II. The use which the sacred Writers make of these words. In this part of the enquiry we shall confine ourselves to the New Testament, and of course to the Greek word aion and its derivatives; as every thing material in this part of the controversy will be embraced in this range. That these words are to be taken in the unlimited sense when applied to punishment, is corroborated by the sense in which they are used when applied to other subjects. This we shall now show by referring to all the places in which they occur and showing the senses in which they are used. "Aion," says Dr. Edwards, in his reply to Dr. Chauncey," reckoning the reduplications of it, to be but single instances of its use, occurs in the New Testament in one hundred and four instances; in thirty two of which, it means a temporary duration.* In seven it may be taken in either the temporary or endless.† In sixty-five, including six instances in which it is applied to future punishment, it plainly signifies an endless duration. How then could Dr. C. say, that it is commonly if not always used in the sacred pages, to signify an age or dispensation only? And that this is almost the perpetual use of it. *The places are Mat. xii, 32, xiii, 22, 38, 40, 49 xxiv, 3, xxviii, 20, Mark iv, 19 Luke i, 70, xvi, 8, xx, 34, 35, Acts iii, 21, Rom. xii, 2, I Cor. i, 20, ii, 6, twice, 7, 8, iii, 18, x, 11, 2 Cor. iv, 4, Gal. i, 4, Eph. i, 21, ii, 2, vi, 12, 1 Tim. vi, 17, 2Tim. iv, 10, Tit. ii, 12, Heb. i, 2, ix, 26, xi, 3. †The places are, Mark x, 80, Luke xviii. 30, John ix, 32, Eph. ii, 7. iii, 9, Col. i, 26, Heb. vi, 5. The places are as follows: Mat. vi, 13, xxi, 19, Mark xí, 14, Luke i, 33, 55, John iv, 14, vi, 51, 58, viii, 25, twice, 51, 52, x, 28, ix, 26, xii, 34, xiu, 8, xiv, 16; Acts xv, 18, Rom. i, 25,ix,5,xi,36,xvi,27,1Cor. viii,13,2 Cor.ix, 9,xi,31,Gal. i,5,Eph. iii, 11, 21, Phil. iv, 20, 1 Tim. i, 17, twice, 2 Tim. iv, 18, Heb. i, 8, v, 6, vi, 20, vii, 17, 21, 24, 28, xiii, 8, 21, 1 Pet. i, 23, 25, iv, 11, v, 11, 2 Pet. iii, 18, 1 John ii, 17, 2 John 2, Rev. i, 6, 18, iv, 9, 10, v, 13, 14, vii, 12, x,, 6, xi, 15, xv, 7, xxii, 5.– The six instances in which it is applied to future punishment, are, Mark iii,29, 2 Pet. ji,17, Jud. 13, Rev. xiv,11, xix, 3, xx,10 L "The adjective aionios is still more unfavorable to Dr. C's. system. It is found in seventy one places in the whole New Testament: sixty-six, beside the five in which Dr. C. allows it is applied to future punishment. * In every one of the sixty-six instances, except two II. Tim. i. 9. Tit. i. 2. it may, to say the least. be understood in the endless sense." (See Edwards against Chauncey pp. 251. 252.) Another writer gives the following distribution of the senses in which the words occur. Without having respect to the words 'as substantive or adjective, or to their number as singular or plural, I find they occur one hundred & ninety-nine times in the New Testament. I have examined every płace where they are to be found, & have arranged them, as belonging to the different subjects under the following heads: To the Mosaic dispensation 'The world itself with the various ages and revolutions which have passed. God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, together with Ascriptions of glory & praise to God, Christ, &c. Eternal death and punishment, (SEE METHODIST MAGAZINE, Vol. III. P. 217.) 9. 34. } '} 4 46. 24. 65. 21. 199. According to this distribution, leaving out the 21 times in which it is applied to punishment, the word is used 135 times in the endless sense, to 43 times in the limited If we were then to decide upon the sense in which the words are to be taken in the places where they are ap sense. *The places are, Mat. xix, 16, 29, xxv, 46, Mark X, 17,30, Luke x, 25, xvi, 9, xviii. 18, 30, John iii, 15, 16, 36, iv, 14, 36, v, 24, 39, vi, 27, 40, 47, 54, 68, x, 28, xii, 25, 50, xvii, 2, 3, Acts, xiii, 46, 48, Rom. ii, 7, v, 21, vi, 22, 23, xvi, 25, 26, 2 Cor. iv, 17, 18, v, 1, Gal. vi, 8, 2 Thess. ii, 16, 1 Tim. i, 16, vi, 12, 16, 19, 2 Tim. i, 9, ii, 10, Tit. i, 2, twice, iii, 7, Philem. 15, Heb. v, 9, vi, 2, ix, 12, 14, 15, xiii, 20, 1 Pet. v, 10, 2 Pet. i, 11, 1 John i, 2, ii, 25, iii, 15, v, 11, 13, 20, Jude 7, 21, Rev. xiv, 6.—The five texts in which Dr. C. allows aionois to be applied to future punishment are, Mat. xviii, 8, xxv, 41, 46, Mark iii, 29, 2 Thess. i, 9. To which is to be added Jude 7. plied to punishment. by the sense in which they are generally used, the comparative evidence in favor of the unlimited sense, is, to the limited, as 135 is to 43. Farther: If the words in question do not express unlimited duration there are no terms in the Greek language which do In this case it wonld have been impossible for the writers of the New Testament to have found appropriate terms, in the language in which they wrote, to express the proper eternity of God-or the endless duration of the happiness of the righteous. This must have occasioned them many perplexities and embarrassments, whenever they had occasion to introduce these subjects. But does any thing of this appear?-Is there the smallest evidence, from any source, of such poverty in the Greek language? Not any indeed, but a torrent of evidence to the contrary! III. We proceed to show that these words are used in a particular construction, when applied to punishment, in which they are never used in a limited sense. "But" says Dr. Edwards: "if aion used absolutely did generally signify a mere temporary duration: it would not thence follow, that it has the same restricted signification when governed by the preposition eis. It is never applied to future punishment but in this construction.In the whole New Testament it is used in this construction, sixty-one times, in six of which it is applied to future punishment * That in all the remaining fifty-five it is used in the endless sense, I appeal to the reader. If in those fifty-five instances it be used in the endless sense; this surely is a ground of strong presumption, that in the six instances, in which it is applied to future punishment, it is used in the same sense. " (Ibid.) Now if the radical and proper signification of the words rendered eternal, forever, &c. is always being:-If these words are ordinarily used by the New Testament writers to express endless duration:-And finally, if they are *In this construction it is found in all the texts mentioned in the last marginal note, in page 89, except Acts. xv, 18, Eph. iii, 11, 21. Once in 1 Tim. i, 17, and 2 Pet. iii, 18. I have been thus particular in noting all the texts, in which aion occurs in the New Testament, that the reader may examine them and judge for himself, whether I have given adjust representation of the use of that word by the inspired writers. used in a construction when applied to future punishment, in which they are never used in a limited sense:Does it not amount to a moral certainty, that when these words are connected with future punishment they express the absolute eternity of that punishment? Now after all this evidence upon this subject would our readers suppose that any man had the temerity to declare himself able to prove that these words do not, in any instance, necessarily convey the idea of eternity; nor yet of an endless duration of time?" And yet this declaration is made by a man who has thought himself sufficiently acquainted with the Greek language to give to the public a new version of the New Testament!-A man of no less pretensions as a critic and a polèmic than the Rev. A. Kneeland!! (See his Lectures P. 189.) The main argument by which he attempts to support this extraordinary position is "that the substantive, or root is used in the plural number. For" he says "every school-boy who has paid any attention to his grammar, knows that a noun or substantive. expressive of time, which is used in the plural number, cannot give an idea of duration without end; but must be a period that has both beginning & end; otherwise there could be but one of the kind. And this is the case in all languages as well as the english"-(See Lectures P. 190.) This criticism did not originate with Mr. K. It was wielded by Mr. Vidler in opposition to Mr. Fuller, and the latter gentleman very fairly meets it as follows: "Words in English that are properly expressive of endless duration, may not ordinarily admit of a plural; and, if this were universally the case, it would not follow, that it is the same in Greek. Nor is it so: for the idea of endless duration, is frequently conveyed by these very plural forms of expression.Thus in Eph. iii, 11. kata prothesin ton aionon; according to his eternal purpose. 1 Tim. i, 17. To de Basilei ton aronon aphtharto, aorato,mono sopho Theo time kai doxa eis tous aionas ton aionon, Now unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever & ever-Render these passages how you will, you cannot do them justice, unless you express the idea of unlimited duration. And though the English terms may not admit of what is termed a plural form, yet they admit of what is equal to it; for though we do not say everlas tings nor eternities yet we say forever & ever; and you might as well contend, that forever cannot properly mean unlimited duration, seeing another ever may be added to it, as that aion must needs mean, a limited duration, on account of its admitting a plural form of expression.You might also with equal propriety, plead for a plurality of evers in futurity, from the phraseology, as for a plurality of ages from the Greek." VI. Letter to Mr. Vidler. See Fuller's works Vol. II, pp. 381. 382.) After this reply the objection should have rested forever. But it is urged by Mr. K. with as much assurance as though it had never been successfully met:-and indeed as tho' it were a discovery of his own! Mr. Kneeland thinks he has found a term more expressive of endless duration that those which are applied to punishment: and argues from it thus: "Speaking of our great high priest, who was made priest by an oath, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron. St. Paul saith (Heb. vii, 16.) Who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life (alla kata dunamin Zoes akatalutou) but according to the power (akat lutou) of indissoluble life.. Here is a word in the original which is not connected with punishment, misery, or death, any where in the whole Bible; yet it is connected with life to denote its durability. If this word could have been so much as once found connected with death in the same manner as it is here with life, it would have given more support to the doctrine of endless misery than all that is contained in the bible beside. Is it not strange, if St. Paul believed in this unmerciful doctrine, that he did not so much as Once, in all his writings, connect it with punishment or death?" (See Lectures P. 196.) The word akatalutos ac cording to Parkhurst is from a neg. & katalutos dissolved, which is from kataluo to dissolve. Not to be dissolved, indissoluble-[See Lexicon] and is only once used in the New Testament. But if this word is more sighificant of endless duration than those generally used why is it not ordinarily used in connection with the existence of God and the happiness of the righteous?-This must be unaccountable. This argument, as the former, was urged by Mr. Vidler and was replied to by Mr. Fuller thus: It is |