Awaking to "everlasting life" relates to the faith of the gospel, John 5. 24. "He that heareth my word, &c.-hath everlasting life”—not shall have in a future state; but in the present time, "hath everlasting life." Awaking "to shame and everlasting contempt" is expressive of the condition of the unbelieving Jews. In Jer. 23. 40. the same subject is spoken of, "And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." The scriptural meaning of the word everlasting may be easily understood by observing that the land of Canaan was promised to the seed of Abraham "for an everlasting possession," Gen. 17. 8. and that they have long since ceased to possess it. At the day of Pentecost, thousands of Jews awoke to "everlasting life" communicated through the gospel. If the phrase "them that sleep in the dust of the earth," be thought a very strong figure of speech; for a parallel, see the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, where the word "graves" is used in a similar manner. The same figurative resurrection is doubtless mentioned in the fifth chapter of John's gospel. For an account of a resurrection into a future state of being, see the 15th chapter of Paul's first Epistle' to the Cor. and Christ's reply to the Sadducees, Math. 22d chapter and Luke 20th chapter.

In Mr. P's imagination, the harmony of heaven is increased by being "contrasted with the ceaseless wail and blasphemies of the damned"—he considers the contrast grand, glorious and complete. But rhapsody is neither argument nor evidence.

3. He says, "a third class of passages which afford ground for a direct argument, is found in those which

B

represent men as in danger of eternal punishment." On this argument, he quotes but three passages. 1. "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation," Mark 3. 29. He says nothing upon this passage, except to ask the following questions, viz. Now I ask how it is possible that any one should be in danger of eternal damnation, if there be no such thing? Can men be in danger of evils that do not exist? In reply, I inquire how is it possible that Mr. P. should have been so blinded by prejudice as to ask such questions? How a man, who has a knowledge of the classics, and officiates as a public teacher of religion can make such mistakes, and yet be honest, we know not. If he had looked into his Greek Testament, he would have seen that the phrase rendered "eternal damnation" is aioniou kriseos, which does not necessarily signify endless suffering. The word kriseos, damnation, is equivalent to condemnation or punishment. The word aioniou is equivalent to long, lasting; or according to scriptural usage, everlasting. Parkhurst in his Greek Lexicon on the words aion and aionios, says, the Hebrew word olim answers as the corresponding word for these two words in the Greek of the seventy "which words denote time hidden from man, whether indefinite or definite, whether past or future." Professor Stuart commenting on Micah 5. 1. says, "the word Kedesh and od, rendered by Turretine, eternity, are like the Greek aicn, that also signifies any thing ancient, which has endured, or is to endure for a long period. The question when these words are to have the sense of ancient. or very

old, is always to be determined by the nature of the case, i. e. by the context." Admitting the correctness of Professor Stuart's rule, let us look at the nature of the case. Concerning "the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" Christ was addressing Jews, Parkhurst says "aion in the Seventy generally answers to the Heb. olim," &c. In the Old Testament, from which the Jews received their religious instruction, the Hebrew word olim was not only not used to signify endless punishment in a future state, but was used in relation to things of a temporal nature-olim is rendered by the words perpetual, everlasting, forever, forever and ever. Perpetual statute," Ex. 29. 9. "Everlasting possession," Gen. 17. 8. "Thy servant forever," Deut. 15. 17. "Forever and ever," Jer. 7. 7. Let the phrase "eternal damnation" be considered equivalent to "everlasting punishment," i. e. a punishment as durable as the nature of the case will admit, and it will furnish no real objection against the doctrine that "the Lamb of God...taketh away the sin of the world," without exception. We shall say something relative to the forgiveness of "the blasphemey against the Holy Ghost" in our reply to Mr. P's fourth class of

texts.

66

He next quotes Heb. 12. 15. "lest any man fail of the grace of God." The Apostle left out one word which should have been inserted, if he meant to state any thing to Mr. P's purpose-that word is endlessly. If the Apostle had said "lest any man endlessly fail of the grace of God," we should be obliged in candor, to admit it as evidence of neverending wo. As it is, it affords no such evidence.

Every rational being must perceive there is a great difference between failing of the grace of God, at 'any particular time, and failing of that grace, finally or eternally. In the present time, every one fails of the grace of God, who does not enjoy it.

The next, and only text adduced by our opponent, under this head is, Math. 10. 28. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." This, he thinks, “is decisive." But he depends entirely upon prejudice and assertion. 1. It is not clear and indisputable that the object of fear spoken of, in this passage, is God. It does not say God is able to destroy," &c. In verse 17 it is said "beware of men" i. e. those who are not in authority-"for they will deliver you up to the councils" &c. In the 31st verse where direct reference is made to God, the disciples were exhorted, "Fear ye not therefore" &c. that is, do not fear that God will abandon or finally injure you. If we make the object of fear spoken of in the 28th verse, to be the divine Being, how are we to reconcile the two passages? To whom then does the Saviour refer as the object of fear in the 28th verse? Probably he referred to the presiding officer of the Sanhedrim, or grand council of the Jewish nation. Josephus says "It is here worth our while to remark that none could be put to death in Judea, but by the approbation of the Jewish Sanhedrim, there being an excellent provision in the law of Moses, that even in criminal causes, and particularly where life was concerned, an appeal should lie from the lesser councils of seven in the other cities to the Su

Ant.

pow

preme council of Seventy one, at Jerusalem." vol. 3, ch. 9, page 151. The Sanhedrim had er to destroy "both soul and body in Gehenna i. e. the valley of Hinnom, which we shall soon more fully explain. 2. But if we suppose God the object of fear in the passage under consideration, we do not find it asserted that he will" destroy both soul and body in hell"—but he is able &c., "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.' Math. 3, 9; but we do not learn that it was ever his will to do it. 3. But suppose God should "destroy both soul and body in hell" or in any place-then neither soul nor body would remain, either to suffer or enjoy any thing. Soul and body would be annihilated. Mr. P. says "We take it for granted that the doctrine of annihilation is not here taught."What propriety was there in his taking for granted a point of such importance? None at all. If his "decisive" text proves any thing unfavorable to Universalism, it must be annihilation; our champion for endless wo was so sensible of this, that he not only took it for granted that it did not mean annihilation; but that it did mean endless suffering! He also took it for granted that hel is in a future state of being-he has furnished no proof of it.Christ never taught that hell is beyond the grave.David says "thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell." Was David in this world, or the next, when he used that language?

There are four different words in the original languages which are rendered hell in our English Bibles in common use viz. Sheol, Hades, Tartarus