it will certainly be no inconsiderable argument aganst his method of explaining the scriptures, & indeed againt the theory, to defend which, he is forced to resort to such a method!!!

No. VII.-The Argument founded upon the strength of the terms, DEFENDED.

Our second argument is deduced from those passages which express the duration of future punishment by the terms everlasting, eternal, &c.

The editor enters upon the examination of this argument in his usual style, thus: He has assumed a position which should have been established before he proceeded in his arguments. If by future punishment he means punishment in a future state of being, he should have shown that these scriptures describe, and have relation to such punishment in distinction from the punishment inflicted in this state of being. Till he does this he is building upon a sandy foundation." (P. 166.) This would appear very singular, were it not the language of one who is in the habit of pressing his opponent to the labouring oar, when he should ply it himself!! We maintain, (and shall fully establish it in our next number,) that the literal & proper signification of the qualifying terms in question, is interminable, or endless duration. And it is assumed as a first principle in the interpretation of language, that all other things being equal, the primitive and literal meaning of a word, is to be preferred to any figurative and secondary sense; and that if the connexion, or the nature of the case be such that it cannot be taken in its original signification, all other circumstances the same, that which is next to it is to be adopted; and so on through all the various significations which use has sanctioned."*

*Says Mr. Horne :" Although the plain, obvious, and literal sense of a passage may not always exhibit the mind of the Holy Spirit, yet it is ordinarily to be preferred to the figurative sense, and is not to be rashly abandoned, unless absolute and evident

on this principle of interpretation (and who will con est it?) we have a perfect right to presume, that these terms in the places in question, are to be taken in their literal and proper sense. This ground we shall maintain

66

assu

until he shows that the connexion, or the nature of the case is such, that these words, in the places in question, should not be understood in their proper signification: until he does this, our " position" is by no means med:”—it is legitimately our own. This point gained, it will be a matter of course, that the passages under con sideration refer to "a future state of being"-unless what is strictly endless may have an end:-and this we he will not assert. The burden of proof, upon suppose this point, rests entirely upon him:-and until he proves that these terms are to be understood figuratively, in the passages under consideration, these passages are conclusive evidence in our favor. This he does attempt to do, by laboring to prove that they refer to this life only. We will now pass to examine what he has directed to this point.

He explains Dan. xii. 2. by comparing it, and its connexions, with some passages in the 24th. of Mat. (P. 167.) We admit that this part of the prophecy of Daniel, and some parts of the prophecy of Christ, are very similar, and probably refer to the same events. But we have be

fore shown the insufficiency of his reasons for applying the prophecy of Christ exclusively to the destruction of Jerusalem:-and as we have taken away his foundation, his superstructure of course cannot stand!

But as further evidence that this passage in Daniel, has its fulfilment in this life, he introduces the 3d verse:

"necessity require such literal sense to be given up." (Horne's Introduction to a critical study and knowledge of the scriptures. Vol II. P. 500.)

And the learned Hooker: I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sac ed scripture, that, where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changes the meaning of words, as alchemy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of any thing what it pleases, and bringing in the end all truth to nothing." (Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapter 68-60.)

"They that be wise shall shine," &e. and remarks u on it as follows:-" They that turn many to righteous. ness." The verb is in the present tense. They shine forth while they are employed in turning many to righteousness, an evidence that they are on earth." (P. 169.) The verb turn is in the present tense to-be-sure:-but shall shine, and upon this the whole depends, is in the first future tense. He speaks as though there were but one verb in the passage and goes on to paraphrase it as though it were throughout in the "present tense." This he must certainly know is not the case. The critical acumen which he has displayed in this case, is really admirable!

This gentleman applies Mat. xxv. 46:-" And these shall go away into everlasting punishment," &c. to the punishment of the Jews, on the destruction of Jerusalem. (P. 167.) And to support this application of the passage he quotes Mat. xvi. 27, 28. (See P. 169.) "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you there be some standing here, which shall not taste death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Christ's coming in the glory of his Father, in the 27th verse, we conceive, refers to a different event from his coming in his kingdom, in the 28th. For this coming of which he first speaks is accompanied by circumstances which did not take place within the life time of any of those who were then standing there.

This coming is marked by the following circumstances: 1. He would come" in the glory of his Father." 2. "With his angels." And 3. Then he would reward every man according to his works." Now in what sense does our Examiner suppose that this last particular, especially, (waving the others,) was fulfilled on the destruction of Jerusalem? Here is an universal retribution spoken of: " Then shall he reward every man."-It will not answer for the editor after what he has said upon the "unequivocal" meaning of the term every" to say that "every man" means the Jewish nation only. This would be to abandon the ground which he has taken, and to give. up many passages upon which he much relies,jas supporting the doctrine of universal salvation. Now as we have

no evidence that Christ has yet come under the above circumstances, we must conclude that the coming there fore. told is yet to take place.

But his coming in his kingdom, (verse 28) is of another kind, and not improperly adverted to upon this occasion. As though he had said: "And that you may not doubt, that there shall be a day of judgment, when I shall come clothed with divine majesty, to render unto men according to their actions in this life, let me assure you, there are some here present, that shall not die till they shall see a fair representation of this in events which will soon take place, especially in my coming to set up my mediatorial kingdom with great power and glory, in the increase of my church, and the destruction of mine enemies." Benson. [See also Wesley, Dr. Coke, and the Continuators of Pool, upon the place.] This passage then does not go to prove that the coming of Christ spoken of in Mat. xxv. 31-46, refers to the destruction of Jerusalem-so far from this, that it plainly appears, that those parts of it which most resemble that passage, must themselves be referred to the second coming of Christ. But that the last paragraph of the 25th, of Mat., does not re fer to the event to which the editor applies it, will perhaps appear more clearly after considering the following particulars:

1. On the coming referred to in this place," all nations" are to be" gathered before him" and judged--rewarded or punished according to their respective characters:-But this did not take place on the destruction of Jerusalem.

2. Upon the occasion described by our Lord, the righteous are rewarded in consideration of the good character they had previously sustained: But this does not answer to the gentiles being received to the privileges of the gos pel. (See Rom. x. 20. Isa. Ixv. 1.)

But 3. The punishment to be then awarded, to the wicked, is that which was prepared for the devil and his angels:" But we know not where it is written, that being taken captives by the Romans, and sold for slaves among the different nations of the earth, is the punishment prepared for the devil and his angels"! We need adduce no farther reasons at present, for rejecting his ap plication of this portion of the scriptures: it is forced, ex

tremely unnatural, and is evidently an expedient to ac-commodate the peculiarities of his system.

He next notices some passages from the book of Rev. (See Rev. xiv. 10. 11.-xix. 3. xx. 10.) In order to limit these passages to the present world, he quotes chap. xvi. 1. Upon this he observes: "We here learn that the angels were commanded to pour out the vials containing the seven last plagues upon the earth; nothing said about reserving any to be poured out upon sufferers in an endless hell." [P. 169.] The phrase, the earth" by a metonymy, is often used for the inhabitants of the earth, or some part of them. In the place which our Examiner quotes, this phrase refers to the inhabitants of the anti-christian state. Now in the name of reason, what does this prove concerning the duration of this punishment? Their be ing denominated" the earth" it seems, must, according to this Expositor, certainly prove that the fulfilment" of the prophecy in relation to them is confined to time." Conclusive reasoning indeed!

Again he says: "When the duration of this torment is expressed by the terms forever, and forever & ever, these terms are put in apposition with day and night, clearly indicating that this torment is endured where time is measured by day and night." (PP. 169, 170.) Answer. The phrase" day & night" in this place is evidently used figuratively, for continually unceasingly. This is the -more clear, as it is used in this sense, in other places in this book. In chap. iv. 1-8. it is said: "And the four beasts rest not day and night saying holy, holy Lord God Almighty." Again vii. 15. "Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple," &c. Now will the gentleman say, that these passages describe what occurs where time is measured by day and night."-If not where is his argument?

But his argum nt may be successfully retorted: day & night" is put in apposition with" forever and everclearly indicating" that it is equivalent, or implies the same thing in this place-so, he is defeated by the reaction of his own argument!

Now candid reader; you have fairly before you, the leditor's reasons for limiting the terms in question. Has he offered any thing like an argument, to show that these terms should be understood out of their natural meaning,