Neither this Text, nor any of the foregoing, determine what Mr. W. here asserts. The only Shadow of an Argument to this purpose, arises from a Word or two, which in Scripture and moral Discourses, means quite another thing. In the sixth Verse we are told, that the old World, being overflowed with Water, perished; (àπwλeтo) yet that perishing did not extend to utter Destruction, or Annihilation ; but only to a great and general Change in the World that then was. And as the World once perished by Water, so it must by Fire at the Conclusion of its present State. (See Mr. Whiston's Theory, Book iii. Ch. 5. B. iv. Ch. 5.) Yet this second perishing will not extend, Mr. W. tells us, to the intire Dissolution or Destruction of the Earth, but only to the Alteration, Melioration, and peculiar Disposition thereof into a new State: (Theory, towards the End.) Why then must the word Perdition, (àπoλeía) as applied in the 7th Verse to ungodly Men, be understood of utter Destruction of Being? Especially, since we know from Philosophy, that Fire cannot annihilate them; and from Scripture, that this Day of their Judgment, and of their Perdition, is so far from being the Day of their Annihilation, that it is the Day when they will be sent into everlasting Punishment.

No. XCI.

Vers. 9.-Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

No. XCII.

Vers. 16. Which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,unto their own Destruction.

Compare No. LIX., LXXXIV., LXXXV., XC.

No. XCIII.

I John v. 16. If any Man see his Brother sin a Sin which is not unto Death, he shall ask, and he shall give him Life for them that sin not unto Death; there is a Sin unto Death; I do not say that he shall pray for it.

A Sin unto Death, ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, is the same sort of Phrase which this Apostle uses in his Gospel, Ch. xi. 4. This Sickness is not unto Death, Tpòs Bávarov. So that a Sickness unto Death, and a Sin unto Death, means, each in its respective way, something absolutely fatal; when no Medicines would avail in one Case, nor Prayers in the other: Not meaning the Prayers, accompanied with the Repentance, of the Offender himself; for the Sin unto Death implies final Impenitence; whether that Sin be a Habit of any Sin persisted in to the last, or any particular Sin, such as the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or Apostasy from Christ, or the like; about which the best Interpreters are not agreed. It appears from Hermas that the Phrase was usual in his, and the Apostles, days; and therefore the Nature of this Sin was then, no doubt, well understood. And to speak my Sentiments, it seems clearly to me to mean, not a Habit of any Sin, (though that finally persisted in,

will prove fatal,) but the particular Sin of renouncing Christianity, and blaspheming its divine Author; which too being done, not only after the Performance of his own Miracles, but those also of his Apostles, with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, is in effect the same with the unpardonable Sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Some of these, says the Angel to Hermas, are corrupted unto Death, usque ad Mortem; others to a Defection, or falling away, usque ad Defectionem. Hermas here acquainting him that he did not understand the Distinction, Hear then, says his Instructor, "the Sheep which thou 'sawest exceeding joyful, are such as have for ever "departed from God, and given themselves up to the "Lusts of this present time. To these therefore "there is no Return, by Repentance unto Life;" (why so? since the others who were fallen away had also given themselves up, he tells us, to Pleasures and Delights; and yet there was Hope laid up for them in Repentance; but the reason of this Difference immediately follows, "To these therefore there is "no Return, by Repentance unto Life;) Because that "to their other Sins they have added this, that they "have blasphemed the name of the Lord These kind "of Men are ordained unto Death." Here is, if I mistake not, St. John's Sin unto Death; as well as St. Paul's wilful Sin after we have received the Knowledge of the Truth, Heb. x. 26, 27. It is ridiculous to quote Hermas, as if he meant by Death any thing like Annihilation. They that are dead are "utterly gone for ever."2 (See Mr. W. p. 52.) Does

1 The Life of such Men is Death. Gr.

2 Ὁ δὲ θάνατος ἀπώλειαν ἔχει αἰώνιον. The Meaning is, the Consequence of such a Death, (as he calls the Life of such Men,) is, what the Scripture calls, everlasting Destruction.

not every one see by the whole tenour of his Discourse, that he here means, gone beyond Recovery? Beyond all Return, by Repentance unto Life? Beyond all Hopes, and all Possibility of Pardon? On the other hand, they who were corrupted only to a Defection, or falling away, had Hope laid up for them in Repentance. Defectio enim habet spem aliquam Redintegrationis; Mors vero perpetuo tenetur interitu. Her. Past. Lib. 3. Simil. 6.

No. XCIV.

Jude 6, 7, 13. And the Angels which kept not their first Estate, but left their own Habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting Chains under Darkness, unto the Fudgment of the great Day. ver. 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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. ver. 13. To whom is reserved the Blackness of Darkness for ever.

These three Verses Mr. W. quotes together, and his Reflections upon them are as follow: They are, he says, “exceeding remarkable, and inform us plainly "of two things of the greatest Consequence in our "present Inquiry, viz. (1.) That the word didios, which "is generally supposed to be much more expressive "of a proper Eternity, than aiúvios, is yet used for "a time limited, or for the Duration of the Age, or 'Ages, till the Day of Judgment, and no longer. (2.) "That the Conflagration of Sodom and Gomorrha, and "the Cities about them, because it utterly destroyed

"them, is stiled the Vengeance Tupòs aiwvíov, of "lasting, or, as we render it, everlasting Fire: Altho' 'such Fire or Conflagration were quite over in no very long time, and burned no longer than the utter “Destruction of those Cities required. These Verses are therefore the proper Key of such Language in "the rest of the Holy Scriptures; and a more au"thentick and satisfactory Key they are, than all the "Schoolmen and Criticks of modern Ages can afford "us." (P. 47.)

In the first of these Observations it is affirm'd, or implied, 1. That didios is more expressive of a proper Eternity than aiovios; and, 2. That it is used here for a limited time. Now supposing both these things to be true, what is the Consequence? Certainly this only, that aivios also may be used for a time limited; not that it always actually is so; which, we know, is contrary to Truth and Fact. Without entering into the comparative Strength and Value of the Words, it is undeniable that they are both expressive of a proper Eternity; and, unless we will deal arbitrarily with them, ought to be so understood, where the Sense of the Context, or the Subject of the Writer, does not limit them. The word adios in the passage before us is thus limited, according to Mr. W. by the Sense, as these Chains are but to last till the Day of Fudgment: Otherwise, it would denote Eternity. And so it is with alwvios: When it is spoken of any thing that must end before, or at, the Day of Judgment, it is there plainly confin'd, by the Sense, to a limited Time; but what is this to the Signification of the same Word, when it is not so confin'd? As it plainly is not, when it is applied, (and it is applied equally,) to the Rewards, and Punishments, of Heaven, and