there are some--[i. e. some able orthodox commentators] who maintain that these are but three parts of the same question; and that our Lord's answers only refer to the destruction of the Jewish state, and that nothing is spoken here concerning the last or judgment day." It is evident from these considerations, that the disciples inquired of the Savior what would be the sign of his coming to bring the Jewish age or dispensation to a close, and set up his Mediatorial kingdom on earth.

3. The time for the fulfilment of this parable. This was the point on which the apostles were anxious to obtain information. The Redeemer proceeds to point out to them many "signs," which should indicate the speedy arrival of the time of his coming. At the 32d verse, he finally gives them a clear and positive data of the time--as follows:-"Now learn the parable of the fig-tree.-When his branch is yet tender and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise ye, [ye disciples to whom I speak] when ye shall see all these things, know that it is NEAR, even at the door. Verily, I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled! This declaration is the Key which unlocks to our understanding, with the utmost clearness and precision, the time, the date, of all these proceedings.-Every thing of which he had previously been speaking-everything he proceeded to utter in that discourse, including the parable of the Sheep and Goats, was to take place during that generation!! There is no other time mentioned-no individual is authorized to fix any other time. And he who coolly turns his back on this declaration, and asserts the events described in these two chapters, have not even yet transpired, and will not, for no one knows how many bundred or thousand years hence, deliberately CONTRADICTS his Savior!

4. Let us now consider briefly those parts of the phraseology of this parable, on which great dependence is placed as affording proof in support of the doctrine of Endless Punishment.

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, [pur to aionion] prepared for the devil and his angels."-[diabolo kai tois aggelois-your adversary and his messengers.] The Rule for understanding the meaning of aionion and like words, should not be forgotten. Is there anything in the nature of fire, that makes it necessarily endless? If there is, then aionion connected with it, would have that signification. But it is well known that fire is one of the most ephemeral elements in existence. It depends on the fuel by which it is fed, and when that is exhausted, it necessarily expires. Hence the fact that aionion is attached to that word can no more make it have a meaning of endless duration, than its being applied to the Levitical priesthood, or the servitude of the Jewish slaves, made them of endless duration. The only

*See p. 673.

meaning that can correctly be attached to the words aionion pur, is a fire that burns for an indefinite period of time. Or as Bishop Lowth.says "For a certain period, known only to the infinite wisdom of God." This aionion fire, is a figurative expression, denoting the long and severe punishments which God would bring upon his rebellious people, the Jews.

5. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment”—[kolasin aionion.] Is there anything in the nature of punishment, which makes it necessarily endless in duration? This, my friend will not claim. It is simply an infliction of pain, depending for its duration, wholly upon the power and will of the being who administers it. God's punishments are frequently described in the scriptures as coming to an end."Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is perdoned: for she HATI receivel at the Lord's hand, double for all her sins."--(Isa, xl. 1, 2.) "The punishment of thine iniquity is ACCOMPLISHED, O daughter of Zion."--(Lam. iv. 22.) How can punishment be endless in its nature, when it is reformatory, as I have shown in abundance of instances. Moreover, it cannot be endless, because God has positively declared he will not cast off, nor contend [punish] forever!!-(See Isa. Ivii. 16, and Lam. iii. 31.) Punishment being in its nature temporary and reformatory, the application of aionion, adds to it no signification of endlessness. It shows it to be a long punishment, but not unending.

That the Savior did not intend to inculcate the doctrine of endless punishment, in this phrase, is proved moreover,, by the original Greek word he used for punishment. It is "kolasin." This word signifies a reformatory chastisement, instituted for the benefit, the restoration of those who endure it. Hedricus gives the Latin definition of kolasin as follows:-" Amputatio arborum luxurantium,"-i. e., the trimming of the luxuriant branches of a tree or vine, to improve it, and make it fruitful. The learned Grotius says--"The kind of punishment which tends to the IMPROVEMENT of the criminal, is what the [Greek] philosophers called, among other things, kolasis, or chastisement." Wyttenbock, in asserting that one of the objects of God in the infliction of sufferings, is the correction of the offender in order to his future amendment adds, "the Greeks frequently gave to such sufferings the name of kolasis." Philo, the Egyptian Jew, of whom I have already spoken, who lived in the days of Christ, uses the same words aionios kolasis, that Christ applied to punishment. Did he understand them as meaning a punishment which is strictly endless? Not by any means. He used those words to describe the injury with which an offended neighbor will pursue us, if we incur his hatred.-(Fragmenta, Tom. ii. p.

667.

In view of the testimonies I have offered on this subject, I feel authorized to insist the signification of the phrase under consideration, is this—"These shall go away into age-lasting chastisement." If the same word aionos, signifies "age," in Matt. xxiv. 3, as Dr. Clarke allows, it is evidently a correct principle to give it the meaning of age-lasting, in the verse which has just claimed our attention. But it is said the same word aionion is applied to the happiness of the righteous who were received on the right hand, as to the punishment of the wicked. This is acknowledg ed. But I have heretofore shown that the phrase "life eternal," or "eternal life," [aionion zoen] has no reference to the duration of happiness in another world. These words signify the present possession and enjoyment of a knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ. A writer in the Christian Examiner, maintains that aionion zoen signifies a spiritual life-a life in the soul, the enjoyment of which is unknown to the world at large! As to the happiness of men in an immortal state of existence, that does not depend on the interpretation of any word, but solely on the goodness and mercy of God.

MEANING OF THE PARABLE OF THE SHEEP AND GOATS.-1. The coming of the Son of Man, at the end of that aionos or age, to abolish the old dispensation of Moses, and establish his own gospel kingdom in its stead, was a spiritual coming. A host of commentators, of all denominations, assent to the correctness of this view.

2. The gathering of the nations before him, was a figurative representation of the power, dominion, and authority with which Christ had been invested, by his Father, to rule-over the nations of the earth as their lawful Judge or King. (See Daniel vii. 13, 14.)

3. The dividing of the nations, represented the distinction which would exist under the reign of Christ, between those nations which should receive his gospel, and allow its spirit to animate, and its light to guide them, and those nations who should reject his gospel. Those on the Right Hand, represented the Gentile nations who received the gospel. And the kingdom which they entered, and the eternal life [aionion zoen] they inherited, was the gospel of Jesus and its holy and blessed truths. Those on the Left Hand, represented the Jewish nation, who refused the gospel, and crucified its Divine Founder. The casting of them into aionion pur and aionion kolasin, represents the casting them away as the people of God, soon after the death of Christ, and the severe calamities and long protracted punishments which were inflicted on that nation, and which have continued to the present age.

My nineteenth and last Negative Argument is based on certain 'See p. 625.

statements, which I denominate CORROBORATIVE FACTS. Dr. Adam Clarke says of the apostle John-"It is evident that John was present at most of the things related by him in his gospel, and that he was an eye and ear witness of our Lord's labors, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension." There can be no doubt of the correctness of these declarations. Hence, if Christ taught the doctrine of Endless Punishment, John must have heard him, distinctly and repeatedly. If Jesus taught this doctrine at all, he taught it plainly and openly, so that there could be no mistaking his meaning. He must have made it a prominent and common subject of his discourses, instructions, and exhortations. I repeat, therefore, if Christ proclaimed such a doctrine, John not only must have heard him, but must have viewed it as one of the fundamental and all-important tenets of Christianity. And yet is it not most astonishing, that John never mentions in his Gospel, nor in either of his Epistles, the words "everlasting punishment," "everlasting fire," or "eternal punishment?" Nor do the advocates of the doctrine of endless wo quote from John's Gospel or Epistles, any passage upon which they rely with much confidence in support of that doctrine. Why this silence of John? Can it be explained on any other ground than that he did not believe the doctrine? Another remarkable fact is, that St. John's Gospel contains neither the parables of the Sheep and Goats, the Rich Man and Lazarus, nor any other parable, supposed to teach, or favor, the doctrine of Endless Punishment.— If these parables were uttered by Christ, specially to inculcate that doctrine, John must have so understood him. Why, then, did he omit them in writing his gospel? We explain it thus:These parables were designed to represent the overthrow and rejection of the Jews, and the calling in of the Gentiles. John's Gospel was not written until after the overthrow and dispersion of the Hebrews. Dr. Clarke thinks it was probably written about A. D. 86, which would be sixteen years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the rejection of "the chosen people."— The particular events which the parables were designed to describe, having taken place, St. John did not deem it necessary to insert them in his gospel.

Another remarkable fact is, that the word "Hell,” is not found once in St. John's Gospel, or in either of his Epistles. So that those early converts who had no other Gospel but John's, (and undoubtedly there were thousands such,) would know nothing of the doctrine of Endless woe, nor of any such place as an Endless Hell. Nor is the word "Hell" once found in all the writings of St. Paul. What think you of that, respected audience? He was a preacher of the Gospel for thirty years, and he asserts that he did not fail to declare "the whole counsel of God." Yet he never, in a single instance, used that word. In fact,

the word "Hell," does not occur so often in the New Testament, as many suppose. In Matthew it is found nine times. In Mark but once. In Luke three times. In John not once. In Acts it is found only once, where it is applied to Christ, and signifies grave. Yet the book of Acts contains the history of the journeyings, labors, and preaching of the Apostles, for over thirty years. Hence it is certain they did not preach anything about Hell!! That word is not found at all in Romans, nor in 1st or 2d Corinthians, nor in Galatians, nor Ephesians, nor Phillipians, nor Colossians, nor in 1st or 2d Thessalonians, nor in 1st or 2d Timothy, nor Titus, nor Philemon, nor Hebrews, nor in 1st Peter, nor in 1st, 2d or 3d John. I ask this audience how it is, if "Hell" means a place of Endless wo, that it was mentioned by the Apostles, in their preaching and writings so seldom. Some modern Revivalists use that word oftener in one discourse, than did Christ and his Apostles in all their preaching for thirty years!! If those who listened to the teachings of St. Paul, or St. John, or read their writings, were all exposed to an endless hell, is it not very singular that they did not mention it, at least once? How can any believer in endless punishment, account for these omissions? Are they not most convincing evidence that it is not a Bible doctrine!

There is not the slightest evidence that Endless punishment was preached, or believed, in the Christian church, until the third century, as I have already shown, when Tertullian, an African, first declared that the misery of the damned would endure as long as the happiness of the saints. Mosheim says that up to the third century, all the doctrines which were inculcated by the preachers of Christianity, were contained in the " Apostles creed," which it is claimed, was written either by the Apostles themselves, or by their immediate successors. It reads as follows-"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Savior, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried; he descended into Hell: the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into Heaven; sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins; the Resurrection of the body, and life everlasting." In this creed it will be seen, there is not one word or even hint of Endless punishment, the Trinity, or Vicarious Atonement. And as the creed, according to Mcsheim, contains all the doctrines inculcated by the early preachers of Christianity, we have thus, positive evidence that these sentiments were not believed in the church for over two hundred years after Christ. Is not this sufficient to satisfy all candid minds, that these doctrines must be