that he did do. 2 Kings 24: 20. "For through the anger of the Lord, it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence, that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon." The same is repeated, Jer. 52: 3. which I need not transcribe. On these passages, in connexion with the one before us, I observe,

1st. God's presence was enjoyed by the Jews in Judea, and in their temple service. To be cast out of God's presence, is to be banished from Judea into captivity, and from all the privileges which the Jews enjoyed in their land, and temple worship. This was the same as destroying them. They were thus destroyed, or cast out of God's presence, for seventy years, in their captivity at Babylon. But they were brought back from this captivity, and again enjoyed God's presence in their own land. At the time Paul wrote the words before us, the time was drawing near when they were to be again cast out of God's presence, and dispersed among all nations. Of the Jews Paul spoke. He adopts the very language of the above passages, used in speaking of their former captivity, to describe the judgments of God which awaited them in their being cast out of their land, their city and temple destroyed, and they destroyed with an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. The Jews now, are just as certainly destroyed from the presence of the Lord, as they were during their seventy years captivity. How then can any man affirm, that Paul in this passage, by destruction from the presence of the Lord, meant either annihilation or eternal misery? If the Scriptures are allowed to interpret themselves, Paul only describes the temporal destruction and banishment of the Jews, and in the very language by which the prophets had described their former punishments. It is added by the apostle, "and from the glory of his power," or,

as some render it, "his glorious power." Should this be understood of Jehovah the God of Israel, it is certain his glorious power was displayed in many instances towards the Jews. Should it be understood of Christ, it agrees with what is said of him; for at the destruction of Jerusalem he is said to have come in the glory of his father; and he was then to be seen coming with power and great glory, Matth. 16: 27. and 24: 30. But it will be said, How is this destruction of the Jews called an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, if it refers merely to temporal calamities? I shall now,

2d. Notice the duration of their punishment. It is the word everlasting, which is here and in other places applied to punishment, which leads many good people to conclude, that it is in another world, and is of endless duration. But so far from this being true, on examination it will be found, that this very application of the word everlasting, is a strong confirming circumstance in proof of the views we have advanced; for, 1st. It has been shown at length, that olim, aion, and aionios, are rendered everlasting, and in a great many instances at least, are used to express a limited duration of time. But, 2d. These words are rendered everlasting, and applied to the very temporal punishment which the Jews have endured for eighteen hundred years, and are still enduring. For example, it is said, Jer. 23: 39, 40. "Wherefore, 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." See my Inquiry into the words Sheol, Hades, &c. on this passage. Comp. also Deut. 28: 37. and 31: 17, 18. Hosea 9: 17. Jer. 20: 11. and 24: 9. What only remains to be accounted for is, why is this temporal punishment

of the Jews called everlasting, both by the prophet, and by Paul in this passage? This we think is easily and rationally accounted for. Paul was a Jew, and was speaking of Jews, and their punishment. What could be more proper, than to speak of their punishment in the language in which it was described by their own prophets, as a destruction, and an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. The Jews were familiar with the language of their Scriptures; but what Jew ever understood, that to be cast out of God's presence, was to be cast into misery in a future state; or, that the word everlasting, applied to it, expressed its endless duration? No man, we think, will assert this. It is of no consequence how Christians have understood either the phrase, presence of the Lord, or the word everlasting, for ages past, but the question is-How did the Jews understand this language? In the Jewish use of the term everlasting, their present punishment is called everlasting with stricter propriety of language, than many other things to which they were accustomed to apply it. No punishment they ever suffered before is called everlasting, which might have been done to their seventy years captivity, for this term, we have seen, expresses the duration of a man's life. Should the present punishment of the Jews, then, end to-morrow, its continuance for eighteen hundred years might be called everlasting. But how long it is yet to continue, God only knows. For this length of time they have been cast out of their land, and have not enjoyed God's presence. The Christian church is God's house now, but how few Jews have come to enjoy his presence here, facts show. All the exertions made to convert them to the gospel of Christ, is little else than lost labor. The veil is on their hearts, and all attempts to remove it have as yet proved abortive. They are an everlasting reproach, and a perpetual

shame among all the nations of the earth. What nation ever suffered so long and severe a destruction as they have done, yet remain a distinct and numerous people? And what nation ever enjoyed such privileges, and yet remained so long a blinded and unbelieving people? But their punishment is to end ; for as certainly as God has concluded them all in unbelief, so he is to have mercy upon all. Their everlasting destruction is not of endless duration.

1st. Is it objected" How could the Jews, who persecuted Christians at Thessalonica, suffer this punishment, seeing they lived so far distant from Jerusalem?" Answer; it could have made no difference in the case, had they lived at the poles; for at the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews were banished Judea, and have not been allowed to return to this day. Even the few Jews in Judea now, do not enjoy the presence of the Lord. They live there without a temple, an altar, or a sacrifice, and mourn over the long desolations of their city and temple; dragging out a miserable existence in hopeless expectation that their Messiah is yet to come. But the probability is, that a great proportion of the Jews suffered at the destruction of their city and temple, for it was at the feast of the passover. when they were generally assembled there, that Titus surrounded the city and they could not escape.

2d. Is it objected-"The presence of the Lord means his gracious presence at the day of judgment, and being destroyed from his presence, being banished to hell at this period?" Answer; let this be proved, for assertions prove nothing. Not a word is said in the whole context of the passage, about a day of judgment or God's gracious presence. Such gratuitous assertions do not deserve notice, and especially in view of the illustrations of this expression given from the Scriptures.

3d. Is it objected-"Your view of this passage does not agree with the coming of Christ mentioned chap. 2: 1. of this epistle; for it is his coming at the day of judgment, and you have interpreted his coming in chap. 1. of his coming at the destruction of Jerusalem?" Answer; whoever will consult Whitby may see, that he interprets Christ's coming in chap. 1. of the day of judgment, but passes it very slightly; but he enters at large into the proof, that Christ's coming, chap. 2. refers to his coming to destroy Jerusalem. Whitby then shows, that chap. 2. is in accordance with my views of chap. 1. But whoever wishes to see these things treated more at large, must consult the Magazine referred to above.

Matth. 18: 8. The "everlasting fire" here mentioned, is the same as hell fire, verse 9. for they are used as convertible expressions; and the same as everlasting fire, Matth. 25: 41. See Inquiry into the words Sheol, Hades, &c. for an illustration of this text, and which has been also noticed in the present Inquiry. It requires no further attention.

Jude 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." That the suffering the vengeance of eternal fire here, has no reference to punishment in a future state, appears to me evident from the following considerations.

1st. From comparing 2 Peter 2: 6. where nothing is said about eternal fire, but only that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, with the people together, are said to be condemned with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly. Had the people gone to endless misery, would Peter have omitted this important part, and mentioned only the destruction of the cities with the