declare, that "everlasting kingdom" is this kosmos, and the entrance into it is abundantly ministered to the faithful in Christ Jesus, then this earth is to be fitted up for their final home.

THE NEW OR RENEWED EARTH.

Dr. Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon of the New Tesment, contends that the word new heavens, &c., signifies “ renewed,”—“I saw a renewed heaven and a renewed earth." And so God has promised (Isa. 65: 17), "Behold I create a new heaven and a new earth." "We," says Peter (2 Pet. 3: 13), "according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." It will come after shaking once more—not the earth only but also heaven. Then comes eternal permanence; a kingdom which cannot be moved" (Heb. 12:28). And thus John heard the redeemed exultingly sing: "Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation, and we shall reign on the earth." Glorious consummation for the ransomed host!

66

THE FINAL DOOM OF THE WICKED.

"And the devil which deceived them was cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet are; and they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." "And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire-the second death." The first death, separation of soul and body, is no more forever.

Christ's triumph in presenting to his Father a restored dominion on earth, with all enemies subdued, will be complete and eternal. "And he shall reign" on the

"throne of his father David, over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." David's throne and kingdom were only on earth, and here his Son shall reign.

My summary is brief, but sufficiently full for a clue to those who desire to learn more. It brings together the beginning and end, and shows the unity of God's plans, and the accomplished result.

APPENDIX.

REJOINDER TO DR. WARREN'S REPLY.

Dr. Warren, in Messiah's Herald of March 3rd, in his reply to my review of his book, complains that I did not give my readers his "summary of doctrine," but took his positions and arguments singly. Well, I do not think I did him any great injustice in the matter; but be that as it may, he has given it to my readers with his comments, and should remember that—

"From nature's chain whatever link you strike,

Tenth, or tenth thousandth, breaks the chain alike ;" also, that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. If his theory is a chain, then the whole depends on each part, and one point or argument broken the great whole is broken. I flatter myself that I have broken more than one link so effectually that he will not be able to mend them.

In reference to his remark, that "the term employed in the New Testament to denote the second coming of our Lord, is in the original, the parousia," I said, in my review: "That is not the term, but one of the terms

so used," and then instanced the verb erchomai,—to come, and its participle erchomenon, coming. After his starting out with this declaration concerning parousia as THE term employed to denote "the second coming of our Lord," the Doctor devotes his book to the work of showing that the word does not mean coming at all, but "THE PRESENCE." presence: Why, then, does he complain of me, that after conceding the correctness of his criticism on the word, that I immediately ignore it? He himself ignores it in his very first statement. But I do not ignore his definition; on the contrary I insist that the presence of an absent person implies a coming in order to that presence; and that our Lord sanctioned that view by answering the question, "What shall be the sign of thy parousia?" by the participle erchomenon-coming. He admits in his reply that "a presence "does imply a previous coming in order to that presence; but insists that "the formative idea" of the word is presence. Very well, I have never disputed it. Dr. Warren knows that speakers and writers, the best of them, use words in many señses other than their exact etymological sense; and hence in determining what a writer really means by a word we are to consider its etymology, the subject, the context, the general belief of the author on the subject, and his usus loquendi in reference to the word. These considerations combined determine the sense in which the word is used. It is by this rule lexicographers determine the various definitions and uses of words. What help to an understanding of all the various authors would any dictionary be to us if the lexicographer simply gave us the exact etymology of the words he defines and left out all other definitions and uses?

Two things are certain about the term, the parousia: the translators of our Bible fully believed that when used in reference to the return of our Lord, it embraced the idea of a coming; and the Christian church from the beginning has acquiesced in that view. And now Dr. Warren admits its correctness,—that in order to the presence of an absent person he must come. The seeking out and defining that radical and "formative idea" of the word may do very well to amuse critics, but little do the people care about that so long as they can know that they have not believed in vain in the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, an abiding presence.

Try as hard as he may to get out of his labored effort to show that the word parousia does not embrace the idea of a coming, but simply the presence, I meet him with his own words (Parousia, p. 15): "Had our translators done with this technical word, parousia, as they did with baptisma,'-transferring it unchanged,-or if translated, using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as 'a second presence,' I believe the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases 'second coming' and 'second advent' would never have been heard of." If the Doctor does not in this passage do his best to eliminate the idea of a coming in order to the presence of our Lord, I confess my inability to comprehend the meaning of very plain words. But he says again:

“This brings us to a still graver error of the reviewer. He wholly suppresses the reason I gave for making this distinction,