These examples show the common usage of the word aionios, "everlasting," and that Josephus, though a scholar, constantly employs the term in this popular sense. And Philo, who was also contemporary with the apostles, though his writings are more philosophical and abstruse, uses it in the same way. For example, he says of those who promise assistance and do not render it, that they expose themselves to "hatred and everlasting punishment" from those they injure, xóσis diários, the very words used in Matt. xxv. 46, "these shall go away into everlasting punishment.' The everlasting punishment which the injured were able to inflict in such case, could not extend beyond this life; and so the example shows not only the current use of the word "everlasting," but also of the more important phrase, "everlasting punishment." So in speaking of the milk which nature prepares in the breast of the dam for her young, he calls it proof of an "everlasting and perfect sagacity." Of course, all he means by aionios in this case, is far-reaching, seeing a long way forward. And he employs the word, also, frequently, in the sense of constant, continuous, uninterrupted.

It is plain, therefore, from the writings of these two Jewish authors, who lived and wrote in the times of the New Testament, and one of them among the very people to whom it was addressed, that the words in review were in common use to express any length of time, longer or shorter, according to the circumstances; that they were continually applied to the persons, things and affairs of this world, to events

Fragmenta, Tom. ii., Edit. 1742. Universalist Quarterly, vol. ii. 132-136..

or conditions whose duration was bounded by the limits of this life.1

SECTION III.

USAGE OF THE CHURCH FATHERS.

66

Under this head I shall present a few examples from the early Fathers of the Church. Ignatius has the following, in speaking of the Saviour, ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἀἰῶσιν, “ he was manifested to the ages," certainly not to the "eternities." And this plural form is frequent among all Greek writers, classic, New Testament, and ecclesiastical. Eusebius, the historian, speaking of the Phoenician philosophy as set forth by Sanchoniathon, says of the darkness and chaos which preceded creation, "these were infinite (άπειρα,) and for a long time (διὰ πολὺν ἀἰῶνα,) had no limits." It is plain that the word is here used in its popular sense of indefinite time; otherwise polun, which signifies great, much, long, would be absurd. Beside, it is employed to designate a period which, though it may have had no beginning, came to an end on the morning of creation. Aristotle calls the entire period of the universe, or infinite time, aion. Now, if we translate this "eternity," Eusebius corrects the translation by giving the

1

There is a passage in a Jewish work cited in STEPHEN's Thesaurus Grace Linguæ as in Solom. Parab., in which this sentence occurs, illustrating the common usage: "And these they called eternal, diwvious, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three generations, Toiwv yèrewr. Here we have an eternity measured by three generations, or about a hundred years. Absolutely, aionios is indefinite duration; but in this case it is employed relatively, and therefore definitely, being limited by the specification of three generations.

same name to a part only of that period or duration, viz: that which preceded the creation! And from this we learn that "eternity" is the thing itself, and aion only the name of it. "Eternity," in its absolute sense, means one thing only, but the "name," aion, may mean many things. "Eternity" may be aion, but aion is not, therefore, necessarily "eternity." A house is a building, but every building is not a house. So much for definitions, and learned exegesis. The simple truth is, as remarked, that the people's usage is the only one which is of any importance in this inquiry. And this ordinary meaning of Eusebius is common in the New Testament, where the writers speak with equal freedom of the beginning and the end of aions; or eternities, if we insist on this definition. Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49; xxiv. 3; xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. x. 11; Heb. ix. 26.

The fact of this popular usage, and the certainty of aion and aionios meaning indefinite, and not endless duration, is put beyond controversy by the writings of the early Greek authors, who were known to be Universalists, or believers in the final restoration.

1. The Sibylline Oracles teach, in the most positive manner, that the damned will finally be delivered from the torments of hell; and yet they repeatedly describe these torments by the phrases "everlasting fire," and " eternal torments," thus discovering the meaning this language bore in the people's speech of that day- A. D. 150.

2. Origen, the greatest scholar of his age, in his writings and public lectures taught the final redemption of all in Christ; taught it with every variety of argument and illustration. But, at the same time,

66

he uses the same language employed in the New Testament, to describe the punishment of the wicked, everlasting (aionios) destruction," "eternal damnation," &c., showing clearly enough that he did not understand these Scriptural phrases in the sense of endless. And surely, being a Greek himself, constantly among the people, preaching to them, and expounding the Scriptures to them every day, no better witness can be summoned to prove what meaning the phrases bore in the every-day speech of the people. He tells them that the wicked will suffer "everlasting punishment;" and yet, without any explanation, without appearing to think any is required, hé proceeds to prove that this punishment will come to an end, and the wicked be restored!

3. Gregory Nyssen takes the same course in regard to the words. For example: he argues that "evil shall at length be wholly exterminated, and divine, immortal goodness, embrace within itself every rational creature; so that of all who were made by God, not one shall be excluded from his kingdom. All the viciousness, that like a corrupt matter is mingled in things, shall be dissolved and consumed in the furnace of purgatorial fire; and everything that had its origin from God, shall be restored to its pristine state of purity."

And yet, like Origen, he constantly speaks of this "purgatorial fire "as aionios, "everlasting." For instance, he says, "whoever considers the divine power, will plainly perceive that it is able at length to restore, by means of the everlasting purgation and expiatory sufferings, those who have gone even to

'Ancient History of Universalism, chapters. iv. & vi.

this extremity of wickedness." No language could be invented more conclusive than this. He not only says that this everlasting punishment shall end, but that it is by means of this everlasting punishment that the sufferers shall be restored! What does Aristotle's critical definition weigh in the scale against such usage as this in writings addressed to the people, to the world which Christ came to instruct and save?

Let these testimonies from the early church suffice. Others might be added, but these are enough for our purpose. Let the honest seeker after truth, remember that these men were Greeks by birth, and may justly be presumed to understand their own language and that they use the very words of the New Testament, "everlasting," "eternal," "for ever," &c., in connection with punishment which they declare will end in the purification and redemption of those enduring it- nay, repeatedly affirm even that this eternal fire itself is the appointed means of purification!

As already remarked, the New Testament abundantly confirms the fact of this popular sense of aion, and shows that the thought is not endless duration, but time indefinite, limited by the conditions of the case. Thus we have "this aion," and "the aion to come,' "the beginning" and "the end of aion," and "aion and beyond." "That in the aions to come, he might show the exceeding riches of his