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 impossible 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

Philemon

J Edwards, versus Chauncey,

probable that it means endless duration. And all the passages 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

* See pages 23, 24, and 25.

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.

thousand such mere probabilities from the light of nature. For the province of reason is perfectly distinct from that of revelation; and there are fixed rules and principles of interpretation, by which the meaning of all laws and compositions, divine and human, is to be ascertained. Those who believe in divine revelation, believe that God has made known to man all that he ought to believe and do; and that his revealed will is contained in the Scripture. To the Scriptures, therefore, we must go to learn whether the doctrine of endless future punishment is a true doctrine. On a point where revelation is silent, reason is our only guide. When revelation speaks, it is the voice of God. And after reason has once proved the truth of divine revelation, as contained in the Old and New Testament, her only remaining duty is, to act as the interpreter of Scripture, and to ascertain the meaning of what God has revealed. In this too, she is not left at liberty to act at random, and to decide as ignorance, or prejudice, or fancy, or inclination, or passion, may incline; but she is bound to be governed by those general rules of grammar, criticism, and interpretation, which all must admit to be necessary in order to find out the meaning of what God has revealed. And those who refuse to receive and acquiesce in the conclusions which are thus drawn from the Bible, are guilty of arraying their reason against the declarations and authority of God: and though nominally believers, are really, and in principle, unbelievers.

2dly. Guided by the above principles, we have already proved from reason, from revelation, and from primitive testimony, that the leading doctrine of the Universalist is not only improbable, but impossible to be true; and that the orthodox doctrine of endless future punishment is not only probable, but absolutely certain. Before these considerations then, the foregoing argument of the Universalist must vanish as mist before the sun, Arguing from reason alone, he concludes the doctrine of future punishment improbable-arguing from revelation, we prove it certainly true, and impossible to be false. The interpretation, therefore, which the Universalist gives to the term aionios, or everlasting, is obviously false

and unscriptural, and impossible to be true; and consequently all those passages in which the epithet aionios, or everlasting, is applied to the punishment of the wicked, prove that punishment to be endless.

Let it then be distinctly remembered by all those who are ever ready to say, that it appears unreasonable and unjust to punish sinners everlastingly-that the question is not, what may appear probable to unassisted reason, but what God has in his holy word revealed to be the truth. This arguing from reason against divine revelation, and this reluctance to admit the plain testimony of Scripture, is only an evidence that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of "God;" and that from the love of indulgence, and aversion to holiness, men often endeavour to persuade themselves into error, in order to relieve their consciences from the fear of "the wrath to come."

But the Universalist still insists-reason must pronounce it inconsistent with the justice and goodness of God, to inflict eternal punishment upon the wicked; first, because there must be very little difference between the smallest saint who is taken to heaven, and the smallest sinner who is sent to hell: and secondly, because endless punishment is out of all proportion to the demerit of sin, since the one is finite, and the other infinite. Answer 1st. This is an objection to reason, not to faith to those who argue from the light of nature, not to those who argue from revelation. The infidel can consistently reason thus, not those who profess to believe in the word of God. Thus, saith the Lord, settles their every doubt -removes their every objection. They ascribe all their difficulties and objections to their own ignorance and imperfection, and upon the veracity of God, fully credit his testimony to its utmost extent. If we refuse to do this, we renounce the faith. The Universalist must therefore either renounce Christianity, or admit that his objection is of no weight.-2dly. To the argument, that endless future punishment is unjust, because there is very little difference between the characters of the smallest saint and the smallest sinner, and yet the one goes to heaven, and the other to hell, we