and were permitted to be carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, we read, that God "cast them out from his presence," 2 Kings xxiv. 20. That is, they were driven out from their own land, they were driven away from their religious privileges, they were driven away from the house of the Lord, and from the place where he had revealed his power and glory; and their sanctuary and their dwellings were burned. This was called, "casting them out from God's presence." After they had returned from the captivity in Babylon, they built again the temple, and established worship on Zion, and God once more vouchsafed his presence there. But alas, God's people were a rebellious people. They not only persecuted the prophets, but also the apostles, and crucified the Lord of glory. God permitted them again to be driven away from their own land, by the Romans under Titus; and this punishment, in imitation of the language of the Old Testament, was called "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." If, then, we apply the words before us, to the banishment of the Jews from their own land, we adopt the precise sense in which the Old Testament writers were accustomed to use such language. By what rule, then, can 2 Thess. i. 7-9, be applied to the future state?

5. But it will be said, in the last place, that this punishment of the Jews must be in the future state, because it is said to be everlasting. We reply, that so far from this being an objection to the view we have here given, it is, in fact, a confirmation of it. It shows how closely Paul followed the prophetic language in describing the punishment of the Jews. See the following: "Therefore, behold I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you, and your fathers, and CAST YOU OUT OF MY PRESENCE; and I will bring an EVERLASTING reproach upon you, and a PERPETUAL shame, which shall not be forgotten." Jer. xxiii. 39, 40. Now we see where Paul found the phraseology he employed in the passage. He

borrowed from the Jewish prophets not only the figure of destroying the Jews from "the presence of the Lord," but also the term everlasting, which he applied to that destruction, and which they had applied in the

same manner.

The Jews were said to have the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, Gen. xvii: 8; xlviii. 4. The hills were said to be everlasting, Gen. xlix. 26. The priesthood of Aaron was said to be everlasting, Exod. xl. 15; Numb. xxv. 13. The Jewish statutes were termed everlasting, Lev. xvi. 34. The mountains were called everlasting mountains, Hab. iii. 6. If the word everlasting must refer to things of eternity alone, we would be glad to see how the above facts can be accounted for. Again, if the term everlasting shows that the matter to which it is applied, must be strictly endless, then how shall we account for the following facts: These everlasting mountains were scattered, and these perpetual hills did bow, Hab. iii. 6. The Jews were long since driven out of Canaan, their everlasting possession; the everlasting priesthood of Aaron was abolished, and the priesthood of Christ established in its stead; and the everlasting statutes were long since set aside. These things were everlasting, in the usual Jewish sense of that term; but none of them were endless in duration; nor can any thing mentioned in Scripture be proved to be endless, by the mere use of the term everlasting.

It has been objected, to the view we have taken of this subject, that Paul's epistle was addressed to the church at Thessalonica; and what had that church to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, from which they were far distant? Why should the destruction of the Jews, relieve the Thessalonians from the persecutions they suffered ? We reply, that not only in the case of the Thessalonians, but in almost every place in which persecution raged against the infant church, the Jews were the instigators and abettors. This will appear by a brief examination of the early history of the church,

as recorded in the book of Acts. We have not room here to quote all the passages that refer to that point; but we direct the reader's attention to Acts xiii. 44, 45, 49, 50; xiv. 2, 19; xvii. 5, 11-13; xviii. 12, 13; xix. 33.

For a more full explanation of this passage, see the very excellent article of Mr. Balfour, in the "Universalist Magazine," Vol. V. pp. 157, 161, 165, 169. Also Mr. Balfour's "Second Inquiry," pp. 326–337. Mr. Balfour's argument is absolutely incontrovertible. See also Rev. H. Ballou's sermon on the passage which gave occasion to his noted controversy with Rev. Timothy Merritt. See also the note from Hammond, in Paige's "Selections."

LXXIV. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12.

We shall not undertake the explanation of this passage any further than to show, that it affords no proof of the doctrine of endless misery. Those who desire a fuller explanation, are referred to Paige's "Selections" on the passage, and Ballou's "Select Sermons," No. VIII.

"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth." Does the apostle give the slightest hint, that this damnation must be endured in the future immortal existence ? Not at all. Adam Clarke renders the passage, "that they may all be condemned who believed not the truth." Who would have supposed the apostle to refer to the immortal state, if the word condemned had been used in the common translation ? See remarks on 1 Cor. xi. 29, Sect. LXIX. of this chapter. Mr. Balfour, whose valuable works have contributed so much to the stock of Biblical criticism, says, on this text; The words damned and damnation have a most terrific sound in most people's ears, and instantly lead their minds into a future state of ex

66

istence. But the same word is rendered condemn, judge, and in a variety of other ways in our common version. Is it asked, What damnation does the apostle refer to? I answer; the condemnation which is the effect of unbelief, and the punishment which is called the wrath of God (Matt. iii. 7), and the damnation of hell (Matt. xxiii. 33). Strong delusion came on the unbelieving Jews; they believed a lie, and were all damned. or punished, for the wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost." "Essays," p. 248. Mr. Ballou says; "This damnation must exist where and when the delusion exists, for it depends upon it. We have noticed, that the words damned, condemned, &c., have been applied to a future, eternal state; but Jesus himself speaks as follows; For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be, saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already; because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.' St. Paul speaks to Timothy of some as having damnation,' in the present tense. To the Romans, he says, ' He that doubteth is damned if he eat." St. Peter speaks of some, whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.' All this is in this world, where unbelief and sin are, and where their consequences are." "Select Sermons," p. 115.

LXXV. "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? Heb. ii. 3.

That this passage does not prove any thing against the final salvation of all men; or, in other words, does not prove that God's will in the salvation of all men will not be accomplished, may be understood by many considerations, especially by its connexion. See the context with the text; " For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobe

dience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation."

Now, the plain sense of this passage is this; If under the law, those transgressions by which the people violated the commandments of God were justly punished,' it is reasonable to suppose, that we, if we neglect obedience to the gospel, shall by no means escape the due reward of our infidelity and disobedience. But as there are no intimations in the law of Moses, that those who transgressed would be punished in a future state, so, from the analogy to which the apostle alludes, there is no argument to prove that those who neglect the gospel in the present time, will suffer for so doing in a future world. If it can be made to appear, that either Moses or any of the prophets spake of the punishment of sin in a future world, we shall not attempt to disprove such punishment by the New Testament. Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The Saviour renders no part of the law null, nor does he denounce any threatenings against sin, which are not contained in.the divine law.

LXXVI. "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Heb. vi. 2.

After noticing the expression, eternal judgment, Peirce remarks; "The common interpretation makes this to refer to the final judgment." He then adds ; "I think that the words are to be understood in a very different manner, and xoiua here seems to me to be put for temporal judgments. Thus the word is used, 1 Peter iv. 17; The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; where the context will not suffer us to take it in any other sense; compare ver. 16, 18, So again, 1 Cor. xi. 29 ; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.' What this judgment was, appears by the next verse; for this

19.