This argument proves positively, that aion is limited, for how could another aion come unless this ended? Now as aionion was formed from aion, was not my inference just? I will here add, what Mark expresses by, is in danger of aionion damnation, Matthew express by, hath not forgiveness in the age to come.

Thus we

see, according to Matthew and Mark, the adjective (aionios) signifies no more than the noun (aion.) My inference therefore, is indisputable. What a pity that Matthew and Mark had not lived in this age. Than they might have saved themselves the shame of making our Lord teach the absured doctrine of an agelasting judgment upon those who refused his instructions. And how strange that such a a shameful absurdity should happen to be true. A sad judgment indeed befel the enemies of our Lord.

By the rule which you prove five comings of Chirst, I can prove fifty. Texts which I have proved, relate to the destruction of Jerusalem, you apply to three different events, without a single proof for so doing! Now is this fair? And is this the way to settle the question at issue? If you have proof, why deal thus in assumptions? All the main texts which speak of a coming to punish men, I have proved, refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Among these are Matt. xxv. 46, 2, Thess. 1, 9, and unless you answer my arguments on these, I shall consider them rescued from your hands.

Your reply to my 2d proposition on 2, Thess. 1, 9, does not meet the question. Those who troubled the christians were to be recompensed; and at the time of this, the christians were

to be redeemed from trouble. The time then, could not be at a future judgment. You say this judgment must be in the future world, because this is not a world of rewards and punishments. Then there is not a God who judgeth in the earth, and the righteous and wicked are not here recompensed. Peter says, "The time is come, that judgment must begin at the house of God, or with us, the christians."

Your reply to my 3d proposition is an entire failure. The question was, respecting the uncertainty of the day (that day shall not come except there come a falling away first,) and not respecting the uncertainty of their knowledge, when it would come.

The other two you have not attempted to an

swer.

Your six questions, I consider, entirely irrelevant; but to save words, I will answer briefly. To the 1st, I reply, I pretend not to be wise above what is written. To the 2d, by showing that there is no proof of endless misery. (By reviewing our discussion, you might have easily answered this. To the 3d, the same it has in this. To the 4th and 5th, I reject the common doctrine of a devil and of course his salvation. To 6th-I believe Christ is the Son of God.

I am &c.,

OTIS A. SKINNER.

LETTER No. VII.

BALTIMORE, Dec. 30, 1834.

To Rev. Otis A. Skinner:

DEAR SIR, I shall in this letter, lay before you twelve, objections to the doctrine of universal salvation, taken from the metaphor, and parables of the New Testament. And,

1. In Matth. 11. 12. (see Luke 11. 17.) we read that "he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather the wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. On this text I would remark that, 1. The wheat and the chaff are metaphors, intended to point out the condition of the righteous and the wicked, in this world. 2. The disposition which was made of them, that is, the gathering in of the wheat to the garner, and the burning up of the chaff, was designed to point out the disposition which shall be made of the righteous and the wicked, at the day of judgment; the former shall be admitted into the heavenly blessedness, while the latter shall be cast into eternal fire. Now, to say that the wicked will come to eternal life as well as the righteous, would not only quite destroy the most prominent feature in the metaphor, but directly contradict it.

2. We are informed Matth. 111. 10. (Matth. III. 17-19; Luke 111. 9.) that "the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, is

hewn down and cast into the fire.". On this passage I would observe, 1. The word trees is a trope or metaphor to signify men. 2. The axe is the justice of God. 3. The good fruit is the fruit of the spirit, Gal. v. 22, 23., love, joy, peace. long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith or fidelity, meekness and temperance. Those who do not bring forth these fruits shall be cut down by the judgments of God, and cast into everlasting fire. One of the most prominent features in this metaphor is, the utter impossibility of a burned tree, returning to its original state of verdure. This idea, when carried out, and applied to the state of the sinner, will present itself in direct opposition to his final restoration to endless happiness.

3. We read Matth. v. 13. (Luke xiv. 34, 35.) "ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men." Here it may be observed, 1. The word salt is a metaphor, designed to signify men. 2. The savour of the salt may signify the influence of true piety, and the grace of God, in the hearts and lives of men. 3. The use of salt, is to preserve the various articles of domestic life; so truly pious men preserve, for a time, the ungodly from temporal destruction, and are sometimes the means of their eternal salvation. See the case of Sodom.Now if the salt loose its savour, it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men: therefore, if men give themselves up to final apostacy, they are

fit for nothing but to be cast out of the kingdom of God, and banished to everlasting destruction. The most striking idea in this figure is perfectly hostile to the doctrine of universal salvation.

4. We are told, Matt. xII. 43, 45, (Luke XI. 24, 26.) that "when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out, and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first." Now this parable, if it may be cailed a parable, points out the life, character, and final condition of an apostate. The unclean spirit was cast out by the spirit of God, at his conversion.The unclean spirit or principle returned at his fall from the grace of God. The seven other spirits, more wicked than the former, entering into the man, points out his total depravity and entire abandonment of all good. The last state of this man is worse than the first. Now if the doctrine of Universalism be true, the last state of every man is infinitely better than any former state, whatever it may have been. Hence, one of the leading features of this passage, is directly opposed to Universalism.

5. In Matth. XIII. 47., it is declared, that "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to the