fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. These and a multitude of kindred passages, such as Luke xiii, 24. Gal. v. 19-21 and Eph. v. 5, evidently teach that persons of a certain description shall not gain admittance into the mansions of the redeemed, nor enjoy the favor and fellowship of him in whose presence is fulness of joy, at whose right hand are pleasures evermore.

And if indeed persons of a certain description shall be excluded from the holy city Jerusalem, which is above, they must necessarily sink down to Hell, there being no intimation given in the Scriptures of a middle state, or intermediate place. Purgatory is an invention of the latter ages, an artful device of "that man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. ii. 4.) And such as receive it must obviously belong to that company who bear "the mark or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name." Do not the above passages therefore taken in connection with a second class which plainly intimate that a change of heart and a preparation for heaven are confined to this life, teach most conclusively that the condemnation of the unbelieving and impenitent is endless? Notice a few of these. Isa. xxxviii. 18, and lv. 6-7. Prov. i. 24-28. Luke xiii. 24-29. John xii. 36. 2 Cor. vi. 1, 2. Heb. iii. 1-10. Mat. xxv. 5-13.

If, then, according to the obvious import of the former quotations, persons of a certain description are excluded from all participation in the peace and felicity of heaven so long as they retain that character, and if there is a period approaching, beyond which there can be no change of moral character, and if the character of some be then unholy and unjust, then it follows incontrovertibly, that some shall suffer punishment without end. And what other rational, consistent interpretation can be given to those passages which set limits to the accepted time, and which plainly affirm that the day of salvation shall be succeeded by a night in which no man can work, and which assure us that some shall be unable to enter in until the door of acceptance shall be closed against them? Either these and similar declarations were designed to teach men the eternity of punishment, or they were not. If this was the design of the sacred penmen, these are the words of truth and soberness. But if not, their language is not only incautious, but deceptive and unwarrantable.

3d. The reader is referred, in the next place, to such passages of the Book of God as describe in contrast, the future, final state of the righteous and the wicked, for proof that the punishment of the latter is endless. Such as Ps. xvii. 14, 15. Dan. xii. 2. Math iii. 12. and vii. 13-21 also xiii. 30-43 and 47-50. and xxiv. 40-51. xxv. 23-46. Mark xvi. 16. John v. 28, 29. Rom. vi. 21-23. ix. 21-23. 2 Tim. ii. 19, 20. Phil. iii. 17–23. Gal. vi. 7, 8. 2 Thess. i. 5-12. Heb. vi. 8, 9. and many others. That these passages have a reference to the final state of men, is evident from the following reasons.

1st. Because in several of them this state is expressly called their end. 2d. Because the state of the righteous and wicked being put in exact opposition to each other, if it be not denied that they refer to the final state of the former, they must, upon the principles of correct interpretation, also refer to the final state of the latter.

3d. Because there is a total silence in them all, with regard to any succeeding state.

4th. Because the phraseology of some of them will admit of no other ra. tional and consistent interpretation. If, therefore, the passages above referred to, teach that the future, final state of some men will be happy, they also as plainly teach that the future, final state of some men will be miserable. And if, according to the Scriptures, the final state of some men will be miserable, then there will be some who will suffer everlasting punishment, for no other state can succeed that which is final, or last. 4. In proof of the eternal condemnation of unbelieving and impenitent sinners, I would further adduce those passages of Scripture in which the terms everlasting, eternal, forever, and forever and ever are applied to this future state. Dan. xii. 2. Math xviii. 8. xxv. 41-46. 2 Thess. i. 9. Mark iii. 29. Jude vii. and 13. 2 Pet. ii. 17. 2 Cor. iv. 18. Rev. xiv. 10-12. xix. 3. xx. 10. &c. The advocates of Universal restoration set aside the force of these and similar declarations, by the sweeping assertion, that since these expressions are sometimes employed in a limited sense, being applied to things which we know have an end, they determine nothing in the question at issue. But the reader should remember, 1st, that these terms are as strong as any in the Greek language, to express endless duration. If therefore these terms do not teach this doctrine, words cannot be found in that very copious language, to express such an idea; and 2d, that although sometimes used improperly to express the idea of limited duration, it is only when there is something in the context, or the nature of the subject itself, which necessarily requires such limitation.

The mode of interpretation adopted by the champions of Universalism with respect to these expressions, betrays either a total ignorance of the philosophy of language, or an unwarrantable zeal to establish a favorite hypothesis. The sound rule of interpretation is always to give a word its usual and proper signification, unless something appears in the subject or connection in which it occurs, which determines it to be used in a figurative or improper sense. This rule allows every word to have a distinct and proper meaning of its own, only limited by the connection in which it is introduced. But the rule of interpretation adopted by the advocates of a limited duration, is this: That where a word is used in relation to different things, it has no meaning in itself but that which it derives from the subject, or context. But to argue that words have no proper meaning of their own, and that they are to stand for nothing in the decision of any question, but are to mean any thing that the subject to which they relate can be proved to mean without them, is grossly sophistical. It reduces words to mere ciphers, and if adopted universally in philological interpretation, would totally annihilate language as the vehicle of communicating ideas. Words of the most definite and clearly established meaning, are sometimes employed in a loose, improper, or hyperbolical sense; but this fact does not deprive them of their literal and proper signification. Take for example the English word, endless; no word in the language has its meaning more distinctly defined or clearly established. No one will hesitate a moment to declare, that with regard to time, it properly signifies unlimited duration. Yet how often do we hear of endless talkers, endless disputers, &c.

To argue from the occasional use of the word that we should attach to it no particular meaning but that which the context may be shown to mean without it, is manifestly absurd. Would not the merest tyro in En

glish literature say, let the word have its proper and usual signification, except as in the instances above, its meaning is necessarily restricted by the subject and connection in which it stands. Nor is there the least danger of mistaking its import, for this is the very rule of interpretation which men universally adopt.

With respect to the two Greek terms Aion and Aionios, translated forever, eternal, &c., the first question to be settled, according to the above rule of interpretation, is, what is the usual and proper import of these terms as employed by the sacred writers; and this may be ascer tained, 1st, from their etymology, concerning which there can be no dispute. All lexicographers agree that aion is a derivative from aei, always; and on, the present participle of the verb ein.i, to be, or exist. Its primary and proper signification, therefore, is always being, or which is the same thing, everlasting. It may be defined, strictly, duration without interruption and without end. But since in this, as in all other words, usage always modifies the original meaning, its etymology is not sufficient to determine its proper signification as used in the Scriptures.Hence it is of the utmost consequence to understand how far the meaning of aion was affected among the Greeks by usage, and more especially in what sense it was understood when the Old Testament was translated into Greek.

That version called the septuagint, which was in common use among the Jews in the days of our Lord, was made, as is well known, from the original Hebrew, about 300 years before Christ; and since he did not condemn the use of it, but on the contrary makes quotations from it, it cannot well be charged with great inaccuracy. In that translation then, the Hebrew term oulm or olim, which occurs three hundred and eight times, is, with the exception of about twenty instances, invariably translated by the word aion, in some one of its various forms. Hence the two words were evidently regarded by the learned translators as equivalent in signification, or at least more nearly so than any other. If, therefore, we can ascertain how aion was then understood among the Greeks, we shall be able to ascertain what sense the translators attached to the Hebrew oulm, and happily, as a late writer observes, we have one of the best of witnesses to the usage of aion at that time and by the earliest Greek writers, in Aristotle, the illustrious preceptor of Alexander the Great.

In his treatise, De Cœlo, in describing the highest heaven as the residence of the Gods, he says, “It therefore is evident that there is neither place, nor vacuum, nor time beyond. Wherefore the things there are not by nature adapted to exist in place; nor does time make them grow old; neither under the highest (Heaven) is there any change of any one of these things, they being placed beyond it; but unchangeable and passionless, having the best, even the self-sufficient life, they continue through all (aiona) eternity. For, indeed, the word itself, according to the ancients, divinely expressed this. For the period which comprehends the time of every one's life, beyond which, according to nature, nothing exists, is called his (aion) eternity. And for the same reason, also, the period of the whole heaven, even the infinite time of all things, and the period comprehending that infinity, is (aion) eternity; deriving its name from (aei, einia) always being, immortal and divine. Whence, also, it is applied to other things, to some indeed (akribesteron) accurately, but to others (amouroteron) in the lax signigcation of (to einai to kai zen) being, and even life."

Nothing can be more explicit and satisfactory than this testimony, as to the origin and usage of aion; and a more competent witness never lived than Aristotle. Such we may say, therefore, with certainty, was the meaning attached to this word at the very time in which the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was made. When used in the sense of eternity, it was used "accurately;" but when used in a modified, or limited sense, it was used figuratively, or improperly. Nor is there the smallest danger of a misunderstanding, since a very moderate degree of care and candor will suffice to prevent any mistake from such an occasional use of the word. It is the caviller only that is caught in the snare of his own scepticism, or in the partiality of his prejudiced investigation. If, then, the terms aion, &c. according to their etymology and the usage of the best authorities, have, when accurately or properly used, the signification of endless or unlimited duration, the next question to be settled, is, whether any thing appears in the subject or connexion in which they are found, which requires them to be taken in a limited or improper sense. If not, on the principles of sound interpretation, we must receive them in their full and proper acceptation.

Now in all those passages adduced by the advocates of a limited duration in support of their interpretation, there is to be found something in the subject or connection, which plainly forbids their proper and usual signification, or in other words, determines them to be used in a figurative, lax, or improper sense. Whereas, on the contrary, the passages in which these terms occur as already referred to, in support of the eternity of future punishment, contain nothing which either plainly or impliedly forbids their being understood in their full and proper signification -Yea, further, the antithesis which occurs in some of them, fixes the meaning beyond all rational doubt. In them, the happiness of the righteous and the misery of the wicked, are contrasted, or set in opposition to each other, and the Spirit of God has chosen the very same terms to express the duration of future punishment, which he has employed to denote the duration of future happiness. If then in one branch of the antithesis they signify unlimited duration, and all admit this with regard to the hap. piness of the righteous, rational and consistent interpretation requires that they be taken in the same acceptation with regard to the misery of the wicked. In short, the evidence which these passages afford in support of the eternity of future punishment, is so overwhelming, that in order to evade their force, Universalists are constrained to have recourse to a very licentious mode of interpretation-a mode which would by no means be tolerated by the learned, in the interpretation of the Greek and Latin classics. But omitting what might be said further on these passages, I would urge,

5th, such texts as expressfuture punishment byphrases which necessarily imply eternity. John, xvii. 9. Math xii. 3132. Mark iii. 39. 1 John v. 16. Heb. vi. 6. and x. 26, 27. Luke ix. 25. Math x. 28. Mark ix. 43 -48 Luke xiv. 26. John iii. 36. and viii. 21. Phil. iii. 9. James ii. 13.

How can these and parallel passages be rationally understood, if the condemnation of the wicked be not in the fullest sense eternal? What consistent interpretation can we put upon them? Let the judicious and candid inquirer answer. If there be some for whom Christ refuses to intercede, some who shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come, but are obnoxious to eternal condemnation. If there be some whose sin is unto death, and not to be prayed for ---some whom it is impossible to renew unto repentance, who arc nigh into cursing, whose end is to be burned; and if there be some who draw

back unto perdition, who lose their own souls, or are cast away, for whom it had been good if they never had been born--Then, however awful the thought, there are some who will suffer eternal punishment, for these phrases unquestionably imply it.

Moreover, if there be a Hell, a fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not and their fire is not quenched, if between this dread abode and the world of bliss, there be an impassable chasm; if they who believe not the Son of God shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on them; if they die in their sins and where Christ is they cannot come; if they shall have judgment without mercy and their end is destruction, then there will be some who will suffer endless punishment. If after a careful, candid and prayerful examination of the Scripture passages cited in this essay, in proof of the eternal condemnation of all unbelieving and impenitent snners, there be some who will not still be persuaded of the truth of this doctrine, I fear such will lie under the awful charge, "They would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead." That man would not act more irrationally, who would obstinately close his eyes, and in the full blaze of day pertinaciously deny the existence of the noon-day sun.

To this accumulated mass of Scripture evidence, one subtle objection has been made. These passages, say some, are but the voice of the law denouncing merely what sinners deserve to suffer, but the gospel, notwithstanding, secures the salvation of all.

To this it is only necessary to reply, the Gospel ascertains the salvation of none except true believers. John iii. 16. Rom. i. 16. But all manifestly do not repent and believe the gospel, and therefore the Scrip tures abound with warning declarations respecting such. 2 Thess. i. 69. Seeing it is a righteous thing for God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you who are troubled, rest with us; when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. Also Ps. ii. 12. Prov. xxix. 1. Acts xiii. 40-46. 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18. &c. Should not the thought of such a tremendous catastrophe awaiting the unbelieving, impenitent sinner, excite all to take heed lest there be in any of them "an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God?" Should it not stimulate us to make every effort for the salvation of others? "Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." J. D.

ART. IV. Extracts from a Clergyman's Diary.

Alembert, a celebrated French mathematician, lived about thirty years in the house of his nurse, where he pursued his studies with unwearied activity. His nurse had heard him spoken of as the writer of many books, and a great scholar, but never imagined that he was a great man: on the contrary, pitying him as the victim of a foolish delusion, she said to him one day :-"You will never be any thing but a philosopher ;-a