have they been used by the great body of the most profound Gree scholars ever since. Now, should any one examine the various classical Greek authors, he would not, I presume, find a more energetic phrase, in the whole compass of their writings, to express the idea of endless duration than is found in the Bible to express th idea of endless punishment.

But the only fair and safe rule of interpretation used by all goo critics on all other subjects is, to understand words and phrases in their literal and primary sense, unless there be something in the subject or connection which requires them to be taken in a metaphorical sense. Now the literal and primary meaning of aion is always being, and of aionios is everlasting, eternal. In this sense they should be understood unless their meaning be necessarily restricted by the subject or connection. But when these terms are applied to objects that relate only to this state of being, as they sometimes are, or when they are applied to objects which are known to be in their own nature incapable of eternal duration; we know from the nature of the case, that they are used not in their primary but in their figurative sense. And when applied to things that are capable of endless duration, and there is nothing in the subject or connection which requires them to be taken in a figurative sense, they should be understood in their literal and proper acceptation. On this principle we say they denote endless duration when applied to the being and perfection of God, to the stability of his kingdom, to the dominion of Christ, and to the future felicity of the righteous. And why not understand them in the same sense in those passages where they are applied to the future punishment of the wicked.-There is nothing in this, more than in the former cases to restrict their meaning. It is nowhere said, of that punishment to which the fixed to the word AIONOS,-speaking of the deities whom he considered immor tal, unchangeable, self-sufficient, and perfectly happy, he adds, "They contin ue through all AIONA, [eternity]. And this the ancients admirably signified by the word itself: for they call the time of each person's life, his AION, inasmuch as nothing, according to the laws of nature, exists out of its limits, and for the same reason, that which comprehends the duration of the whole heaven, the whole of INFINITE time, of infinity itself is called AIONA [eternity], taking its name from its being always [EINAI AEI] immortal and divine.

wicked will go with the devil and his angels,that it will have an end, nor that it has already come to an end, nor that it is impossible in the nature of things for it to be endless. I see no reason therefore for understanding these terms, as used in relation to punishment, otherwise than in their primary and proper acceptation.

The terms under consideration are uniformly used in the scriptures to denote the longest possible duration of which the subject to which they are applied is capable and where the duration is limited the limitation is such as necessarily arises from the nature of the case. Thus when it is said "One generation passeth away, and another cometh, but the earth abideth forever,"* it seems to signify merely a long period. If the destruction of this world mentioned in the scripturca, however, denotes the annihilation of its atoms, as well as the ruin of its form and structure, then when the earth is said to abide forever we are to understand the term in a metaphorical sense; as signifying that the earth will endure for a long time compared with the period of a human generation. But if there is no reason to believe that the elements ever have been or ever will be annihilated; but after changing their form will become the materials of the "new earth wherein righteousness shall dwell," then the term is used in. a litera sense and denotes endless duration.

In such other cases, as I have observed, these terms when used in a metaphorical sense they denote the longest period of which the subject united with them is capable. Thus when it is said of the servant whose ear was bored in his master's house, "he shall serve him eis ton aiona forever," the meaning is that he should never go free, but be a servant during the longest period in which he could be a servant; that is during his life. When Hannah devoted her child, Samuel, to the Lord "eis ton aiona forever," there was no limitation in her own mind. She did not intend that he should ever return to a private life. When Jonah cried out in the bitterness of his soul that the earth with her bars was about him, eis ton aiona forever," the term is not expressive of what it actually proved, namely, an imprisonment of three days only, but of what it was in * Eccl. i: 4. † Ex. xxi: 6. 1 Sam. i: 22. || Jonah ii; 6.

B*

his own painful apprehensions which were that he should never more see the light. Thus " an ordinance eis ton aiona forever,”* is an ordinance continuing through the longest time in which it can be an ordinance, that is, throughout the continuance of the whole dispensation of which it was an institute. In the same manner the "everlasting hills," and "everlasting mountains," denote hills and mountains that will continue to the end of the world, or as long as it is possible for them to continue. And thus when it is said "The Father will give you another Comforter that he may abide with you cis ton aiona forever," the meaning is, that they should never be deprived of the sacred influences of the Holy Spirit. He should be their constant attendant and guide through life, be with their successors to the end of time, and afford those consolations of God which will be the eternal joy of all the saints.

According to this rule, if after this world is ended and successive duration consequently terminated, we read that the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment; this term must be understood in its most extensive sense as denoting an endless duration. For with respect to the things of a future world such a duration will then evidently be possible.

This conclusion is rendered morally certain by the manner in which the two words aion, and its derivative aionios, translated eterral, forever, and forever and ever, are invariably used in the scriptures of the New Testament-aion is used in the common copies of the Greek New Testament in ninety-six instances. In fifty-five of these the word certainly means unlimited duration, either past or future, besides those which relate to punishment. And there is no case in which it is employed to designate a definite period. With respect to cion when governed by the preposition eis in which connection it is always used, when applied to the future punishment of the wicked, it uniformly denotes endless duration. It is found in this construction in sixty-one places in the Greek New Testament. In six of these places it is applied to future punishment. That, in the remaining fifty-five, it undeniably expresses endless duration, I appeal to the reader. Now if in fiftyNum. 8. Gen. xl: 26. Hab. ii: 6. || Joan xiv: 16.

five instances it expresses duration without end, is it not reasonable to conclude that it has the same meaning in the six instances in which it is applied to future punishment? The phrase cis tous aio nas ton aionon commonly rendered forever and ever is used in twenty-one instances in the New Testament. I believe there is not a single example of its being used to convey any other than the idea of endless duration. In eighteen instances, it is applied to the continuance of the perfections, glory, government, and praise of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In one, it is said of the righteous in the future world that, "they shall reign eis tous aiɔnas ton ainon, forever and ever." In the other remaining two instances it is applied to future punishment. Is it not reasonable then to conclude that in these two instances it also denotes endless duration? Would the inspired writers have employed this phrase eighteen times to denote an absolute eternity and twice to denote that which was infinitely different, while these were the only instances in which the phrase was applied to these subjectsthe perfections of God, and the future destiny of the wicked?

The adjective aionios, everlasting, is employed in seventy-one places in the whole New Testament. In forty-four of these it is used in relation to the future life of the righteous, and therefore is used in the endless sense. In four it is employed in relation to the perfections of God. In three it is applied to the redemption of Christ, the covenant of grace and the gospel. Here it is used in the endless sense. In eleven it relates to subjects of a miscellaneous nature. Once it is applied to the kingdom of Christ. And in seven it is used in reference to future punishment. Now in all the instances in which it relates to future time except the seven in which it is applied to future punishment, it confessedly denotes unlimited duration. Is it not reasonable then, to suppose that in these seven instances it also denotes unlimited duration? If it has not this meaning in these instances the scriptures do not decide that God is eternal, nor that the happiness of the righteous is without end, nor that the covenant of grace will always remain.

* Rev. xxii: 5.

When Christ and his apostles wrote for us a complete system of theology, if they intended to have been understood they must have used the terms in question according to their known and established signification, at the time they spoke and wrote. Now the Jews, especially the Essens and Pharisees, two leading sects among them, held the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked as is clear from the indubitable testimony of Josephus and Philo. Josephus says, "The Pharisees held that the souls of the wicked were to be punished with perpetual punishment, and that there was appointed for them a perpetual prison." He makes a similar remark respecting the doctrine of the Essens. Philo remarks that, “The punishment of the wicked is to live forever dying, and to be in pains and griefs that never cease." The same fact is also abundantly proved from Sabbinical writings and from the Tarquins. How then would the Jews understand our Lord and his apostles when they heard them freely using these terms, everlasting, eternal, forever, and forever and ever, in relation to future punishment? If the Jews, who believed in the doctrine of endless punishment, did not learn it from the scriptures of the Old Testament, but from the idolatrous nations around, as some pretend to argue, and if our Lord knew that this doctrine was false and meant to teach the ultimate restitution of the wicked to virtue and happiness, would he have spoken of future punishment in language which, according to the established usage of the day, was known to express an absolute eternity? Would he not have plainly pointed out their error as he did other errors that had been introduced. Every man in his senses must believe that by this course he designedly confirmed them in their error, or else he meant to teach the doctrine of endless punishment.

Having made these general observations, let us go into an examination of each individual passage which speaks of everlasting punishment. This we shall do for the purpose of showing the absurdity of those interpretations which are given to disprove the doctrine of endless punishment; of giving the true interpretation of these passages; and of showing that, taken separate, they contain internal evidence of the doctrine we are endeavoring to establish.