the coming of Jesus, from heaven; (1 Thes. i. 10.) which would be highly absurd, upon the supposition, that he is always to abide there: which yet he must, if the word for ever, as applied to things of another state, intends endless duration. Friend. I confess, I never observed this before. But, do you know of any passages in the New Testament, where the words, forever and ever, certainly intend limited duration? For I observed, that all the instances you brought were from the Old Testament.

Minister. Yes: Heb. 1. 8. But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, (in distinction from the throne of the Father) O God, is for ever and ever;" yet we read, (1 Cor. xv. 34, 28.) of the end, when he shall have " delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power; then shall the Son also himself, be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

Friend. But when Christ threatened sinners, with everlasting fire, everlasting punishment, and eternal damnation; did not his expressions naturally convey the idea of endless misery? And may not the Son of God be accused of duplicity and deceit, if he did not mean to denounce punishment without end? And, therefore, if we believe his words to be true, as most certainly they ́ are, we must reject the doctrine of the restoration, which puts an end to a state, which is called everlasting, by the mouth of truth itself.-Are you able to answer this fairly?

Minister. If I am not able to answer this objection, which you have stated in the strongest

manner, I assure you, I will confess myself in an error; and shall thank you, (as an instrument) for bringing me to know it. The same objection that you make against the Restoration, the Jews make against Christ and his religion; for they argue thus: God is an unchangeable Being, and he declared, in most solemn manner, that the ordinances of the Levitical dispensation should be everlasting, and the annointing of Aaron's sons should be an everlasting priesthood, throughout their generations; (See Exod. xl. 15. and Lev. xvi. 34.)—and, therefore, we must reject the Messiah of the Christians, as an impostor; inasmuch as he pretends to abolish those statutes, which God hath called everlasting, and to set himself up as a Priest, contrary to the express promise of the LORD, who cannot lie, nor repent that Aaron and his sons should have an everlasting priesthood; and, therefore, if this is the true Messiah, God meant to deceive us when he promised us these everlasting blessings, and privileges, which, we must suppose were only for a time, if Christianity be true; therefore, we reject it, as being inconsistent with the promises of God.

It is evident, from this view of the matter, that the Jews reject Christ and his religion, upon as good ground, as you reject the Universal Restoration, and perhaps better; for you have nothing to plead against the Restoration, but some threatenings of punishments, which are called everlasting or eternal, in our translation, but they plead express promises of the everlasting continuance of their church state and worship, in opposition to Christianity. But if it be

true that both the Hebrew and Greek words, which our translators have rendered by the English word everlasting, do not intend endless duration but a hidden period, or periods; then the ground is changed at once, and the Jews have no right to object against Christianity, because God promised a continuance of their temple worship, for a certain age, or hidden period; nor the Christians to reject the universal Restoration, because God hath threatened the rebellious with such dreadful punishments, which shall endure through periods, expressed in the same terms. It is indeed confessed by some of the most learned Jews, that they have no word in their language, which absolutely signifies endless duration; therefore they can only argue the endless continuance of any thing from its nature, and not merely from the words rendered forever, or everlasting. And if this is the truth of the case (as who can deny it?) then, neither did Jehovah speaks to deceive the children of Israel, when he promised them blessings of such long continuance which have ended long ago, and which are never to be restored by virtue of that covenant which he made with their fathers, when he brought them out of Egypt; but by the new covenant which he will make with them when he shall return them to their own land; nor did the Son of God speak to deceive, when he threatened the wicked with those punishments, which shall not end till they have answered the purposes for which it seems reasonable to believe they shall be inflicted, viz. to bring them down and humble their proud and stubborn hearts; which shall be done, during the periods

of his kingdom, before he shall have delivered it up to the Father, that God may be ALL in ALL. Friend. But if I should grant that the word aionion doth not even in the New Testament always signify endless duration, yet what would you gain by it, since it is plain that Christ hath set the happiness of the righteous, and the misery of the wicked, one against the other; and hath expressed the continuance of both, by the same word, aionion, in St. Matth. xxv. 46. Here, the punishment of the wicked, and the life of the righteous, are both declared to be aionion or eternal, without distinction. Now can you show me any passage of scripture, where the same word is applied to two different things, whose existence is not the same, or the time of their continuance not alike?

22

Minister. Fairly stated! And if it be not as fairly answered, it shall be looked upon as an insuperable difficulty. But, happily, there is a passage in Hab. iii. 6, where the same word is used for very different things; "He stood and measured the earth; He beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow. His ways are everlasting. In our translation, the mountains, and the ways of God, are called everlasting, and the hills perpetual; but in the original, the word gnad is applied to the mountains, and the word gnolam to the hills, and the ways of God. But whether we argue from the original or from the translation, it makes no difference. The question is, are the mountains, or the hills, eternal in the same sense in which the ways of God are? If so, the earth must have existed coeval with the ways of Jehovah, and the

hills, and mountains, must never be removed, while his ways endure; and, as his ways can never be destroyed, the absolute eternity not of the earth only, but of its present form, its mountains and hills, must be inferred; contrary to Isaiah xl. 4. xliv. 10.-Ezek. xxxviii. 20.-Pet. iii. 7, 10, 11, 12.-Rev. xvi. 20 xx. 11.-Nay, even in this very text, the ways of God are spoken of as being of a different nature from the mountains, which were scattered, and the hills, which did bow.

Thus, no solid argument can be drawn from the application of the same word to different things, to prove that they shall be equal in their continuance, unless their nature be the same.

Thus in the Greek New Testament, in Rom. xvi. 25, we read of the mystery which hath been kept secret, from Chronois aioniois, and in the 26 verse, we find, that it is now made known by the commandment Tou aionion Theou. But must it be argued, that because aioniois is applied to times, and aionion to God; therefore, times are as ancient as Jehovah, and must continue while he exists? The absurdity of this is too glaring. Our translators have rendered Chronois aioniois, "since the world began," instead "of eternal times;" and have thereby shown their judgment to be, that words cannot change the subjects to which they are applied, but the meaning of the words must be determined by the nature of the subject.

In Jer. xxviii. 8. the word hegnolam is used in the Hebrew; but the translators did not think themselves obliged to render it "from everlast-. ing" or, "from eternity;" as it would have been