unto death, for which even Christians were not to pray, 1 John 5: 16, 17.,

Stating then this sin at its utmost extent, persons were to suffer death for it, as was inflicted on the blasphemer of the God of Israel. What, some may say, do men suffer death for this sin in our day? I answer no, and for a very good reason, because it is impossible in the nature of the case to commit it in the present day. Is it asked why? I answer, because miracles must be seen performed by the person, and he must resist their evidence, and ascribe their performance to an unclean spirit, before he can commit this sin. It could only then be committed by persons under the ministry of our Lord and his disciples, who wrought miracles. Did men now see these miracles, as the persons did whom our Lord addressed, it could be committed, but unless the age of miracles return, it is impossible. The miracles wrought by our Lord and his apostles before the Jews, was the highest degree of evidence which could be given them that he was the true Messiah. Resisting and blaspheming them, rendered their case hopeless, for no further evidence could be given to convince them. But it may be said, Did the unbelieving Jews suffer temporal death for this crime? They could not be put to death for it by the Mosaic law, for they did not believe they had in this case blasphemed. Besides, the execution of this law was in their own hands. But death was inflicted on that evil generation of Jews, for upon them came all the righteous blood shed upon the earth. Not believing in Jesus, they died in, or rather by their sins, for the wrath of God came on them to the uttermost.

If the views which have been stated of the sin of blasphemy, and its punishment, he correct, it fully accounts for one remarkable fact, which is not easily accounted for on the common views entertained of it.

How is it accounted for, that our Lord nor his apostles ever made any exception of such persons, in preaching forgiveness of sins either to Jews or Gentiles? Our Lord commanded his apostles to begin at Jerusalem, but gives no directions to them to except a single individual whom they might address. John prohibits Christians from praying for one of their brethren, who had sinned å sin unto death, but not a hint is dropped, prohibiting forgiveness of sins to be preached to any who had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. On my views of this sin, this is all as it ought to be, aud as might be expected. But can it ever be reconciled with the common opinion, that those who sinned this sin placed themselves without the boundaries of God's mercy? Either they believed that none had committed it, or they believ ed that it did not except the persons, any more than others, from having repentance and forgiveness of sins preached unto them. Had they believed such persons were exceptions from the mercy of God, would they not have said something similar to John"there is a sin unto death, the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is utterly unpardonable. All you who have committed it, your situation is past remedy. We can neither pray for you, nor preach to you forgiveness." But we search in vain for any thing like this in all the inspired writings. The only thing like it is John's prohibition to Christians to pray for a brother who had sinned a sin unto death. But no one understands this as affecting the eternal condition of the individual, but the punishment of temporal death.

6

But it may be said- Plausible as all this appears, it ought to be recollected, that it is not only said such persons hath never forgiveness,' but it is also added, that they are in danger of eternal damnation." I have not forgotten this, and shall now give it all due

attention. The Greek phrase for eternal damnation" is aioniou kriseos. I do not stop to remark, but simply notice, that the persons are only said to be in danger of this; whereas people in our day, speak with positive certainty, both as to this and Judas' being in hell. The word here rendered damnation, simply means punishment. It is so rendered in other passages. See Dr. Campbell's note on Mark 12: 40. where he shows this. The words damned and damnation, lead people's minds into a future state for this punishment. This is a very false idea, and ought to be corrected; for the word damnation is used in the common version where they will allow it has nothing to do with a future state. Sce Rom. 13: 2. and other places. We are aware it will be said, the word eternal joined here with damnation, shows that the punishment is in a future state, and of endless duration. It is then allowed that the whole depends upon the word eternal. Indeed, I presume it is this word joined with damnation which leads most people to conclude that it is of endless duration. Would they ever have believed this doctrine had this not been the case? Let it be noticed,

1st. That our Lord in the above passages was addressing Jews. They were the persons who committed this unpardonable sin, if ever it was committed. They had the occasion presented to them for its commission, as they chiefly enjoyed the ministry and miracles both of Christ and his apostles. Not a hint is dropped that any of the Gentiles ever committed this sin.

2d. Being Jews, they were familiar with the use of olim in the Old, and aion in the New Testament. And it has been seen, that olim in their Scriptures, is applied very often to things which were to end, and which have already ended. The person who would therefore understand this text and others in the New

Testament, must consider how this language was understood among the Jews, and not how Christians now understand them.

3d. The Jews could not help seeing, that in their Scriptures, olim, rendered everlasting, was applied to a temporal punishment threatened them as a nation. This we have shown, and this we shall show hereaf ter on Matth. chap. 25. and 2 Thess. 1 : 5-10. Now permit me to ask, Did any Jew, or did any one else ever conclude that the word olim described a neverending punishment either in this or a future world? As this will not be affirmed, permit me to ask, By what fair rule of interpretation do we then interpret eternal damnation or punishment in this passage, to mean endless punishment in a future state? As our Lord was speaking to Jews, is it not more Scriptural and natural to understand him as using this expression in agreement with the language of their sacred books, than in the sense Christians interpret it? In what other sense could our Lord use it, or in what other sense could Jews understand such language, but in the way it had been used by the preceding Scripture writers? But this will appear conclusive by considering,

4th. That in no part of the Old Testament, is olim ever used and applied to a punishment after death. This we think a fact, which will not easily be shown to be false. The reader has had all the texts where the word is used in the Old Testament laid before him, and those in which it could be supposed to have such a sense have been particularly considered. Let him, then, judge if our Lord used, and the Jews could understand the expression, eternal damnation, in the sense we moderns put upon it. The proof, at any rate, lies with those who believe so, for no man can prove a negative. But we have in this case some proof, that our Lord neither meant, nor was he so un

derstood by the Jews who heard him. First, no Jew believed that he was to suffer endless punishment either here or hereafter. See Whitby on Rom. 2. Again, no doctrine our Lord advanced, could have been more displeasing to the Jews. They to suffer endless punishment who were the children of Abraham? No; this was far from their thoughts. But again, though our Lord and the Jews had many reasonings and contentions arising from his doctrines, do we ever find that any of them arose from his threatning them with endless punishment in a future state? No, nothing like this appears. Either then our Lord did not threaten them with this, or if he did, they did not understand him; or, if they did understand him, they acted very differently about it from what they did on all other occasions. In this case, they submitted very tamely to a threatening, never before mentioned in their Scriptures, and directly in face of all their prejudices as a nation.

5th. We see nothing in the expression "eternal damnation," indicating endless punishment, any more than in others which we think we have shown refer to no such thing. Is this expression stronger in favor of the doctrine than "damnation of hell, the fire that shall never be quenched," with others which we think has been proved in the Inquiry into the words Sheol, &c. to refer to temporal punishment? Or, is it stronger in favor of this doctrine than the expressions "everlasting fire, eternal punishment, everlasting destruction, with others, which we shall presently show have no such meaning? If these expressions refer to the temporal punishment of the Jews, why not also the expression "eternal damnation," before us? Jews who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit were addressed. The most convincing proofs had been offered them that Jesus was the Messiah. These they resisted, and blasphemed the power by which they