125 
and Intellectual “ Continuity ,” altogether in contrast with 
what we call physical. Not that we, (any moi’e than the ante- 
Nicene fathers), argue immortality from the intellectual nature 
of the “soul” That is far too precarious; but immortality 
certainly follows from man’s having a moral nature in essential 
relation with the Absolute and Right — his having real pro- 
bation in that nature — to be morally and fully accomplished. 
Men must, we repeat, think out a Moral world, and all it means. 
53. Every form and degree of Necessitarianism (even me- 
chanical continuity if it were universal) logically denies moral 
probation, and reduces it to a name. In the same way (to refer 
to the four theories above named) “Annihilation” denies a moral 
world; it is a mechanical end of an ethical creation. So does 
“ Restitution.” So does mere “ Physical torture.” “ Eternal 
punishment,” morally divided “ to every man of what sort he 
is,” is truth, and it is both philosophical and Christian. Of 
these four theories : the first is Gnostic; the second “ Origenis- 
tic ” ; the third Mahometan ; the fourth is Christian. 
Probation is not conceivable throughout, except on the basis 
of a 'permanent future to be dealt with. It would demoralize 
almost all men to put them on a supposed moral trial, with 
“annihilation” as an alternative. If, again, ac- Howthe 
cording to some, (like our authors), the belief of the three theories 
migration of souls to other conditioned existence, clash ' 
might assist the thought of a penal future and its uses; yet the 
notion of “restitution,” (so often mingled with this idea of 
migration), would clash with the entire conception of purely 
moral, that is, real Personal Probation. 
Nor could the argument either for or against the natural 
immortality of the soul, or the resurrection of the body, interfere 
with the expectation of a Personal future. It could not avert the 
conclusion that our Self is indestructible, a conclusion deducible 
from Moral grounds, even if there were no other. The recog- 
nition of the future of man is wholly moral in the Christian 
teaching. And with this we may now dismiss our authors’ 
dreary theory of Physical Immortality, or Mechanical Continuity; 
on which we may, however, add something in our Appendix. 
54. In contrast with all our authors’ Eschatology, I may be 
permitted to refer to the 21st and 22nd chapters of the Book 
of the Revelation of St. John. The idea of the new “ Creation ” 
is to be best found in that imagery. In that transcendental 
picture, as we look on it, we are set thinking, wondering, and 
longing. It tells of the “ Tabernacle of God with man,” whom 
