plied to punishment. by the sense in which they are gen erally used, the comparative evidence in favor of the unlimited sense, is, to the limited, as 135 is to 43. Farther: If the words in question do not express unlimited duration there are no terms in the Greek language which do In this case it wonld have been impossible for the writers of the New Testament to have found appropriate terms. in the language in which they wrote, to express the proper eternity of God-or the endless duration of the happiness of the righteous. This must have occasioned them many perplexities and embarrassments, whenever they had occasion to introduce these subjects. any thing of this appear?s there the smallest evidence, from any source, of such poverty in the Greek language? Not any indeed, but a torrent of evidence to the contrary!

But does

III. We proceed to show that these words are used in a particular construction, when applied to punishment, in which they are never used in a limited sense.

"But" says Dr. Edwards: "if aion used absolutely did generally signify a mere temporary duration: it would not thence follow, that it has the same restricted signification when governed by the preposition eis. It is never applied to future punishment but in this construction.In the whole New Testament it is used in this construction, sixty-one times, in six of which it is applied to future punishment.* That in all the remaining fifty-five it is used in the endless sense, I appeal to the reader. If in those fifty-five instances it be used in the endless sense; this surely is a ground of strong presumption, that in the six instances, in which it is applied to future punishment, it is used in the same sense. 99 (Ibid.)

Now if the radical and proper signification of the words rendered eternal, forever, &c. is always being:-If these words are ordinarily used by the New Testament writers to express endless duration:-And finally, if they are

*In this construction it is found in all the texts mentioned in the last marginal note, in page 89, except Acts. xv, 18, Eph. iii, 11, 21. Once in 1 Tim. i, 17, and 2 Pet. iii, 18.

I have been thus particular in noting all the texts, in which aion occurs in the New Testament, that the reader may examine them and judge for himself, whether I have given adjust representation of the use of that word by the inspired writers.

used in a construction when applied to future punishment, in which they are never used in a limited sense:Does it not amount to a moral certainty, that when these words are connected with future punishment they express the absolute eternity of that punishment ?

Now after all this evidence upon this subject would our readers suppose that any man had the temerity to declare himself able to prove that these words do not, in any instance, necessarily convey the idea of eternity; nor yet of an endless duration of time?" And yet this declaration is made by a man who has thought himself sufficiently acquainted with the Greek language to give to the public a new version of the New Testament!-A man of no less pretensions as a critic and a polemic than the Rev. A. Kneeland!! (See his Lectures P. 189.).

The main argument by which he attempts to support this extraordinary position is "that the substantive, or Toot is used in the plural number. For" he says 66 every school-boy who has paid any attention to his grammar, knows that a noun or substantive. expressive of time, which is used in the plural number, cannot give an idea. of duration without end; but must be a period that has both beginning & end; otherwise there could be but one of the kind. And this is the case in all languages as well as the english"-(See Lectures P. 190.) This criticism did not originate with Mr. K. It was wielded by Mr. Vidler in opposition to Mr. Fuller, and the latter gentleman very fairly meets it as follows: " Words in English that are properly expressive of endless duration, may not ordinarily admit of a plural; and, if this were universally the case, it would not follow, that it is the same in Greek. Nor is it so: for the idea of endless duration, is frequently conveyed by these very plural forms of expression.Thus in Eph. iii, 11. kata prothesin ton aionon; according to his eternal purpose. 1 Tim. i, 17. To de Basilei ton aronon aphtharto, aorato, mono sopho Theo time kai doxa eis tous aionas ton aionon, Now unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever & ever-Render these passages how you will, you cannot do them justice, unless you express the idea of unlimited duration. And though the English terms may not admit of what is termed a plural form, yet they admit of what is equal to it; for though we do not say everlas

tings nor eternities yet we say forever & ever; and you might as well contend, that forever cannot properly mean unlimited duration, seeing another ever may be added to it, as that aion must needs mean a limited duration, on account of its admitting a plural form of expression. You might also with equal propriety, plead for a plurality of evers in futurity, from the phraseology, as for a plurality of ages from the Greek." VI. Letter to Mr. Vidler. See Fuller's works Vol. II, pp. 381, 382.) After this reply the objection should have rested forever. But it is urged by Mr. K. with as much assurance as though it had never been successfully met:-and indeed as tho' it were a discovery of his own!

6

Mr. Kneeland thinks he has found a term more expressive of endless duration that those which are applied to punishment: and argues from it thus: "Speaking of our great high priest, who was made priest by an oath, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron. St. Paul saith (Heb. vii, 16.) Who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life (alla kata dunamin Zoes akatalutou) but according to the power (akatulutou) of indissoluble life.Here is a word in the original which is not connected with punishment, misery, or death, any where in the. whole Bible; yet it is connected with life to denote its durability. If this word could have been so much as: once found connected with death in the same manner as it is here with life, it would have given more support to the doctrine of endless misery than all that is contained in' the bible beside. Is it not strange, if St. Paul believed in this unmerciful doctrine, that he did not so much as once, in all his writings, connect it with punishment or death?" (See Lectures P. 196.) The word akatalutos ac cording to Parkhurst is from a neg. & katalitos dissolved, which is from kataluo to dissolve. Not to be dissolved, indissoluble-[See Lexicon] and is only once used in the New Testament. But if this word is more sighificant of endless duration than those generally used why is it not ordinarily used in connection with the existence of God and the happiness of the righteous? This must be unaccountable.

This argument, as the former, was urged by Mr. Vidler and was replied to by Mr. Fuller thus: It is

true, the term akatalutos is here applied to life; but not as you insinuate, to that life of future happiness which is opposed to punishment. The life here spoken of, is that' which pertains to our Lord's priesthood, which is opposed to that of Aaron, wherein men were not suffered to continue by reason of death. The word signifies indissoluble; and being applied to the nature of a priesthood which death could not dissolve is very properly rendered endless. It possibly might be applied to the endless happiness of good men, as opposed to the dissoluble, or transitory enjoyments of the present state; but as to the punishment of the wicked, supposing it to be endless. I question whether it be at all applicable to it. I can form no idea how the term indissoluble. any more than incorruptible can apply to punishment. The word kataluo to unloose, or dissolve, is true is said to refer to travellers loosing their own burdens, or those of their beasts, when they are resting by the way: but there are no examples of its having been used with reference to the termination of punishment; nor does it appear to be applicable to it.In its most common acceptation in the New Testament, it signifies to destroy, or demolish—and you will scarcely suppose the sacred writers to suggest the idea of destruction which cannot be destroyed." (VI. Letter to Vidler.)

In fact the word akatalutos is no more expressive of duration without end than the words aion & aronios:—and could just as well be used figuratively, or in an accommodated sense. It might be said of the matrimonial covenant that it is indissoluble because it is made for life, or of any compact, that it is indissoluble, if it is intended by the parties, to continue a long time, or indefinitely.

It will not be pretended but that the English words eternal and endless naturally signify unlimited duration. But who has not read, or heard, of the eternal snows of the polar regions--eternal fame, &c. And who but has often heard in familiar conversation of an endless talker--an endless task-an endless contention, &c. But what would be thought of a person who would come forward & argue from this, that these terms are indeterminate; and do not naturally signify any thing more than a long time? The strongest terms in any language may be used in an accommodated sense: but would it be good logic to conclude from this that they have no natural determin

ate meaning, or if they have any, that it is no more cxtensive than the accommodated one? This would be considered sophistry so wretched as not to require a serious refutation-but it would be precisely of a piece with the reasoning of our universalist opponents upon this subject

Our third argument in favour of eternal punishment, is built upon a number of scriptures which are supposed to imply the doctrine. The editor has remarked upon quite a large proportion of these scriptures: -whatever is of importance in his remarks we shall now carefully consider.

In his commencement he complains that we have not introduced one argument to support that the many pas sages" which we have quoted, have reference to that punishment to which" we apply "them." (P. 179.) I€ is difficult for us to perceive what he would require of us. Our arguments are founded upon the natural and obvious meaning of these passages;-would he have us bring arguments to prove that the language, employed in them means what it is commonly understood to mean? It ap pears to us that he ought rather to bring "arguments to prove" that it means something else: and until he does which, the natural meaning must stand.

He now gives us a number of criticisms upon Mat. xii. 31, 32. and Mark iii, 29. which speak of the sin against the Holy Ghost. He informs us that the "true and original meaning" of the Greek word aion, is, "dispensa tion" and gives to us what he considers " a more proper translation of the passage" (Mat. xii, 39.) thus: "It shall not be forgiven him neither in this dispensation. neither in the dispensation to come:" and adds the foflowing paraphrase: i. e. neither in the dispensation of the law of Moses, neither in the dispensation which was to follow." (Ibid.) We need add nothing upon the proper meaning of the word aion: this subject we have Bufficiently discussed in the preceding number. But if