1 itself, the fountain of your faith, for the sake of destroying Universalism!! 15. One thing more respecting aion and aionios. In my first letter I showed that Paul (2 Cor. iv. 17.) spoke of a glory "EXCEEDING AJONION BY AN EXCESS-A FAR MORE (or EXCESSIVELY) EXCEEDING AIONIAN WEIGHT OF GLORY. I asked if aionios naturally and necessarily sig nified endless, how it could be exceeded, and that by an extraordinary excess. The question you have never attempted to answer. I now add to this the three following cases from the Septuagint, Exod. xv. 18. "The Lord shall reign" tou aiona kai ep' aiona, kai eti, from aion to aion, and FARTHER. Dan. xii. 3. "And they that turn many to righteousness as the stars," eis tous aionas kai eti, through the aions, and farTHER. Micah iv. 5. "And we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God," EIS TON AIONA KAI EPEKEINA, THROUGH THE AION, AND BEYOND IT. These facts, with what has before been said, ought to settle FINALLY the second proposition in the negative, unless you can offer something in favor of the affirmative from the NATURE OR DESIGN OF PUNISHMENT IT SELF. 16. In reference to your 14th paragraph I will only remark, that I wrote KOLASIS in the form that it bears in the ACCUSATIVE case instead of the NOMINATIVE, for no other reason than because it occurred in that case in the passage whereon we were disputing, Matt. xxv. 46. and some of our readers who are not Greek scholars, have the Greek and English on the same page of their Testament, side by side; and to speak of the word in the very form in which it occurred would be more satisfactory to them. And in carefully reading through the Greek Testament in course, somewhat of the Septuagint, and such few other Greek works as have fallen under my notice, I have never found any law of language or etiquette that forbid such a course. Will my very learned opponent direct me to one? 17. I now come to notice your pretended reply to my ten arguments against endless punishment. On reading it I confess I could not avoid thinking of THE MOUNTAIN IN LABOR. I will not imitate your illustrious example by calling it "the superlative of the weak, beggarly," &c. &c. But really I am astonished that a man of your acknowledged talents and acumen could not see that no part of it touches, or even approximates within hailing distance of my arguments. The whole of it, from your 17th to your 23d paragraph inclusive, is based on the false assumption that temporal sufferings and disciplinary punishments are of the same character, and to be regarded in the same light, as endless sufferings and endless punishment. 18. The amount of the whole is this, If TEMPORAL sufferings and LIMITED punishment for sin are not incompatible with the happiness of saints, angels, and holy beings that witness them, and with the HONOR, BENEVOLENCE, MERCY, WISDOM, POWER, and JUSTICE of God, how can ENDLESS sufferings and punishments be incompatible therewith? I answer, the one is but a means, the other an end; the one finite, the other infinite; the one limited, the other unlimited; the one merciful, the other anmerciful; the one a painful journey to a happy and glorious termination, the other an interminable journey of pain and wo, never ceasing, ever increasing, without the least possible good to any being in the universe. Here are radical and infinite differences between the two. You might as well ask, if it is compatible with the character of a good earthly father, and the happiness of himself and family, to punish a disobedient son to reclaim and make him happy, why is it not equally so for him to lacerate, bruise, and mangle his body, and make him as miserable as lies in his power, as long as he lives, and to protract his life merely to torment him? 19. The case you cite from the 19th chapter of the Apocalypse is nothing to your purpose. For the language of thanksgiving and exult ation is not used with reference to the sufferers of endless misery, that subject not being named, nor to the individual sufferers of even temporary misery, but with reference to the downfall of Babylon, the overthrow of a corrupt, overgrown, and wicked power. But should such language ever occur in scripture relative to individual sufferings, I should regard it as evidence that the holy beings using it saw the end of the miseries and the good resulting prospectively therefrom, whether there were any thing said concerning that end or not, in such passage, knowing that other texts do speak of the good resulting from such punishments. 20. In reference to your parable of the brute creation, I remark, that much as the thousands of animals of all species may suffer from man, or from each other, or from any and all causes, they still love life, cling to it, and doubtless, on the whole, enjoy much more than they suffer. The. notes of joy among them are more numerous than the notes of pain, and this proves a benevolent God gave them being. We must all suffer death sooner or later, and doubtless endure quite as much in its agonies as the generality of brutes, whether they die of sickness, old age, or are devoured by each other; and yet we esteem life a blessing, and cling to it, maugre all its troubles; and for one, I bless God for its gift: and if brutes were not dumb, so would they. But did I believe endless misery my doom, I could not bless God for life-it would be a curse instead of a blessing. I have never, like yourself, discovered that the rebellion of wicked men and spirits had any thing to do with the miseries or condition of the brute creation, either in changing the TEETH and STOMACHS of lions and tigers from HERBIVOROUS to CARNIVOROUS, their HOOFS to CLAWS, or any other similar disastrous change. Will you afford me a little light on the subject? 21. In answer to the "compassionate" queries in your 23d paragraph, I will say, that, though 1 probably should not have anticipated, beforehand, precisely such a system as this, in all respects, for want of wisdom to see clearly all its bearings and results, yet I should much sooner have anticipated such an one as the present than one of infinite and endless sin and misery. Nay, I should have anticipated any and every other system sooner than the latter. And so I think would God and every other benevolent being. When God had finished the creation he pronounced all he had made "very good." And I believe all he ever created was, and is, and eternally will be, "very good," as it respects the final ultimatum, in reference to which the declaration was doubtless made. 22. You will pardon me for not replying to your rigmarole commencing your 22d and filling your 25th paragraph. I shall now, sans ceremonie, proceed to the proof of the fourth proposition, viz. "Shall eternal life (meaning thereby endless holiness and happiness) be, according to the scriptures, the ultimate destiny of all mankind?" 23. Before producing the direct scripture proofs of this proposition, I shall adduce some arguments in its favor A PRIORI, drawn from the acknowledged attributes of God, which attributes the Bible clearly ascribes to him. And as you have made some objections to A PRIORI arguments on the ground of human ignorance of what will, or may be, from what God acknowledgedly is, I shall preface these arguments with a few remarks. 24. We all do, and are obliged, whether we will own it or not, to reason A PRIORI concerning God and what he does or will do. We appeal to the infidel in behalf of Christianity, on the ground that he perceives, even in nature, evidence of natural and moral perfections in God exactly harmonizing with the voice of revelation-that the scriptures accord with the best and noblest conceptions of God, and must therefore be true, divine, and have originated with him. We all reason, A PRIORI, against Mahomedanism and Heathenism, that they cannot be true, for they are incompatible with the divine perfections. There are ideas of God too, that are common and universal among all enlightened people of every sect and clime.-All acknowledge him to be infinite in wisdom, power, goodness, &c., and all attach the same ideas to these individual words. It is impossible for any one to understand wisdom to mean folly, power to mean weakness, or goodness to mean badness, or any thing equivalent therewith. 25. Moreover, all attach the very same ideas to these words when applied to God that they do when applied to man, with this difference only, that in the latter they are finite, in the former infinite-they are the same in kind, differing only in degree. If it were not so, we could have no just ideas of God, and the Bible must have been given to deceive, instead of to enlighten man. 26. Now it is conceded by all that God is the BEST of all possible beings, and will DO THE BEST of all possible things. But what is the best of all possible things? I contend it is the greatest good of his whole creation, and that this must consist of the greatest amount of ultimate happiness to all the parts thereof. Well, now suppose he were the worst of all possible beings, and would do the worst of all possible things-what would he be likely to do? Why, we suppose he would produce the greatest possible amount of wo and misery eternally, throughout his whole creation, by making every part thereof as sinful and wretched as possible. If we suppose him to be a medium between the best and worst possible being, we might either suppose he would place all his creatures in a medium condition, neither very happy nor very miserable, or else make a part of them endlessly holy and happy, (if that were possible,) and the other part endlessly sinful and miserable. The last is the result of your theory; the first (or the result of the greatest possible good) is mine. Which is true? One question more: Was "Old Cloot" himself, as Burns calls him, bad as he is supposed to be, ever accused of doing any thing AS BAD as creating sentient beings on purpose to render them endlessly miserable? What WORSE thing could the WORST POSSIBLE BEING POSSIBLY DO? Yours in all benevolence, D. SKINNER. Mr. Campbell to Mr. Skinner. No. XXII. BETHANY, Va. April 6th, 1838 Sir-ON my return from Pittsburg, I found to-day your epistle of the 21st ult. on my table, received here on the 5th inst. You begin with the cuttle-fish, the best type in nature of your present politics. When pursued by a fish of prey, this cunning little fellow hides himself in his own black ichor, and, by darkening the water, escapes the eye of his pursuer. You, however, cannot so easily conceal yourself at this crisis, having solicited so much attention to your Greek erudition. The eyes of all our readers are now upon you to see how you will get out of the unenviable posture in which you were placed in my last review. 2-They saw you, the mighty champion of Universalism, who had undertaken a discussion of all the Greek and Hebrew words that come within speaking distance of the future state-who had undertaken to show that neither olem nor aei, nor any word derived from them, could signify endless duration-who had undertaken to adduce some word that does necessarily import endless, which had it been employed by the Holy Spirit in reference to punishment, would certainly have made it absolutely endless: I say, they saw you by one fell swoop pull down your own edifice, the work of so many letters, affirming that aidios does mean absolute eternity; and then, to save yourself from the reprobation of all men, your own party included, when you were told that this word was another form of ac, you pretend that by some respectable critics it was derived from hades. This outrage upon language and etymology compelled me to adopt measures which I had hoped to have avoided. In order to fix the eyes of your friends more immoveably upon you, unequivocally put both your veracity and your literary pretensions on the same pillory that they might see your resources-that you might be roused to defend yourself from considerations that would stir up every man of sensibily to his best efforts. For one entire month you have stood there, an object of solicitude-all eyes gazing upon you to see how you would descend. Although I think you have as hard a face and as stout a heart as any person I have met with, still I must confess I felt some curiosity myself to see how you would escape from that proud eminence on which you were stationed. Your apparent carelessness and complaisant tameness now displayed, fully intimate your own convictions of the strength of the battlements that environ you, while your dexterity in manoeuvring shows how deeply and successfully you have studied the arts of evasion. I 3-Your friends now see how much confidence is due to your criticisms and assertions. You said that "there are some respectable critics who suppose it to be derived from ades (hades,) which is derived from a, negative, and idien, to see; and hence among other definitions, they give hidden, invisible, unseen, unknown." These are your words, par. 2., letter xix. I asked you, letter xx. par. 12., "why you did not give the name of some lexicographer who had so derived and explained aidios." I called for chapter and verse. I also said, "I am sure, sir, you cannot name one." Thus did I put myself in your power, that every one might see what is the literary and moral worth of your argu ments. Now what is your defence? Who are the lexicographers? Where are the "respectable critics"? Where the page, chapter, and verse on which they have thus derived and explained aidios? You have not given one. You have named an obscure Universalist and an Atheist, and yet you have not quoted their words. Now, sir, are these your respectable critics! I have their criticism lying before me, and I positively affirm it is not as you represent it. It is just as true as your assertion that Scarlett and Kneeland are of similar import-that neither of them derives aidios from hades!! They go no farther than to say, "it may have the same etymology as ades." They do not say it has!!! And if they did, they are no better authority than yourself. These are your respectable critics! There is not a Dictionary nor a scholar under the broad heavens that does derive AIDIOS from ADES, Mr. Skinner himself being deponent in the case! I do not wonder that you "have no disposition for a controversy about this word." And yet your veracity and literary pretensions are suspended upon it in the presence of the whole community! 4-But you now concede! (what a timous concession!) that aidios is derived in part from aei, and proceed to derive the tail of it from dios, divine!! This is a splendid demonstration of Solomon's proverb, that "the way of transgressors is hard." This is still more fatal to your literature than your asking me for a rule for quoting words in the nominative case. My rule is all the Dictionaries and Grammars in the wide world! But you have turned critic upon dios, and quote Jones' definition of dios. But, sir, does Mr. Jones-does any critic-any Dictionary derive aidios from aci and dios, or from dios, divine. No, sir! No learned man could do such a thing. Dios, sir, is the root of no word in the Greek language. It is an adjective derived from Zeus, dios, Jupiter. As Jove comes from Jupiter, so dios itself comes from Zeus. A schoolboy might derive dios from the obsolete DIO, which sometimes signifies to run swiftly; and hence aidios would be forever running!!! This might be in boyhood a pardonable blunder, infinitely more plausible than your derivation. Your pretending to find a root for the adjective termination of aidios, is like finding a root for orum in the word puerorum, the genitive plural of puer; or for finding a meaning for ternus in the word sempiternus, the mere adjective form of semper, always. So is ios, or causa euphoniæ dios in the word uidios. If you understand all this, you will learn that there is but one idea, one root in aidios, and that is the simple adjective form of it. But, sir, you know your readers cannot generally understand these and your other assertions about words. But there is one thing I intend they shall understand; and that is, that you can produce no authority for these assertions; and that they are unsound in philosophy, untaught in language, and untrue in fact; that you are positively coining at your own mint, without any license on earth, words to suit your own purpose. Have you, sir, been so long practised in works of this kind as to cast off all fear of detection and exposure! 5-The new batch of words which you introduce to mend your position, are as ex post facto since your late intimation about going on to the fourth proposition, as they are irrelevant to the subject in debate. You might as well summon a thousand as ten such words from the Greek Dictionaries. Like the braggart who boasts of his thousands when he |