accusing me of being alike guilty, a singular method of justifying a wrong. Please name an instance where I have done this.

Finding nothing objectionable in the spirit of my letter, you have recourse to invention, and falsely accuse me with calling Clarke a 'bigot!' Now why is this? Do you imagine that all you may say will be implicitly received; and that such unfairness will aid your cause? You are welcome to all the benefit of such means.

Thus much for your irrelevant and uncandid introduction to letter five.

Your attempt to prove, that according to its etymology, aion signifies endless, in an entire failure, as a few remarks will show. Let us consider first what you say of on. You bring two cases, where it expresses the existence of 'God, and two the existence of Christ. But do these prove that it expressed endless duration? Jones says, on signifies a real existence, in opposition, to what exists only in appearance or profession. Thus the blind man said, being (on) blind, I now see John ix: 25, So in John viii: 47. He that is (on) of God, heareth God's words. So also John xviii. 37. Every one that is (on) of the truth, heareth my words. These cases show, that on signifies what actually is, and not what appears to be: when the Revelator, therefore, applied the word to God and Christ, his design was to express in the strongest manner their real existence. On therefore expresses reality, but not eternity. Of this there is no doubt.

2 Eimi. Your remarks on this, as on on, are a literary curiosity. Contrary to the definition of Parkhurst, who in the nine senses in

which it occurs, does not say, that even once it signifies endless, you alude to eight cases where it is applied to Christ, and vainly imagine that these prove it endless. But why did you not refer to the fact, that it signifies a limited existence? See for instance Matt. xviii. 20. "Where two or three are gathared together in my name, there am (eimi) I in the midst of them;" John vii. 33. Yet a little while am (eimi) I with you; 1 Cor. ix 1. Am (eimi) I not an apostle? Am (eimi) Inot free? 1 Cor. xv. 9. For I am (eimi) the least of the apostles; Phil. iv. 11. I have learned in whatsoever state I am (eimi) therewith to be content. Now from these cases, it is certain that eimi expresses nothing with regard to duration Jones says it means reality, something lake on. We might as well say, the Greek word for has or is means endless, because applied to God, as eimi.

2. Aei. You deny two out of five of the texts produced to prove this limited.

But do you pretend to affirm that Paul, Acts vii. 25, taught that the Jews never would yield to the Holy Ghost? You know that he referred to their continual opposition to God, and that he said nothing of what would be. Had he declared they would always resist, the case would be different. Your position then, contradicts the apostle. The same is true of 2 Cor. vi. 10, 'as sorrowful yet always rejoiceing.' Because I said always did not mean endless, you pretend to great astonishment; and cry away with such absurdity and falsehood! Flourishes and notes of surprise, will never supply the place of argument That Paul had no reference to the future

joy of saints is evident from his saying, 'as sorrowful yet always rejoicing. Will saints have sorrow in heaven? See the whole verse, which represents the Christians as poor and having nothing. But is such language applicable to glory.

Thus have we proved that on, eimi and aie have no such meaning as endless, and as aion is fromed from them, its grammatical sense must be a continued existence. Of nothing am I more fully convinced. I did suppose that something more plausible might be said in favor of the popular opinion; but I am frank to say, I can see nothing in your present letter which deserves the name of criticism or argument; and I would not said what I have, had I not desired to go more fully into the derivation of aion.

My questions respecting the beginning and end of uion, its being used in the plural and in a reduplicate form, are met with your stereotyped and all conquering arguinent-quibbles, unwortyy a profound scholar, miserable subterfuges, bubbles at which a drowning man grasps, and what every man of sense would despise!

I pity the man who has no better means of defence than such wretched slang. But I will not render railing for railing.

Your hint that the translation of ton aionon eis tous aionas is wrong, is entirely foreign from the question. I asked not concerning this but concerning the beginning and end of aion; how it could be used in the plural; and why tl.e inspired writers should say, aronos ton aionon, if aion means endless; and had you been able to answer these, you would not have resorted to

abuse and denunciation.

You say, as the phrase, day an night is connected with the celestial exercises of the heavenly throng, it must be understood as a metaphorical expression to signify perpetuity. But first prove, that the texts to which you allude, relate to the final state of saints

That they refer to this world, there is no doubt. The figures, the representations, the allusions to burning lamps, thunder and lightning, seas of glass, land and water, all show this. I might quote Clarke here; for his sword has two edges, and it has demolished some of the strong holds of endless wo. But why should I offer proof against your assumptions?

You accuse me of inadvertency of something worse in my reply to your proposition respecting eis; but I now say, even in its modified form, it is groundless. 1. It is not "admitted on all hands that aion in 65cases means endless." This you now admit; for you say 10 of these cases are thought by some to be limited. 2. Aion governed by eis is limited in the following texts, where you consider it endless: Matt. xxi. 19; Mark xi. 14; Luke i. 55; John iv. 14; vi, 51, 58; ix. 32; x, 28; xiii. 8; xiv. 16; 1. Cor. viii. 13; Hab. v. 6; vi. 5, 20, vii. 17, 21. To these I might add many more; but they are sufficient. 3. If in 10 cases aion is eudless when not governed by eis, this preposition can be no rule by which to determine its meaning.-4. Aion in one of your 33 cases of limited duration, signifies the eternal world. See Luke xx. 35.

One remark here respecting dogmatical assertions. You discover à peculiar love for denun

ciation, and for certain sterotyped charges, such as quibbles, dogmatism, &c. Now what did you more than to assert, that aion in the 55 instances governed by eis means endless? But though you simply asserted this. I pointed out 8 cases where eis did not govern it, which you said were endless, showed that in the Greek of the Ixx. it was often limited when governed by eis, and that such was the ease in the New Testament. This you call dogmatism!

Your remarks on John viii. 35, I consider unfounded, because Christ alluded to a custom among the Hebrews, recorded in Exod. xxi respecting slavery. The servant or slave served only six years, and hence the expression, he abideth not forever. But the son remained during life. That I am right is certain from Exod. xx. 6, where we learn, that after a slave had refused freedom, he was to serve forever (eis ton aiona) or during life. Spiritualise this as you please, such were the facts respecting slaves and sons, and such is the language used respecting the time of their remaining in the house.That Jesus used the slave and son as figures I admit, but this alters not the use of aion. Here then is another argument against your view of eis, and another proof that aion is limited.

Your positions respecting eti and epekeina, are tautological and unfounded. The 1st and 4th are the same. It matters not whether the lxx made good Greek or not. Their use of these words, (and they give the true sense of the Hebrew) shows, that aion was not understood by them to mean endless. You say, eti and epekeina were not used to define the exact signification of aion. True, but their use,