Let us look at his argument one minute. If aionion does not mean endless when applied to wicked men, it cannot when applied to God. Let us take another adjective, to illustrate the man's folly. The word good, is in the Bible, often applied to God; it is also frequently applied to man. When applied to man, it must of course denote a finite goodness, and when applied to God, an infinite goodness. But, according to the Rev. gentleman's reasoning on the word aionion, if the word good, as applied to man, does not signify an infinite goodness, it cannot mean infinite goodness when applied to God. Good bye to common sense, dictionaries, all rules in language, and every thing else, if this man's manner of reasoning shall be adopted. He would annihilate every thing, but his own, folly, and leave the universe without a God, and every sane man on earth without the hopes of heaven.

But has he never read, in his Bible, of the incorruptible God? of the immortal King? and many such expressions, which signify absolute endlessness? He will do well to inform himself on this subject. The name by which God is called, Jehovah, signifies his absolute eternity; it denotes, at once, all time, past, present, and future, comprehending the immortality and glory of the Creator.

"Let the Universalists take one or all of the passages we have quoted, and show that the punishment of the wicked is not endless, and by the same reasoning, the endless happiness of the righteous can also be disproved. The same argument that would disprove the eternity of one, would also do away with the eternity of the other. We challenge refutation on this point,"

And he shall have the refutation which he challenges, to the utmost content of his soul.

Do we not read in the Bible of "an endless life?" See Heb. vii. 16. But do we read in the word of God of an endless death, or an endless punishment? Never. The word that is translated "endless," and applied to life in the above passage, is not anonios; it is a much stronger word, akatalutou, and this word is never ap plied to punishment in the Bible.

Do we not also read of "an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away?" Does not an apostle declare that the dead shall be raised immortal and incorruptible? And does not our Saviour teach that after the resurrection "they can die no more," but are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being children of the resurrection? And there is more meaning of endless existence in the single phrase, "death is swallowed up in victory," than in ten thousand aion

ions.

The words that are used in the above passages to set forth the endless duration of future happiness, are aphthartos, amarantos, and akatalutos. The strict definition of these words is immortal, indissoluble, imperishable, indestructible, never-ending. These words, which imply as much as human language can express, are used to set forth the complete happiness of the resurrection state, and the endless perpetuity thereof.

We set these passages and these words down by the side of the Rev. gentleman's idle challenge, for one to prove from the Bible the endless happiness of heaven, without using aionion.

In the last paragraph of his argument, he confessed that "aion is sometimes used in a limited sense." But these words, which we have shown describe the absolute glory of the future world, are never used in a limited sense.

If Christ or his apostles had applied the word akatalutos to punishment, then the gentleman would have had an argument for his barbarian-creed, in the word of God. But, as it is, there is not a word applied to punishment. which may not fairly be construed to mean a limited duration.

No. 6.

CHAPTER XI.

The wicked not punished in this life.

The object of this lecture is, to disprove the idea that the wicked are punished in this life.

"1. The penalty of a law, to be just, must be proportioned to the benefit to be received by it.

"This maxim is recognized by all legislators. The greatest security the law can offer to human life, is to annex the penalty of death for the taking of that life. If, then, taking life for life, is the greatest security human laws can offer for the protection of that life, endless punishment must be the best security the law of God can offer, against the violation of that law.

man.

"The end the law seeks to secure is the everlasting happiness of The greatest possible security that can be given to protect it from violation, is to annex a penalty that shall be proportioned to the offence.

*

"The miseries of the wicked are the result of sin, not the punishment of it. Their sufferings here, are not the penal sanctions

of God's law."

Does this man mean to say that God has no other and higher means of government, than that of murder for murder? It is quite ridiculous to contend that even man is so reduced, that he could find no effectual way of governing his children, but by hanging broad-swords and pistols in their bed-rooms and eating apartments, to signify to them that they were to have their throats cut

and their brains blowed out, the first instant they transgress. But to say the perfect God can rule only by a similar harbarism, is blasphemy. The spiritually minded man can see, in the high sanctions of truth and love in the soul, more powerful restraints, and stronger motives to obedience, than in all the gentleman's cut-throat and damnation system. His theology is built upon the old law of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But this law was abolished by Jesus of Nazareth; and the law now is, "resist not evil, but overcome evil with good."

Even if the gentleman's statement in favor of capital punishment were true, it would avail nothing for his creed, unless he can make such fools of us all, as to believe that God cannot have a more perfect moral government, than poor erring man has devised. This drawing of parallels between the government of a God and a worm, to say the least, is a mistake quite too foolish to be committed by a grey headed divine. But enlightened Christians have already renounced the rule of life for life, or murder for murder. This horrible law is being abolished by several States; and in the course of another year, the gentleman's argument will be quite outlandish, and out of date. However, when he will take the statement he has made, and give us an argument for its truth, we will cheerfully follow him; but we cannot consent to spend much time on his bare assertions, unsustainedby a single word of proof.

His most ingenious evasion of the truth is, the statement that" the miseries of the wicked here are the re