3d. Is it objected" Your view of this passage does not agree with the coming of Christ mentioned chap. 2: 1. of this epistle; for it is his coming at the day of judgment, and you have interpreted his coming in chap. 1. of his coming at the destruction of Jerusalem?" Answer; whoever will consult Whitby may see, that he interprets Christ's coming in chap. 1. of the day of judgment, but passes it very slightly; but he enters at large into the proof, that Christ's coming, chap. 2. refers to his coming to destroy Jerusalem. Whitby then shows, that chap. 2. is in accordance with my views of chap. 1. But whoever wishes to see these things treated more at large, must consult the Magazine referred to above.

Matth. 18: 8. The "everlasting fire" here mentioned, is the same as hell fire, verse 9. for they are used as convertible expressions; and the same as everlasting fire, Matth. 25: 41. See Inquiry into the words Sheol, Hades, &c. for an illustration of this text, and which has been also noticed in the present Inquiry. It requires no further attention.

Jude 7. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." That the suffering the vengeance of eternal fire here, has no reference to punishment in a future state, appears to me evident from the following considerations.

1st. From comparing 2 Peter 2: 6. where nothing is said about eternal fire, but only that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, with the people together, are said to be condemned with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly. Had the people gone to endless misery, would Peter have omitted this important part, and mentioned only the destruction of the cities with the

loss of their temporal lives, as an example to ungodly men? We cannot very readily admit this.

2d. By comparing verses 5, 6, 7. together, Jude says, that the people to whom he wrote, knew that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the vengeance of eternal fire. But I ask how they could know that they suffered in a future eternal state of existence? For the history of the event, nor no other part of Scripture could give them such information. Comp. Zeph. 29. But they could know, that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered temporal misery, for this is plainly

made known.

3d. Jude says, they were set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. But how could they be an example, if this refers to punishment in a future state? For an example to others must be visible, to be of any benefit to them. Their destruction, with the cities, are an example, for these are facts allowed by sacred and profane writers, Jewish and heathen. See Philo, Josephus, the Apocryphal writers, and others, who all mention those events. It is allowed by many intelligent men, that nothing is said in the Old Testament about eternal punishment. The cities of the plain burnt for many ages, which sufficiently entitled this fire to be called "the vengeance of eternal fire." This fire is called eternal, in the same or similar sense, as the desolation of certain cities and places, were to be perpetual or everlasting. See among others the following places. Ezek. 26: 20, 21. 35: 9. and 36: 2. Isai. 58: 12. Jer. 18: 15, 16. 23: 40. and 51: 39. This has been shown above.

4th. Whitby and others, who believed the devil to be a real being, maintain, that he is not suffering, nor will suffer the torments of hell until after the day of judgment. Why then send the Sodomites there before him? God must be very merciful to the devil,

to excuse him so long a time from eternal misery, yet send all the Sodomites there when he burnt up their city. But we think, neither the doctrine concerning the devil, nor eternal misery, have been properly examined, or such opinions would all be discarded."

Jude 13. "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." Peter states for substance the same, 2 Epistle, 2: 17. which has been noticed in my answer to Mr. Sabine, to which I refer the reader. There it has been shown, that the apostle referred to the Jews, and the darkness they are now in; and that it may be said to be forever, in the Jewish usage of this expression. That their present punishment is called everlasting, we think has been proved from several texts above.

Mark 3: 29. has been considered in connexion with Matth. 12: 31, 32. and requires no further notice.

Heb. 6: 2. "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." The apostle here was writing to believing Hebrews. The krimatos aioniou, or eternal judgment, i conceive simply means "the judgment of the age," referring to God's judgment on that generation of Jews, called eternal damnation, everlasting fire, and everlasting punishment, in other passages. Of this judgment the apostle went on to speak, in chap. 10: 26-31. and has been sufficiently attended to on other texts.

Rev. 14: 11. "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night." And 19: 3. "And again they said, Alleluia, and her smoke rose up forever and ever." And 20: 10. "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." It would

be idle to show that these passages have no respect to punishment in another state of existence. No well informed man would urge them as proof of such a doctrine; for it is plain, that the punishments were in this world, where the time is measured by day and night.

Such are all the texts in the Bible, where olim, aior, and aionios are used, in whatever way rendered by our translators. Not one text has been omitted to our knowledge, and the reader having the whole ground before him, may examine it for himself. The texts on which dependence is placed, proving the doctrine of endless punishment, we have fully considered, and to spend time with others is unnecessary.

SECTION VIII.

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OLIM, AION AND AIONIos, renDERED EVERLAsting, forever, &C. THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE, WHETHER APPLIED TO GOD, TO LIFE, OR PUNISHMENT.

Ir these terms are ever used to express endless duration, all seem to be agreed that they express the endless duration,

1st. Of God. Indeed, it is from their being applied to him, who is without beginning or end, that it is concluded they express endless duration when applied to other things. This point, then, requires to be examined with modesty and care. It would ill

become me, to speak with dogmatical confidence on such a subject. All I claim is, that what has occurred to me be considered impartially, and it may lead to a more complete investigation of the subject. There is no dispute, nor can there be any, about the endless existence of Jehovah. The only point about which a question arises is, are these terms intended to express his endless duration when so applied? If they do, it must, I think, be allowed, that it is the subject to which they are applied which gives them this extent of signification; and it is certain beyond a doubt, that they are often used in Scripture to express a limited duration; yea, sometimes a short period, such as a person's life time. Besides, does it fairly follow, that because God is infinite, that words must derive an infinite signification when applied to him? If they do, why confine it to the words before us? Why not also say, that when the term good is applied to God, it must always mean an infinite degree of goodness? which, if true, puts an end to the doctrine of eternal misery, for it is expressly said, "the Lord is good unto all." So in regard to other terms being applied to him. But what leads me to think that olim, aion, and aionios, used to express duration when applied to the divine being, were not intended to designate his endless duration, are the following things:

1st. From the original native sense of these terms. Lexicon writers seem to be agreed, that they signify eternity, not from their natural native sense, but from the subjects to which they are applied, and the sense of certain passages requires such an application of them. They all allow, that they not only signify limited duration, but are used to express this in Scripture. I would therefore query, whether we ought to take it for granted, that certain passages in which such words are applied, require us to under