happiness without limits, without end, is intended to be designated. For all these cases, which I shall not repeat here, I must refer the reader to pp. 415. 429 above, where he will see them produced at full length.

Can it be reasonably doubted, then, that the 15 cases in which aiv is applied to the future punishment of the wicked, and the 7 cases in which ulovios is applied to the same subject, have a meaning like that of the preceding cases? The time designated in both is future; the world is future. The intention of the writers seems very apparently to have been similar in both cases. The invariable laws of interpretation, therefore, would seem to demand a like exegesis. Let us for a moment, examine this last position.

I take it to be a rule in construing all antithetic forms of expression, that where you can perceive the force of one side of the antithesis, you do of course come to a knowledge of the force of the other side. If life eternal is promised on one side, and death eternal is threatened on the other and opposite one, is it not to be supposed, that the word eternal which qualifies death, is a word of equal force and import with the word eternal which qualifies life? In no other case could a doubt be raised, with regard to such a principle. I venture to say that the exception here, (if such an one must be made), is without any parallel in the just principles of interpretation.

If then the words alov and aiovios are applied 60 times (which is the fact) in the New Testament, to designate the continuance of the future happiness of the righteous; and some 12 times to designate the continuance of the future misery of the wicked; by what principles of interpreting language does it become possible for us, to avoid the conclusion that alov and aiovios have the same sense in both cases?

Will it be said, that we must appeal to arguments here deduced from the light of nature, in order to determine the probable meaning of alov and aiovios, when connected with the future punishment of the wicked? But how can we do this? The light of nature at best, as we have before seen, merely renders it probable, in some degree, that the soul may always exist. Does it can it— determine, then, what is to be its condition; and how long this is to continue? It is impossible. Or if we insist still on what the light of nature can do, then let us go to those who enjoyed it, and see how they decided in relation to the question before us. Did not the Greeks and Romans hold to the eternity of future punishments? Notoriously they did. And could we, with such light merely as they had, come to an opposite conclusion?

But if the declaration of the Scriptures is to be our guide, in regard to our creed on this point; and if we are to ask simply what the Bible declares, and not, what in our view it ought to declare; then must this great question, like every other one in revealed theology, be ultimately settled by an appeal to the nature, power, and laws of language. Such an appeal I have endeavoured to make; and the result is what I have expressed above.

It does most plainly and indubitably follow, that if the Scriptures have not asserted the endless punishment of the wicked, neither have they asserted the endless happiness of the righteous, nor the endless glory and existence of the Godhead. The one is equally certain with the other. Both are laid in the same balance. They must be tried by the same tests. And if we give up the one, we must, in order to be consistent, give up the other also.

But if the eternity of God's glory, attributes, and existence; if the eternity of future happiness; is to be given up, as revealed doctrine on what basis is this doctrine to be placed? How are we entitled any longer to receive it as true, and to hold fast to it as certain?

66

Tell me not of the light of nature here. I must believe, (I trust there are very many others who will feel constrained with me to believe), that the GOSPEL has brought life and immortality to light, and that no mere son of nature" "hath seen God at any time;" "but that the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him." Believing this-fully believing this-I must feel, that the criticism which would decide against the endless punishment of the wicked, must also, to be consistent, blast my hopes of eternal life, and cover the glories of the Godhead with everlasting darkness.

I feel constrained, moreover, to ask here, If alov and aiovios do not signify eternity and eternal, in the Greek language of the Septuagint and New Testament, then what terms has this language to express such an idea? Will any one venture to say, that the sacred writers had no such idea as eternity and eternal? If he will, I do not think him worthy of refutation. But if it be admitted, that the idea in question was familiar to them, then by what terms could they express it in the Greek language, so appropriate as those which have now been examined?

I admit that a Greek could convey the idea of eternity and eternal, in a variety of ways, by different modes of expression; just as we can in English, or as a Hebrew could in his language. It is true, moreover, that the New Testament writers, and the Septua

gint, have conveyed the ideas in question, occasionally, by the use of other words, and by peculiar phrases. But after all, the essence of the difficulty remains. The question is substantially unanswered by these considerations. It cannot be shewn, that any words are so appropriate to the object named, as the words alov and aluvios. Still clearer if possible is it, that the proper word in Hebrew for eternity, is ; to which, in so many hundred instances, alor

and alovios clearly correspond.

Must not every philologist and every serious inquirer feel, then, that conjecture is out of question, in regard to determining such a case as that before us? The meaning of such words is not to be guessed at; but to be made out by analogy, and by a regular, impartial application of the laws of language.

I admit the awful nature of the conclusion, that the punishment of a future world is to have no end. I do most fully admit, that it is indeed "a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." But what if I should doubt or deny it? Can this have any influence on that eternal Judge, who will pronounce my final sentence? None. Can my denial of what he has said, or my refusal to explain it in analogy with all his other declarations relative to things of the future world, or my efforts to fritter away the meaning of his declarations can all this avail me, when I stand an unembodied, naked, helpless spirit before his searching eye, and the tribunal of his almighty power? O the dreadful thought! What if I deceive myself, and cry out, "peace! peace!" while my God saith, "There is no peace to the wicked?" Will this repeal his law, alter its meaning, or frustrate its penalty? It is indeed a fearful hazard, for men to cast themselves for safety on such a desperate wreck as this!

If there be any relief for the dark prospects of the wicked as to the future, it must come only from this source, viz. that the Bible has disclosed some method of future relief; some encouragement that future reformation and penitence will restore the lost favour of God. But alas! where is this to be found? On this subject of unspeakable and everlasting moment, of tremendous interest, there is not one assertion-one word even-in all the book of God, which, when construed by the usual laws of language, can afford a gleam of hope. Where is another state of probation described? What are the means of grace to be enjoyed in Hell? Is it the preaching of the gospel? Is it the influence of the Spirit of God? Who preaches, in the bottomless pit; or how shall the Spirit of God dwell with blasphemers and reprobates?

Will misery of itself make men penitent? And this, in a world

from which the means of grace are excluded? All, all makes against such a supposition. There is not a sentence in the Scriptures which asserts it, or even gives any countenance to it. All the warnings and exhortations which the Scriptures contain, go upon the ground of men's present state of trial being their final and decisive one. It is impossible to believe rationally, that men of such benevolence as were the writers of the holy Scriptures, should not have told us something about a future probation and acceptance, if these were known to them. If they have not told us of these, then, it is because they did not believe in them, they did not know any thing of them. And if they did not, how can we venture to believe that we have any knowledge of them ?

On this point, I acknowledge my convictions are strong. I have long searched, with anxious solicitude, for a text in the Bible which would even seem to favour the idea of a future probation. I cannot find it. If others have been more successful in their researches, let them shew us the proof of it. When this shall be done, in accordance with the simple laws of interpretation, and without the application of a priori theology to the Bible, then I promise to renounce my feelings and views, in regard to the whole subject before me.

Until then, I must hold to the endless punishment of the wicked, or give up the endless happiness of the righteous. And if the hope of this must be abandoned, then may we well ask, what the gospel has revealed that is worth our knowing; or of what value is the existence which the Creator has given us?

I take it for granted, that all my readers will understand, that the evidence in respect to future punishment, derived from the use of alov and aiovios, is only a part-a moderate part-of what the Scriptures contain relative to this subject. My design, in the present inquiry, was not to present at large the subject of future punishment. To produce all the arguments, and examine all the objections, would require a book instead of a short essay; and years of study, instead of a few days.

Whether I shall go on in the critical examination of other important Scriptural words, relative to the punishment of the wicked, in a manner resembling that above, must depend on the reception with which the present effort may meet, and on circumstances over which I can of myself have no effectual control.

Thus have I endeavoured to present, as briefly as my plan would

permit, the result of a philological and exegetical examination of the words alov and aiavios, as employed by the writers of the New Testament. I may have performed a work superfluous for some of the readers of the Spirit of the Pilgrims; who perhaps have elsewhere found what has better satisfied their minds, than that which has now been laid before them. But if there be any critical and hermeneutical essay of this nature, which goes the full length of the subject, it is unknown to me; and I have merely followed my own plan in the above researches, and made all my investigations, without the aid of any lexicons or commentators. My reason for this has not been, an aim to be original; much less, a disregard to the opinions of others. It has been simply this, viz. a desire not to embarrass my mind with any previous opinions or views. I wished to form my conclusion merely from the word of God, investigated with diligence and care, and in a manner as unembarrassed as it was possible for me to adopt, in my circumstances.

The result seems to me to be plain, and philologically and exegetically certain. It is this; either the declarations of the Scriptures do not establish the facts, that God and his glory and praise and happiness are endless; nor that the happiness of the righteous in a future world, is endless; or else they establish the fact, that the punishment of the wicked is endless. The whole stand or fall together. There can, from the very nature of antithesis, be no room for rational doubt here, in what manner we should interpret the declarations of the sacred writers. We must either admit the endless misery of hell, or give up the endless happiness of heaven.

As a kind of supplement to the above investigation, and for the sake of communicating a fuller view of the words in question than most of my readers may readily find, I must beg the liberty of adding, by way of Appendix, a few strictures on the manner in which Lexicographers and others have treated air and alovios. It is high time that these words were accurately understood, and handled in a manner truly philological. If what I have said, or may say, will contribute toward the accomplishment of so important an object; or, at least, excite others to do what needs to be done; my labour will not be in vain. Such of my readers as pursue the critical study of the Scriptures, will probably not be uninterested in the remarks which follow. Others may omit the reading of them, should they find them to be destitute of special interest to their own minds.

In regard to the Lexicons, I shall be brief. I perceive, on an