minds are already wedded to opinions, which they are sure the Bible cannot contradict. Who boldly take the high priori road, Such, I apprehend, is the history of Dr. Clarke's Arianism. He had demonstrated the unity of God metaphysically, and to this proof Article of Faith all difficulties, and (as he esteemed them) contradictions, were obliged to give way. In the same manner many learned Divines have proceeded in rejecting the eternity of future torments;-having first convinced themselves that such an opinion would be contradictory to the known attributes of God, they pass a hasty eye over passages which, on their principles, seem hard to be comprehended: using in this case their reason, much as the Quakers do their spirit, which must be infallible, though the Scriptures may be misinterpreted. Against such antagonists it seems useless to dwell merely on particular texts, because, admitting their premises, perhaps no texts would be thought conclusive; I have therefore endeavoured to shew that those premises are ungrounded, and that nothing can be adduced to prove this doctrine contradictory to the attributes of God, as understood from his ordinary dispensation towards us, but rather that every thing around us strongly tends to confirm it. I now proceed to make a few observations on the nature of the testimony by which it is supported in the New Testament, as well as the construction by which that testimony is evaded. The words principally under dispute in this controversy are those by which eternity is usually designated in the Bible: " Tous avas," sometimes εις τους written with the fuller addition of " twr cucover."? These words, it is said, may be best understood either as describing a period of indefinite duration, not absolutely eternal, but to which no limit is assigned; or as an expression directly borrowed from the Jews, and meant only to extend to the expiration of those æons into which they divided the several administrations of Providence. I am incapable of entering very critically into this matter, but I think I see enough to convince me that neither of these constructions is tenable. In answer to the latter it may be said, that the Jews never thought of more than two ages; the present, which included the advent of the Messiah; and the future, which they believed to be eternal-each of these they styled "a," but when referring to the last always considered it as infinite. Thus John vi. 51. "FLS TOY αlava;" is rendered by our translators "for ever;" and I suppose correctly, for we read that till the time of Ezra, their benedictions (like ours) concluded with the phrases strictly rendered 66: HIS TOY CLONYX;" when the Sadducees becoming numerous and disputing the meaning of this expression, they adopted that form which we render * εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων,” as more full and conclusive. It seems however evident, that whatever might be the origin of these words, they soon became engrafted in the language as a common form of speech, and in fact, considered in either light, the con structions contended for are. both open to the following objections. For 1st, Had the Greeks no form of speech by which to express eternity? Was their language, the richest ever known, destitute of a symbol appropriated to that idea which we find inseparable from our minds? How then shall we prove the eternity of future happiness? or must this be restricted within the same limits in order to make a fair compromise? a sort of diplomatic arrangement by which the balance is equitably adjusted between our Maker, and ourselves? But 2dly. These unhappy words are placed also in situations where they become much more perplexing: for instance, St. Paul speaking of our Saviour says “ŒEOS EUλOYNTOG Eis salvas." Rom. ix. 5.-so 1 Tim. 1. 17. σε τῳβασιλει των αιώνων (which our translators have ventured to render “ Eternal) Θεῳ τιμη, και δοξα εις τες Divas TWY αiwvwv." Can these expressions possibly be limited? can the existence of God be finite, or the glory we pay him not concurrent with it? I confess I am unable to see how the difficulty is to be met; yet one of the most direct texts on the present subject is conceived in the same words, where St John, Rev. xx. 10. speaking of the Devil, the Beast, and the false prophet, says “ και βασανισθησονζαι ήμερας και νύκλος εις τες αιώνας των αιώνων. ." If to all this we add, that aw 66 is generally agreed to be compounded of a w* to express perpetuity, I think we shall see strong ground to adopt the construction, for which I am an unlearned advocate.-But, if it were not thought too daring a concession, I could almost be willing to yield these arguments to our opponents, and rest the question on grounds to which similar objections cannot apply-aw it is allowed has several senses, and though I have no doubts as to the phrase under discussion, this circumstance affords some colour to those who maintain the contrary opinion; but though the substantive be thought questionable, I suppose there is not a shade of reason for extending the same objections to its adjective; ouvios I apprehend always means eternal; thus St. John speaking of our Saviour, 1 Epistle ii. calls him "avov (wy" where it can mean nothing else; yet we read also of πυρ αιωνιον” and “ ολεθρος αιωνίας” Many more texts might be cited, but I believe I may say that there is not one passage in the New Testament in which there is any ground for rendering it otherwise. But the evidence for this doctrine is not yet exhausted; it presents itself in various shapes, and rests not on the critical accuracy of expressions. The punishment which the wicked shall hereafter suffer, is continually spoken of under the title of Death, the most gloomy of all characters, which seems to point 66 So Hesiod " μακαρων γενος αιεν εουίων.” From αιων ævum is also clearly derived. See Scapula on these words and a quotation given by him from Philo a Jew. it out as dark and final,a state from which there is no return, cut off from light, and hope, and consolation. John the Baptist closes his figurative account of our Saviour's ministration, by declaring, that he shall burn the chaff with "fire unquenchable:" this requires no comment; it is direct, and, I think, conclusive. Or if confirmation be needed, our Blessed Lord himself compares the wicked to the tares which the lord commanded his servants to gather together at the harvest, and burn them in heaps, a direct emblem of utter destruction: and elsewhere describes the place of torments, by de. claring that there "the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Of the sinner against the Holy Ghost he expressly asserts, that he shall not be pardoned" either in this world or the world to come;" and, as if he would have answered the doubts of those whose opinions are in question, he affirms of Judas, that" it had been good for him had he never been born." This last declaration indeed seems to me to render their case hopeless; for all their bold attempts to establish forced constructions, are grounded on a conviction, that it shall be well with all at the last: and that every passage must be misunderstood, which would falsify the opinion, that God's infinite benevolence shall finally produce good out of evil; that every paradox shall be reconciled, and universal happiness crown the consummation of all things. Alas! this single speech of our Saviour for ever annihilates this fair |