and impartial person would compile a list of mistranslations and present them as a separate treatise.

* * * * *

I am satisfied that in the English Bible there is abundant support for every position I have taken. I do not mean merely direct, verbal support; but also the support of reason and common feeling, which come from the same divine Source.

I can well conceive, however, that some may have a conscientious fear that there may be something in the original that is opposed to the views that I have taken. It may appear very unlikely that the orthodox views that have so long prevailed should find such wide currency if they are not supported by revelation. It cannot be denied, however, that the translators of the Scriptures in many instances were strongly imbued beforehand with certain of those doctrines, and that in many cases they wrested the Scriptures to support them. So much is this the case that corrections and modifications have since been made—in some cases totally contrary to the original translations.

Along with this, let it be remembered that there is, and rightly, a strong conservative feeling against meddling with the Divine Word. Notwithstanding this, there is in all honesty a feeling that certain translations call for a radical amendment. I think this statement will be thoroughly borne out by some of the translations I will quote.

I have thus been moved to give some instances of mistranslation. Since writing the foregoing I have met with a treatise by Rev. Arthur Chambers, an English Episcopal minister, in which he quotes a great number of these. A number of them bear so directly on the matter we are treating that I feel that I cannot do better than quote some of them here. And in order to do this author justice, I will give also some of his own comments.

Mr. Chambers writes:

THE MEANING OF THE WORD "HADES."

The Greek language contains two words which are used many times in the
New Testament—"Gehenna" and "Hades."

When the Greek New Testament was translated into English, one English word'—"Hell"—was, very unfortunately, made to do service for the two Greek words named above. "Hell" was used to express both the place of future punishments, and also the abode of those, who having departed the Earth-life, are existing as disembodied spirits, physically disembodied.

As was to be expected, confusion of ideas soon arose in consequence, and ordinary readers became bewildered.

Such a passage is Acts ii. 31: "His soul was not left in Hell," and the clause in the Apostles' Creed—"He descended into Hell"—instead of being understood as expressing that Christ at His crucifixion entered into Hades, seem to teach that He went into the place of punishment—Hell; where He never went.

THE EARLY-CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF HADES.

The foregoing conclusion is well-nigh unassailable, in view of the fact that the early Christians believed in an Intermediate State, which they, like the Jews and Greeks, called "Hades."

Justin Martyr (A.D. 147) declares that "those who say that there is no Resurrection, but that, immediately after death, their souls are taken up to Heaven, these are not to be accounted either Christians or Jews."

Tertullian (A.D. 200) states that "the souls of all men go to Hades until the Resurrection; the souls of the just being in that part of Hades called the 'Bosom of Abraham,' or 'Paradise.'"

Origen (A.D. 230) expresses the same views. Lactantius (A.D. 306) writes, "Let no one think that souls are judged immediately after death; for they are all detained in the same common place of keeping, until the time come when the Supreme Judge shall enquire into their good or evil deeds."

Our English New Testament represents the rich man as being in Hell. But the translation is a false one. In the original Greek it is, "In Hades he lifted up his eyes."

So, then, the rich man, though in another sphere than that of Lazarus, was also in Hades. I am aware that some teachers have viewed this parable as depicting the future condition of man, in happiness or misery, in Heaven or Hell. But besides the locality in which the two persons are placed being actually named, the context is against such a supposition. At the time that Lazarus and Dives are shown in their after-death experiences, this world is still in existence, and the brothers of the rich man are then living on the earth, and the Judgment is still distant. But Heaven and Hell will follow, not precede, the close of the present Dispensation and the Judgment. We conclude, therefore, that this parable distinctly affirms the truth of an Intermediate-life.

The terms "eternal judgment" and "eternal punishment," have been dinned into their ears of many from infancy, and they are unaware of the fact that "eternal" is not a correct translation of the original Greek word [Greek: aionios]; and moreover, that this word, "eternal" denotes without beginning as well as without end, and is misapplied to anything that is not beginningless. Again, there are hosts of earnest seekers after God and truth (as numbers of letters sent to me testify), whose acceptance of the Gospel of Christ is barred by this doctrine of everlasting punishment. They suppose it to be a part of the teaching of the Saviour; and they cannot embrace a religion which requires assent to something that shocks all their moral instincts. For the sake of such persons, it seems only right that we should examine this doctrine; that we should show them what it really is, and upon what foundation it has been built. Thus, and only thus, will they be brought to see that this ugly human conception is not of God.

THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN BUILT.

We must look for this in the mistranslation of a few words in the Greek New Testament. These words are:—(aion); (aionios); (krima); (krisis); (krinein); and (katakrinein).

We shall show that the translators have dealt most misleadingly and inconsistently with these words. They have translated them, in a number or passages of Scripture in which they appear, strictly in accordance with their true meanings, while into the words as they occur in other passages they have imported meanings not only exaggerated and awful, but such as to make Scripture contradictory of itself.

For the substantiation of this serious charge, we refer the reader to the following facts concerning each of the words instanced.

(a) The word (aion), and the adjective derived from it, (aionios).

We place these words first, because they are the terms that have been rendered by the translators—"world without end," "forever and ever," "everlasting," and "eternal;" and it is upon the basis of these false renderings that the terrible doctrine of everlasting punishment has been reared.

The word [Greek: aion], in the singular, denotes an age, a period of indefinite, but limited, duration, which may be either long or short. In the plural, the word denotes ages, or periods, that may be extended, and even vast, but still of limited duration.

The word cannot denote unendingness, commonly, but erroneously, termed "eternity" by those who forget that eternity is without beginning as well as without end. Else, how could the plural of the word be used, and how could Scripture speak of "the aions" and "the aions of the aions" (i.e., "the ages," and "the ages of the ages")? There can be no plural to "eternity," and it is surely an absurdity to talk about "the eternities" and "the eternities of the eternities." And yet the translators, in some instances have deliberately imported into the word [Greek: aion] the meaning of everlastingness, while excluding it in other instances.

Here is an example, out of many:

In Mark iii. 29, the passage, according to the Greek, is: "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness all through the aion (age), but is in danger of aionial judgment (i.e., the judgment of an age)."

The translators have rendered this: "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness (i.e., not forgiveness forever), but is in danger of eternal damnation."

In this case, it will be seen that they have imported the idea of unendingness into the word [Greek: aion] and the idea of "eternal" into its adjective, [Greek: aionios].

In Matthew xiii. 39, the passage, according to the Greek is: "The harvest is the end of the aion (age);" and in 2 Tim. iv. 10: "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved the present aion (age)."

The translators have rendered these passages: "The harvest is the end of the world." "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world." In these cases, it will be seen that they have rightly excluded the idea of unendingness from the word [Greek: aion]. But why? we ask. If it was right to include it in Mark iii. 29, it was wrong to exclude it in the two last-named passages. Then why exclude it? The answer is, that it would have been too utterly foolish to translate Matthew xiii. 39, as "The harvest is the end of the forever," and 2 Tim. iv. 10, as "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved the present eternity"—and so the translators in these instances gave the word its true signification.

But can it, we ask, be right to treat language in this way—to make a word mean one thing to serve the purposes of a doctrinal idea, and to make it mean something essentially opposite, when that idea is not involved? Does anyone imagine that the translators would have introduced this contradiction, and have translated the Greek of Mark xiii. 29, as they have done, unless they had gone to this text with the preconceived idea that a certain sin can never be forgiven, and therefore that the passage must be strained and contorted to endorse the idea? It is an instance, not of founding theology upon Scripture, but of twisting Scripture to suit theology. One thing is quite certain. It cannot be right to translate a word in some passages in one sense, and to translate it in other passages in an antagonistic sense. The word [Greek: aion] cannot denote a period of limitation, and also unendingness. If it denotes the one it does not denote the other. The one definition excludes the other. No one, in his senses, dreams of defining a day as a period of twelve hours under one set of circumstances, and also as being the equivalent of all time under other circumstances. We have to determine what is the true definition of [Greek: aion]. If it can be shown that the essential meaning of the word is that of limited duration, then the case is very clear; the translators were not justified in foisting into it the idea of unendingness; and this being so, a huge superstructure of doctrine, reared upon the mistranslation, will totter and fall, and an awful nightmare will be lifted from the Christian religion.

An adjective qualifies its noun, and we cannot import into the adjective more than is contained in the noun. We may speak of the race of mankind as "humanity," and describe the existence of the race as "human life," but we should not be so absurd as to define "human" in that phrase as signifying "Divine."

And yet the translators have been guilty of committing a similar error in translating the word [Greek: aion] in the passages instanced as "world," which is equivalent to an age, and expresses limitation; while translating [Greek: aionios] as "everlasting" and "eternal;" both of which terms exclude limitation.

We ask, does this commend itself as being a fair way of dealing with a book which contains a record of Divine truth?

We pass on to the brief consideration of a few other words that have been dealt with unfairly, in order, if not to found, at all events to buttress, this doctrine of everlasting punishment.

(b) The word (krima). The word denotes judgment; the sentence pronounced. As such the translators of the Authorized Version rightly rendered it in many passages of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles (e.g., Matt. vii. 2; John ix. 39; Acts xxiv. 25; and Rom. ii. 2). But here is the inconsistency. In Matt, xxiii. 14; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47; Rom. in. 8; xiii. 2; I Cor. xi. 29; and I Tim. v. 12, they substituted the word "damnation" for it. We will say nothing about this word "damnation," except that it is an evil-sounding word, whose original meaning has been exaggerated and perverted; and a word that more than any other has been employed to support the awful doctrine we are opposing.

But why did the translators alter the reading? Why render [Greek: krima] as "judgment" in some places, and as "damnation" in others? The answer is—These last named passages were viewed as pointing to future punishment; the translators' idea of future punishment was that of endless suffering and misery; and the word "damnation" was considered to be better suited to the popular theological error than the proper and milder word, "judgment." Our contention is, if the word "damnation" be right in one passage, it is right in another. Why, for example, did they not translate John ix. 39, so as to represent our Lord as saying—"For damnation ([Greek: krimas]) I came into this world?" They gave the true rendering in this and other passages, because it would have been too absurd not to do so.

That these criticisms are not unjustified is seen in the fact that the
New Testament revisers have discarded the word "damnation" in the above
passages, and in Rom. xiii. 2 and I Cor. xi. 29, have correctly rendered
[Greek: krima] as "judgment."

We are thankful to them for this service in the interests of truth.

We must briefly consider—

(c) The word (krisis).

It also denotes judgment, i.e., the process of judging; and in forty-one passages of the New Testament the translators so rendered it. But in Matt, xxiii. 33; Mark in. 29; and John v. 29, they deliberately substituted the word "damnation" for "judgment." With what object? Plainly, to add emphasis to their preconceived idea of an endless hell. But does this commend itself as being a fair and consistent way of dealing with Scripture?

Why,—except that it was too utterly foolish,—not have rendered the following passages as they did the three just instanced?

"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye … pass over damnation ([Greek: krisis]) and the love of God" (Luke xi. 42).

"As I hear, I judge, and My damnation ([Greek: krisis]) is just" (John v. 30).

"So opened He not His mouth; in His humiliation His damnation ([Greek: krisis])_ was taken away" (Acts viii. 32, 33).

Seeing that the Greek word is the same in every one of these passages, is it not very wrong to give it an improper and grossly exaggerated significance in three texts, while translating it correctly in forty-one other instances?

Again, it is suggestive that the revisers of the New Testament, in Matt, xxiii. 33 and John v. 29, have flung away the word "damnation," and in its place put "judgment" as the proper rendering of [Greek: krisis]. If the translators of the Authorized Version had done this, one of the supports of an ancient error would have been knocked down.

(d) The word (krinein).

The word denotes—to judge; and eighty-one times in the New Testament the translators so rendered it. And yet in regard to the same Greek word which occurs in 2 Thess. ii. 12, they made the translation run:—"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth."

But why not have been consistent? Why not have rendered 1 Cor. vi. 2, in this way; since in both passages the verb [Greek: krinein] is the same,—"Do ye not know that the saints shall damn the world? And if the world shall be damned by you, are ye unworthy to damn the smallest matters?"

I will trouble the reader with only one other word.

(e) The word (katakrinein). Its meaning is—to condemn. It is a stronger word than [Greek: krinein] to judge, but there is nothing in it that corresponds to that awful meaning supposed to reside in the word "damn." And yet the translators did not hesitate to give it that meaning.

How did they treat this verb, [Greek: katakrinein]? Just as they treated other verbs and nouns, when they wished to bolster their theological idea. In seventeen instances in the New Testament they translated it rightly as "condemn," but in Mark xvi. 16 and Rom. xiv. 23, doctrinal preconceptions prevailed, and so these two passages were rendered—"He that believeth not shall be damned." "He that doubteth is damned if he eat."

And for centuries, an everlasting hell-fire has been read unto the mistranslated word.

* * * * *

I might continue in this strain at great length. The quotations I have given may be taken as samples of many more. It is surely time that the sad and sombre clouds of so-called orthodoxy should be dispelled by the rising beams of the Sun of Righteousness.

The word "for ever," taken in its rigid literal sense, is a stumbling block to many. I lately asked a very eminent man in England, the president of a theological college, how he would get over that difficulty. He replied that he believed that the word "aion" would more fully meet the case, and that that word would more exactly accord with the capacity of our finite mind, the word "forever" expressing an idea entirely beyond our comprehension. That seems to be good sense, and more in harmony with the whole trend of Revelation.

* * * * *

I have issued this treatise under an assumed name; not because I am specially careful of my reputation, but rather because I wish the work to be regarded solely on its own merits. If any reader feels disposed to write me, either briefly or more at length, and whether in criticism or commendation, I shall be glad.

Address,

HORATIO,
Care Austin Publishing Co.,
Rochester, N. Y.