gaged in calling in question the common acceptation of the word as signifying eternal; it was to be expected, that he would attempt to show, that in this place also the word has a limited meaning as to duration, as he had with respect to other places. But here, while he acknowledges "that the idea of endless duration is included," he contents himself by saying, that "the apostle's object seems to be more the stability of unseen things, than their endless duration." And "as these passages have no relation to punishment," he is willing to let them pass without "further remarks." Passing over many passages, where AION and AIONIOS must necessarily be understood to mean endless duration, I shall notice but one more; 1 Pet. I. 24, 25. "All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth, EIS TON AIONA, forever." Here is a comparison between grass and the word of the Lord as to enduring. The former withereth and falleth away; but the latter endureth-shall we say with Mr. H. for "a long time"? Shall not the word of the Lord continue to everlasting? Certainly. Why then does the apostle use a word, that signifies at most no more than during the ages of time? Does not Mr. H.'s sense of the word render the comparison between grass and the word of the Lord unimportant, and unworthy of an inspired apostle? Whatever may be the native meaning of the word, in this situation it occupies the place of endless duration. But why do I spend so much time in searching for the meaning of the words under consideration, when their constant application to the eternal existence of God and of the happiness of the saints, is an indubitable evidence, that they are used to express endless duration? Why should the continuance of the divine Being, and of the happiness of the saints, be designated so generally by these words, if they do not essentially signify everlasting? Are there no Greek words that decidedly express endless duration? Strange, very strange, that the Greek language, that prolific language, should not afford words which decisively express endless duration? or if there be such words, that the 70 and the writers of the New Testament should so seldom, if ever make use of them when declaring the eternity of Jehovah ! In the new Testament the words eternal, everlasting, forever, and forever and ever, occur about 123 times, and in every instance excepting four, unless I mistake, are a translation of AION and AIONIOS.World without end, occurs once, Eph. III. 21, and is a translation of TOU AIONOS TON AIONON. And six times at least, EIS TON AIONA, is rendered never, as never die, &c. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. H. declares, that it is certain, that the original words from which everlasting is rendered in both Testaments, do not mean eternal-that neither of these, AIon and AIONOS, express eternity or eternal." Now, how shall we account for all this? Is Mr. H. and also his instructer right, and the translation of these words, and of the passages that contain them wrong? or shall we presume, that the former have grossly erred in their interpretations; and that our common translation is correct? I do not hesitate to prefer the latter. If AION and AIONIOS do not express endless duration, what words in the Greek are used for that purpose? I do not recollect that either Mr. H. or M B. has furnished us with any such words. But if our author's declaration respecting the words under consideration should prove to be correct, then the scriptures are very sparing with respect to asserting the endless existence of God, of Christ, and of the endless happiness of the saints! And might we not call them in question, as far as Scripture is concerned, as well as the everlasting punishment of the wicked? Should I assert that the apostles did not believe in the eternity of these things, how would the advocates of Mr. H's declaration prove the contrary? The impression is forcible, that our Apologist and his instructers discover a greater willingness to yield the everlasting existence of Deity and of the happiness of the saints, than to endanger their avowed principle of the salvation of all men by acknowledging the true import of words. Again, if the assertion of Mr. H. is true, that the original words from which everlasting is rendered in both Testaments do not mean eternal, then it is truly surprizing, that nearly half a hundred of the most learned men in the world, apparently pious and judicious, who were eminent in the knowledge of the original tongues, having every help and convenience possible, and taking every step with caution, and having a sufficiency of time, should make such egregious blunders as to employ the words everlasting, eternal, and forever, in rendering AION and AlonIOS in so many instances of the first importance and miss the real sense of the original! It must be through ignorance or dishonesty; and be it which it may, it is alike pernicious to their readers. Upon the whole, if the above assertion is true, we are reduced to a very lamentable condition respecting a guide in religion. Hitherto I have felt myself safe in following, without reserve, the Bible, and our present version; but now it seems by the authority of our author, and those from whom he had his information, that our translators have grossly perverted the meaning of several very essential words in the original, and words of frequent occurrence. And how shall we know, that they have not as grossly departed from the real sense of some other important words and phrases? Indeed we have no assurance, that any thing is rendered right. To whom shall we go for information? The writer of the Apology has proved himself willing to instruct us into the sense of the original, and doubtless Socinians would be willing to lend a hand, and some others. But for my own part I had rather abide by our present version (though it lays no claim to perfection) than to exchange it for any, that can be produced in the present age. And indeed there are but few, if there be any, who have no unscriptural tenet to advocate, that find much fault with our translation. Our translation of the Bible is not alone in rendering AICN, and AIONIOS, eternity, and eternal. I think it will not be disputed, that the famous Theodorus Beza was an able critic in the Greek language, and understood the original of the New Testament as well as any one at the present time. His Latin version of the New Testament is now before me; and he renders the words under consideration, when applied to the future happiness of the righteous and misery of the wicked as follows: Jude 13. "To whom is reserved the blackness of darkness, in æternum, to eternity, or forever" Matt. XXV. 41, 46. "Depart from me, ye cursed, in ignem æternum, into everlasting fire." "These shall go away, ad supplicium |