whose efficacious blood, no sinner can be saved. Mr. Page, the renowned author of the "Selections," gives a rare specimen of his candor in quoting from Clarke on this passage. Passing over all he says on the main subject, in which the Dr. asserts the final perdition of the ungodly in the most emphatic manner, he gives a part of what he says on the words, "nigh unto cursing," in the 8th verse, as being applicable to the Jewish people about to be cursed of God. It is in this way that Universalist writers obtain concessions from the orthodox.

Matt. xxiii 33, Mark ix. 43, and Jude 6, Mr. Austin refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. So the question, "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" means, how can ye escape the destruction of Jerusalem ? "It is better to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," means, you had better part with your valuable posses. sions, which offend you, and be Christians, than be involved in the destruction of Jerusalem. So, also, the "angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitations, and are reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day," the gentleman tells us, are certain apostate earthly messengers, who were reserved to the destruction of Jerusalem. When our Lord admonishes his disciples, (Matt. x. 29,) "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," he means, that God is able to destroy (annihilate) both soul and body in the midst of the dreadful fires of Gehenna." And though God never did any such thing, and never intended to, yet our Lord addressed this admonition to them, "to inspire them with courage and confidence, in the midst of the perils by which they would be surrounded in proclaiming the gospel." I have not referred to these explanations of scripture by my opponent, with any view of replying. I will not insult the good sense of this intelligent audience, by attempting a formal refutation of that which refutes itself. My object in alluding to them at all, is to show you how they look, when stripped of the verbiage and rhetoric with which the gentleman has striven, though with poor success, to cover up their ridiculous deformity. I have not the least fear that any honest, intelligent mind, familiar with the scriptures, will be deceived by such interpretations. On that class of scripture passages which relate to the kingdom of God, of Christ, and of heaven, and the exclusion of the ungodly therefrom, I find I have compelled Mr. Austin to abandon the general ground of Universalism. The position taken generally, not to say universally, by the supporters of modern Universalism, is, that the kingdom of God, and of heaven, from which sinners are excluded, is confined to this life; hence, has no bearing on the future condition of man. But, from the argument I have presented

on this subject, Mr Austin sees the impossibility of sustaining this view. He therefore abandons it, and now takes the groun that the kingdom of God is the " same, both in this world and the next." Now let the gentleman attend to the following considerations: 1. The king lom of God or of heaven is open to all sinners on earth; any man may enter it by repentance and faith. Hence, the scriptures never say that the ungolly shall not inherit this king lon in its earthly state, but all are invited to enter anf inherit its blessings. When the scriptures say the ungodly shall not see shall not enter-shall not inherit, and have no inheritance in the kingdom of Go, they refer to the kingdom in its future and celestial state. 2. Christians who are already in this kingdom on earth, are said to be heirs of this kingdom in its future and heavenly state. They are “kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation," and "preserved un o his heavenly king tom," (2 Tim. iv. 18.) But nothing of this kind is ever said of the wicked, bat, on the contrary, it is repeatedly said they shall not enter into it, nor inherit it. 3. There is no intimation any where in the Bible, that those who do not enter this kingdom on earth, will be allowed to enter it hereafter. The nature of the gospel, the conditionality of salvation, the analogy of nature, and the doctrine of human probation, unitedly and emphatically decide to the contrary. 4. And all this is confirmed by the plain and express language of the scriptures. Matt. v. 20- Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will 1 profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Luke xiii 24. In answer to the question, are there few that be saved, our Lord says, "strive to enter in at the strait gate, for many will seek to enter in and shall not be able. When once the master of the house hath risen up, and shut to the door, (of entrance into this kingdom by repentance and forgiveness) and ye begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are." Verse 28-" There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom, of God, and you, yourselves, thrust out." Clarke says this shutting of the door, and what follows, refers to the day of final judgment. See his comment on Matt. viii. 12, and vii. 22–3. The parable of the ten virgins teaches that some will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven hereafter. Matt. xxv. 34. in describing the final consequences of piety in this world, our Lord says, “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the king tom prepared for you from the foundation of the world," but at the same time he says to the

wickel, "depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Mr Austin says, if I will show that any are in sin and misery after the period alluded to in Philipp (ii. 10-11,) he will abandon his doctrine. I have already shown this, by proving the existence of punishment subsequent to the general resurrection and the general judgment which will not occur until the termination of the mediatorial kingdom.

Mr. Austin professes to be astonished at my want of information respecting the Sibylline Oracles." And yet he acknowledges the substance of what I contend for-viz: that these Oracles were extant before the time of Christ. I have given the testimony of Horsley, and better need not be sought. Also of Origen, who even denies that they were corrupted by Christians.Perhaps no author has written more critically on the subject than Dr. Prideaux, and he contends that the Oracles used by Christians were a collection from those which existed before Christ's day, though probably somewhat corrupted, so as to suit their purpose. I know the subject is in dispute among the learned, but the weight of testimony, as well as the reason of the case, decide in favor of the view I have taken. An entire forgery would defeat the object they had in view; but a collection of the genuine Oracles, even though they were somewhat interpolated, might be employed to convince the heathen of the truth of Christianity. The whole subject, however, is of little consequence in its bearings upon the merits of this discussion.

Let us now notice a few things in the gentleman's last speech. Our attention here will be mainly directed to his reply to my argument on aion and aionios. Mr. Austin says these words do not mean endless duration, unless the nature of the subject require such signification. But I have proved that their primary grammatical signification is, always being, by the philology of the word, and the testimony of the best scholars. The meaning of the word itself, without regard to its applications, is, always being, or duration without end. Hence, the rule for understanding its meaning. in the various applications it has, is directly the reverse of that named by the gentleman. It always signifies endless duration, unless the nature of the subject to which it is applied requires a different meaning. And I insist, there is nothing in the nature of banishment from the presence of God, destruction, perdition or punishment, as threatened against the sinner in the future state, which requires the limited signification, any more than there is in the happiness, glory, and salvation of the righteous.The same reasons which would make the signification limited in one case, would make it limited in the other also. But the gentleman thinks, allowing my rule to be correct, he has shown punishment to be an exception, by proving it to be reformatory. Indeed! when and where has he proved that all punishment is re

formatory? I deny that he has furnished any such proof. What of the Antediluvians, Sodomites, Egyptians, Korahites-what of Timri and Cozbi, Ananias and Sapphira--of those who are "destroyed without remedy"-" who utterly perish in their own corruptions"-" to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever?" and what of those who are cast in the lake of fire? which the gentleman himself says implies utter destruction.* I have seen no proof, any where, that punishment, in any of these cases, is reformatory. But, on the contrary, I have seen much proof that men grow worse and worse under the penal dispensations of God. My friend says farther, punishment must be an exception, because God "will not cast off, nor contend (punish) forever."But he has lost the benefit of this passage in any aspect of the case, by the meaning he attaches to forever. He says the Greek, translated everlasting, forever, means age-lasting; hence the meaning is, God will not cast off with an age-lasting punishment. There are many places where God says he will cast off foreverthe wicked shall be banished from his presence forever-shall go away into everlasting punishment, and so on. By what rule does the gentleman determine that forever means time without end, when God says he will not cast off forever, but limited time, when he says he will cast off forever? Can any one tell? My friend's talk about a large tree and large pin, is silly in connection with a subject of this kind. What the gentleman says of the etymology of aion, leaves it just where I had placed it. The examples of the use of aei, which he adduces from the New Testament, so far from weakening, do actually strengthen the position I had taken, and the gentleman will please accept my thanks for saving me the trouble of fortifying my argument by those examples. Every one of the places to which he has referred, affords proof that aei in itself, means endless, and can only be understood in a limited sense as to duration, where the circumstances and nature of the subject restrain and limit the signification, as they do in these examples. And this he himself allows, by saying it means, 'constantly, uninterruptedly. If it refer to a night's sleep, it means the sleep is uninterrupted during the night. If it refer to any thing identified with human life, it means during human life.When it is applied to the punishment of the sinner in eternity, it means during eternity, that is, duration without end; and this it always signifies, unless its meaning be clearly limited by the nature of the subject. The quotation taken from a heathen poet also confirms the view I have taken of the word aion, and its component elements.

Mr. Austin attempts to show a contradiction between the author quoted by me, and Prof. Stuart, as to the number of times in which aion is applied to future punishment in the New Testa

*Page 708.

ment.

But allowing they differ as to the number of instances, this alters not the case, since they do not differ as to the thing.— They both assert the word is so applied, and seven clear examples are as good as a thousand. But allowing Stuart to say in substance what Mr. Austin alledges, it does not follow there is any discrepancy between these authors. As there are many more than seven places in which future punishment is directly or indirectly taught in connection with aion, the probability is, that one of these authors embraces in his calculation only one class of these scriptures, while the other embraces them all. I have not vouched for the exact correctness of my author's table, but I have examined it sufficiently to know that it is generally correct, and that there are more than seven places in which aion is used in connection with future punishment. But Mr. Austin denies that aion, or aionios is applied to future punishment at all in the scriptures. What should be thought of a declaration of this kind in the nineteenth century? Prof. Stuart, and a thousand others, whose learning and honesty are alike above suspicion, hold up to the world the blundering ignorance-no, not the ignorance, for some of them know better-the barefaced imposition of the champions of Universalism, in misleading their people by such groundless assertions.

Mr. Austin seems not a little displeased that I should have presumed to refute some of his arguments before they were offered, and he calls it answering a matter before I hear it. But does he suppose these arguments originated with himself. Indeed, far from this. The same arguments presented here, I have heard repeated, and read in books on Universalism many times before.There is but one stereotyped course for all advocates of this system, contradictory in itself, and connected with a thousand instances of twisting and turning. It was an easy matter to anticipate the gentleman in his arguments, since I knew as well beforehand as afterward, precisely where he was coming out.

As to the five words found in the New Testament, to "express endless duration," I have already considered the bearing they have on the subject under discussion.* We need only add here that all these words except one, are compounded with a negative; hence, in their primary state, they express a meaning directly contrary to what they do in their compound state, and only express ideas of duration indirectly, and in a negative way. Moreover, their proper use is to designate qualities of substances, and not ideas of time or duration, only as such ideas are necessarily implied by the nature of the subject. But aion and aionios have no other proper use, except to convey ideas of duration. The other word referred to, is dienekes, compounded of dia, divine, spiritual, or celestial, and enckes, continued, extended. The idea conveyed 'Page 722.