after the king?' But, sir, the doctrine, that all our race will ultimately be happy, is too plainly taught in the common version, to be expunged by criticisms on the original. This version has produced nine tenths of all the Universalists who now exist. And surely you must know, that your most critical and intelligent commentators have done much to confirm them in their opinions. This doctrine was so taught in the original scriptures, that the translators, though believers in endless punishment, could not conceal it in the version they have given us. It is not a new version, but a new Bible which can destroy it. An appeal to the original scriptures,' ever has, and ever will prove dangerous to your doctrine of endless punishment.

In the last sentence of this paragraph, you speak of 'the general impression, which the present essay is designed to make. I have no doubt, you designed it should make a very general impression, in favor of endless punishment. But I must greatly err in judgment, if it does not produce an impression, and that too among the most intelligent part of the community, that the doctrine of endless punishment cannot be defended, even by Professor Stuart, of Andover. Dr Beecher preached against universal salvation, and converts were made to it. I have no doubt your book will add to their number.

I have now finished my remarks on your prefatory matter. But, as according to your statements, all my 'rash and adventurous criticisms,' originated in my setting at defiance the proper rules of interpretation, before I proceed further, it is necessary to settle preliminaries with you about this. Do you ask by what rules of interpretation I mean to be guided in prosecuting my examination of your book? I answer, By your own rules. By the rules you have published to the world, and by which you conducted your controversies with Dr Millar and others. What I shall quote, will be taken from your own books, from translations of works which and some of you approve, these rules are found in your present publication. To this you can have no possible objection. I shall only notice one of these here, as it is the only one, which I have observed in all your writings, to which I seriously object. In your letters to Dr Millar, p. 7, you thus address him.' Whether the rejection of the doctrine of eternal generation be so important, and so fraught with danger, as you seem to

think, is a proper subject of examination. The doctrine must first be proved true, before the inference can be fairly drawn, that the rejection of it is impious. But unless it can be made very plain--unless it can be irrefragably proved, perhaps it is not expedient to pronounce the rejection of it to be impious and heretical; especially, if as is probable, a majority of orthodox Christians in this country reject it. To this rule, or mode of determining what is truth, I seriously object; for,

1st. What has a majority of American orthodox Christians to do, in determining the truth or falsehood of any doctrine? Do you not say, p. 68, in the same book, 'The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice. What this saith is orthodoxy.' And 'it matters not to the unprejudiced inquirer, what writers or preachers have inculcated as theology, if it be not supported by the word of God.' But here, by this rule, you make a majority of American orthodox Christians save a doctrine from being impious and heretical.'

2d. Is it the rejection of universal salvation by a majority of American orthodox Christians, which renders it both impious and heretical? From the above rule, it should seem, that whenever a majority of American orthodox Christians shall be pleased to embrace the doctrine of universal salvation, it will neither be impious nor heretical to believe it. But to use your own words, is not this- setting at defiance all scripture rules of interpretation?'

3d. A majority of orthodox Christians in this country probably consider universal salvation to be impious and heretical. But, whether the reception of the doctrine of universal salvation be so important and so fraught with danger, as they seem to think, is a proper subject of examination. The doctrine must first be proved false, before the inference can be fairly drawn, that the reception of it is impious. Unless it can be made very plain' -unless it can be irrefragably proved false, perhaps it is not expedient to pronounce the reception of it to be impious and heretical, especially, if, as is certain, a number in orthodox churches believe it, and most intelligent men are rapidly embracing it.

In your next paragraph, p. 14, you inform us what course you intend to pursue in the present essay. You say-in pursuing the inquiry about the scriptural mean

ing of aion and aionios (forever and everlasting) I propose to investigate the meaning of these words among profane Greek writers; their meaning in the New Testament; the meaning of the corresponding words in the Old Testament, which have been translated by aion and aionios; the meaning of these last words in the Septuagint; then to present a brief view of the bearing, which the testimony exhibited in respect to these words has on the duration of future punishment; and lastly, to make some remarks on the abuse of these words, and on some mistaken criticisms with regard to them.' But I ask, Is this a scriptural rational course, if you wish to come at the truth, respecting aion and aionios in the New Testament? You are to begin with the 'meaning of these words among profane Greek writers,' or their classical usage? But is not this beginning at the wrong end? Is not this seeking correct views of these words, where this is not likely to be found? Yea, where false views may be imbibed by your own showing? You say, p. 139, Have we yet to learn, after so many able lexicons and commentaries on the New Testament Greek have been published, that when the Hebrews employed the words of this language, they attached to very many of them peculiarities of meaning which may be sought for in vain in classic authors.' The classics, then, is a wrong source, to seek for those 'peculiarities of meaning,' by your own showing.

You will then probably ask me, whether I would have you commence your investigation of aion and aionios, with the usage of these words in the New Testament ? I answer, no; for if many Greek words there have peculiarities of meaning which may be sought for in vain in classic. authors,' it is not to classic Greek, nor New Testament Greek, we must have recourse for correct information, but to the source whence these peculiarities of meaning' originated. What then was this source? was it Talmudic and Rabbinic usage of words? We should conclude thus from the course you pursue; for Talmudic and Rabbinic writers are referred to, as we shall see, for the sense you attach to words in the present discussion. They are your authority, for meanings you attach to aion and aionios contrary to most lexicographers and critics. To these blind guides we are referred repeatedly, which will be noticed in the course of our remarks.

You will then ask, where I would have you begin your investigations, as the true source of such peculiarities of meaning?' You shall tell us yourself; and as this is a point of some importance, it is proper it should be fully laid before the reader. In the quotation which has just been made, you say-When the Hebrews employed the words of this language, they attached to very many of them peculiarities of meaning, which may be sought for in vain in classic authors.' You say further, p. 53-In short, the most unpractised observer as to the phenomena of language, cannot help remarking, that aion is throughout the Old Testament the word corresponding to oulm, which the Seventy have almost uniformly appropriated to this purpose. Nothing can be clearer, than that they considered it as the equivalent of oulm.' But to show that the Hebrew of the Old Testament must explain the language of the New Testament, I must quote you more fully. In your translation of Jahn's dissertations, p. 18, you speak as follows:

The Greek of the New Testament, moreover, is not such as is found in ancient Greek authors; nor can it be learned from the study of these alone. It is a dialect, which the Jews, (and consequently the writers of the New Testament) spoke and wrote, in the primitive ages of Christianity. It is intermixed with many Hebraisms, Chaldaisms, and Syriasms; and many of these may be illustrated by the use of the Arabic language. The understanding and illustration of the New Testament, therefore, depends very much on the knowledge of the Hebrew, and its kindred dialects.' In your preface to Mr Stone's translation of 'Jahn's History of the Hebrew Commonwealth,' you say 'The christian religion is built upon the Jewish. The christian scriptures are intimately connected with the Jewish sacred books, and they cannot be understood and explained, except by means of them. The words of the New Testament are Greek; but its idioms, its costume, its manner of thought and reasoning, its allusions, in short, the tout ensemble of it is Jewish; nor can these ever be duly understood by any person who is ignorant of the Jewish nation, its laws, customs, and history.' After such statements, who could have thought that you would begin your investigation of the meanir of aion and aionios, with the classic usage of these words

And is it not passing strange, if the christian religion is built upon the Jewish,' and if the christian scriptures are intimately connected with the Jewish sacred books, and they cannot be understood and explained, except by means of them,' that you should make so little use of the Jewish sacred books to explain the meaning of aion and aionios, in the New Testament? Why begin with the classic usage of these words? And why merely give us a few specimens of the usage of oulm, their corresponding word in the Hebrew?

But you say again, in your translation of Jahn, pp. 11, 12, 'the Hebrew and the Chaldee of the Old Testament, were the languages of an oriental region, very diverse from ours and the Greek of the New Testament in respect to the ideas which were attached to words, in regard to phrases, and to the whole contour of language, is conformed to the oriental tongues. The languages then of both the Old Testament and the New, differ as much from the western tongues, as the oriental fashions of dress differ from ours. Besides, our sacred books were written many ages ago; since which, many significations of words have been changed, in various ways, and circumscribed sometimes within wider, and sometimes within narrower limits. The consequence is, that oftentimes it is extremely difficult to find in our language any words, by which those ancient words can be in any tolerable manner expressed. If, therefore, as we have seen, even the better versions cannot, in all respects, adequately express the original, but necessarily express sometimes more, and sometimes less than the sacred writer does,—it is evident that the theologian, whose duty it is to investigate everything with nicety, and accurately to define and describe the limits of every sentiment, can in no way fully discharge the duties of his office, by merely consulting versions.' Such are the excellent remarks you give us. But if'the Greek of the New Testament, in respect to the ideas which are attached to words, in regard to phrases, and to the whole contour of language is conformed to the oriental tongues,' why not go at once to the oriental tongues, in interpreting aion, aionios, hades, sheol, and Gehenna in your essays. Again, if the sacred books were written many ages ago, since which time, many significations of words have been changed, in various ways, and circumscribed