see no difficulty in reconciling the existence of sin and misery with the honor and integrity of God. But on Mr. Austin's principles, the end for which men were created is made sure in every case by an absolute control of the will, the conduct, and character of men. Without such control the end cannot be made sure in every case. Hence not only in the first and last act does God take pleasure, but in every intermediate act, which are the means he employs to bring about the end in which he has pleasure. Here then, not only is God make the direct author of sin, but he takes pleasure in all the depravity, sin, and wretchedness, which exist in the world. This is the way the gentleman's theory vindicates the character of God from dishonor. Let us state the case case on both sides. On my principles, God created man a moral agent, with a constitution free from defect-in a state of moral purity, with power sufficient to have stood, and by perseverance to have secured the end of his existence in immortality. If man is now miserable, it is because he is voluntarily sinful--if any part of the race shall be finally miserable, it will be because they "choose death in the error of their ways;" their perdition will be the result of a voluntary abuse of those advantages given them for nobler ends, and without which they would have been incapable of happiness. Man alone is responsible for the forfeiture of his own happiness. On Mr. Austin's principles, God created man with an imperfect constitution-"subject to vanity not willingly"-placed him in circumstances which rendered his sin and misery unavoidable--has the absolute control of his will, and conduct-perpetuates his sinful existence in this life-and in thousands of instances (according to some Universalist writers,) to an indefinite extent in the future state, and all out of sheer love, and for the purpose of making him more holy in the end. Yet he blames and punishes the sinner for being sinful-for obeying those impulses which God himself imparts to the mind. The substance of this is, that God alone is responsible for every act, and every result. Which of these theories dishonors God?

2. Mr. Austin says it disgraces Christ. How so? His argument is, Christ was sent to save all men, and if he does not succeed he will be disgraced. But let me ask Mr. Austin what Christ was sent into the world to save men from? Was it to save men from sin in this life? If so, on the principles of Universalism, he does not succeed, and must be disgraced. Was it to save men from sin in another life? Why then did he come into this life, to do what can only be done in the future state? Besides, as the gentleman well knows the standard writers on Universalism generally confine the work of salvation to this life, and assert there is no need of salvation in the life to come. Was it to save all men from endless punishment? Mr. Austin don't believe they were ever exposed to such punishment. Was it to restore final holiness and happiness? Mr. Austin don't believe

men ever lost final holiness and happiness. He don't believe the advent of Christ necessary to the salvation of any man, or that a single individual is more sure of heaven than he would have been if Christ had never existed. How then is Christ to be disgraced by failing to accomplish the object of his mission? The truth is, according to Universalism, Christ is in no sense a Savior of all men. He is degraded, and robbed of his titles and work, and as effectually disgraced as the Infidelity of men can disgrace him. -[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S ELEVENTH REPLY.]

Gent. Moderators-Near the close of his last speech, Mr. Holmes introduced his eighteenth Argument in the Affirmative. It rests, he tells us, on the meaning of the words everlasting and forever, when applied to future punishment. It must be acknowledged by all who have witnessed this discussion, that Elder Holmes has been exceedingly unfortunate in his criticisms on the original words involved in our investigations. The same fatality he will find awaits his efforts in the present instance.

He acknowledges that aion, aionion, &c., are frequently used in an indefinite and limited sense. This concession he could not refrain from making, because I had already introduced a large number of passages where they indicate a limited time. But in this acknowledgement, he allows all I can ask, to give the whole of this philological argument into my hands. If aionion and aionios, were very commonly used by the scripture writers, to denote a limited period of duration, as he admits, then the fact that these words are used to describe punishment, affords no proof that such punishment is endless. Let my brother and the public bear in mind, that he is in the affirmative on this question. Here are certain words, which, while they often signify strictly! endless time, he admits they also frequently mean a limited period-time that comes to an end. Now when one of these indefinite words is applied to punishment, Elder Holmes affirms it means strictly endless duration. I deny it. Does it not follow, on every principle of logic, that he must proceed to prove his affirmation true? In no way can this be done, but by showing that there is something in the nature and object of punishment, that make it necessarily endless. Until he does this satisfactorily, he accomplishes nothing. Let me illustrate by the word "large." We speak of a large TREE, and a large PIN. Does "large," mean the same size in both cases. Suppose my friend should assert, and attempt to maintain, that in a certain country they manufactured PINS as large as TREES. When called upon for proof, he introduces a letter from a friend in that country, who writes that in his neighborhood there is a manufactory of "large" pins; and he proceeds to maintain by an appeal to logic that as the word

"large," when connected with tree, means a tree at least an hundred feet in length, therefore the same word "large," attached to pin, proves that pins are an hundred feet long. Who could but admire such an argument! Would he not be required to show from the structure of the pin, that it was of that enormous length, rather than to depend on the indefinite meaning of "large." Yet similar is the reasoning of my opponent, on the subject under consideration. Because aionion, a word of the most indefinite meaning, signifies time without end, when applied to God, or his attributes, he contends that it has the same signification in connection with punishment, which of itself, has not the slightest element of endlesness!! Such logic cannot produce conviction on any enlightened mind.

Mr. Holmes maintains that the etymology of the word aionits primary grammatical meaning-is endless duration; that such is its general usage in the scriptures; that those places where it is used in a limited sense, are only exceptions to the general rule of its usage, and that it devolves on me to prove that its application to punishment, is included within these exceptions. Allowing all his premises in this statement to be correct, it would give no weight to his argument. I have already proved that there are none of the elements of endless duration in the nature of punishment that it is corrective, reformatory--and hence must necessarily cease. Moreover, I have shown that God has positively declared he WILL NOT cast off, nor contend [punish] forever!! This establishes the fact, that punishment is legitimately within the exceptions which my opponent allows exist to his general rule. But I dissent wholly from his rule, both in regard to general usage, and etymology. The general usage of aion and its derivatives, in the scriptures, I insist, is not endless duration, but indefinite duration, longer or shorter, in accordance with the object they qualify. In proof of this position to show that the nature of the subject with which these words are connected, must determine the duration they express-I could introduce the testimony of many of the most eminent scholars and commentators.-Donnegan gives the following definition of aion-"Time; a space of time; life time and life; the ordinary period of man's life; the age of man; man's estate; a long period of time; eternity." While he gives one sense of endless duration to aon, he furnishes seven different instances, where it has the meaning of indefinite duration. Schleusner gives the following as the definition of aion: Any space of time, whether longer or shorter, past, present, or future, to be determined by the persons or things spoken of, and the scope of the subjects; the life or age of man; any space in which we measure human life, from birth to death." Macknight, says in regard to aion and aionios-"These words, being ambigous, are always to be understood according to the nature and circumstances of the things to which they are applied."

Professor Stuart says "The New Testament usage differs from the classical one, in that aion in the New Testament most usually means an INDEFINITE, unlimited period of time; whereas, in the classics, the sense avum, seculum, age, generation, in respect to time, appears to be its most usual meaning." Maclaine, in his Mosheim, says "The word aion, or aon, is commonly used among Greek writers, but in different senses. Its signification in the Gnostic system, is not very evident, and several learned men have despaired of finding out its true signification. Aion, or con, among the ancients, was used to signify the age of man, or the duration of human life. In after times, it was employed by philosophers to express the duration of spiritual and invisible beings." These citations might be greatly multiplied. They prove that a limited meaning to aion and derivatives, is not an exception to the general rule of its scripture usage, but clearly within that rule; and they establish the fact, that indefinite duration, and not endless, is the primary meaning of these words.

Mr. Holmes attaches great importance to the etymology of Aion, as supporting his position, that endless time is its primary meaning. He asserts that it is compounded of aei, ever, or always, and on, being-ever-being. It is not an established fact that these are the roots of aion. Some lexicographers insist that aion comes from the verb aio. Others contend that it is composed of aia, a poetical word, signifying the world, and on, to exist. Be this, however, as it may, acknowledging that aion comes from aci and on, it will be allowed that all its meaning of duration, is derived from aei. Now I maintain that this word is never used in the scriptures, to signify endless duration; but its scriptural usage or meaning is continuous, uninterrupted. It is found eight times in the New Testament, as follows:-"And the multitude, crying aloud, began to desire him [Pilate] to do as he had EVER [aeialways] done unto them."-(Mark xv, 8.) "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do ALWAYS [aei-continually] resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do you."-(Acts vii. 51.) For we which live are ALWAYS delivered [aei-continually exposed) unto death."--(2 Cor. iv, 11.) "The Cretans are ALWAYS [aei---habitually, uniformly] liars."--(Titus i. 12.) "They do ALWAYS [aei-continually] err in their hearts."--(Heb. iii. 10.) "Be ready ALWAYS [aei-constantly] to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter iii. 18.) "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you ALWAYS [aei -constantly] in remembrance of these things." (2 Peter i. 12.) These, if I do not err, are all the instances where aei occurs in the New Testament. It will be seen that it has not, in a single case, the signification of endless duration. In every instance, it has the meaning of "constantly," "uninterruptedly."

The classical usage of ai seems to be similar to the scriptural.

The ancient poet Cleanthus, in a hymn to Jove, uses the following language::-"For thus hast thou connected the good with the evil in one system, that one continually existing [aien eonta] principle of reason is in all; from which, whoever of mortals are wicked, ill-starred, are endeavoring to escape, because, indeed, CONTINUALLY [æi-constantly] coveting the possessions of the good," etc. In the same poem, he exclaims "O Jupiter, EVER [aiei] conquering all."--"I will sing your power CONTINUALLY [aien.] And again-"There is nothing more incumbent on mortals, nor on the gods, than justly to celebrate the universal law CONTINUALLY "--[æi.]

These quotations establish the fact that æi signines constant, continuous, an indefinite period of time, and not strictly endless. Now as æi does not of itself, contain the sense of endless duration, how can it impart that meaning when compounded into aion or aionion. Will our hearers, will the public, reflect on this question? The Elder's position that the etymological or grammatical sense of aion or aionios is endless time, fails to the earth, to slumber with his other lame attempts at criticism.

Mr. Holmes says he has proved by the best commentators, that aion and aionios, signify eternal duration. He has only shown that sometimes these words have that meaning, and that at other times they have not. If any lexicographer declares they signify "endless time," when applied to punishment, he steps beyond the record, and asserts what cannot be sustained, as I have clearly proved already.

My opponent gives Edward's assertion that in sixty-five cases in the Bible, aion signifies endless time. That there are as many instances as this where aion is applied to things that are in themselves endless, and hence in these cases convey a meaning of endless duration, I have no doubt. But can Edwards, my friend Holmes, or any other man, show one instance where aion or aionios has a signification of time without end, when applied to punishment? This is impossible. I know he borrows a pompously arranged table prepared by some wise-acre, who gravely asserts that aion and aionion occur 21 times in reference to endless punishment. And the Elder finally musters courage, after some little hesitation, and valiantly endorses it, without in fact, having the slightest glimpse of knowledge or apparantly the slightest care, whether the table is true or false. But what dependence can be placed on this man's assertion, or my friend's endorsement? Not the least. Professor Stuart holds up to the world the blundering ignorance both of the framer and the endorser of this wonderful table. He claims but SEVEN instances in the New Testament, where aionios is ever applied to future punishment. But if aionios is applied in a single case to future punishment, which I deny, it would not prove it to be endless. Recollect that is the only point before us. Instead of feeble and futile