eternities of eternity, to the endless ages of those endless periods of existence that follow after the day of judgment. The simple expression for ever is used sixty-one times in the New Testament: in fifty-five of these instances it indisputably means endless duration : in the six remaining instances it is applied to future punishment. Since in every other instance it means endless duration, on what grounds can we possibly have a good and sufficient reason to understand it in a different sense when applied to future punishment? The reduplicate expression for ever and ever, is found twenty-one times in the original. Nineteen times it necessarily means endless duration, being applied to the life of God, the glory that is to be ascribed to God, the kingdom of Christ after the day of judgment, and the future life of the righteous. Three times it is applied to the future punishment of the wicked: but as this reduplicate phrase is never, at other times, used to signify a limited duration, it is violently improbable that it should mean a limited duration when applied to future punishment. There is therefore every reason to believe that these passages declare and teach the endless future punishment of the wicked. But the wicked are, in some of those passages, represented as in a state of conscious existence throughout the whole of that period: consequently we must infer that the wicked will never be annihilated, but punished positively for ever and ever. Lastly, that this is the true Scripture doctrine, is proved from this fact: the primitive

6

1

Christians universally held this doctrine, and thus interpreted these words and passages. The opinion, therefore, that the wicked will be annihilated, either at death or afterwards, is unscriptural, and cannot be true.s

But is it not a gross reflection upon the perfections of God, to maintain that the greatest part of mankind will finally be damned? We hold no such opinion. One half of the human race die in infancy and childhood, before they are capable of sin; and having been made alive again through the mediation of Christ, they will all be saved. A considerable portion of the remaining half will likewise obtain eternal happiness from God's mercy in Christ, through that living faith which leads them, according to the measure of light they have received, to fear God, to come to him, to seek him diligently, and to work righteousness. And during the millennium, which is to last at least 1000, and, as we believe, 360,000 years, and during which all are to know God from the least to the greatest, pure religion will abound as much as sin now abounds. At the end of this world, therefore, the men and devils that are lost will form but a very small company, in comparison of all that shall be saved: and the endless punishment of this comparatively small number, as it will have been brought upon them by their own wilful, deliberate, habitual sinfulness, so will the wisdom, goodness, and justice of God likewise see necessary to inflict it, for the general good of all his intelligent and accountable creatures throughout the universe : just in the same way as a good magistrate cuts off public offenders for ever from this life, in order both to punish them according to their crimes, and also to promote the public welfare.

It appears then, from the foregoing remarks, that the main arguments of the Universalist are of no force, because they are founded upon an interpretation that is barely possiblethat is not proved to be probable-and that cannot be proved probable. Their arguments, therefore, together with the system that is built upon them, necessarily fall to the ground;

1

they have not even a single probability to support them; their only foundation is error and sophistry; and we are therefore compelled to reject and condemn them, as unscriptural and false.

3dly. The main argument of the Universalist is sophistical and vain, and does not support his doctrine, because it is built upon doubtful passages-or such as have equivocal words in them, and admit of two different interpretations. This is eminently the case with their master-argument about hell. They assert, that in no one passage of Scripture does hell mean either a place of future punishment or a state of future punishment; and therefore, as though there was nothing else in Scripture upon the subject, they hastily conclude that the doctrine of future punishment has no foundation in the word of God. We have already proved that this conclusion is not true, and that the doctrine of future punishment is abundantly established by other passages of Scripture. But our concern at present is with their argument about the word hell. What reasons do they give for asserting that those passages in which the word hell is found, furnish no foundation or sufficient cause for believing either in a place or state of future punishment? Their argument is this :-Sheol, of the Old, and hades, of the New Testament, both translated hell, mean only the invisible world, or place of departed spirits; and they cannot therefore be brought to prove a place or state of future punishment. Gehenna too, another word translated hell, means only the valley of Hinnom, a place of punishment and corruption in this world; and it cannot therefore be brought to prove the doctrine of punishment in the next world. Answer: Our object at present is not to examine the Scripture meaning of these words, but merely to show that the reasoning of the Universalist is fallacious, and proves nothing in his favour. Let it be remembered too, that the above argument is negative, and not positive. Even if sound and unanswerable, it does not disprove the doctrine of future punishment: it does not furnish the slightest probability against it: it only proves that those passages in which the word hell is found, do not support or render that doctrine

probable: it only proves that those passages have nothing to do with future punishment; and that when the orthodox quote them in support of this doctrine, they quote what is irrelevant.

We deny, however, that the above argument of the Universalist is sound: we assert that his reasoning is fallacious, and of no force. We admit that the original words, translated hell, do not always mean a place of future punishment; but we assert that, in many passages, they do have this meaning. And the false reasoning of which we complain consists in this :-Because, in some passages, the original words do not mean a place or state of future punishment, therefore, says the Universalist, they never have this meaning in any passages: and hence he is led to do violence to large portions of Scripture, in order to force them into some meaning consistent with his own doctrine. This we shall prove presently. We here remark, that this is unfair, unjustifiable, and false reasoning, because it takes for granted the very thing that is to be proved. The Universalist will admit, that if the doctrine of future punishment be true, some of those passages in which the word hell is found, ought to be, and must necessarily be understood, as directly or indirectly teaching that doctrine. These passages then, in his view, admit of two different senses. Then, at best, they must be regarded, on both sides, as doubtful passages: and then, according to a grand rule of criticism and interpretation, neither party should rely upon them as proof; but they should be set aside as neutrals, until one side or the other is, from reason and Scripture united, proved to be true, or proved to have the highest probability in its favour. Now we have already, not from doubtful passages of Scripture, but from such as admit but one meaning, brought overwhelming evidenge to prove the doctrine of future punishment: and having proved this doctrine, we are authorized, and even obliged, to consider many of those passages which speak of hell, as teaching this same doctrine.

The Universalist reasoning to the contrary, therefore, is false reasoning, and such as leads to dangerous consequences. By this mode of reasoning any thing may be proved by this

1

mode of reasoning we can never arrive at truth, but must inevitably fall from error to error. This kind of reasoning is the main support of all error and heresy. It forms its conclusions after considering only a part of Scripture, instead of waiting till it has impartially, prayerfully, and in the fear of God, examined the whole. It inquires what nature and unassisted reason teach, instead of inquiring what revelation teaches. It appeals to fancy instead of fact. It violates the ordinary rules of grammar, criticism, and interpretation. It argues and decides as though reason instead of revelation were paramount. It inquires not what is, upon the whole, taking every thing into the account, the most probablewhich is the only equitable and possible mode of coming to just and safe conclusions. But it inquires-Is not such an interpretation possible? Is not such a word, phrase, or passage, independently considered, capable of such a meaning? and thus builds its adventurous conclusions upon peradventures and possibilities.

Now this is precisely the way in which the infidel reasons against revelation. If this mode of reasoning is right, then the infidel is right, and Christians are in error. But if Christians are right, and infidels wrong, then Universalists, and all others who reason according to any or all of the above principles, must necessarily be in the wrong.

ک

To this fallacious mode of reasoning all the monstrous systems of heresy that ever afflicted the Christian Church have owed their origin: and by this mode any thing almost may be proved. Were it worth while, we could, by arguing upon this plan, bring as many arguments as the Universalist has done in support of his doctrine, to prove that everlasting life and happiness promised in Scripture, Inean only age-lasting life and happiness in this world: and that the heaven, which Christians have in all ages been expecting, is nothing more than the happiness which religion yields its possessor in this life! For does not Scripture say, the fowls of heaven-the rain of heaven-Mount Sinai burned to the midst of heaven? Does not God say to the Israelites, Ask from one side of hea