and build their whole system upon it, without any regard to other passages: and thus they profess to prove, that God requires neither obedience, holiness, nor good works. If this reasoning is true, then the Universalist is in error, when he insists upon good works and a holy life: but if this reasoning is false, then the reasoning of the Universalist against future punishment is likewise false. That however the above reasoning is false, the Universalist himself will loudly maintain; for he teaches that we ought to live a life of holy obedience to God's commandments; and he will very correctly reason thus :-Truth and duty are to be learned from the whole of Scripture, and not from any particular part. That faith and religious knowledge are necessary to please God, is true: but this is only part of what is necessary: other things likewise are necessary, and these we learn from other passages. These other passages tell us that we must not only possess religious knowledge, but we must also practise according to it -we must not only believe, but we must also obey all the commandments of God. Now we are as much bound to govern ourselves by one part of Scripture as by another; and therefore all these passages must be considered, before we can know the whole of our duty on this point. To know, for instance, whether we have the right faith or belief, all the following passages must be laid together: and he who judges of the right faith from any number of passages short of the whole, must necessarily form an imperfect judgment; for each passage forms a constituent member of the whole of what Scripture teaches on the subject of faith; and our idea of true faith can no more be perfect without taking every constituent into the account, than a body can be perfect while it wants some of its members. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. He that believeth is justified from all things. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. Faith without works is dead. Faith worketh by love-purifieth the heart-overcometh the world. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. Be thou faithful unto death, and thou shalt receive the crown of

life. Here, then, is the faith of those who believe to the saving of the soul. And if, as the Universalist himself will admit, any one would necessarily err, who should form his opinion of faith without includiug all these constituents; then likewise does the Universalist necessarily err, who decides upon the subject of a future state, when he has not taken into consideration even half the passages that relate to it. Such reasoning cannot possibly lead to truth it leads inevitably to error: and while the consideration of a few passages seems to prove one doctrine, the examination of all the passages relating to that point may prove a directly opposite doctrine. The main argument of the Universalist therefore is erroneous and fallacious, and proves nothing in his favour. He argues from a part instead of the whole. And even if those passages in which the words hell and everlasting are found, do not prove the doctrine of future punishment as the Universalist asserts, other passages do prove it incontestibly.

2dly. The main argument of the Universalist is fallacious, and of no effect, because it rests upon a possible interpretation. When the Universalist says, that everlasting or aionian only means age-lasting, or lasting as long as life, he does not exhibit the subject truly and we positively deny the correctness of the statement. But it is true, that the word everlasting does not always mean endless duration; and the Universalist argument, therefore, fairly runs thus :-As everlasting sometimes signifies only a temporary duration, it is possible it signifies only a temporary duration, when applied to the punishment of the wicked. Upon this we thus remark:-The original word aionios, translated everlasting, (aionian) is derived from another Greek word aiōn, which literally signifies always existing. The radical and primitive meaning, therefore, of aionios, is precisely what we render it, everlasting, or always existing. Hence arises the following rule: Aionios always means endless duration, except in those cases where, from the nature of the subject, it necessarily must have a limited signification-as for instance, if it should be applied to human life, or to the Mosaic dispensation; for then it must needs

:

1

be restricted in its meaning; exactly as the corresponding term everlasting is, when we say of a person, he is an everlasting talker. Now the word aionios, or everlasting, is found seventy-one times in the New Testament. Sixty times it is applied to God, to a future life, or the things of the heavenly world. In all these cases it necessarily means endless duration. In six more instances, it is generally believed to be used in the same sense; though some doubt and dispute it: and in the five remaining instances, it is applied to the punishment of the wicked. Since then, aionios signifies endless duration in almost every place where it is used; and since this is its radical and primitive meaning, is it not, at first view, probable that this is likewise its meaning, when applied to the punishment of the wicked? Since it always signifies endless duration, except only when from the nature of the subject, it is impos-sible it should have this meaning, and since there is nothing more impossible in endless punishment than in endless life, are we not, according to this rule, obliged to understand it in the endless sense, when applied to future punishment ?Besides, what reason is there for translating it age-lasting, or enduring as long as life? There is only one passage in the New Testamenti where it can possibly have this meaning; and there this meaning is doubtful; for it may equally well mean endless duration. And is it not then a perversion of Scripture to say, in general terms, that aionios means lasting as long as life, when it is highly doubtful whether it ever once has such a meaning in the whole New Testament.j

At the most then, it is barely possible that the word aionios, or everlasting, should mean a temporary duration, when applied to the punishment of the wicked. As far as the evidence of the case goes, it is against such a supposition. For what is barely possible, is always improbable, until positive evidence be brought to show that it is probable. Though aionios then, may possibly have this limited meaning, the prevailing use of it in the New Testament still leaves it

probable that it means endless duration. And all the passage where everlasting is applied to future punishment, furnish not the remotest possible evidence in favour of Universalism; but are distinct evidences in favour of the doctrine of endless future punishment. Through the whole of this argument, therefore, about the word aionios, or everlasting, the Universalist begs his way. He takes for granted the very thing he ought to prove. And therefore all his reasoning is fallacious and vain. It strikes wide of the mark, and does not advance his cause one iota.

Here, however, the Universalist may perhaps remark: The wicked suffer in this world all the punishment that is due to their sins. Eternal punishment, it appears to us, would be inconsistent both with the goodness and justice of God. It is not probable, therefore, that a gracious God will inflict it: and it is therefore not probable that the orthodox interpretation of the word aionios is correct. Answer-We have already shown that the assertion, that the wicked suffer in this world all the punishment that justice demands, and their sins deserve, is not true, and cannot possibly be true. For this punishment cannot possibly be suffered in outward circumstances, since the same lot happens to the righteous as to the wicked. Nay, as Scripture and experience teach, the righteous often suffer, while the wicked are in prosperity. They must then be punished in their own consciences as much as justice requires. But this is not true. For justice requires that the greater the sinner, the more he should be punished; and the longer he continues to sin, the more he should be punished. But the direct contrary of this is the fact. It is a universally acknowledged fact, founded upon universal experience, that remorse of conscience is always greater in a young sinner than in an old one-greater when we first begin to sin, than when sin has become habitual. So that remorse of conscience is inversely as the guilt of the offender. The more guilty he becomes, the less he suffers. It is therefore not true that the wicked are punished in this world in proportion to their sins.

Nay, this is not only false in fact, but it is impossible; because it contradicts the word of God. For if the wicked suffer all the punishment their sins deserve, then nothing is forgiven them. But this is contrary to Scripture, which speaks of forgiveness in almost every page, and makes that forgiveness conditional. If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Let the wicked forsake his way and return unto the Lord, and then he will have mercy upon him, and abundantly pardon. There is then such a thing as forgiveness-then Universalism errs when it declares that the wicked suffer in this world all the punishment their sins deserve; for in that case, no sins would remain to be forgiven. This forgiveness too is conditional. Then it cannot be obtained except these conditions are performed; unless God breaks his word, and admits the wicked to heaven without forgiveness. If this is not possible, then it is not possible that the above doctrine of the Universalist should be true.

Again; the Universalist says, eternal punishment appears inconsistent both with the goodness and justice of God; and therefore it is improbable that God will inflict it. This argument from natural reason is the main pillar of both the old and new Universalism, and indeed the chief source as well as foundation of the whole system. We feel it our duty, therefore, to treat of it somewhat largely.

Let it then be remembered in the first place, that all Universalists admit that this point is to be decided by revelation and not by reason. The question is not what reason teaches, but what Scripture teaches. We ask not what appears probable from the light of nature, but what is revealed to be certain in the oracles of truth. Any argument, therefore, drawn from reason alone, unsupported by Scripture, is of very little weight; and one single, plain, unequivocal, declaration of Scripture to the contrary, is sufficient to outweigh a

Isa. lv. 7; 1 John i. 9.