in this world; and there is sin unto death, respecting
which prayer for repentance would be unavailing (1 Epist. v. 16, 17).
This is "the blasphemy of the Spirit," which is not forgiven in this
world, because forgiveness implies repentance; neither is it forgiven
in the world to come, because beyond the grave there is no repentance.
What remains for such sinners is the "[oe]onian judgment" (see p. 69)
mentioned in St. Mark iii. 29, and "the sorer punishment" spoken of in
Heb. x. 29, which is the same as the condemnation to the second death
consequent upon that judgment. (I take occasion to remark that in Mark
iii. 29, instead of _kriseos_, some early manuscripts have
_amaritematos_, which, as far as I can see, does not admit of being
interpreted consistently with the context and the usage of _enochos_.)

There is still another passage--Mark ix. 42-50--which, on account of
its peculiar significance, it is necessary to discuss with reference to
the Scriptural argument for immortality. It will suffice for
conducting the discussion to cite _vv._ 43 and 44, the literal
translation of which is as follows:--"If thy hand cause thee to offend,
cut it off: it is well for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than
having two hands to go into geenna, into the unquenchable fire, where
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not {88} quenched." The
concluding part of this text is evidently derived from Isaiah lxvi. 24,
where the prophet reveals that the Lord has said respecting the
worshippers, consisting of "all flesh," that shall come before him when
"the new heavens and the new earth" are established, that "they shall
go forth and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed
against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be
quenched: and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." This passage
has so important a bearing on the sense of that quoted above from St.
Mark, that we must by all means endeavour to find out its
interpretation. Respecting Biblical Interpretation, Burnet in one of
his treatises has enunciated two principles, which cannot but be
assented to: first, that besides the portions of Scripture which have a
literal or historical meaning, there are others which must be taken
allegorically; and, secondly, that an allegorical meaning, is to be
admitted when the literal sense involves an absurdity, or contradiction
to the nature of things.[2] The right application of these principles