rich and increased in goods and have need of nothing;" to its need to "buy of Christ gold tried in the fire, and white raiment," etc.? After the primitive sense-meaning of a word is understood, the symbolic or figurative meaning is just as natu ral as the sunshine is after we have the sun. And a man, according to our Lord's teaching, is either mentally or morally obtuse, or both, who is bound down to literalism, and who can. not see through sense-forms the underlying spiritual idea. He met and reproved such an one in Nicodemus, who could not get it into his head what the birth from above was; who staid in the letter and thought only of "entering again into his mother's womb and being born." And so in the case of the woman of Samaria. She could not see beyond the water for quenching bodily thirst. "The water of life" was as yet a mystery. She interpreted the Lord's words "just as he said." And so our Lord's language respecting "eating his flesh and drinking his blood." "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" was the stupid question of his hearers.

With regard to the words whose meaning is, in this argument, brought into question, we have the highest critical and philosophical authority for insisting that neither the literal nor the figurative meaning of "immortality" is "eternal life;" nor that of "death," "extinction;" nor that of "eternal," "irreversible." If they are ever employed in these senses, the usage is unusual, unnatural, and forced. And it will doubtless happen that when the present onset upon the solemn sanctions of God's law has spent its force, the believers in the gospel will find the old doctrine of the church still occupying its accustomed place, polished clean from the unsightly incrustations which had attached themselves to it, it may be, but substantially the same as ever.

9. Once more. We cannot resist the conviction that the spread of this doctrine of extinction is not only indicative of a demoralized tone of religious sentiment, but that it has a productive power of immense evil in the same direction. We should not entertain any solicitude on the subject, if, in sporadic cases, like that of John Foster, persons of sensitive natures that had been shocked by an unwise and unscriptural handling of the doctrine of everlasting punishment, should

shrink from the admission or contemplation of the doctrine. But when we see men of coarse fiber and contentious spirit, as well as men trained in orthodox views, take up the gauntlet of debate, and brand evangelical Christians with holding "incredible," "unreasonable," "cruel," and "atrocious" sentiments, and hurl defiance at these sentiments, it seems to us that the socialistic spirit of antagonism to law and penalty is insinuating itself into our theology and our religion. It looks to us like the spread of a contagion. How many will take it, and take it fatally, we cannot anticipate. Our judgment and our hope are that it will soon spend its force.

We venture to say, that we think that the manner in which the doctrine of everlasting punishment has been in former days taught, has been needlessly revolting. Protestant christendom has inherited many most gross and shocking methods of representation from the Roman Catholic church. And some of these have survived to the present day. We have no space left to do more than simply to indicate our meaning in this general way. Doctor Huntington, alluding to this point, admits "that even this gross misrepresentation of Christ's words may not have been a calamity." "Our Lord knowing all things which should happen, may have purposely used language upon this point, which he foresaw might very possibly, for a season, be misunderstood. May it not be that the very ambiguity of the words, their capability of various interpretations, was intended to serve a beneficent purpose? . . . . Who shall say that the rough people, the savage races to which the gospel was then being carried, could in any other way have been made to feel the terrible reality of retribution in the world to come; could any otherwise have been persuaded to look forward to that retribution as a thing to fear?" (pp. 77, 78). The Roman Catholic church even now teaches that the fire of hell literally scorches and tortures the flesh. The doctrine of the eternal loss of the soul is a solemn and fearful one even when divested of all gross conceptions of torture. But we do not believe that man, even in a state of high culture, has outgrown his need of it. It is not the key-stone in the arch of redemption. But we believe that it occupies a place in it, near the base it may be, so that if dislodged, the stability of the structure will be seriously endangered.

ARTICLE V.-ENGLISH FACTORY LEGISLATION.

FEW subjects with which the legislator has to deal present greater difficulties than the relations of labor and capital. On the one hand he has the physical and moral well being of the laborers to consider, and, on the other, the commercial and industrial interests of the country. The principles upon which such legislation should be based are by no means settled, and each step forward has partaken more or less of the character of an experiment. In England the contest has been a severe one. The political economists have opposed legal restrictions upon the free competition of labor as wrong in theory. "If it is beneficial to have unrestricted freedom in exchanging the products of industry," why, say they, "should not capital and labor be unfettered in their dealings with each other?" What right has the State to intervene, and prevent the laborer from entering into such contracts as regards time and conditions of employment as are satisfactory to him? This argument has been used with great effect, and every improvement in the condition of laborers due to factory legislation has been obtained against the combined opposition of political econo mists and employers. The latter have predicted, that every act passed for the protection of labor would result in the downfall of England's industrial supremacy. As to much of the legis lation, the laborers themselves were apathetic. They took little interest in efforts to improve the sanitary condition of factories, or to afford protection in dangerous or unhealthy trades. The greater the danger, the higher the wages. The laborer who could support himself upon the earnings of his wife and children, did not consider the cutting off this source of income an unmixed good. Women and children, upon whom the evils of the old system bore the heaviest, could do little to arouse public sentiment. The arguments of the capitalist and economist would be plausible if the laborer was in a condition to contract with his employer upon equal terms. But he is not. The introduction of machinery brought with it

the factory system, under which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of operatives are assembled under a single roof. Production requires a large capital, often furnished by persons who know little of the wants and needs of those by whose labor they profit. Skilled labor has been to a large extent displaced by that of women and children. The processes of manufacture have been minutely subdivided, and the operative has become a part of a large and complicated structure. When the wheels start in the morning he must be in his place, and remain until the cessation of work. It is a conflict of human nerve and muscle with steam and iron. What wonder that the operative comes to regard himself as a part of a vast machine, which has absorbed his individuality, his hopes, and aspirations?

"For all day, the wheels are droning, turning,

The wind comes in our faces,

Till our hearts turn, our heads with pulses burning,
And the walls turn in their places.

"Turns the sky in the high window blank and reeling,
Turns the long light that drops adown the wall,
Turn the black flies that crawl along the ceiling,
All are turning, all the day, and we with all."

What opportunity has the operative to protect himself? Is be in a situation to insist that he shall be protected from dangerous machinery-that the factory shall be properly ventilated and drained-that the danger incident to unwholesome trades shall be reduced to a minimum-or, if over-work is demanded, can he resist when hundreds stand ready to take his place?

If adults are comparatively helpless under such a system, what must be the condition of children? The cupidity of parents and employers has driven children of five and six years of age into factories, and kept them at work the same. number of hours as adults. They have no protection except such as the law gives.*

English legislation on the subject began in 1802, with the passage of an act relating to the employment of apprentices in

"The factory system," says the Duke of Argyll, "had not been many years in operation when its effects were seen. A whole generation was growing up under conditions of physical degeneracy, of mental ignorance, and of moral corruption."

cotton factories. A violent epidemic fever raged in the neighborhood of Manchester, and many children employed in the cotton factories died. It was at once seen that the disease was the result of excessive work, poor accommodation, and overcrowding. The act required the walls of factories to be limewashed, a sufficient number of windows to be provided, and the hours of labor fixed at twelve per day. It only applied to apprentices, and children whose parents resided in the neighborhood were not affected by its provisions. In 1819, an act was passed applying to all children employed in cotton mills. The employment of children under nine years of age was prohibited, and those between nine and sixteen years of age were not to be employed more than twelve hours per day, exclusive of one hour and a half for meals. In 1825, a partial holiday was given on Saturday, and penalties provided for violations of the act. In 1831, night-work in factories was forbidden as to persons between nine and twenty-one years of age. The working day for persons under eighteen, was fixed at twelve hours for every day except Saturday, when it was to be nine hours. The subject entered into and was complicated with the reform movement of the time. Wool factories had not been affected by the previous legislation, and the opera tives in the wool districts demanded the restriction of nonadult labor to ten hours per day. As the manufacturers were in favor of the reform bill, the conservatives developed a strong interest in the operatives and supported their demand. The matter was considered by committees and commissions and resulted in the act of 1833, which was a great step in advance of previous legislation. Persons under eighteen years of age, employed in cotton, wool, worsted, hemp, flax, tow, and linen spinning and weaving mills, were forbidden to work be tween 8.30 P. M. and 5.30 A. M., and children between nine and thirteen years were limited to forty-eight hours per week. The most significant features of the act were those relating to school attendance, and the appointment of inspectors to enforce the law. In 1835, the employment of women, and children under ten years of age, in underground work was prohibited. In 1844, further provision was made for school attendance, and a distinction was made between children and young persons.