The advocates for the doctrine of the temporary duration of future punishments and a final restitution of all to happiness, have followed two distinct lines of argument; the one founded on the expressions of Scripture; the other on certain abstract reasonings respecting the character and attributes of God. On the one hand, they have contended that Scripture rightly interpreted does not authorize the doctrine of the eternity of punishment; but on the other hand, they have rested the main support of their opinion on the supposed inconsistency of the doctrine with the goodness and the justice of the great Judge of all the earth.

But in the disposition which they have shewn to allow greater weight and value to the supposed decisions of their own reason than to the authority of revelation, they have undoubtedly proceeded on an erroneous plan. In all matters such as these, placed entirely beyond the range of human discovery and investigation, it must ever be most hazardous so to rest upon any of our own conclusions, as to allow them to weigh in the scale against the express dictates of Revelation. Respecting the attributes of God, the methods of His government, and the relation which we bear to Him, and to other orders of created beings, all is so mysterious to us, so unfathomable by our finite understandings, that, by the

unassisted powers of our natural faculties, we cannot possibly advance beyond doubtful conjecture. It is by appealing to the test of Scripture, and to that test alone, that every opinion respecting matters placed so far beyond the range of human discovery and human observation is to be tried. We cannot enquire with too cautious and severe a scrutiny what truths are really revealed to us from above, what opinions do come to us sealed with the stamp of Divine authority. But, when this enquiry has been pursued, we must indeed be most cautious how we arrogantly set up the fancied conclusions of our own reason in opposition to the direct, clear, undoubted evidence of the word of God.

However, since the inconsistency of eternal punishments with the known attributes of the Supreme God has been by some writers so maintained, as to lay the foundation of the main arguments, by which they arrive at their conclusions; and since, if the meaning of the expressions of Scripture could be held to be at all doubtful, these arguments might have some influence in turning the balance of opinion, it cannot be proper to omit all consideration of them in the discussion of the subject. I deem it, therefore, desirable, in the first place, to state what the doctrine of Scripture on this subject

really is; and, in the second place, to shew that this doctrine cannot with reason be deemed to militate against those high attributes and perfections which are inseparable from the Divine character.

The most striking and decisive passage in Scripture, proclaiming to us the truth that the doom of every human being, whether for good or for evil, will, at the great day of retribution, be unchangeably fixed for an eternity, is that which has been cited for my text. "These (the wicked) shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." They are the words of our Saviour Himself; they form part of one of His latest addresses to His disciples; and they conclude a very remarkable description of the awful scene which will be unfolded at the last day.

Against the interpretation of this passage, which is conveyed in our translation, and which, if it be correct, leaves no room for further argument or doubt, two positions have been advanced; the one, that the word denoting duration, which is here used, and which is translated "eternal" conveys properly the idea, not of a never-ending, but merely of a long indefinite duration; the other, that the word which

αιώνιος.

is translated "punishment †," denotes more properly, not punishment in general, but a temporary correction for the benefit of the offender.

As to the first position, it will readily be allowed that the word translated "eternal," is sometimes used in a sense where absolute eternity is not intended. But, that it must really denote eternity in the instance before us, may be unanswerably proved.

For, in the first place, if we trace the use of the word through the Scriptures of the New Testament, and the Greek translation of the Old Testament, we find that, when it signifies merely a long indefinite duration, or any portion of time short of eternal, it is applied in such a manner, and to such objects, that the limitation of the sense is clearly seen, and all ambiguity precluded. On the other hand, when the word is used under such circumstances that no limitation of the sense is pointed out by the context, or by the person or thing to which it is applied; as when it is used with reference to God (Deut. xxxiii. 27.), to the Holy Spirit (Heb. ix. 14.), to the Gospel (Rev. xiv. 6.), and in the passage before us in my text, then a duration really eternal is to be understood. All this ad

+ κολάσις.

mits of being illustrated in a great variety of instances *.

In the second place, the terms "everlasting punishment" and "eternal life," are, in this sentence, placed in marked opposition one to the other: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." It is the same word in the original, which is rendered in the one member of the sentence "everlasting," and in the other "eternal." Now, that absolute eternity of life—of life to be spent in perfection of happiness-is promised to the righteous, has never been disputed. Where then is the slightest foundation for the opinion that the same duration is not expressed for the punishment of the wicked? Let it always be recollected, that our Saviour Himself is speaking; is addressing to His disciples a conversation on topics of the deepest importance-a conversation recorded for the instruction and the guidance of all future generations in the most important of all concerns. In a matter where truths of such moment are involved, and where from the clear understanding of the truths, great practical consequences are derived, it was natural to expect that terms would be employed, from which no reasonable misapprehension could

See Note C.