sible that they should ever be saved; inasmuch as Christ is the only sacrifice for sin, and the only way of approach to God. Hence Paul asks this emphatic question. (Heb. ii. 3.)--"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" On these words, Clarke remarks, "as there is but one remedy by which diseased souls can be saved, so, by refusing to apply that one remedy, they must necessarily perish." We do not deem it necessary to increase this list any farther. There are no words in the English language more plain and expressive, than those here employed to set forth the hopeless condition of impenitent sinners. These authorities cannot be set aside, except by some twisting, turning process, which perverts language, contravenes common sense, and proclaims a reckless disregard of fairness and candor at every step.

My next step in this argument is, that sinners are threatened with, and said to be in danger of

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

Mark iii. 29. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." Clarke thinks we must not understand this to cut off the possibility of repentance and salvation for the soul. And this may be correct, though the conclusion can only be sustained by what I call a strained and unnatural interpretation. But this is wide of the mark. The object for which I introduce this passage is to prove, not that sinners of any grade may not repent during their day of probation, but that they are in danger of "eternal damnation," or of endless perdition. If we understand forgiveness in this passage as synonymous with the punishment which can only be remitted by forgiveness, the very least we can say of the meaning of the place is, that blasphemers are exposed to endless punishment. The emphatic words of our Lord are," is in danger of eternal damnation." The perpetuity of this punishment is confirmed by the parallel passage in Matt. xii. 29, where the language he uses is "neither in this world, neither in the world to come." If we suppose the "aioni" of this verse to mean age or dispensation, it will not help the case, since we know of no other age or dispensation beyond that "which is to come," in which merey can be granted, or punishment remitted.

But Lightfoot says, the Jews employed this language--"in the world to come," to assert a state of immortality, in opposition to the Sadducees, who denied it. The punishment to which the blasphemer is exposed, is, according to this, as endless as that state of immortality believed in by the Jews. Mr. Austin says, to be forgiven, is to be restored to the favor of God, lost by transgression:-Christ says, certain characters have never forgiveness"-therefore, on Mr. Austin's own principles, either Christ is mistaken, or inpenitent sinners are exposed to endless misery,

66

since no man can be happy without the favor of God. Thus, you see, there is no way in which the doctrine of endless punishment can be expunged from this passage, without an arbitrary, violent, and wholly unsupported explanation. On this point, Tholuck, who is claimed by Mr. Austin as a Universalist, and who, without doubt, occupies the first rank as a Biblical scholar, remarks-"what Christ says concerning it, (sin against the Holy Ghost) seems clearly to imply a degree of opposition against holy truth, which leads to eternal unhappiness."

John iii. 36.--“He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." This language plainly implies, that to believe in Christ, is necessary to everlasting life.

John viii. 21.—I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. The reason is given in the 24th verse-"if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Mr. Austin will probably meet me here with the words of Christ to his disciples, which are in some respects similar. But I wish you to observe two important points of difference. 1. Christ said to the Jews-"ye shall die in your sins," which he did not say to his disciples. 2. He said to his disciples-Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards," which he did not say to the Jews.

Ezek. xviii. 26.-When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and commiteth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done, shall he die. Here are two deaths. First, that of the body-expressed by the words, "and dieth in them." Secondly, the death of the soul after this life, expressed by the words. "for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die." Mr. Austin has demanded proof that the sinner will not enter upon his future state, under circumstances as favora ble, if not more promising, than those existing here. Well, here he has it, in the fact that Christ says they shall die in their sins, and shall not come where he is-and also'in the plain declaration of Ezekiel that he shall die for his iniquity, after he has died in it.

Finally, the future punishment of the wicked is represented as being

THEIR END, THEIR PORTION, AND ETERNAL,

1 Pet. iv. 17.--The question is asked, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" David learned their "end" when he went into the sanctuary." Thou castedst them down to destruction-into desolation as in a moment; they are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh, 80, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image." (Ps. lxxiii.)

in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. (Chap. x. 28.) Christ says respecting his sheep, who hear his voice, "I give un to them eternal life, and they shall never perish." (Rom. vi. 23.)

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

In the four passages last quoted, the final condition of the sinner is put in opposition to the future blessedness of the Christian. And I maintain that by all usage, and established rules of language, as well as by the common sense of every reader, the condition of the sinner must be as perpetual and immutable as that of the righteous." Besides this, there are two other facts brought to view, viz. 1. Eternal life is received by faith; hence, the unbeliever has it not, and to him the opposite of eternal life is a necessary consequence. 2. The object of the death and mission of Christ was to save men from perishing, and he proposes to do this by giving them eternal life-if they don't have eternal life, they per ish, and by consequence, death and the term perish, in this connection, express ideas which contrast with eternal life. Now, if eternal life means to be finally holy and happy; to perish, means to be finally miserable. In all the quotations adduced above, to prove the eternity of future punishment, except one, the word (aionios) in some form is employed. The primary signification of this word, and the one from which it is derived, is endless," or “always being." We shall bestow some attention upon these words in our next speech, when we hope to bring out plainly their true import and application.

As the gentleman has perpetrated a criticism on the word perish,* I must give the same word a moment's attention. The signification given to this word "apoletai,” and the other forms of it which occur, is substantially the same, by Donnegan and Parkhurst. The first form of the verb is "apoles," compounded of apo, intensive, and aleo to destroy-the meaning, therefore, is “to destroy," to destroy utterly. Parkhurst, a little more systematic than Donnegan, deduces from it a second meaning, or rather ap plication of the word, viz. "to lose." In the passive form it would signify to perish," to be killed, or destroyed, "to be lost." This is the whole of it, so far as relates to its signification. Now for the criticism. The gentleman first thinks the Lexicographers are prejudiced. This is certainly unfortunate, especially as they all agree. If only one of respectable standing would so far yield the point, as to manufacture a definition to harmonize with Universalism, it would doubtless be a great relief. And yet my friend claims it as a triumph, that they do not say it means "endiess woe." As this fact seems to afford him great consolation, I will for once be benevolent, and allow him to retain it. He next says the scripture usage of the term is the best criterion by which to *Page 580.

judge of its import. Here I will not dispute him. He farther remarks that it means "to punish." Though disposed to agree with my friend as far as I can, yet at this point, the facts of the case compel me to say, this is not true, unless the punishment be that of utter destruction. The examples he has adduced, directly and flatly contradict his assertion. Nor can he find a single place in the New Testament where the word is so used. In every case it means destruction, by temporal death, or if applied to the moral interests of men, it means the ruin of their spiritual hopes and prospects, by sin and its consequences. It may be sometimes applied to cities, but in these cases, it signifies their utter destruction, or demolition. I do not wonder that the gentleman is so anxious that it should mean punish, since he has already substituted punish" for "destroy," in one of his scripture quotations. When this word is used to signify lose, or to be lost, it means, if applied to men, a condition of wretchedness, and hopeless destitution, as to their spiritual state. This is the sense in which it is used where it is said Christ came to seek and save that which was lost.--(Luke xix. 10.) When the term translated perish, or destroy, is applied to the temporal condition of men, it means the destruction of their lives by death. In this sense it is used in regard to the righteous and wicked, and does not determine anything as to the future condition, unless the destruction be inflicted on the wicked, on account of transgression. Now one remark more. When this word is used as it is in (John iii. 15-16) it implies the utter wreck of their souls in a moral state, which admits no remedy. This is just as clear as that eternal life means the salvation of the soul in heaven. The gentleman is very unfortunate in his criticisms.

But Mr. Austin says, God sent not his Son to condemn the world. Very true, because "he that believeth not, is condemned already." Again he says, "Christ came to save all men, the entire race of man," from the condition described by the word "perish." True, again. But he that believeth not, shall be damned." A casual remark in one of my speeches, respecting the purgatorial character of the Universalist system of punishment, has almost thrown my friend into spasms. In the midst of his phrensy he calls it a "base fabrication." I am not here to bandy epithets, or return railing for railing. I hope the gentleman will keep cool. It is true, his task is a perplexing and difficult one. But inspiration says, "tribulation worketh patience," and it would be a pity indeed, if, after all, he should not realize this moral result. The only real difficulty I see in his way is, that his tribulation is not for righteousness sake, but for Universalism. I have no idea that patience, or any other virtue, can be worked out of that.

But why this fluttering, if I have not touched one of the sore spots of his system? Since my friend has in this way called attention to the subject, I beg your farther indulgence in a remark