did not pass to their graves before Jerusalem was destroyed;" and you have conceded that to the 35th verse inclusive, the language of Jesus referred to that destruction, and not to any thing yet future. I desire you to remember, that you do not suppose any transition of reference until you reach the 36th verse of the chapter. At that point your argument commences; and you seem to think that the disjunctive conjunction "but," settles the question as to said transition. "But of that day”— WHAT day? Plainly, the day of which our Saviour had so particularly spoken in the preceding verses.

The

3d. You say, in answer to a remark of mine, that Jesus did not "acknowledge his inability to inform his disciples" of the precise day and hour of his coming. You quote M'KNIGHT, and call him my favourite. object of so doing is obvious. But allow me to say, that the author you mention is your own favourite, and not mine. I believe I have not once quoted him in this controversy I have quoted Dr. CAMPBELL against him. But this is a matter of small importance. CAMPBELL, WakeFIELD, NEWCOME, CLARKE, and a host of others, stand opposed to M KNIGHT on the passage in question. I believe the received version gives a correct rendering of the original. The entire context discountenances any other rendering. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." The parallel in Mark xiii. 32, is still more emphatic. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." It would have been foolishness to have said, no man maketh known that day, for no man knew when it was to be-and how could any one make known to others what he did not know himself?

4th. You say, "I DO NOT ADMIT that Matt. xxiv. 3641, and Luke xvii. 20-37, are parallel passages." You are aware that to admit the parallel would be to destroy your whole argument drawn from Matt. xxiv and xxv. You admit the similarity of language, and the only reason you assign for denying the parallelism is, that in the

one case Jesus was addressing his disciples, and in the other the Pharisees! I cannot think you are satisfied with this reason. But allowing that you are, I must inform you that Jesus was addressing his disciples in both cases. See Luke xvii. 22. "And he said unto his disciples, The days will come," &c. The consequence is, that your argument is lost.

5th. You say, "many have been led to conclude that Christ's prophecy concerning his coming must have a double meaning and a two-fold accomplishment." But will you, sir, pretend that such a conclusion is correct? Will you risk your reputation as a biblical expositor, by contending for said double meaning? In another part of your letter you pronounce certain principles of interpretation erroneous, because, in your judgment, they would "render the Bible an uncertain, unmeaning rule of faith." Are you sure that this would not be consequent of admitting a double meaning in Christ's prophecy concerning his coming?

I may add, while on this point, that WHITBY, PEARCE, HAMMOND, KENRICK, CLARKE, and others, acknowledge the parallel which you deny. I might furnish many interesting extracts from their notes, but must be content with the following from WHITBY, on Matt. xxiv. 40, 41: "That it relates not to the final judgment, but to the time of the destruction of the Jews by the Roman army, is evident from the same words recorded in Luke xvii. 35, 36."

As your entire argument drawn from Matt. xxiv and xxv, rests on the supposition that verse 36 of chap. xxiv, commences the reference to events which are yet future, I desire your particular attention to the proof of that supposition.

Your quotation of Heb. ix. 27, 28, will be of no service to your argument, unless you can show, 1st. That natural death is signified in the expression, "And as it is appointed unto rois dvoprois THE MEN once to die, (see preceding verses, and Heb. vii. 28;) and 2d. That the se

cond appearance of Christ, spoken of in verse 28, refers to any other than the present world.

I agree with you that it would be "needless and trifling to attempt to show that everlasting life means everlasting life." Everlasting life is simply the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, John xvii. 3. The believer enjoys it in the present life, as you admit. But I desire you to prove, if you can, that the blessedness of the immortal state depends, in any sense, on the faith of the believer. Neither the belief nor unbelief of man can affect the promise and purpose of God. Paul testifies that "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father;" and this great consummation of the reign of Jesus cannot be thwarted by the present unbelief of any part of mankind.

του,

66

You deny that ȧkardλvros, endless, is a stronger term than aivos, everlasting-and you affirm that the latter is stronger than the former, because "Jesus is said to be made a priest after the power of an endless life, (wns aKATAλÚfor this reason, that God had testified, thou art a priest for ever, els ròv aluva. A few remarks will show the fallacy of your reasoning. 1st. The priesthood of Aaron was alwviov, everlasting-but you will not pretend that it was endless, indissoluble. 2d. The priesthood under the law was after the order of Aaron," but God testified of Christ, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." 3d. The Aaronic was a changeable priesthood, inasmuch as the priests" were not suffered to continue by reason of death;" but Christ "because he continueth ever, is rov aiwva, hath an unchangeable priesthood," that is, there is no succession in the priesthood, for the Son, as High Priest, "is consecrated for ever more," sis rov aiwva. 4th. The priesthood of Christ is not endless-for he was made a priest for ever AFTER (or according to) the POWER of an endless life," but it does not follow that his life, as a priest, is endless. Moreover, Paul certifies that the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and be himself subject, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor. xv. 28. His

66

mediatorial kingdom will close, when all things are subdued unto him and reconciled to God. So the very argument you bring to prove that alwvios expresses endless duration, disproves the position.

Here let it be understood that the adjective in question derives its force primarily from the noun alwv, to which it is relative; and secondarily, from the nature of the thing to which it is applied. Now, as I showed in a previous letter, alov cannot signify eternity-for we read of the beginning and end of alwv, of alwves plural, and of the ends of atwv. Consequently, the adjective does not, and cannot, in itself, express an endless duration. Why have you failed to notice my reasoning on this important point? I really attach some consequence thereto, and hope you will honour it with special attention.

In asking you to adduce your proofs of endless punishment, I did not think of making an unreasonable demand. I did not expect you to find "incongruous affinities and violations of propriety in the sacred oracles." And the two facts, 1st. That there would be incongruity in the phrases incorruptible torment, indissoluble death, &c; and 2d. That no such phrases are found in the sacred oracles -these two facts, I say, furnish strong proof to my mind, that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Bible. There would be no violation of good taste in saying, "indissoluble life of misery," " incorruptible existence in torment"-but you will not pretend that either ἀφθάρτος, οἱ ἁμαραντος, Οι άκατάλυτος, is, in any manner or form, found in the Bible in connexion with misery. The immortal existence is one of purity and happiness; not of impurity and wretchedness-for" in the resurrection they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." This testimony of Jesus answers to Rom.viii. 21, "The creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

I desire you to produce a single passage, if you can, in which any word of equal force with αφθαρτος, ἀμαραντος, Οι akataλutos, is applied to punishment, either in the Old Tes

tament or the New. The adjective alvos, will not answer your purpose-for that this word is not unequivocal in its signification, is evident from the fact, that the spirit of inspiration frequently applies it to things which were temporary in their nature and character. For example, the priesthood of Aaron, the law of Moses, the possession of Canaan, &c.

The word unquenchable, which you mention, is also not to your purpose-for we read in Isa. lxvi. 24, "They shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." The phraseology here used confines the whole matter to the present life. It was said of the fire that destroyed Idumea, "It shall not be quenched" -yet it was quenched thousands of years ago. It was likewise said of the fire to be kindled in the gates of Jerusalem, "It shall not be quenched." But it was quenched. So you perceive that the word in question is not definite as to the duration it signifies. It is certainly synonymous with aluvios in the passages by you cited-but Scripture writers apply both words to things which have long since ceased to be.

Respectfully yours,

ABEL C. THOMAS.,

TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS.

"for

Philadelphia, August 21, 1834. Dear Sir-You are aware that the expression ever and ever," is used forty-three times in the English translation of the Bible, and in thirty-eight of these instances, you will grant that εἰς τοὺς αἰωνας τον αἰώνων denote an interminable duration. If God is to reign, is blessed, is to be praised, and is to possess the kingdom for ever and ever, equally plain and certain is it, that the impenitently wicked are to be "tormented day and night,