nally sir, you may as well argue against the sun, as against the fact, that Gehenna was only addressed to those familiar with the Prophets and connected with the Jewish nation; for had it signified a punishment to which Gentiles as well as Jews were exposed, they would have been instructed respecting it, and warned of their danger. I am, very respectfully, your friend, OTIS A. SKINNER

LETTER NO. V.

BALTIMORE, Nov. 27, 1834.

To Rev. Otis A. Skinner;

Dear Sir:-On reading your first letter, I find a large quantity of extraneous matter, which can shed no light on the point at issue between us, but must necessarily bewilder and darken it more or less. What has the present controversy to do with the 'eternal decrees,' 'infinite sin,' 'infants' skulls,' the damnation or salvation of the Heathen,' &c. The subject before us is 'Universalism,' which, I suppose may be embraced in the question, whether the punishment due to sin, is eternal or temporary, in its nature. You hold the latter. I hold the former. Therefore, all we say should have a direct bearing on this subject; which I consider to be of paramount importance. You state that there is but a trifling difference between Universalists. All believe that punishment is designed to re

form." Now I believe that all chastisements and afflictions in this life are designed to reform So far I agree with Universalists. But, I believe that all punishment in a future state of existence is vindictive and not disciplinary. On this point I differ with the Universalists. I pur pose attending to this point, in a future letter, permitted.

I shall attend to your four questions concerning 1 Thess. i 5-10, at a future period. As there is nothing else of any importance, in this letter, I shall dismiss it for the present, and proceed to theconsideration of your second letter.

You appear greatly dissatisfied with my manner of quoting authorities, and speak in as strong terms as if you had convicted me of fraudulent dealing; but, I can see no reason for all this warmth and dissatisfaction only that the truth pinches a little too tight. If you can show that I have perverted the views of an authority, or given that for his language which was not his, I am ready to stand publicly corrected. But as to the length of the quotation, it is with my own judgment to determine, and not for you to prescribe the quantity of matter I am to transcribe. The charge of taking things at 'second hand' comes with a very had grace, from one, that is in the constant practice of the same thing.

I see that you have denounced, as an erroneous bigot, Dr. Clarke, who was one of the most learned men of his age, merely, because he has presented the truth in such a strong and clear point of view, as to cut up the heresy of Universalism, both root and tranch. What will the serious and considerate think of this?

Aion, you admit is derived from aei, and on. "On,' you remark 'signifies being, but does not fix its duration.' But, why did you not tell us that on was twice employed to express the being or existence of Christ? Rev. i. 4, 8, and twice to denote the being of the ever blessed God. Rev. iv. 8; xi. 17. This use of the word to say the least, is no proof that it has a limited signification. You say that on is derived from eimi, to be. This is admitted. Let us now see how eimi is generally applied in the New Testament, and the object of its common application, and it will probably cast some more light on this point. We read, 'And Jesus said unto them, I am (eimi) the bread of life.' John vi. 35. 'I am (eimi) the light of the world.' John viii. 12. 'Before Abraham was I am (eimi.') John viii. 58. I am (eim) the door.' John x. 9. I am (eimi) the good shepherd.' John x. 11. 'Where I am (eimi) there shall also my servant be.' John xii. 26. 'I am (eimi) Alpha and Omega Rev i. 8. I am (eimi) alive forevermore.' Rev. i. 18. I ask, is this use of the word any proof that it has a limited signification.

,

'Ae, you say 'is from a, intensitive, and eo, to be, which I readily admit. But I absolutely deny that aei has a limited signification in all the five places you have cited from Rose's Parkhust. I deny that it has a limited meaning in Acts vii. 51, where it is said, 'Ye do always (aei) resist the Holy Ghost.' They never did any thing else but resist. There is not the least shadow of proof that they ever at any time, yielded in the least degree to the influence of the Holy Spirit. 'Yet always (aei) rejoicing.'

2 Cor. vi. 10, must necessarily be understood in an endless sense. What! the joy of the saints not endless!! Away with such absurdity and falsehood. What are the causes of the saints' joy? Are they not the atonement of Christ, the promises of God, their regeneration by the Divine Spirit, and the fact that, their names are written in heaven. When these causes shall be removed, or be annihilated by a superior power, the joy of the saints which is the effect, shall cease, and not till then. I say without hesitation that dei has properly an endless or unlimited signification, and in this, which is its proper sense, it is used in the two places just quoted. It has a limited, or "restricted sense" as Parkhurst remarks in Mark xv. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 11; 2 Pet. i. 12, which the reader may examine at his leisure. Hence, aion, coming from aei, always, and on, being, must in its grammatical meaning, signify endless duration; therefore, I perfectly agree with Dr. Clarke, when he says "there is no word which more forcibly points out the grand characteristics of eternity."

Your play upon the phrases, "since the world began," "from the beginning of the world," "whilst the world standeth," &c. and your question if the word in the singular means endless, how could it be used in the plural? and how the inspired writers could say, forever and ever? &c. I consider to be mere quibbles, unworthy of a profound scholar, miserable subterfuges, to which you in common with other Universalists, resort as the last place of retreat, in a desperate case; like a drowning man, grasping at the bubbles on the water. Did I take it upon me to

vindicate the propriety of the English phrases above mentioned? No. But I said the Greek word in those places must be taken in an endless or unlimited signification Parkhurst says aion "both in the singular and the plural signifies eternity, whether past or to come." Such questions as you have asked on this subject, should not have come from a sensible man, who professes to know and to teach truth.

You should have known that the phrase, "day and night," coupled with 'forever and ever,' was a metaphorical expression to signify the perpetuity of the misery of the damned. If you look at Rev. iv. 8, you will find the same phrase connected with the celestial exercises of the glorious throng, before the throne of God.— And if you will turn to Rev. vii. 15, you will find that, the redeemed, who have come up out of great tribulation, and washed their robes in the blood of the lamb, are now before the throne of God, and there serve him "day and night." Now, there is as much reason to believe that the glory of heaven is on this earth, as there is to believe the torment of the damned is upon it. If you read the discourse of Josephus concerning Hades, yon will find that he uses the phrase "day and night," in relation to eternity. So that your objection tothe phrase day and night is nothing but a mere quibble, which can have no weight.

You were a little too hasty in denouncing, as false, my statement, concerning the preposition eis. I hope it was through inadvertency, rather than from mature consideration of the subject. This part of the subject requires a full investigation, and must not be covered up. My