»;. UlrAM - P33 »YAILE«¥]MIIVIEI^SinrY- I ' < ' ¦'¦ •:: -¦ 3EBlfeS 0F'9r';/:\E»S G0MMBNfE»,1ffITJi£-Wji:E'| M " jfifviii^'.j '. jjljl Jl PMB(li>DIVJlL lP(3lm::^BUSHEB&^ ©E THEJaBTHOBISI- EPISCMAI CBtrSCB. I IQfl M|g Be Aat ia''fif»^li his B-«M,c.miit^'d.eiaii'ihju^ti lnf,t hit nei^hiorar-t UlStometh cend searcheth tatp.'^ioiaii^, ' i li iVase yH ikkgi—hDld fast Mat -.v.htfk z» ^A— st . pAtra»_ aaisii VmVl^SRSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB ETERNAL PUNISHMENT OF THE FINALLY IMPENITENT ESTABLISHED, Itr A aEKIES OF NUMBERS COMMENCES WITH "SSBl SIGNATURE OF " OBSERVER," IN « THE CANDID EXAMINER," A PERIODICAL WORK, PUBUSHED At MONTROSE, PA. BT THE BET. C. B. MABSH — EOITOS: V BY THB EEV. GEORGE PECK, ot TBS UETBODIST EPISCOPAL CBCBCb — ^c^— Be that itfirtt in hit o-wn cause leemeth juat ,- 6ul hit neighBor oav^^ ind tearcheth him.—ST. faul. ' Prove aii tUngt — hold fatt that vhich it good.—soLOXO'ait WILKESBARRE, PA. XBINTES BT 8. O. IiEW^g; i«2r. PREFACE. -'^¦^^.^©^tf^^- AS it would probably be :c»peEted that the writer of tbe following sheets on presenting, them to the public^ would assign his reasons for so doing, it will be proper to do this in the commencement of tliis preface, and in or der to which, it will be necessary to give, a brief sketch of tiie circumstances which gave thom.existence. An Urmiersalist Periodical was commenced lin June 1-825, at JVIontrose. to be'isiuied semi-monthly with the Jlitfe-of " The Candid Examiner." On being inforraed that the Editor held a reputation for candor ^ piety abo.re the common grade of those editors with whom he ranked himself, the writer sought an opportunity of becoming acquaiated with the merits of his work. On examination it did appear that the general spirit of the work was more candid^nd temperate than most works of . that ' peculiar kind. The principles upon which: the editor professed to conduct his work, he stated in his editoral address^ thus: ?' We shall not hesitate, boldly, to oppose those theories which we consider as Mse^ whose deleterious qualities arepoisoning the streams of human enjoymenl^ but we^hall not Jotentionally give unnecessary pain to our most virulent opposers ; and while we assume the privilege of opposing what we consifter erroneous, we give tliose whom weoppose an opportunity, inthis paper^ of supporting their own views, on condition of using candor in argument, decency in expression & a prolixity compatible with the size of this work." (Vol. I, p. 2.) This proposition appeared ^uite plausible, and the: lan^ guage very moderate and ipleasant: but being permitted logo on to his seventh aumbw without meeting W{th. any jy PREPACE. one who felt disposed to engage him in his columns, hfe came out in a style a little more ardent, as follows:— •' We also would say to all our opposers that we are open to conviction, and that the columns of this paper will be gladly granted to their service, should they wish to refute the doctrine of its conductor. If our doctrine is as absurd and as unscriptural as they insinuate, it is their duty to show it. We then say again to our opposers if there is light in you let it shine. Remember that you must answer to your God for your crirainality by permit ting what you call our darkness to extinguish your light. Open and fair dealing comports with a good religion — stratagera and intrigue it will spurn out of its presence.— Come then, let us reason together." (Vol. I. p56.) On reading this warm^and nervous challenge — very sensibly feeling the force of the appeal to our love of truth, and qf Ms warning, that we " must answer" to our " God," ice. — not knowing that any one better qualified, would undertake the business — and supposing that the interests of truth required that some one should ; the writer deter mined to accept tlie proposition. Though it appeared to be a matter of some importance todo away the impression under which his friends seemed to labour, that no one dare engage him, and to silence the clamor which had beeu raised through the country upon the subject; yet the prin cipal object of the writer was to present his readers with a few striking specimens of what raight be said in opposi tion to his system ; and to guard the minds of the more serious and candid against his plausible sophistry. Be lieving that occasionally throwing an obstacle in his way which he could not effectually remove, would cause many to examine the subject more thoroughly — and so to see the truth — upon whom, otherwise, the continual dropping of his pen, would produce an impression favorable to his mistaken theory. The writer accordingly addressed a note to the editor upon the subject expressive of his design in general. And how cordially he was received will appear from the fol lowing introduction which the editor gave him to his readers: "We welcome Observer into the columns ofthe Examiner, and promise him a candid hearing and all due attention. His design in coming forward is laudable, & we hope if our ' bulwarks' are vulnerable, he will bring PREFACE. V forward * engines' powerful enough to ' demolish' them. (Vol. I. p. 102.) The plan was embraced in five short numbers (the first part of this work) which the editor published promptly, sending out his * replies' at the sarae tirae. A rejoinder was immediately commenced (the serond part of this work) and the articles were promptly supplied; & the editor proceeded in their publication, (though often with much delay) till he had finished the Sth number when he came to a pause. — And what was altogether unaccoun table was, that he ceased to publish without assigning any reason, or giving fmy explanation ! So that the public was left in total ignorance with regard to the cause why the controversy was so abruptly broken off. Indeed some of the editors friends were very ready to insinuate that " Observer had become weary of the controversy and had abandoned it." — Under these circumstances the sub ject was permitted to rest, for more than three months, ¦when the writer addressed a letter to the gentleman upon the subject. In this the .grounds of complaint were sta ted, and the editor was requested to enter into some spe cific arrangements for the future. And in order to bring the matter before the public, and to obtain his views, he was requested to publish the communication in his next paper — but he did not see proper to comply with the request. After a delay of several weeks however, he con descended barely to give notice that he had " two of Ob server's rejoinders on hand" which on account of " their uncommon length" he had been obliged to defer publish ing *? to give room for other matter, which on account of promises, was entitled to a preference." (Vol. 2. p. 181. ) Now as to the " length" of these articles, it will be but justice to observe, that the gentleraan had not given the least intimation that the writer had transgressed due bounds in this respect — Indeed he did not even give no tice that he had received any such papers, until he had been plainly addressed upon the subject. It is true that the numbers referred to, were somewhat longer than tliose which had been previously published, the j^ubjects requi ring that they should be. But the editor should have re collected the prolixity of his replies. In replying to the first part of this work, he occupied more than twice the number of pages which that occupied. The rejoinder, as .^5 PREFACE. near as can now be ascertained, would not, buta mere trifle, if any, have exceeded his replies in length. It will now appear with what propriety he complains ofthe " uncommon length" of tliese nurabers. It seeras thatlie, in order to succeed to his mind, is under the necessity of requiring his antagonist to observe great brevity while he is excessively diffuse .' As to his having "matter" on hand which •' On account of promise was entitled to a preference," it should be considered that, it was more than a year previous thathe had positively ;)romised the writer " a candid hearing & all due attention." If then he had matter on hand which was '• entitled to a preference, on account of promise," it raust have been promised raore than that length of time — but if this was tlie case it is marvelous indeed how he came to suffer so mMcA ma.ttpr, of a more recent date, to .supcrcedethat which had been so long promised: for certain ly that which he published of this kind, within this time, fills no sraall proportion of his work.' It must then befor sorae reason pararaount to a positive " promise" that he sccupied his columns with this kind of raatter! But he still gave sorae reason to expect that he would resurae the controversy at some futiu-e period. For at the close bf his notice he says " While the memoir of Elder Rich's life is continued, we shall still be obliged to omit these rejoinders." From this it would naturally be in ferred that when this "memoir" should be finished he would resume the publication of " these rejoinders." But, on finishing the " memoir," he announced to his patrons that " Peculiar circumstances obliged" him " to suspend the publication of the, Examiner for a season." This information of course put an end to all expectations of his publishing the rejoinder any farther. The reader now has the history of this affair before him. It has not been drawn up under the influence ofthe lea.st unfriendly feeling towards the Editor. It appeared ne cessary, so far, to make a developement of these facts and circumstances. &the reader is now Mt to make his own conclusions. The editor courted a controversy in his columns— he endeavorqi^to provoke it, by sending out one ohallengeupon the back of another — he was met on his own terms— he gave the most unqualified assurances of " a candid hearing and all due- attention." The reader pnEPACE, vii has seen what" atttention" he has paid his anta^nist.— Whether the course he has taken is such as mig}it have beea expected from the high ground he assumed at his com mencement — whether indeed he has fulfilled his engage ments to tlie public generally, and to his opponent in par- ticular, is now left fiir the candid and impartial to judge. The writer freely confesses that he thought he had reason to expect a very different course. He has indeed observed that it is very common among this class of editors to pro- fieiss to .pubUsh the ai'guments on both sides-~t& send out thieir banters from time to time; and if no one notice them to conclude! that the opposite party deprecates in- ¦^estigation, and from their silence to endeavor to reap all the advantages of a glorious vict-jry. But when put to tfie test they discover a total unwillingness to meet their oppo nents upo n fair grounds. They profess g reat liberality-;-. their columns are open to both sides — but if tbey do in fact itponany considerations, admit an opponent, they sub- Jeiet him to disadvantages under which theyare aware it would be inconsistent for him to maintain a contest. • Thesefacts have long since occasioned the writer of these pages, to consider all their proposals of this kind, as an empty show. He did hope that it might turn out otherwise in ihe case ofthe Examiner, but b^s to confess his disap pointment. When this controversy was commenced the writer had not the most di&tant thought of its ever assuming a ly oth er shape, orbing any farther than the pages ofthe Ex aminer. But jost as the affair was assuming a serious aspect-^as he was about to enter upon the defence of the main arguments in favor o{ eternal pwnishment ; his man uscripts were suppressed-^Tie was no longer permitted to ^eak througA that organ. Ifhe had succeeded entirely in that) part of the rejoinder wbich was published, as it embraced but a smaH part of his design, and the most important part c^ it being still behind, his object was not accoUplished.— -And -to leave the matter here, He con- sideredyrwouWirot be justice, either to himself or to the Cause which he had undertaken to support. Being brought tQ the altemative of remaining in silence, wider such cir cumstances, or pHblishing in some othei* form, he chose thte latter. And as a part of what he had written, alone, voHld appear in a verjr di^ointed »tftle^ notU 8aytha>tit ^^ \ PREFAGEi would be altogether unintelligible ; he came to the con clusion to revise the whole and put it into a pamphlet. The writer is aware that it will be the opinion of some, that as every thing had been done upon this subject, which is necessary or possible to be done, there is nopuiliccall for a work of this kind. Upon this ground he had much hesitancy himself with regard to it — but upon reflecting that the old arguments coming through new hands, assu ming a new dress, and- sometimes being considerably va ried, seera to have all the force with many readers, that they would have, were they entirely original — that the most hackneyed arguments are supposed new, and those which have been answered a thousand tiraes are consider ed unanswerable, unless they are met as often as they are resumed. These things caused him to determine upon his present course. It appears to the writer that too mnch silence has been observed on this point, & some others. While we are in dulging in apathy, theassertors of heteradox opinions, are making use of the greatest efforts, & are awake to the im provement of every advantage. Their periodicals are uow flying in every direction through theUnited States. In these they rudely assail the fundaraental doctrines of the Christian System. They challenge us to meet them in argument, and defend our system, if it is capableof de fence — " If there is light in" us, to " let it shine," &c. And they do not hesitate to construe our silence into a. fear ef coming to the light — a conviction that our theory will not bear investigation! Now foreign from the truth as this representation may be, it produces its impression it often, very often, has its desired effect! The passion for novelty is so general, and so strong, and many are so precipitate and incautious in forming their views, that there is no theory so inconsistent but it obtains votaries and no sophistry so glaring butthat, by some, it is consid ered as sound reasoning. Our opponents may be desti tute of argument, but they supply the deficiency with as surance and xea!. We may treat them with neglect— may consider tbeir arguments not worthy of a moments attention, that they refute themselves, &c. &c., bnt they have the adroitness to turn this into a mere pretext, to avoid an investigation, which we are aware would end ia d^eat. By these means many unwary souls are beguiled PREFACE, li firom the truth' and left bewildered in the maises of ei*. ror. Is this then a time for us to lie upon our oars ? To treat these subjects with reserve? Swrely not! Bishop Hornby observes vrith great foi-ce of propriety, that "The corruptors of christian doctrine bAve no such reserve.— The doctrines ofthe divinity of tho son— the incarnation — the Satisfaction of the cross as a sacrifice — the media- toral intercession— the influences of the spirit — the eter nity of future plinishmcrit— are topics of popular discuss ion with those who would deny or pervert these doctrines ; and we may judge by their success what our own might be, if we would but meet our antagonists on their owngroundi, Tbe common people, we find, enter into the force, thougli they do not perceive the sophistry of their' arguj»«iits. The sarae people would much more enter^to tho internal evidence ofthe genuine doctrine ofthe gospa^xr iiQld©» out to them, notin parts, studiously di^^fatio'^s tff^ may seem mysterious,— not with accg^^ ^^^^^jj .^^^ « prevailing fashion of opinions, m%p^ " (See Hornby's Sermons, p^ .^^.^.rfj^the writer has bestowed too 4n h™^t^^^^^^^^ ^^^ effusions of his opponent— that Ttouch^ai^jj^ig too absurd to require rcfutatio'n. To, .J9^it should be observed, that his peiforraano! s appear to be a fair speciraen of what can be said in favor of his theorj'^^that not only in his method of stating his views ¦ but fn his mode of defending thera, he generally follows ;«ome of the great lights that have gone before him — so that, if it is important that uriiversalianism should be met and refuted under any cii'Cumstances, it will be difficult to perceive why it is not wortliy of attention as sujiport- ed by him — But, it is in fact not a matter of so much im portance whether the arguments of an opponent are weak orstrong — logical orillogical. if they do indeed injure com munity— if they poison the minds of any of its members If this is the case, the writer apprehends, 't furnishes a call sufliciently imperious, to meet and expose them. And it becomes us as lovers of our fellow immortals- — as watchmen upon the walls ofour zion, to fly to the aid of those who are about to be turned out ofthe way, and if pos sible wrest them from tlie vortex oiruinOus error, B , PRBFAC&J In this humble attempt to defend what he supposes tth he the truth as it is in Jesus, the writer has not the vanity to suppose that he is invulnerable to invidious cntidsmi It will doubtless be found to possess many imperfections, for which, he craves the indulgence of the candid ; to whom he gives the most positive assurance that however imperfect or unsuccessful his efforts may be, they have originated from the best intentions. It will hardly be necessary to say, that no claim is made to entire originality. The writer has read upoa the subject very generally on loth sides ; and where he has found anything which answered his purpose he has taken the Uberty to u.se it: always however, feeling hap py in giving the author credit for it. It was a source of some regret to the writer that he was under the neceasiity, in some measure, of altering his ori ginal pl»*" He cammenced with an intention to writ® 'ISei^fns^as'iil^ *" ^^°^^ anything critical or laboured. versy, if not alulHrl!^^^' *at most points of the contro- own vernacular tongu?>^''t^«^':" be settled in our our reference to the origiW^fiSy "*•''"— *''.^* ^^t^^" ^" to be settled— the same laws of in?S!^S..£"r"Pi^f ''^'"^i." lished. Though indeed the advantages W^iS^^stab- criticisms are entirely in our favor ; yet as the introM^i^jJ^ of words and phrases from other languages is calculated to perplex common readers without affording them ariy instruction ; and as it was principally for their advan tage tliat this controversy was undertaken, it seems ratlK^ erto be wished that it might havebeen avoided. But as his antagonist was sure to launch out his Greek upon eve ry emergency, it became necessary for him somewhat to vary his design in order successfully to meet him. The nos. which were published inthe Examiner have un dergone sorae trifling alterations. The typographical er rors are corrected — in some instances the phraseology is altered ; some redundencies are expunged, & deficiencies supplied. But great care has been taken not to make any alterations wbich would effect the editor's replies or in any manner injure the force of his arguments. But as the reader has been detained too long already in this preface, it will be expedient to bring it to a close. Tiie writer begs the further conUnuance of his patienqpj PBEFAOBb 41 liowever. while he adds: — As for those readers (if any such -shall think it worth their while to read this work) Vho have made up their minds to believe and support the opposite system at all hataards, he has notthe credulity to believe that it will be possible for him to make any im pression, upon their minds. They are wiser in their own •onceits than seven men that can render a reason — they are beyond the reach of scripture and argument — they have his pity and his prayers, and he must leave them to stand or fall to their own master. But with the serious enquirer after truth he expects a different reception. To him he hopes for access — and' would say come and let us reason together, you will be «ure to lose nothing by a careful and candid investigation of this subject. It is asulyectupon which very much de pends, and which wc should use the best means well to understand. I beseech yoCi then to consider earnestly, *' what is truth" — " what saith the scriptures" — "what saith the Lord" — and may the Lord give you understand ing in all these things. And should this humble perform ance under the divine blessing, inany degree contribute to your instruction, and your establishment in the true gospel doctrine, and so be the means of promoting your dearest interests, the writer will feel himself amply mvo.* jipnsated for all his labour. 'FFUhesbarre, 8ept> 7t 18ar« ^ CONSXBSRED, &C. PART L Introductory Mdress to the Editor of THE CANDID EXAMINEE. Mr. Editor: — Not long since, the numbers ofthe Candid Exarainer fell into our hands. Meeting with challenges given, and reiterated, to the believers in th© doctrine ofthe final misery of the wicked, to come for ward, in your pages, awA df end their faith: hoping that many of your readers may be open to conviction on the subject, and that by this means, arguments raay be thrown into their way Which they otherwise would not raeet with» we shall venture to accept the invitation. Not frora any tigh sense of our abilities in disputation, but relying wholly on the goodness of our cause, andJbelieving that truth Ioo.ses nothing by a candid investigation, we do not decline the hazardous enterprise of entering into the camp ofthe enemy, planting our engines within their lines, and attempting to demolish their bulwarks. We propose giving the subject a brief review in the light ofthe holy scriptures, and if from them, understood as near as can be ascertained, according to the original intention of the sacred writers, your systrm can be sup ported, we are open to conviction. Our earnest inquiry IS. and has long been, "what is truth?" May we all " know the truth," and may " the truth make us free." If you do us the honor to insert this in your next, we shall forward a number coritainins ^servations on th*. t$ UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE Views of the sahject oi salvation stated and insisted upon in your work. If we have a fair opportunity of being heard, we shall forward pieces for insertion, as we may have opportunity, and as occasion raay require. yours, &c. OBSERVER^ November, 1825, No. I. — In which the erroneous notions ofthe Universalists an the nature and grounds of salvation are considered. Our observati6ns, at present, shall be confined to a piece published in the 3d nuraber, from the (Boston) Universalist Magazine, on the subject of salvation. We jjprfectly agree with the writer, as to the impor tance of the subject, and the candor and impartiality with which our enquiries on it should be conducted. But to his views ofthe subject itself, we shall make some excep tions. He first speaks of the nature of salvation, to ex plain vvhich he introduces two similes, which we shall no tice hereafter. His views of this subject are expressed in the following words, " The salvation which God wills in our favor, is not a salvation from the punishment, but from sin itself." With that part of the gentleman's prop osition, which asserts salvation from sin, we perfectly agree, but disagree with the«part which denies salvation frora the punishment due to sin. But he thinks it effec tually proved by the principle tLat Gsd rewards men ac cording to their v>orks. Thus he argues " If every man by his w icked works, has incurred the penalty of the di vine law, and if the penalty of this law be endless death, must not every man be endlessly miserable? The fallacy of this argument consists in this mistake, that to incur and ac.tually to suffer a penalty, tire one and the same thing ; whereas a penalty may be incurred and that pen- alty in virtue of certain con.siderations, be remitted, and ao never inflicted. Our being rewarded according to our works, is not being punished, as we must have been with out a mediator, but consists in our beijig rewarded or punished according te eur having received or rgjectsd ^iTESlS¦AL PtJNISHMBNT, &c. ES^ABLISftEO. I^ f {be mediator. " He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." But our writer proceeds, " It may he said, that JesuS Christ, when upon the cross, suffered in our room, and shared and bore the cur.ses which we deserved." Doubt less he suffered for sinners, the just forthe unjust, that he raight bring us to God," and " was made a curse for us." " But we ask, does this appear tobe the meaning. of those scriptures which explicitly assert that God will give every transgressor a just punishment for the demerit of his actions?" It may not be the meaning of thera, be cause they are not speaking of the atoneraent raade by Christ for sin, but of the consequence of the conduct of men in relation to it, so that these " scriptures," and the doctrine of atonement, are in nowise inconsistent with each other. He continues, " If Jesus suffered the punishraent ef our sins, and saves us frora it." It should be ob served, that we hold that " Jesus suffered the punishment of our sins," in a qualified sense, that is, so far as public justice is concerned — and that he saves us frora it on con ditions. " We should find the inspired writers raention- ing it at those times when they were telling what Christ had done for us." True! — And what is raeant by his " suffering for sinsl" (I. f et. iii. 18,) Being raade a curse for us. (Gal. iii. 13.) Wounded for our transgressions— bpiised_for our iniquities— 1lreT>iLasliseraent ofour peace ^g^"& "F"" utra-— our tjeing healed bv his stripes, and by IBeLord laying upon him the iniquity of us all? (Isa. Iiii 5, 6.) We leave the explanation of these passages to those who say that we raust all suffer for our own sins— bear our own curse (or ratharrmerfi/ as they would call it) endure the chastisement of our own peace— fre healed bv owr own stripes— and that every man's iniquity, shall iu every sense, be laid upon his own back. Again, this gentleman remarks, " men have supposed God to be full of wrath towards his creature man ; is it reasonable to suppose that the power which designed our good was full of wrath?" We do not suppose that God is under the influence of passion, of any kind. But the terms wrath, anger, &c. as applied to God in tho scrip tures, are to be understood figuratively, and refer Sirap ly to the incongruity wbi<;h ejjsts between the divine per? 16 UNIVERSAL SAT VATION CONSIDERED, AND THE fections and sin. And God's displeasure exercised tow ards man as a sinner, is by no raeans inconsistent with a love nf pity exercised towards him as his offspring ; such as influencedhim to give his son to die for him, and ran som him from woe. But we shall now return to his main principle, that there is no salvation 'Vim t]\ej)unishment due to sin. And frst, we remark that Ihe principle appears to us incon sistent w ith what he hi^s said in other places. His simi les aie either directlv against him, or they speak the most palpable absurdity. " We say of a man that is ta ken out ofthe water hi If dead, and then resuscitated, that his life is saved, and our meaning is understood, he is saved frora drowning. We say of a man that is taken from a building in flrraes, thathe is saved, and we mean that he is saved from being burned to death." Now these similes aj)plied to the subject under discussion imply de liverance from the punishment consequent upon sin, as well as frora sin itself, or they speak this absurdity, the man taken out of tie water raust still drown — The man taken out of the fire must still burn to death! So his sim iles either overthrow his raain principle, or tliey speak the grossest absurdity ! ! ! The following sentiment may accord with his similes, but how it accords with his prin ciples vve cannot see. " There is nn salvation but a sal vation from sin, and when we are saved from this weare saved from all punishnaen^rftW i.-_/> um. ^mrn^ ishment.' upon which we observe: — 1st. This is certainly contrary to his main principle, which denies salvation frora punishraent altogether. 2d. It identifies the time of salvation (so he calls it, but it eertainly cannot be a salvation from punishment if the punishraent is suffered,) from sm, punishment, distress and evil of every kind. Now this goes to say that wc may be saved frora distress and evil of every kind, now in this life, which is contrary to fact, — or that there is no present salvation frora sin, which is contrary to scripture. Secondly, The gentleraan's theory, is as inconsistent with scripture and I'eason, as it is with itself. We object to it, 1st. Those passages of scripture which make men tion of salvation from that which raust certainly be con sidered as the punishment of sin. That whosoever be« UTERNAL PtJNISHMBKT, &o. ESTABLISHES. 1/ Heveth on him should not perish," (Jolin iii, 15, 16.) '* Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the' law." (Gal. iii. 19.) " We shall be saved from wrath throtigh hiai,"(Rom. v, 9.) " He that believeth is not condem ned." (John iii. 18.) Here is salvation from perishing, the curse of the law, wrath, and cendemnation. And what is Hhis but salvationfrom thi punishment of sin? 2d. It destroys the doctrine of pardon, or tlie forgive ness of sin. The two ideas of enduring all the punish ment due to sin, and the pardon of sin, can never be as sociated in the mind If a man for some misdemeanor is sentenced to pay five hundred dollars, and endure twelve month's imprisonment, when he pays the fine and endures the imprisonment, he is free. But who would say thai he was pardoned? None surely! 3d. It makes salvation depend on our own sufferings, (i. e.) enduring all the punishment due to sin. Conse quently it is not of grace. ~ Hence the universalist will bring iWth the head stone of his spiritual building, with shoutings, not grace, grace, unto it — but punishment, sufferings, torment, the horrors of conscience, andthe paiins of hell unto it ! ! ! Einally, this gentleman, in common with his brethren, assumes that -all punishment is amenditory. He says, " God punishes the sinner for his good," the punishment of sin is a means of salvation." Upon this we observe, 1st. *rhat God, as a kind father, does in this probationary state administer corrections, that is, he often chastises us for our good. 2. The punishment he will inflict in big judicial, capacity, in a state of retribution will be exem- •^tary— aot amenditory- As Sodom and Gomorrah aro set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eter nal fife. (Jude 7.) And we have no grounds from scrip ture, or facts, with which we are acquainted, to believe, that sufferings have any tendency, rof themselves, to .change tbe heart of man, but have many instances, both in sa cred and profane history, where they have had the oppo site ^effect. Without the grace of God sanctifying them, ihey have a tendency to excite a thousand unholy dispo sitions, to blow to a flame the principles of malice, envy and revenge. Nor have we any encouragement to expect the assistance of grace, in the future world, if we die in unbelief! Consequently if we have no hope but what rests 1« UNIVERSAL SAI tATION -JONSIDEBED, AND THE npon our suffering the iruiiis/uiient due iosin, we must b» ia a forlorn case. No. IL— 7« which the true notions cf the nature— the ¦grounds — and the conditions of salvation are stated and established. Having in the precedingnuraber noticed some things o» the plan of salvation, which we consider erroneous, ia this, WT5 shall give what we conceive a true and scriptu ral account of it. Considering 1st the nature, 2d the- grounds, and 3d the conditions ot salvation. 1st then, we shall give our views of the nature of salva tion. We shall not attempt to give the various acceptations of the term salvation ; but shall observe generally that it signifies being delivered from evil, actually endured, or threatened. The gospel salvation is a deliverence from sin, and that impending ruin which is the consequence of it. In this salvation we shall mark several stages which shall be established ky scripture. 1. It is a deliverence from that immediate destruction which man merited by the first transgression, and resto-.' ration to a state of gracious probation, which affords all the raeans necessary for his final happiness. This was effected on the first proraise of a saviour, and secured tha original pair, and all their posterity, from final condem nation for the original offence, and placed them in a sal- Table state. This is called by some divines initial salva tion. We shall refer to a few of the passages which sup port it. ' As by the offence of one, judgement came upoa all men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.'— (Rom. v. 18.) 'For the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,* — (Tit. ii. 11.) * Who is the saviour of all men.' (l Tim. iv 19.) Observe 1. The salvation spoken of in these passages it general ov the salvation of all men. 2. It is actually re ceived—the free gift came upon all men. The grace of <^8d hath a;ppeared to all maxx aad he is new the saviouv ¦feTERNAL PtJNISHMEiJT, &c ESTABLISHED. " X9^ •fall men. 3. This salvation is unconditional. Nothing is said of any conditions to be perforraed by us, in order to the salvation referred to in these passages. Upon this ground we may conclude that all who die without actual transgression, will be eternall happy. But still some thing further is necessary for those who have actiir ally offended, that is, 2d. A deliverance from actual and personal sin. The penitent goaler inquired, ' sirs, what must I do to be sa ved?* and they said believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. (Acts xvi. 30, 31.) And Jesus sard to the woman — (John vii. 50.) and to the blind man —(xviii. 42: ) ' thy faith hath saved thee.' Again, ' heis the saviour, especially of them that be lieve.' (1 Tim. iv. 1&.) This salvation is also called jus tification, regeneration, being born again, sanctification, Ice. And as tait weobsei-ve 1. That it appears from the above passages, to be a special benefit not the coraraon property of all, nay of none but those who believe — 2. That it is a present benefit, to be received on our compli- »nce with the conditions. But 3d» Complete soh^ofwn iraplies deliverance frora all the consequences of sin» and the enjoyraent of a perfect state of happiness. Though we may receive the pardon of our sins, -the regeneration of om- souls, and be made the sons of God in this life, yet owing to the infirmities of our natures, and the circumstances with which we are suri^punded, the highest state of holiness and happiness at which we can possibly anive here, compared with our triumphant state, is imperfect. It is when we are glori fied, that we expect to be free from all evil of every des cription. * He that endureth to the end,' saith our Lord (Mat. X. 22, xxiv. 13.)' shall be saved.' We have seen what is the nature of salvation begun, carried on, and consummated. We pass to consider, 2d.The grounds or the meritorious cause ofit. The meri torious cause of salvation is the mediation of Jesus Christ. In the character of mediator he, by the sacrifice of him self maiic an atonement for sin — which iraplies so to satisfy the demands of divine justice for it, that it raay be par doned by divine mercy, in a way consistent with that jus tice, on certain conditions. " St. Paul teaches this doc trine with great precision, (Rom. iu, Zi. 26.) 'Being 20 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; whom God hath set forth tobe a pro pitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his rigbt- eousnessfor the remission of sins that are passed through . the forbearance of God ; to declare I say at this time his righteousness ; that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.' From this passage we may remark 1. That the^rrace of God, as taught in the scriptures, is not that kind of liberality which socinians and deists ascribe to hira, which sets aside the necessity of satisfaction. For grace according to Paul requires a propitiation even the shedding ofthe saviour's blood, as a raediura through which it may be honorably communi cated. 2. Redemption by Christ was accomplished not by a satisfaction that should preclude the exercise of grace in forgiveness, but in which the displeasure of God against sin being manifested, mercy to the sinner might be exercised without any suspicion of his having relin quished his regards for righteousness. In setting forth Jesus Chnst tobe a propitiation, he hath deMared his right). eousness for the forgiveness of sin. 3. The rigliteousnes.s of God vvas not only declared when Christ was made a propitiatory sacrifice, but continues to be manifested in the acceptance of believers through his name. He ap pears adjust wliile acting the part of a justifier towards every one that believeth in Jesus. 4. That whleli is here applied to the blessing of forgiveness and acceptance with God, is applicable to all otlier spiritual blessings ; all according to the scriptures are communicated through the same distinguished medium, and are not less the blessings of grace on that account.'* (See also Rom. v. 11. Eph. V. 2. John iv. 18.) But our blessed Lord hath not only made an atonement for sin by the offering of himself hut hath asccMded into heaven to make intercession for us. ' But this man,' saith the apostle, (Heb. x. Id) * after Le had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.' We are then not only in virtue of the sacrifice forgiven, but in virtue of the intercession ad mitted to favor and grace. •Gospel its own witness — See the works of thellev. An. dreiy Fuller. Vol. IU. P. 156, ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, Str. ESTABLISHED. 21 Finally, when Christ ascended to heaven he sent tho holy spirit, to convict, sanctify, corafortj and direct us,.*(see John xvi. 7, 8. Eph. i. 17, 18. I. Cor.' vi. 11. John xiv. .16, ?6: Rom. viii. 14. ) Thus he not only made it consistent with the principles of the divine government, by his atonement and intercession for man to be saved on certain conditions, but provided ^cient means, by giv ing his spirit, to accoraplish the work. What remaijtis is, 3d, To consider the conditions of salvation. We have .seen above that the w ay of salvation is opened, and all tha means on God's part provided without any conditions to be performed by us. We shall now see, that in order to be irought into the actual possession- ofthe, benefits pro vided for us in relation to oar actual sins we mustcomply with .the terms upon which they are suspended, And these are repentence towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is a Godly, sorrow for sin which produces amendment. .• Godly sorrow,' saith tlie apostle, .^ workr eth repentance unto salvation not to be repented of.' Jus tifying and regenerating/at^A, ia^-eceiving Christ as he is offM^ed in fhe- gospel, as our wisdom, , righteousness, sanctification, and.redemption. What relation repentancCr and faith have to salvation will be seen in the following passages- * Repent and be baptized for the remission of sing.' ' Repent and be converted,^ &c. * He that believeth shall he saved.' • With the heart man believeth unto righteousness and vnth the mouth confession is made unto salvation-' ' By grace are ye saved throughfaith.' What must I do to bp saved ? believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' (see Actsii. 38 — iii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. Rom. X, 10, Eph, ii, 8./Acts xvi, 30. 31.) On these passages we observe 1. Salvation is the benefit proposed. 2. Repentance and faith are the. coriditfons on whieh this benefit is proposed. 3. According to the order established inthese passages, (and ma-n/y oth' flrs) the.cohditions are antecedent to the possession of the benefit. 4, The natural and necessary consequence fs that if these conditions are not fulfilled by us we cannot be saved. ' He that believeth not shall be damned.' We haye now briefly stated our views of the plan of salvation; anA referred to a few ofthe scriptures, onthe diSOerent pointSj, upon which^they are founded. We firm* 23 UNIVERSAL SALVATtON CONSIDERED, AND THE ly believe our views to correspond with the general tenor of scripture. But if objections shall be made to them, we shall give such objections due consideration. And if any of the points above stated shall be shown to be contrary to the record of God, we will most heartily give them up. — We ought, on both sides, to have no other intention in this enquiry but to elicit truth. May this be our object> and may our labor be crowned with success. No. III. — In which the universalist arguments drawn from the will of God — general atonement — and the general terms often used in relation to ihe subjects of salvation, are CONSIDEBEO. In this nuraber we ^hall conclude our observations upon the article with which we commenced, and in as brief a manner as possible. The writer comes in the second place to *' search intot the extent of this salvation." And proceeds "First then we will observe that the will of God concerning sin ners must be done ; and as St. Paul informs us, that this is to ' have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth ;' all men must he saved from their sins." The gentleman's error in this argument consists intaking the will of God, in this place, in an absolute sense, as implymg an irresistible fatality .• whereas what the apc'Stle intends by it, can be nothing else than God's disposition to save sinners, and to "raake thera happy, in a way consistent with their free agency. That his argument is indeed false will be obvious on the slightest examination. " The will of God," he says, *' concerning sinners must be done." Well, itis •• the will ofGod"that they should not sin: therefore, accor ding to our writer's logic there is no such thing in the uni verse as sin! If the minor proposition, which says that it is the will of God that his creatures should not sin, he supposed false, we are then driven to the conclusion that God hath forbidden what is according to his will, yea that sin of every kind is according to the will of thejnfinitely holy and righteous Jehov&hi So we are forcefl, from the ETERNAL PUSTlSSfMENT, &c. ESTABLISHEB. S3 principle laid down, to tlie strange conclusion, either 1st, that tliere is no sinin the universe — that all actions are alike good — and thus to level all moral distinctions at once ; or 2nd, that sin, that accursed thing which the Lord hateth is according to his will !— and that though according to his will, he has still forbidden it! So this favorite argument ofthe Universalists, as it goes to prove what is manifestly /ais£, or absurd, must itself be false! We believe that itis the will of God that all should be sa ved, conditionally. But we do not believe that God will violate the nature of man in order to save him ! Again, he adds, " Those who are included in this pur pose Jesus came to save." " He gave himself a ransom for all," &c. That Jesus gave himself a ransom for the whole world, we do not doubt. He hath restored all raan kind to a solvable state. And those who are not in a situ-^ ation to understand the import ofthe conditions of salvation, or capable of performing them shall be saved uncondi tionally. And all those who are in a situation to under- 5_tand, &c. may be saved if they will. They have a gra- ,dibus day, and the gracious privilege of being saved.* — *0n this gi'ound," says Dr. Strong, " the scriptures repre sent sinners failure of salvation to be their own fault. There is no diificulty in the way of their salvation now remaining, but the opposedness of their own hearts to such a salvation as is offered. They do not choose a holy Saviour, law and gospel, and a holy kingdom. <' Itis in this Bti^se that Christ gave himself a ransom fov mU — that he will ha^e^OT commands, all men to be saved — tlial he is the Saviour of the world — that the world through him may be saved — that he is.the prop^iafion for the sins ofthe whole -world — and thathe came not to n^^e fft.to save the world. It is ia this sense'that a door of mercy' 'i^refdlly opened for all mankind. When we say that a doorof mei'riy is opened, It doth not imply that all will enter. It only means that they may be saved, if they choose such a salvation as is offered ; and that all difficulty, foreign to the moral state of their own hearts is removed. If they ehoose and their love be right, they may be saved; but if Christ had not obeyed and suffered, even though their choice nnd love had become right, they could not have been saved from misery, without a public injury. " Ris this which is meant, by all sinners being brought in> 1tj> a stat« of trial and profeition. Every thingis temeved out -24, Universal SALVATION eoNSiDERED, andthe Hence the gospel announces " whosoever will, let him come and partake of the waters oflife freely." Butthat Christ hath " come to save" alt men unconditionally, is, in our view ofthe subject, palpably contrary to the scr'ip- tures. Some we are told, (2 Peter ii. 1.) would " bring in, damnable heresies even denying the Lord fhat boughtthem, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." So far was the inspired writer from supposing that Christ hav* ing • boughtthem' would shield them from * destruction' while they should reject him and his salvation. The whole merit of this question appeai-s to us to turn upon this point, is the salvation which Christ has provi ded, for those who have passed the line of accountability, conditional, or is it not? Here we join issue with bur Op ponents, and appeal to the law and to the testimony. To this infallible standard of truth we invite them to bring this question for a final decision. This writer finally attempts to support his theory ^by scripture. We shall now briefly enquire into the meaiiing ofthe passages which he has brought forward an^ see whether they afford him any support. " The.glory af the Lord shall be reyealed, and allflesh shall see it together, Isa. xl. 5." This passage is a pre diction ofthe glorious display of the divine perfections in the person and offices of Christ, and the success ofthe gospel among the gentiles. But it no more irnplies that allmen willfihally be saved than the words, of Peter (Ac, ii. 16, 17.) " / will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh" proves that all raen, were actually saved on the day of pentecost, w hen he represents this prophecy as being ful filled. ° of the way, but their own personal unholiness; and when all foreign objections are removed, God places their salvation or dastroctipn upon their own temper and choice. Before the pro vision ofa Saviour, there was a necessary opposition between the best good of the universe andthe forgiveness of any sinner The wisdom of God m the gospel hath provided such means as reconcile the forgiveness of every penitent, with the best gpod of his kingdom and the glory of his own name: and no cause but the sinner's own perverse heart can frustrate the application.'', r (Strong's striqtures upon Dr. Huntin'gton'a Book fiijUtled .Vahmtsm Improved^See Eternal Misery reconcHprf with the infinite benevolence of God. P. P. 224 225 \ *'"^- KTEKNAL PUNISHMENT, &o. ESTABLISHED; 2j Again, he produces, " All flesh shall come to worship hefore me, Isa. Ixvi, 23." This must be considered as an interesting prediction of tbe general return of the hea then nations from idolatry to the worship of the true God: but that it does not prove universal salvation is evident from the next verse, " And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses ofthe men that have transgressed a- gainst me ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their j^rc be quenched; and they shall be an abhoring un to all flesh." Our Lord refers to this passage (Mark ix. 43. 48.) and three times in succession applies the words, " where their worm dieth not and their^re is not quench ed," to the punishment of " helK" From the whole it ap pears that at the time of the fulfilment ofthe words df the prophet, upon which the universalists so much rely, sorae will not be saved: unless indeed, they can he saved and " be cast into hell, into the fire tliat never shall be quench ed," at one and the same time ! Again he quotes, "All flesh shall see the salvation of God, Luke iii. 6." These words arc a quotation of Isa, xl. 3. and the same explanation which we have giv en that passage should be given this. He finally gives us two passages from the psalms as follow : " All the ends of the world shall remember and turi) unto the Lord,"Ps. xxii, 27. "All nations whom thou hast made shall come & worship before thee, O Lord, Ps. 86, 9." Upon these passages weobserve as upon the form er, that they have already in some degree had their accom plishment in the calling of the gentiles. Aud upori the whole of them we may remark that they shall more emi nently be fulfilled in the general conversion ofthe nations, which is yet to take place. But the general terms " All flesh — All nations" fee- are not to be taken in an absolute sense, for every partic ular person of all the natimis ofthe earth. Such phrases are often to be taken in a limited sense in the scriptures Thus (Luke ii, 1.) " there went out a decree that all the world should be taxed," means the Roman empiie. And in (Mat. iii. 5,6.) " Jerusalem and all Judea ami all the region round about," means great raultitudes of all classes.. And " the pharisees said the world is gone after hira," (John xii. 19.) but they could only mean a great multi tude. These universal terms, we see are oEteii so limit? 2« UNIVERSAL SAI VATION CONSIDERED, AND THE ed hy their connections, (and this is often the case with those passages on which the universalists principally re ly,) that to take them strictly would lead to the most gla ring absurdities, and make the scriptures contradict theraselves ! We have passed through the article w hich we took upon us to review, and are not conscious to have done the wri ter the least inju.stice. We have endeavored to bring to light the fallacy of his reasoning, and his erroneous appli cations of scripture. And what we have said, if it is not sufficient to cause doubts, with respect to the truth ofthe theory here opposed, in the rainds of those w ho are open to conviction, will at least suggest the necessity of a tho rough examination of the subject. We are aware that this article contains but a sraall part of what is alleged in support of the doctrine of Universal salvation. But it appears to contain a fair specimen of the whole ; and as much as could be urged in .so small a compass. "^If the candid reader will now consent to follow us (and it is for his benefit that we write) we will in our next, give him a specimen of tlie scriptural arguments by which our views are supported. We do sincerely believe in the future pun ishment oithe finally impenitent, and that, that punish ment will be endless ; and we will most freely give our reasons for this belief. No. IV — Direct Evidence infa-dor of Eternal Pwnishment^ We shall proceed as was proposed in our last to adduce proof in favor of the doctrine ofthe final mi.sery ofthe wicked ; and we allege in support of this doctrine.* " 1. All those passages of scripture which describe the Juture states of men m contrast. " Men ofthe world who have their portion in this life : I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness The tnS •'"'¦., ^••'°S«'»P«' ^e follow Mr. Fuller in his Sth letter t^: Y^'l-""^ ^1«° '«t'»!n "nost of his arguments, omitinj such as do not appear to us entirely conclusive, and Si I J? Sf a^ip^-J^'-^P^^l^-^t. (SeeFuller's Works,Vof ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c ESTABLISHED. S7 hope of the righteous shall be gladness ; but the expecta tions ofthe wicked shall perish. — The wicked is driven away in his wickedness ; but the righteous hath hope in his death. — And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake ; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. — He will gather his %heat into the garner ; and will burn up the chaff with unquench-dble fire — Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there be who go in thereat ; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. — Not every one that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my father who is in heaven. — Many shall come fi'om the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the childiyn ofthe kingdom shall be cast out into outer dark ness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. — ¦ Gather ye first the tares and bind tliem in bundles to burn them ; but gather the wheat into my barn. — The son of man shall send forth hfs angels, andthey shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire ; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun, in the kingdora of their father. — And gathered the good into vessels but cast the bad away. So shall it be in the end of the world ; The angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast thera into the furnace of fire ; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. — Well done, good and faithful servant ; enter thou intothe joy of thy Lord. But cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness ; there shall he weeping and gna.shing of teeth. — Then shall the king say unto thero on his right hand, come, ye bless ed of my father inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of tbe yworld ; then shall he say also un to them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared tor the devil and his angels, — And these shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous into life eternal — He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Blessed are ye when men shall hate you for the son of man's sake, rejoice ye in that day, and leap ZS UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE forioy; for, behold, vour reward is great in heaven.— But wo unto you that are rich ! for ye have received your consolation God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.— All that are in their graves shall comp forth ; they that have done good unto the resurrection oflife, and they that haVe done evil unto the resurrection of damnation — Be not deceived ; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap For he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the spir it shall of the spirit reap life everlasting — That which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is tobe burned : Butbelov«d weare persuaded better things of yon, and things that accompa ny salvation. To them, who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life ; but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every squl of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gen tile. — For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."* 't I consider these passages as designed to express the iinal states of men, and if they be, it is the sarae thing, as their being designed to express the doctrine of endless punishraent; for if the descriptions here given ofthe portion of the wicked, denote their fnal state, there is no possibility oi ansther state succeeding it," and if their final statehe a miserable one, their misery must be end less ! "That the above passages do express thefinal states of men, may appear from tlie followins; considerations " 1. The state ofthe righteous, (which is all along or - posed to that of the wicked,) is allowed to be final ; and if *Ps. xvii. 14, 15. Prov. x, 28. xiv, 32. Dan. xii, 2. Mat Ul, 12. vii, 13, 14, 21. viii, 11, 12. xiii, 30, 40—43. 47—60 XXIV. 46—51. xxv, 23, 30, 34, 41, 46. Mark xvi. 16. Luke VI. 23, 24, John iii. 16. v. 29- Gal. vi, 7, 8. Heb. vi 8 9 Rom. ii. 6-10. 2. Cor. v. 10. ' ^ tTERNAL PtJNISHMENr, Sec. ESTABLISHED. 29 the other were not the same, it would not have been in such a variety of forms, contrasted with it ; for it would not be a contrast. '• 2. All these passages are totally silent, as to any other state following that of destruction, damnation, tkc. If the punishment threatened to ungodly men had been only a purgation or temporary correction, we miglit have ex pected that soraething like this w ould have been intima ted when their future state is described ; but nothing like it occurs in any of the foregoing passages m- ih any oth er. " 3. The phraseology ofthe greater part of them, is in. consistent with any other state following that which they describe. On the supposition of salvation being appoin ted as the ultimate portion oftho.se who die in their sins, tliey have not their portion in this life ; but will, equally witb those who die in the Lord, behold his face in right eousness, and be satisfied with his likeness. Their expec tation shall not peris/t; but shall issue like that ofthe righteous in g^ifldreess," and though driven away in their wickedness, yet they have hope in their death, and that hope shall be realized. The broad vyay doth not lead to destruction, but merely to a temporary correction, the end of which is everlasting life. The chaff will not be burned, but be turned into wheat, and gathered into the garner. The cursed as well as the blessed shall inherit the kingdom of God ; which was also prepared for them from the foundation of the world. There maybe a wo against the wicked, lhat they shall be kept fr.jra their con solation a long time, but not that they liave received it. Those who in the present life believe ko< in Christ shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This life onthe system here opposed is improperly represented as the seed time, and tlie life to come as the harvest, inasmuch as the wicked reap all their harvest in this life ; or may sow the seeds of heavenly blLss in hell! and though he may reap corruption as the fruit pf his present doings, yet that corruption will not be the oyiposite of everlasting lif e seeing it will issue in it. And though they hear briars & thorns, yet their end is not to be burned but to obtain sal vation !" Finally, though the contentious, &c. may have tribulation, and wrath, and anguish, yet this would not be correctly opposed to eternal life, and they too shall be 30 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIUKKKD, AND THE rewarded with eternal life as well as those who patiently ¦^ntinue in well doing .' ! ! — But we pass to add, "I I, Those passages which speak ofthe duration of future punishment by the terms everlasting, eternal, forever, and forever Sf ever. "¦ Some shall awake te everlasting life, and sorae to shame 2ind everlasting contempt. — It is better for thee to enter into life halt, or maimed, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast inte everlasting fire. — Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire.^And these shall go away into everlasting punishment — Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction frora the presence of the Lord and frora the glory of his power — ^He that shall blas pheme against the Holy Ghost is in danger of (or subject to) eternal damnation. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for an exaraple, suffering the ven geance of eternal fire — These are wells without water,- clouds that are carried about w ith a tempest, to whora the mist of darkness is reserved forever Wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever — If any man worship the beast, or his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the sarae shall drink ofthe wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indigna- |ion ; and he shall be toi"mented with fire and brimstone, in the presence ofthe holy angels & in the presence ofthe Lamb ; & the smoke of their torment ascendeth uj) forever 9-nd ever, and they have no rest day nor night And they said, alleluia! and her smoke rose up/orerer a7id exw And the devil that deceived them vvas cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast & the false prophet are ,• & shall be tormented day & night /oreuer and ever.^ '" As to the term {aionios) rendered everlasting, or eter nal, which you consider as proving nothing, on account of its ambiguity, there is a rule of interjiretation, which I have long understood to be used on other subjects, by all good critics, and which I consider as preferable to yours. This rule is, that every term be taken in Its proper sense, except there be something in ttie sub- *Dan. xii, 2. Mat. xviii, 8.— x.w, 41, 46. 2 Thes. i, 9 Mt .., 29. Jude 7, 2 Pet, ii, 17. Jude 13. Jlev. xiv, IO.--]" six.— u>, XX, 10. ¦• ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. ' 34 ject or connection which requires it tobe taken otherwise.-— Now so far as my acquaintance w ith this subject extends^ it appears to be generally allowed by lexicographers, that aion is a compound of aei, and on, and that its literal meaning is alw ays being ; also, that the meaning of its derivative aionios is endless, everlasting or eternal. This terra aionios which is very sparingly applied in the New Testament to liraited duration, I always take in its prop er .sense, except there he soraething in the connexion or subject which requires it to be taken otherwise: and as I do not find this to be the case in any of those places where it is applied to punishment, I see no reason, in these ca ses, to depart from its proper acceptation. Everlasting punishmentis in some of them opposed to everlasting life ; which, so far as antithesis can go to fix the meaning of a term, determines it to be of the same force and extent" — So much for Mr. Fuller. Dr. Clarke on Mat. xxv, 46. remarks, " No end to the pbnishraent of those -whom final irapenitence manifests in them an eternal will and desire to sin. By dying in a ^ settled opposition to God, they cast theraselves into a ne cessity of continuing in an eternal aversion frora him. — But some are of an opinion that this puhishment shall have an end, this is as likely as that the glory of the righteous shall have an end, for the same word is used to express the duration ofthe pun ishment, fkolasin aionionj as is used to express the duration of the state of glory, fzoen aionionj I have seeti the best things that have heen written in favor ofthe final redemption of damned spirits ; but I never saw an answer to the argument against that doctrine drawn from this verse, hut what sound learning and criticism should be ashamed to acknowledge. The original w ord faei on J is certainly to be taken here in its proper grammatical sense faieionj continued being, NEVER ENDING." (See Clarke's Commentary.) Dr. Huntington, though himself a believer in univeiv salism, viewed this subject in the sarae light. He says, " Does the bihle plainly say that sinners of mankind shall be damned to interminable punishment ? it certainly does ; as plainly as language can express, or any man, or even God hiraself can speak. It is quite strange to me, that sgrae, who beUeve that all mankind shall in the end 3;; UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE be saved, will trifle with a feW words, and most of all with the original word and its derivatives translated forever, ^c. (ai on) All the learned know that this word in the Greek, signifies an age, a long period, or in terminable duration, according as the connected sense re quires. They therefore who would deny thatthe endless damnation of sinners is fully asserted ' in the word of God, are unfair in their reasoning and criticism." (See Calvinism Iraproved pp. 47, 48.) We have now given the opinion of a Methodist, a Cal vinist & an Universalist, on this subject, whose testimony perfectly agrees as to Ihe strength ofthe terras used to ex press the duration of the punishraent ofthe wicked. What remains we raust reserve for another nuraber. No. V. — Direct evidence, ^-c continued. III. " Those passages which express the duration of future punishment by implication, or by forms of speech iWhich imply the doctrine in question: " The blaspheray against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men, neither in this world, neither in the world to corae. He hath never forgiveness ; but is in dan ger of eternal daranation. It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge ofthe truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a fearful looking for of judg ment, wliich sliall devour the adversaries. What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose himself or be castaway? Wo unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed : it had been good for that raan if he liad not been born. Their worm dieth not and their fire is not quenclied. * Between us & you there is a great gulph fixed ; so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot, neither can they pass to us who would come from thence. He that believeth not the son shall not see lifci^ but the wrath of God abideth on him. I go my way and yc sball seek me, and shall die in ijour sins ; whither I .¦ * *Several times repeated in a few verses. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. EStABLfSftED. * iS'3 go ye cannot come. Whose end is destruction. He that showeth no mercy shall have jndgment without mercy."* . On the above passages observe, " If there he some that never will be forgiven, there are some that never will be saved ; for forgiveness is an essential branch of salvation. If there were any uncertainty with regard to the word eternal, in this instance, the meaning would still - he fixed by the other branch of the sentence they never shall be forgiven. Itis equal to John x, 28. I give unto tham eternal life, and they shall never perish. If there were any uncertainty as to the meaning of the word eter nal in this latter passage, yet the other branch of the pas sage would settle it ; for that must be endless life which is opposed to their ercer perishing ; so that must be endless damnation which is opposed to their never being forgiven. If repentence be absolutely necessary to forgiveness, and there be some whom it is impossible to renew again unto repentence, there are some to whora salvation is impossi-' We. If there be rw more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of Judgment, this is the same, as the sacrifice already offered, being of no saving effect ; for if it were otherwise the language would not contain any peculiar threatening against, the wilful sinner, as it would be no more than raight be saidto any sinner, nor would a fear ful looking for qf judgment he his certain doora. If the souls of some men will be lost or cast away, they cannot all be saved ; for these two things are opposite. A man may be lost in a.desert, and yet saved in fact ; or he raay -siijfy'er loss, and yet himself be saved: but he cannot be lost, so as to be cast aipay, and yet finally saved ; fop these are perfect contrarieties. Whatever may be the precise idea of the worm and the fire, \ there can he no *Mat. xii, 31 32. Mark iii, 29. Heb vi, 6. x, 26 27. Luke ix, 25, Mat. xxvi, 24. Mark ix, 43, — 48. Luke xvi. 26 John iii, 36, viii, 21. Phil iii, 19, James ii, 13. J«« These expressions," says Dr. Macknight " seem to be borrowed from Isa. Ixvi, 24. in which passage the prophet ij describing the miserable end of hardened sinners, by a simili tude taken from the behaviour of conquerors, who, after having gained the battle, and beaten the enemy out of tbe field, go forth to view the slain. Thus, at the last day, the devil, with all his adherents, being finally and completely vanquished, the saints 94 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE doubt of their expressing the punishment of the wicked ; and its being declared of the one that it dieth not and of the other that it is not quenched is the same as their being declared to he endless. It can be said of no man on the principle of universal salvation, that it were good for him not ta havebeen horn,, as whatever he might endure for a season, an eternal weight of glory would infinitely out weigh it. An impassable gulph between the blessed & the acciirsed equally militates against the recovery of the one . as the relapse of the other. If some shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on them, if those who die in their sins shall not corae where Jesus is, if their end be des truction, and their portion judgment without mercy, there must be sorae who will uot be finally saved. *' IV* 2%ose passages which imply that a change of heart, and a preparation for heaven are confined to the present life. * Seek ye the Lord while he may be found ; call upon him while he is near, let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous raan his thoughts ; and let him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon Because I have called and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded, I also will laugh at your calamity and mock when your fear cometh. When your fear cometh as desolation, & your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; shall go forth to view them, doomed by (he just judgment of God to etemal death. And this their punishment is represented by two metaphors, drawn from the diffefent ways of burying the dead m use amomg the Jews. Bodies of men, inter/ed in the earth, are eaten up of worms, which dieth when their food faileth- and those that are burned, are consumed in the fire which ex- Uiiguishes itself when there is no more fuel added to feed it — But It shall not be so with the wicked; their worm shall not dit andthetrjiretsnotqmnched. These metaphors, therefore, as they are used by our Lord, and by the prophet Isaiah, paint the eter-al punishments ofthe damned in strong & lively colors "— " By ' the worm that dieth not' may be denoted the continual torture ol an accusing conscience, and the misery naturallv a rising from the evil di.spo8itions of pride, self will, desire mal ice, envy, sharae, sorrow, despair, and by the fire, &c th« positive punishment inflicted by God."— Benson. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &o ESTABLISHED. as "when distress & anguish cometh upon you, then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer ; they shall seek me early hut shall not find me. —Then said one unto him. Lord are there few that shall be saved ? And he said un to him, strive to enter in at the straight gate : for many I say unto you will seek to enter in and stiall not be able. When once the master of the house hath risen up and shut to the door and ye begin to stand without and to knock .at the door, saying Lord. Lord, open unto us : he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence you are — Depart from me ye workers of iniquity — there shall te weeping and gnashing of teeth — While ye have the light believe in tlte light, that ye may be the children of light.— ^ While they (the foolish virgins) went to buy, the bridegroom carae: and they that were ready went in with liim to the marriage, and the door was shut We beseech you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain — Be hold fiow is the accepted time, now is the day of salva tion — to day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.— Looking diligently lest any man fail ofthe grace of God — lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright* For yekhow that afterwards, when he would have inhei]- ited the blessing he was rejected ; for he fovmd no. plaice^ fepentaiice though he sought it carefully with tears— r-Mp that isunjust let him he unjust still; andhethat is^^A^ let hirii he filthy still ; and he that is righteous let him be righteous still ; and he that is holy let him he holy still.* " According to these scriptures there willbe no suc cessful calling upon the Lord after a certain period ; and consequently no salvation. — Whether there be few that shall ultimately be saved, our Lord does not here inform us ; but he assures us that there will be many who will notbe saved, or which is the same thing, who will not be able to enter in at the straight gate. None it is plainly intimated will be able to enter there who have not agon ized here. There will be no believing unto salvation but while we have the light; nor any adniission into the kingdom unless we be readi; at the coming ofthe Lord. — *Isa. lv. 6, 7. Prov. i. 23, 38, Luke xiii. 24, 29. John xii. 36. Mat. xxv. 5, 13. Z Cor. vi. 1,2. Heb. iii, 7, 11, 12, IS, 17. Rey, xxii, 11. S5 VNBV^ERSAL SALVAItON CONSIDERED, tcct The present is the accepted time — the day of salvation, er the season foi* sinners to be saved. If we Continue to harden our hearts through life, he will swear in his wrath that we shall not enter his rest. If we turn away from him .who speaketh from heaven, it will be equally impossible for us to obtain the blessing, as it was for Esau who had sold his birthright. Finally, beyond « certain period there sball be no more change of character but every one will have received that irapression which shall remain forever, whether he be jMsf or unjust, filthy or holy.'.'.'" We have now completed what vye intended to advance m favor of endless punishment. From the whole of which it appears, that there is a contrast, kept up in the scrip tures between the final states of the righteous & the wick- ed : and as the happiness of the one is endless, the misery ofthe other must be endless, or the scriptures involve absurdity! It also appears that the strength of the terms used in relation to the punishment of the wicked authorises the conclusion that it will be endless .' It likewise appears that the doctrine abeve as.serted is im- jilied in various passages, which are totally inconsistent with the idea of universal salvation .' and finally, that the necessary qualifications for a state of glory and happi ness, can only be obtained within a certain period, over which men may pass, and so never obtain thera ! — The natural and necessary consequence ofthe whole is, that some will be finally impenitent and thxt sucjt shall reeeivh finflUss pmishvumtll^' IJXlVi^^^^li ^vAliYATlOK CONSIBERliD, &a PART IJ. 4'BEJ^OrXSEB TO THE EOITOE OF THE EXAMINEB's '< E*^ iCo. I. — Wherein it is cmsidered, whether salvaii(^ ^^pHea deliverance from the punishment due to sin. We have read and attentively considered what the edi tor has written in " reply" to our numbers. And though we are ready to reciprocate an acknowledgement of iiis «andor, in the general ; w:' are not convinced hy his ar guments. Believing it po ;sible to expose their fallacy, and sustain the ground we have taken, we crave his pa tience, and that of his readers, while we prosecute a re view of the whole. Weshall^rsi consider what our editor has written in reply to our observations upon the nature of salvation. And we are fairly " at issue" it seems, upon this ques tion, is there any salvation from the punishment due ta sin ? It appeared to us that the w riter we were examining in attempting to prove the negative of this question confoun ded the ideas ot incurring and actually suffering the pen alty ofthe divine law. But as our editor explains his meaning, itis " that if the penalty of the divine law ig incurred, and that penalty is endless death, it surely will be inflicted." (Vol. 1. p. 128.) Wehave no raaterial qbiectiouto accepting his explanation, and if the princi- 38 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, ANB THE pie as explained be true, it is capable of distinct proof; but whether he has offered any convincing evidence on the subject we shall see hereafter. In explaining what we considered the meaning of those passages which speak of our being rewarded according to our works we remarked that it was not •' being punished as we mast have been without a mediator, but consisted in our being rewarded orpuni.shed, according to our having received or rejected the mediator." In reply to this our editor asks " if our being rewarded according to our works is not being pun ished what is it'" — (Ibid.) The gentleman certainly knew that we believed it to imply the punishment of,th^ finally impenitent — and that our observation is in nowise against pumshment in our view of it — why then does he ask tiii.i question? But he thinks *' being punished ac cording to our deeds, by no raeans supercedes the necessity of a meiliator." — (Ibid.) But the enquiry is, whether it is any part of the work ofthe mediator to^avefrbm deserved punishment — ^this we shall see hereafter. He proceeds, " the force of the arguraent under consideration appears to preclude all punishraent for .sin, save for the sin of re jecting the mediator" — (Ibid.) We will explain our views of this subject a little more at length. That all sins unrepented of will be punished in a future state we do not doubt. This irapenitence and infidelity, is in fact, a rejecting ofthe reraedy provided-j|-and it will be for this reason Jthat all tlie sins of the irapenitent will finally stand against tliem— so we may properly say, itis for re jecting the mediator, that sinners will be finally punish ed. But he adds, " they who never heard of a mediator cannot be justly punished for rejecting him." — ^^(Ibid) As to those who never heard of a mediator, it will doubtless " he accepted of them according to what they have, and not according to what they have not." It most be thr6u^>-h the mediator that they are accepted on the improvement of their talent, for" none cometh to the father but bV^ him," he is emphatically " the way." But if they abuse the light they have, thfe' improvement of which would he accepted through Christ, — ^this is in some sense rejecting the mediator and tbey are justly punished in proportion to the light they havfe sinned against. But " scripture supporte that there is punishment for other siiis as well as for this." He here introduces Heb. ETERNAL PXISTISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. ^ it. S3, on which he remarksj " every transgression re ceives a just recompense, but severer punishment awaits those who add to their other sins that of rejecting a me diator." — (Ibid.) How strangely has he misapplied this passage! The apostle is speaking of such sins under the law as had no provision of an atonement raade for them, butthesinner must be cut off without reraedy. And their receiving a " just recompense of reward," implies their receiving that kind ofpunishment which the law prescri be. Now these sins under the law, are analogous to the sin under the gospel of rejecting a mediator.^On this parallel depends the whole force ofthe apostle's argument; which is indeed materially in our fayor, instead of being any thing against us! Some ofthe preceding observations are rather a digression from the subject in di.spute ; they have been occasioned. by the editor's strictures upon an observation of ours which was merely explanatory and not designed^as argument. We shall now return to the question " at issue," andshall in the first place consider what pur editor has said in answer to our objections. We tijflught thatthe writer had contradicted his main principle in hissimilies, but the editor says " he asserts salvation only from that pahishraent consequent on our remaining sinners." — (Ibid. p. 130.) But what kind of salvation would that be? on his hypothesis we were nev- erin danger of " remaining sinners." Of course we were never in danger of tttfe " punishment consequent upon'^ it — this then is a salvation from what we were never ex posed to^ — or a salvation from nothing! Must not this salvation he peculiar to universalism? Surely we can find salvation where there is no danger, no where else but in this systera ! ! But the dilemma into which the writer had cast him self, the editor, for some reason, has entirely overlook- edi He remarked as follows, " there is no sahntion hilt a salvation from sin, and when we are saved from this we are saved from all punishment, all distress, and evil of every kind." On this we observed " it identifies the fime of salvation from sin, punishment, distress, and evil of everv kind. Mow this goes to say that we may be saved from distress and evil Of every kind, now in this life, which is contrary to fact, or that' there isno preseat Sfdvationfrom sin which k contrary to scripture."^ 40 IMIVERSAL SAL VATION CtoNSIDEREB, ANDTlfB (See our 1 No. p 16.) If be can put his friend in a wsfy to escape this dileraraa l,e will do him an essential service. But he proceeds to make the following objection to our doctrine, " if sinners are punished endlessly fdr their sins coramitted in this orld, how and when will they be punished fni tbe sins tbey corarait during this eternity of punishment?" (Vol 1. p. ISlT) If we were to answer we cannottell, it -vould i'. no wise affect our system. For the scriptures have given us no inforraation witlj regard to sins coraraitted after death — The doctrine of eternal punishment for sins crramitted in this life is a matter of revelation, and as such we receive it, but as to sins cora mitted in another state we know nothing of them. He might as well ask if tbe righteous are endlessly rewarded for their righteousness in this world, how and when will they be rewarded for their righteousness during that eter nity of happiness? Or we raight retort his arguraent thus: if the sinner is punished a liraited tirae, aftdr his trans gression, when will he be punished for the sins he com mits during this iimiied punishraent? If it be answered, at sorae tirae still subsequent, we might then repeat the same enquiry, when is he to be punished for the sins he eoraraits during this time of punishment also? and so on cd infinitum .' But should it be said, that when he begins to receive h'.s punishment he ceases to sin. this will apply as well to our system as to his, and as effectu ally relieve it from his objection as it will his from the same objection ret ^rted. We come next to his reply to our objection founded on the doctrine of pardon. We urged that * the two ideas of enduring all the jmnishment due to sin,' and tlie forgive- Jiess of sin, were totally inconsistent with each other. To this he replies, " Observer must first prove, in order- to give his arguments efficient weight, that punishment satisfies the divine law of Got!, and that it can be an am ple substitute and satisfaction for obedience-" (Ibid.) In answer to thi.s weobserve. if by punishment being " an ample substitute snd satisfaction for obedience," be raeant that it answers tl e sarae ends in every respect it is by n* means necessary to prove this " in order to give our ar guraents efficient weight." All that is necessary for ua to make out, is, that the punishmentiriflicted\ is all that the justice of God aud his law requira j aad this our edit- ETERNAL PtfllSHMENT, &G. E^ABLISHED, 4t or will not deny. Then according to any view we have of justice, the sinnei* is exonerated of course, on the ground of Justice ; and to talk of his being pardoned would be a solecism. To us this apjicars so plain that it requires no argument to prove it — it coraraends itself to the common sense of raankind ; and we can but look with astonishment at the very extraordinary effort which our Examiner makes to get rid of it. He adds: " Isa. says, (chap. xl. 2. ) speak ye comfort able to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned ; for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins.'* If this passage is correctly applied, it proves too much. It proves that God punished the Jews double what they deserved; which would not only make God unjust, but would b^ contrary to the confession of Ezra. (chap. ix. 13.) which was that God had punished them less thart their iniquities deserved ! As to the above passage Bish op Lowth comparing it with xhi. 7. Joh. xlii. 10. Zach. ix. 12. (which see) translates it thu,s, " speak ye com forting words to Jerusalem, and declare unto her, that her warfare is fulfilled ; that the expiation of her iniquity is accepted; That she shall receive at the hand of Jeho vah blessings double tothe punishment of all her sins."— - Vatabulus has it " theLord will confer upon her many benefits instead of the punishment which she raight justly suffer for her sins." — Yitringa. " A double portion of his blessings." — And Dr. Clarke " Blessings double to tl^e punishment. — This sense of the passage," says he " the words of the original will very well bear." The gentleman is greatly offended with Our third ob jection, that " it makes salvation depend on our own suf ferings — consequently can not be of grace." Concerning the manner in which we supposed the universalist would bring forth the head stone of his spiritual building, he " suggests to Observer that it may not be commendable in him to bear false witness against his neighbor though itbe done in jest." (Ibid.) We did not consider ourselves as bearing lOitness in this case. What we said was an inference from the doctrine opposed. If it be not fairly drawn he should.have made it appear, instead of accusing ns of " bearing false witness," ke — Again he says: "he is apprised that we do not hold that punishment is rewav m UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THS ded with eternal life." Nor have we so asserted. — Ws stated that " it makes salvation depend on our own suf ferings," &c. That is, as the grounds. Enduring all^ the punishraent due to sin, is the legal grounds, aswell as the salutary means of salvation ; and as such, cannot be regarded as an object of terror, but must indeed be de sirable. It still appears to us that on this system, ther© can be no grace at all in the sinners being exonerated irom punishment ; and whatever may be his song, it will notbe " grace!" Before wc conclude perhaps we should notice that 9tio reply has been given to our first objection. This was founded on several passages of scripture. In these pas sages we found asserted " salvation from perishing — the m,rse of the law — wrath — and condemnation." (See Isfr No. pp]6, ir.) Now as these expressions denote ^m»i- ishment, we thought they concluded fairly, in favor of salvationfrom tlie punishment of sin. We now resume our conclusion, and shall presume it legitimate, until it shall he shown to be otherwise. And if our Examiner will condescend to notice it, we will trouble him with another passage and sorae remarks. In Ps. ciii. 10, 12, we read, " He hath not dealt with us after our sins ; nor rewarded us according to our iniqui ties. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward thera that fear hira. As far as the east is frora the west, so far hath he removed our trans gressions from us." In the first place, the Pslamist ex pressly asserts that tbey had not been "Rewarded accord.* ing to their iniquities." This is directly to our purpose. His views of the holiness of God, and ofthe turpitude of sin, were such that he saw, that if God had reward ed thera accordiug to their iniquities, they would have been utterly destroyed. In this he lays down a general principle; he speaks the language of the church in every age, — All who are divinely enlightened, have the sarae correct views of the dreadfully evil nature, and destruc tive consequences of sin. In the secowfi place as a proof of his first position he adds: "as the heaven is high above the earth so great is his mercy toward them that fear him" So far was ho from supposing that God's mercy required that he should " reward all according to thein iniquities," that he brinjgs it ae apre«f of the eontrai^? STERNAL PDNISHMENT. &c ESTABLt^ED. 4^ And finally " he has seperated our sins from us." How? In the vvay of punishing thera according to their des erts? — No. in not punishing — but mercifully forgiving them. This is the way of human salvation — but how un-"* like the system we oppose! — Our conclusion is. that if we are ever saved, we must be saved from the punishment qf ^u, and not by the means, or in consequence of it .' .' .! low what waa that sentence? " Dustthou art and unto dust shalt thou return.' ? From that moraent he becarae mortal, a dying creature,' which was to all intents and purposes a fulfil ment •of the threatening, so far as it related to temporal death. But how could this gentleman deny that tempo ral death constituted any part of the penalty of the law, and yet admit that sentence was passed upon our first pa rents, when the memorabl' words above quoted consti tute the most important part of that sentence? — yea and throughout, it includes pAi/sicai evils exclusively — there, not being one word in the whole connexion, of that spir- itual death which our first parents no doubt expeiienced,& which he contends for exclusive of any other. Let him consider these things attentively, and then see, whether he has skill to reconcile all the incongruities into which he has plunged himself! He proceeds, " neither did he die an eternal death and we haveuo proof that this was threatened ; hut he died a spiritual or moral death, therefore it is certain this death was the penalty ofthe original law." Then if a man is reprieved from the gallows, after being under the sentence ofdeath for murder, it is quite certain that death is not the penalty of the law that forbids murder. And be cause Nineva was not destroyed iu forty days after Jo- £,& tJNIVEKSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE Jiah's prophecy, therefore destruction was not threatened - —This is our Examiner's logic ! ! ! Eternal death we conceive, differs frora spiritual death, in duration and degree, but not in nature. In our view of the subject, spiritual death raust have been perpetuated, but for the intervention of a saviour. This is obvious from the antithesis which is every where kept up between that death which is the consequence of sin, and that eter nal life which is the gift of God through Christ. The Apostle says (Rom. vi. 23.) " the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." Here death stands opposed to eternal life, and must be understood of eternal j«feai/iif we preserve the antithesis. Again, John iii. 15. •' that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal lif e." Here perishing is opposed to eternal life and raust imply eternal death. We have evidence then, both that eternal death is the penalty of the law, and that through Chrisit we are saved from it. But he says *' there is no intimation that any thing was remitted that had been threatened." Now we think there is proof e- nough that man was not consigned to the whole of the punishment which he had mei ited, on the day of trans gression. But as he has undertaken to prove that he was, we should be glad to see some evidence — and shall by no means yield the point on his ' ire assertion that there is no evidence to the contrary. He proceeds " i* -would be proper for hira first to prove that what he raeans by 'iraraediate destruction,' was threatened;before;he as sumes that there is salvation from such destruction." Whethir we prove that this destruction was threatened, or prove directly, deliverance from it, would equally bear upon the question, and we thipk we have done both. But the editor's " views of a statie of probation differs in sorae degree from Observer's. The first created pair were placed in a state of probation in the garden, and the result proved that they could not stand by their own strength." Could not stand.' Does he mean that they were not made " sufficient to have stood" as well as ¦" free to fall." If so where the justice of the curse pro nounced upon thera ? Must they be punished for what ^hey could not help ? Let not puck flagrant injustice be smputed to the Most Hi^li! »» ' «» ETERNAL PUSTISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. j^ Again he says — " We hold that this deliverance or * final happiness^' docs not depend on the result of a ' state of gracious probation' or trial given to man, but on the immutable promise of Grod." But there is no inconsist ency between a state of probation and " the immutable promise of God" — as this proraise is conditional. Thjs we shall support in another place. He continues, " Is it reasonable for us to suppose or have we any scripture to support the idea, that God after man bad fallen from his first state of probation, placed his final happiness on as precarious a foundation as the re sult of another state of probation would be, in which there is as great a liability of failing as at the first ?" To all this we answer: their being placed in another state of probation by no means involves the consequence that '* there is as great a liability of failing as at the first" for though we are liable to sin, yet there is provision made for our pardon on repentance. " If anyman sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ tha righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins." Our sal vation^ is not*^" in jeopardy" if we attend to the require ment ofthe gospel — but if we do not, there is " scripture to support the idea,?' that we are by no mean.s sure of salvation! It does indeed appear that the editor's " views ofa state of probation differ in some degree from Observer's.'" They differ so materially, that we assert and he denies, that •man is in a probationary state. He believes that the issue is certain and inevitable — AU must and will finally be sa ved. Nothing they can do, or leave undone, can at all en danger their salvation ! — Now on this principle it appears to us that all the admonitions — exhortations — expostula tions — & threatenings. ofthe holy .scriptures, amount to a soleran nothing! — yea they are worse than ab.surd ! Let him prove what follows by the scriptures, and w© Will surrender at once — " All mankind were created in Jesus Christ, and they never were nor never will be out ef the covenant of grace in which they were created." We pass now to notice what he has said upon two of the passages which we introduced in support ofour views on this subject. (See pp. 138, 139.) He remarks upon Rom. v. 18 — " The judgment what* ever it was came upon all men, so they conld not be deliv* 43 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED. AND THS ered frora it." That judgraent came upon all men, is evi dent from the passage— hut that the judgment was exe cuted, so that " they could not be delivered from it" i.s a gratuitous assumption ! Thia was what he undertook in the outset " to support," but how he has supported it we have just seen. It must be obvious on the slightest atten tion to the subject, that the '• justification of life" is op posed to the " judgment lo condemnation" and implies the cancelling of that "judgment." But the editor can^ not admit this because it is inconsistent with his theory. — Assuming the truth of his theory, he infers that the mean ing which we have put upon the passage cannot be the true one ; though indeed it be the only one which can be put upon it, without violence to every correct rule of in terpretation. Again he urges, " Neither does this scripture affirm that judgment came upon all men for the offence of Adam, but through, or by his offence." What is this but a play upon words, a mere quibble? Again he " standing as the representative of all, por' tended that his offspring like himself would sin!" Docs he, can he seriously think this was the apostle's iheaning in the passage in question? But again, " Paul in a few verses preceding the one we are endeavoring to illustrate establishes this sentiment. " Wherefore as hy one raan sin entered into the world, and death by sin , & so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,' not for that one has sinned." The latter clause of this passage, upon which he lays so much stress, raay be rendered as in the margin, in whom all have sinned. In whichever way it be rendered it is evidently designed to refer the reason why " death carae upon all men" to the sim of the " one man." All have sinned in Adara their representative, be^ ing in his loins— They have derived a depraved nature from hira and as soon as they have become capable of rao ral action have actually sinned " after the similitude of his transgression." He adds, " justification oflife, means something more than Observer represents by ' initial salvation."' it is allowed it does in many other places and in the first verse to which the editor refers. But is it any thing strange for a word to be used in different senses? And it would be easy to show that the apostle by no means confiiies the ETEBNAL PUNISHMENT, &c, ^ESTABLISHED'. A).^ ^vmjitstification to one sense in this connexion, but %V* must not extend our observations too far. ^ The Editor's criticism upon Tit. ii. 4. by the help ot which he arrives at the marginal reading, we shall not quarrel with — Though it changes one circumstance in the passage, it still in our view'implies the doctrine con* tended for. Yet the passage " literally translated" says Dr. Clarke " stands thus: For the grace of God, that which saves hath shone forth upon all men. And Mr. Wesley translates it: For the sdvmg grace of God hath appeared to all men. On these translations our argument stands in full force ! He has bestowed no remarks upon the third passage which we quoted, 1 Tim. iv. 19. " who is the saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." Here'the apos tle plainly distinguished between general and especial sal vation. If he is especially the saviour of all men, this passage must convey an incorrect idea ofthe subject !-.- The above passages we still conceive to justify the obser vations which we made upon them. More might be ad duced ; but as we have necessarily, in following our Ex aminer through his various ramifications, been somewhat prolix, we must dismiss this part of the subject for the present. No. III. — On the doctrine of atonement. We shall confine our observations in this number to ido subject of atonement. We had reserved what we intend ed to say in reply to the editor, on this subject, for a dis tinct number, not supposing that we should' thereby ex pose ourselves to a suspicion of being " insufficient to tlie task of refuting what" (he supposes) " the scriptures so plainly support" In considering this subject we shall first, endeavor td show the absurdity of the Editor's system, and secondly, shall more fully explain and vindicate our views. He proceeds, " We believe that jufstice demands thij * thou shalt love the Lord thv God with all ^y heart,' iict 50 ITNIVEBSAL SALVATION CONSIDEREB, AND THE , Christ carae to satisfy that Justice, and fulfil the law b4 'God by bri/iging every raan to the requirements bf it and until this is accomplished, justice or the law of God will not be satisfied" (Voh I. p. 129.) that justice demands that we should love God with all our heart, we do not doubt: — hut if justice.is fully satisfied by the sinner's subsequent obedience, it appears to us that he is justified by the law. And this is flatly contrary to the apostle, who says that " hy the deeds of the law no flesh shall he justified." This System appears to be altogether legal, and to supercede the apostle's doctrine of justification by faith through graces Subsequent obedience to the lav^r satisfies justice. On this ground the sinner is justified.^-Now if his doc trine of receiving all the punishment deserved, does not supercede paf don Si grace, certainly f Ais does ! Subsequent obedience makes ample amends for past transgressions. Is enough more than the law requires, for the time being, to atone for past failures. How far short does this come of Roraish works qf supererogation ? Again he says. " He carae to fulfil the law and one jot or tittle shall not fail till all be fulfilled. He will mag nify the law and make it lionar able.' But this never can be done while it is violated by those who arc responsible to it, hut only when it is fulfilled hy the obedience of all.'* (p. 130.) In answer to this we observe, ChristfulfiUe£ the law. 1. By his own pergonal obedience to it. 2. By accoraplishing eyery thing shadowed forth in the Mosaic ritual. 3. He fulfilled in hiraself all those predictions of the prophets concerning the Messiah. 4. Finally, he accomplished, illustrated, and established the moral law, in ?ts highest meaning, both by his life and doctrine. — Thus has he fulfilled the law ! — And cannot the law be magnifiedand made honorable, but by the obedience of all? certaitilyitean! When is the civil law ofthe land magnified #fd made honorable — or held in the highest es timation? /"When itis faithfiilly executed, in the protec tion of the innocent, i>nd the justmnishhient of the guiltyT The law being magnified aMmam'fbonorable, by no means implies •« the obedience of all." "But is it tlie work of Christ to make all men obedient, and will justice not be- satisfied until he accomplishes the event? And is the de« mand of justice for the' sinner's obedience transferred' tc Christ, and the sitmer exonerated ? Or is it made on both ? »TERf?AL PUNISHMENT, fee ESTABLISHED. 61 —We hope our editor will give us some fui'ther explana tion of this subject, .for we would be glad to see a Itttle more clearly where the obligation rests — On whom the demand is made. But finally if Christ will in fact make all raen obedient, independent of their agency, or in violation of it,^ it raust he capable of proof and we invite our Examiner to the task of making it appear. We proceed next to explain and vindicate our views of atonement. And we should first notice that the editor in quirting our words (p. I29)is guilty of a culpable omission, the words are " Jesus suffered the punishment ofour ains in a qualified sense." By omitting the word pun- isAmenf he has perverted our meaning. wi He proceeds, " he mustbelieye according tothe course of his argument that.justice demanded the endless pun ishment of sinners, and that Jesus suffered in the room of sinnersand so satisfied the demand." (Ibid.) We do believe that " justice demands the endless piunishraen^ of sinners." and that Jesus Christ so " suffered in their roora, and satisfied that demand" that they mo-y be saved if they will^ Bot we do by no means believe in the doc trine of absolute imputation i^ substitutiori: — that justice is so satisfied by the sufferings of Christ in behalf of a part^ or the whole, that they must be saved unconditionally, or God be unjust!! ,But we believe that the sufferings and death of Christ, presented the law — the nature of sin and the displedsureaf God against it, in such a light, that no imputation would Ite against the righteousness of the great legislator, though he should forgive the sinner on his repentance and submission! r Our Candid Examiner thinks it necessary for us in or der to support our system. " to prove that the deraands of divine justice are opposed to divine mercy," and, re marks " there is na war between the attributes of (iod,'* (p. 140.) We are far from supposing that there is " war between the attributes of God..", : We have shown how those attributes perfectly harmonize in the system. of hu man redemption. God's goodness is so far from opposing such an exercise of his justice, as would secure hia hon^r, and the best good of his creatures in general, that it ab solutely requires it. And the justice of God is. not oppo sed to the exercise of mercy, when it can be done in a way © Ul*mrEBSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE consistent with the dignity of the law, and the honor of the supreme governor. Now does this system represent the attributes of God as hostile? If this is " war between the attributes of God't we know not what would not be. Our 2d remark on Rom. vii, 35—36. " discloses an idea concerning satisfaction which" he desires us " to re consider and explain more fully." The remark we need not repeat here, the ifeader may See it in this work p. 10. But we will proceed briefly to ansvrer his remarks upon if. " This satisfaction does not preclude the exercise of grace in forgiveness." Certainly not It only opens the way for its free exercise ! "therefore it does not pay the debt", l^ot literally.. We do not understand the atone ment strictly in the light of a pecuniary transaction! — " It does not satisfy the demands.of justice." Not indeed, so tliat it relinquishes its claims on the sinner^s obedience! — *• Forgiveness is as necessary as though Christ had not died.", Yes for all those who have actually sinned? — " It is evident" says Mr. Shinn " that our Saviour did not die to supercede the necessity of pardon, by giving us a legal discharge from all penalties, but to open the way for mercy, to deliver all those from suffering the penalty t?ho come boldly, (that is belie vingly) to a throne of grace ; not to a throne of justice to sue out their liberty in the name of their surety ; but that they might obtain mer cy, and find grace to help in time of nCed. — .The death of Christ manifested God's abhorrence of sin, as well as his love to the sinner, and justified the heavenly govern ment in the pardon of all penitents, as well as it would have been done if all sinners in the universe had been for ever damned. Thia was all mercy was waiting for ; namely, for such an exposure of the dreadful evil of sin, and Such a demonstration of God's hatred against it, as should glorify his attributes and restore the government to its native dignity & influence over his intelligent crea tures. This was accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore every moral attitude was satisfied, that a free pardon should be granted to every sinner of Adam's face that would receive the saviour for his Lord & King," Finally, the gentleman observes " this satisfaction is only to prevent a suspicion of his having relinquished his regard for righteousness." Well, aud is it a matter of to importance to prevent such a suspicion ; would there ETERNAL PVNISHMfiNT.&c ESTABLISHED. 5^ be no blot on the divine administration — would no evil accrue to the system, if there were an evident want of * regard for righteousness* in tho supreme Legislator and Governor of the world? He speaks as though this were- a matter of indifference!!! As tothe case which be has stated on this page '.' to exemplify this doctrine" as it obviously does not ejfempli.y it at all, we deem no remarks upon it necessary. We shall next consider the explaiiatitin which he has given o»e ofthe passages which we quoted for the explan ation of the Universalists. The passage is Isa, Iiii 5.— • On it he observed, " in the verse preceding that which he has left for us to explain, we read the following: sure ly he hath bourn our griefs and carried our .sorrows.'— Now in what seuse did Christ be;ar our sorrows? Let the scripture decide." He then quotes Mat. viii. 16,. ir.. (which see) and remarks, " from this it is plain that. Christ taking our infirmities and bearing our sicknesses^ means delivering us from them." (p. 180.) But weare. not to suppose thatbecauso the evangelist said " the words ofthe prophetwere fulfilled," this was all, or the highest sense in which they were spoken. " Whereby was fulfilled viz. in a lowt-r sense than primarily in tended by the prophet ; ? Saying himself took oiir inftrmi*- ties,' &c. Isa. spoke it in a more exalted sense, the evan« gelist here only alludes to t lose words as capable of this lower meaning also. Sue : instances are frequent in the sacred writings, and are e:;gancies rather than imperfec tions. He fulfilled these words in the highest sense, by hearing our sins in his ow'i. body on the tree; in a lower sense by sympathising W'th us in our sorrows, and heal ing us of the diseases which were the fruit of sin." (See Benson and Wesley on th? place.) Many more passages might be produced equally, or more hostile to his views, of atonement, which we may hidng forward on sotne other occasion, at present we must Dot enlarge. r We shall close this number by noticing an objection T^hich he glances at, (p. 129,) It i^ that the sufferings of Christ; on what he supposesto be our theory, must be itm- just arid eruel. He asks, " would it satisfy the parent or his law of love to inflict unparalleled punishment on his firat ¦horn and obedient son for tho sins of the rest? - No, .Si UKIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AN» THE instead of satisfying him, it would be an aggravation of his sorrows, and also a violation of his law and justice.'* Answer. The editor himself believes that Christ suffer^ cdin some sort, for the giiilty, naraely, through " sym pathy" for them, &c. Of course he cannot suppose that it is unjust and cruel for the innocent to suffer for the guilty in some sense? A.? to Christ's suffering " unpar alleled pMnisAmeiit" we have sufficiently explained in what sense he suffered. Thatis, as a sacrifice to public justice for the sin ofthe world. And that he could thus suffer consistent with justice, is evident, provided, 1. That he do it by his own consent and choice. 2. That he have a right thus to dispose of himself. And 3 That the ends of the divine governraent be as effectually answered, as they would have been in the final pufiishment of the: world of of- icnders! — Under these circuBisI ances where is the injus tice? None is done to Christ, for he suffers by his own choice, — None to the divine Legislator, or the public, for the ends ef good government are secui-ed. , Ho. IV.— On the coitditions of Salvation. We shall devote our remarks'in this number to tbe sub ject of conditions. On this subject we explained our views in the third part of our 2d number, which the reader is requested to turn to and examine. The editor, in his reply on this subject, rather than confront the plain scriptures, with the natural and neces sary consequences which are drawn from them, seems for the tirae to yield to their force. He says, " with what is said on this point we agree yet there fhay be a dis- > pute whether all willcomply,"&c. (p. 110.) Herehe allows that salvation is conditional ; for in the place to which he alludes, this was unequivocally asserted. "Now how well he agrees witli what we" said on this point," will be seen in the following. " Why is this new covenant es- tablished upon bptter promises? Because the promises are not conditional like the promises of that covenant ivhich was done away. If the blefisings of the new cove- ETERNAL TUSflSHMENT, &c. BSTABLISHE*. SB nant are conditional how is it established upon better pro mises?" (p. 156.) If salvation is conditional as he first -concedes, and the promises of the new covenant are not conditional, as he now asserfs, where is consistency? If the erfifor can settle this difference with /limse^/', wehave no objections! " Whethei all will comply," is another enquiry. To this we shall now attend. " All will finally be brought to repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," this " receives very strong support from what Observer has communicated under his .ses'ond general head, ' Here he not only raade it consistent, &c. for men to be saved on certain conditions, but provided effi cient means,by giving his spirit to accomplish the work.'" (Ibid.) But he is very rauch mistaken as to deriving any support from what we have said. We said nothing about the-spirit's performing conditions for the sinner, or irre_-^ sistably forcing him to perform them. The work of the- spirit is to convince, sanctify, &c. But it is possible for the sinner so to " resist the Holy Ghost," as not to be sanctified by his influence! Again, " With regard to these conditions being ante cedent to the possession of the benefit, we would state that the conditions, do not particularly differ f;"om the benefit itself." (Ibid.) Not indeed! And is this according to the comraon sense of mankind? That the terms upon which & benefit is suspended '* do not particularly differ from tlie benefit itself?" A laboring man on the condition of wor king bard a day, receives a bushel of grain. Now it ap pears to us that the man would discover a particular dif ference between the condition and the benefit itself. But perhaps he will make it out, " as far as a person repents by breaking off his sins." &c. " so far heis sav ed." (Ibid.) But salvation may be tlie imraediate coifse- quence of repentance, and still be '^particularly different'* from it! Again, " If it is held forth that holiness is a condition of salvation, it is also held forth that holiness is salvation." (Ibid.) If our Examiner can find any place in the Bible where holiness is " set forth," as the con dition of salvation^ and as salvation itself, in tfie same sense, his singular notions will derive some support fi-om such a place. We should hardly have said so inurh isposi some of these crude effusions, but that he has thought them Sd CKIVERSAL SALVATION eONSIDERED, ANDTHE ofso much importance to his theory, as to repeat them! (In p. 155.) We shall next consider some additional remarks which he has made, on resuming this subject. (Seepp. 155,156.) He says, " what are generally called the important conditions of salvation, are performed by God." Does he believe that those conditions which we have shown to be required of men, (p. 21.) are unimportant? If not, they raust be " performed by God." And if the conditions of repentance and faith are perforraed by God, would it not be as preposterous to require them of man,as to requirehim to (io any other of 6fod's peculiar works? Can any reason be given vvhy he is to be damned for not doing God's work? If so we would be obliged to this gentleman to fa vor us with it ; for we confess that we cannot conceive of any! Again, he says " our salvation from beginning to endisall of God." Ifhe intends by this to assert that the conditions are all performed by God, we dissent! We will now notice the scriptures which he alleges in support of his doctrine," — untoyou first God having raid ed up his son Jes{is,sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Acts iii. 25,26.) Upon this passage he remarks those who contend for con ditions to be performed by man, support that we must of ourselves turn from our iniquities." Whoever holds that *' we must of ourselves," (by which we suppose is meant without the help of God) " turn frora our iniquities" thus is hy no means our sentiment. And this the editor must yery well have ki.owri. After what we had written on the influences and offices of the spirit, he could not be mistaken as to our views of this subject He continues *'* Peter does not say, God sent Jesus to bless you if you will turn from your iniquities, but God sent hira to bless you by turning every one of you from his iniquities." — The passage by no means necessarily implies that Jesus will turn us from our iniquities. But without the least violation ofthe language, the words raay be paraphrased thus, ¦' God sent his son to bless you," with the forgive ness of sin, on conditions of your " turning every oneof you frora his iniquities," this meaning accords perfectly with the apostle's language in the 19th verse, " Repent 3?e therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blot^ ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. &c ESTABLISHED. S} t-ed out when the times of refreshing shall come from the Lord." Here, all that we contend for is expressed. But if it be necessary raore fully to prove that we have soraething to do in turning to God, we will produce afew passages of the jnawi/, which might be quoted. " Turnye Unto him, frora whom the chUdren of Israel have revolted — If they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way: — But if the wicked will turn from allhis sins that he hath committed, and keep my statutes &c — Turnye, turn ye from your evil ways, for vvhy will ye die— But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gen tiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do work^ meet for repentance — Repent ye, for the kingdom of heav en is at hand.,, (Isa. xxxi. 6. Jer. xxvii 3. Ezek. xviii. 21. — xxxiii. 11. Acts xxvi. 20. Mat. iii. 2.) Were we to quote ajl the passages which go to prove directly or in directly, that the co-operation of our agency is necessary in our salvation, we should transcribe a great part of the Bible. That God is sometimes said to turn men to him we win admit. But we are to understand by tliis that he gives them power, — furnishes them with motives — draws them hy his spirit — caMs and admonishes thera, to tumfroyt Meirsins to himself. And not that he turns thera irresis- tably. This would be to destroy the agency of man, and consequently the morality of his actions. Again, "But now hath he,' Jesus ' obtained a more excellent ministry by how much he ia the mediator of a. better covenant which was established upon better prom ises : why is the new covenant • established upon better promises? because the promises are not conditional,'/ &c. In answer to this weobserve, 1. This reason is not foun ded ill fact. We trust that we have raade appear' that there are djnditions in the new, or gospel covenant, and iifi.' deed he hai^once acknowledged it. (in p. 140.) 2. A much raore consistent, and the true reason is, that it gives better terms. — It accepts of penitence and faith instead of perfect & unsinning obedience. It promises better things: ^The old covenant promised earthly things, the new, heavenly. But finally he gives us his favorite passage, " Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and withjthe bppp of vt 58 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB Judah, ' I will put my laws into their minds, and write thera in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, ahd they shall be to me a people."—" Israel and Judah stand here for the true people or church of God," Benson. (se Gal. vii. 16.) And these, it is taken for granted, had fulfilled, and would continue to fulfil the conditions. But he says " the faithfulness of God is engaged in the per formance of the new covenant" His part ofit only! " I will be to them a God and they sball be to me a peo ple," — " these are the two grand conditions by which the- parties in this covenant are bound. 1. * I will be ydva^ God.' As the object of religious adoration tb any man, is that being from whom he expects light, direction, de fence, support and happiness ; so, God, promises in ef^ feet, to give thera all these great and good things. 2. * Ye shall he my people,' implies that they should give God their whole hearts, serve him with all their light and strength, and have no other object of worship and de pendance but himself. Any of these conditions broken, the covenant is rendered null and void, and the other party absolved from his engagement." Dr. Clarlie. So the passage upon which so much stress is laid is nothing against conditions. Though they are not so clearly ex pressed, they are certainly implied! He goes on to reraark " It is a pity that God's will is so shackled with conditions and contingencies, that it ne ver can be accomplished." Answer. Contingencies, is a word which we have not used ; and as to conditions, it ne ver was the will of God to sa^e all, without them ! Again he says: " We will use a better term than violate, and say that God may change the nature of man in order to save him." Answer. But he must change it in a way not tQviolat& it! He proceeds, " Paul said, * We look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, — according to the working, whereof he is able to subdue all things to himself.'" Answer. Christ changing our vile body, or subduing all things, does not imply the conversion of all men,^ much less does it imply that salvation is unconditional! ' This passage refers to the resurrection, and has nothing to do with the subject under consideration ! He thinks if" those who are not in a situation to un derstand the import of conditions, may be saved uncondi- ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. ^9 - tionally, it would not be improper to wish that there ne ver had been, nor never would be any but those incapable of understanding the import, and performing those con ditions." He may wish that man had been made differ ent from wh^t the God ofinfinite wisdom saw fit to make him. But perhaps the apostle's reproof would not be misapplied in that case. " Nay, but, O man, who art thou thairepliest aga,inst God — shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" He continues, " shall we conclude that God by raising up prophets, and preachers to instruct us in the way of salvation, and by giving us powers of intellect to under stand it, will effect the endless damnation of many?" It is the abuse of these mercies which effects " the endless damnation of" any, it is hy no means to be laid to God's charge! He proceeds, " and will the works of his goodnesse- ventuate in greater evil than good?" That'' the works of God's goodness" are so abused as to " eventuate in evil," is a fact which comes under every day's observa tion. How often are those blessings which were designed to serve the purposes of human happiness, made the in struraents ofthe greatest human misery? And this misery is in general, proportionate to the amount of mercies a- bused! — And may not sinners " turn the grace of God into lasciviousness,— treasure ap to themselves wrath a- gainst the day of \y rath," by rejecting the coiincil of God against themselves;" and so ihe word which was design ed for their salvation, be " a saviour of death unto death" unto them? Certainly all this is plain, from the word of God! But as to " the work of God's goodness eventuating in greater evil than gogd," if it he intended to apply universally, it is a consequence which we disclaim, and which never can fairly he drawn from any thing we have advanced. But if it be intended tu apply only to the individual person who abuses goodness, then it may be acknowledged that the evil which flows from the abuse i>f these mercies is greater than the good which he receives, though not greater than the good which he iSwld have re- ilnvedf hy a faithful improveraent of it. *flf UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB No. V Arguments and Scriptures supposed to support Universal salvation considered. In our third number. Part 1, we gave an answer tothe arguments, and an explanation of the passages of scrip- tore, which were produced by the writer we w ere review ing, in support of his theory. These constituting the main bulwarks of universalism, we were far from expec ting they would be given up without a struggle. But to what purpose the editor has exerted himself in their de fence we shall now proceed to enquire. The first argument in favor of the doctrine we oppose which we shall now consider is drawn from the will of (rod. — After partially introducing our answer to this ar gument, he gives us a, new (though not animproved) edi tion of it, thus: " God has said ' my council shall stand and I will do all my pleasure'. Paul informs us that God ' having made known unto us the mystery of his will ac cording to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself; that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth even in him,* —Here is the will of God in as positive terras as language can render it," (P. 155.) To this we answer, 1. That God's coVihcil will stand' and that he will do all his pleas ure,* we do not doubt. But the question is whether it is according to Ms council and good pleasure, to save all men absolutely, independent of, or in opposition to, their own free choice. 2. As to the passage taken from Ephesians, (Chap. 1. 10.) several things must be made out before it can suit his purpose. 1. Thatthe dispensation ofthe ful ness of time, refers to the time of the restoration. 2. That the terms all things, &c. embrace every individual of the whole human family. And indeed all the fallen angels. And in that case the Apostle ought to have added to ' things in heaven, and things in earth,' things also in hell! And 3. That being gathered in Christ in this place, refers to final and eternal salvation!! Until lie does this, however positive the language may be, it does not serve his cause at all. In our answer we remarked, that " what the apostle intends by" the words " God will have all men to be sa ved" can be nothing else than his disposition to save ein- ETERNAL PUNISHSIENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. €1 ners and make them happy, in a way consistent with their free agency." To this he proposes a number of ob jections. " Why did a God ot i ifiiiite wisdom & knowl edge delegate to sinners a free agency which he must have known would frustrate his dispDsition or will." (Ibid.) We might ask the sarae question in relation to moral evil, which as much frustrates the will of God, as the final dam nation of the sinner. This question he is as much con cerned to answer as we are, and when he answers it, he will have a complete and satisfactory answer to the one which he proposes. He proceeds, " the idea that God committed to men a free agency omnipotent over his pur pose, will and disposition, is in our view preposterous in the exiremey (Ibid.) Answer. 1. God has no " purpose" to save men but in away consistent with their nature as moral agents. 2. That God could save all men ; that is, that he possesses power adequate to that, or any other ob ject, we do not question. But wUl our Exarainer put God upon doing every thing that he has power to do, without any regard to moral fitness? Would not this be " preposterous in the extreiiiei"' He farther says " that God h^s a disposition for all men to be saved supposes that heis, and ever will be a disappointed being." (Ibid.) By no means Unless he hits a disposition^to save them, absolutely and unconditionally. He has never desired the salvation of any, but in co npliance with the terras upon which this salvation is susjiended. Our editor adds, " It !¦* not denied but that raen are moral agents, but this agency we hold is limited, and can never destroy the purpose i of God in the salvation of our race." (Ibid.) We beg le ive to answer this, in the words of an able and ingenious writer. (See the doctrine of universal restoration examined and refuted by D. Isaacj p. 21.) " Iu all the divine dispensations tn relation to man, God has an eye to his free agency, and will not destroy it Misery entered with the abuse of liberty ;— andthe possibility of the abuse ofit being continued, mil itates against the certoinij/ of the restoration in question; for to say that a man endowed with the liberty to sin, must necessarily be virtuous, is a contradiction in terms." He finally comes to our argument " Observer has drawn a strange infer^^ince frora the position that God's Will muit he dom. Tii^is he writes ' the will of God con's ^2 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE cerning sinners must be done.' Well it is the will af God that they should not sin. Therefore according to our writer's logic there is no such thing in the universe as sin.' lihis is drawing conclusions at random. What is the wil! of God concerning sinners? that they should be saved f£om their sins and be made happy. What conclusion ivould naturally be drawn frora this. That there is no si^ch thing in the universe as sin?" (Ibid.) The gentle man has certainly raade a very singular shift, to evade a plain and necessary conclusion, the force of which he plainly saw would prostrate his beloved argument. Our answer stands thus " the will of God concerning sinners must be done." ' It is the will of God that they should not sin. — Therefore, there is bo such thing in tlie uni verse as sin.' The will of God, against the existence of moral evil we thought as obviously asserted as against fi nal misery. We therefore thought the conclusion that there is no such thing in existence as sin, as legitftiate as the conclusion, that all will be saved. And as this ar gument concludes against the fact of the introduction, & continuance to the present, of raoral evil, it raust be false. Now how has he answered this arguraent? He has chang ed the premises; instead of " it is the will of God that kis creatures should not sin," he has it, itis the will of Hod " that they should be saved from their sins;" and tlitn a.sks " what conclusion would naturally be drawn from this? That there is no such thing in the universe as sin? &c. This he supposes would be " drawing couclu- sions at random." But does this gentleman himself act *' at random" when he violently forces our conclusion from our premises, and tacks it on to his own in order to fault our logic, or raake our argument inconclusive? — Or does he discover a studied design to save himself the task of looking our arguments in the face! — We ask no further favors of hira, than to raeet us on the ground of fair ar gumentation. If upon this ground he will show that our answer to this /ormidoJ/.£ arguraent ofthe universalists m not conclusive, we pledge ourselves to find out some other method to answer it or submit to its force ! ! He proceeds » there is sin and it is contrary to the will of Jcliovah." (Ibid.) This is a grand concession indeedl Wmviin existence^' contrary to the will o/" Jehovah." In this case then,, to use his own language the will of God is ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &e. ESTABLISHED, 63 ^'frustrated." Let him now face about, and answer his owmargu ments ; forthey all go as directly against this ooncessioii of his, as they do against our doctrine of eter nal punishment! Again he says " Universalists do not believe that tiie ultimate will or purpose of God concerning sinners is al ready done while they are sinners but it must in due time be done in their deliverance from sin." (Ibid.) B;it if the will of God is not now done, how does he know that it will be ultimately? If it raay be thwarted for a rao ment, inay it not be for an age, yea to eternity ? Finally he adds, " does jt conseqently follow that be cause God wills the salvation of sinners and becau.se that will, will finally be done that sin of every kind is accord- tn|r UNIVEHSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED. AND THE This passage constitutes the basis upon which the Uiii- versalists rest their explanation ofthe 24th and 25th of St. Matthew.* But properly understood, it affords th(?m no support whatever. The disciples enquired: « When shall these things be and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end ofthe world." (xxiv. 3.) This question was asked on Christs liaving (in the 2d verse,) predicted the destruc tion of the temple. It is the opinion of some Commenta tors, that the disciples supposed, that the end ef the world and the day of judgment, would immediately succeed the demolition ofthe temple: — they consequently blend tlie two &vents in their question. And as one event was to be a striking type ofthe other, Christ does not separate thera in his answer. But if it be admitted that the disciples askiid only of the end of the Jewish dispensa tion, it must still he clear to every attentive observer that Christ did not confine himself to that event. But in the true spirit of ancient prophesy he rises in his subject froin less events to greater. The prophets often commence with Bat/id, & conclude with Christ — & commencing with the return of the JSws from the Babylonish captivity, they almost iraperceptably pass to the final return ofthe ransoriied to glory. — So Christ commences his discourse with the end of the Jewish city and teihple, priesthood & polity, — and by an easy transition, passes to the end of the world, and the general judgment. " Being asked by the disciples" says Tertulean " when these things which he had intimated concerning the destruction o^ the temple should take place, he set before them the order of the times, first concerning the Jews, till the destruction of Jerusalem, and then concerning men in general, till the end ofthe world." (See Scott's Comraentary.) The Editor finally asks: " Do not ancient prophesy the words of Jesus and his apostles, and well known fact teach in Unison together, that the separation which then took place was between Jew & Gentile." (Ibid.) We scarcely know what he means by " a separation between Jew and Gentile" — We have been in the habit of thinking *For furth« specimens of the dependence which is made up- o;i these wordfe, see Ballou on th* Parables, Pages 148, 16g, 164, &c. ETERNAL PUNISH.MENT, 8sc. ESTABLISHED. fi that all these high authorities to which he refers, teach that the Jews and Gentiles had been separate, at enmity, &c. & that by the gospel they were made " both one — the raid- die wall'of partition between them" was " broken dp\vn," &c. ;(SeeEph. ii 14 — 17.) Butthat they bad growntO'^ gether, till the destruction of Jerusalem ; and were then to be separated, to us is new divinity! He next enquires " what was the punishment repre sented by the furnace of fire" — and thinks it refers to " thqae judgments which Christ pronounced upon the Jews — the destruction of their city & temple," &e. [Ihid.j To support this explanation he introduces two passages from the prophets. The first is Isa. xxxi. 9. 'Whose fire is in Zion and his fireman in Jerusalem' — This refers to the perpetual fire which was kept up in the teraple: — or it may mean, who will appear in Zion like a fire to defend his people and consume their enemies. The rtther pas sage is Ezek. xxii. 19. 20. [Which see.] God's vengeance is often compared, in the scriptures, to fire, but here ifc was so literally, when both city and temple were gob- aumed byhim- [See^5 Kings xxv. 9.] [On thcijjove pas-. sages, see Pool's, Dr. Coke's, Dr. Ciake'si, and Mr, Ben son's Commentaries.] There is no evidence that these passages from .the prophets, have reference to the same things that those which be is enrfeavoring to explain have. The similarity in the figures,is in no wise conclusive evidence of this. Bnt if * the furhace of fire' in the passage under consideration has any reference to the " judgments which Chri&t pro> nounced upon the Jews," this does not prove but that it has a still more literal reference, to the .punishment of the finally impenitent He pioceeds to meet a few particulars ulider our 3d re mark. [The reraark is in P. 29.] Under this, it was urged that upon the supposition of Uni vcrsaf Sal vation — the expectation ofthe wicked shall not perisii, but shall issue like that ofthe righteous, in gladness— -To this he replies: ", Our doctrine does not suppose that the false hope ofthe wicked will be realised in life or death. The hope ofthe Mahomedon founded on Mahoraet the hope of the heathen founded on their idol Gods, shall perish ^ shall not be reaUsed." [P. 166.] But supposing the ground ef theii' hope, or the particular waf in which tliey are 72 UNIVERSAL SALVATIOiN GDNSIDERED, ANDTHE expecting salvation to fail ,• upon the universalist hypoth- ¦tmis^heend will he sure. If the wicked are saved in any wav. their hope will indeed" " issue in gladness," & will by no raeans " perish!" He proceeds: " What were the hopes and ^expectations of the persecutors and murderers of Jesus Christ? T^'d'' hope and expectation w ere to destroy the influence of his doctriHC. Did not their expectation fail? It certainly did. What is the hope and expectation of those who are opposed to the universal doctrine? If their expec tation and hope correspond with their faith, theyare expec ting and hoping for tbe endless damnation of a large por tion of our race." [Ibid.] To all tliis we answer. 1. It was not intimated tbiit upon the universalist hopothesis, every thing that the wicked hope for. in this life will he realised. ^ And 2. As to our " hoping for the endless damnation," &c. wc would ask: may not we believe a coming event without Ao;jm^/or it? If not the holy pro phets, yea Jesus Christ himself, and his apostles, when they denounced the most terrible judgments upoA th* Jewish nation, " if their hope correspond with their faith" must have hoped for these fearful events! In what ligiit then, must tleir bitter lamentations over the ap proaching desolation be regarded, [may the gracious Gild pardon the supposition] hut as the most monstrous hypocracy? — These are the consequences which flov*^ from this mighty effort ofour Candid Examiner to fix an odium upon our theory! But 3, As to the " portion of our race" which we are " expecting will be lost" we by no means suppose that it will be " large," in compar ison with those who will be saved — Considering the num. bers which die in infancy, idiocy, and invincible ignor- ancei — The numbers ofpious persons in all ages who live and die unobserved: — And also, that " there is an age -approaching whn righteousness will be universal: [See Is. xi. 9.] Considering the myriads that w ill he translated to heaven during this happy period, and it will not excite surprize, if the number of the lost of raankind will bear no greater proportion to the number of the saved, than the executions al Newgate, do to the inhabitants of the me tropolis." (See Isaac, Pages 48, 49, 50, 51.) The Editor continues: " They are sowing the doctrine of eternal wrath and misery. Well what a man soweth ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. &c ESTABLISHED. ?$• thatshall he also reap." (Ibid.) Did not this gentleman perceive that this reflection, (for it cannot be called an argument) bears as heavily upon himself as upon us? This he must perceive upon a little refiection. He believes & teaches tiiat sinners shall be punished, and that too >^ith such severity, as to authorise the following strong lan guage of'the apo.stle : " Who will render to every man according to his deeds, unto them who are contentious &c. indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish"— " Well what a man sows such shall he also reap:" — The more he preaches this doctrine, the more dreadfully will the storm beat upon his own head, ' and his violent deal ings come down upon his own pate!' With what mighty effect does this deadly stroke recoil upon himself? He next gives us the following smart rebuff. " And if he thinks it strange that teres should be turned into wheat, we enquire where is the saint who was not made out of a sinner?" (Ibid.) In his reference here to a reraark of ours, he has got tares for chaff: — this however is but the mistake of a word, — ^^if all his errors were as harmless it would be well! — But if the gentleman will be so good as to t611 us where the saintis, who was made out of a siniier, who had been ^o^isigned to ' unquenchable fire' he will gain his point! He proceeds to advance the following sentiment, and what he thinks proof ofit: " It is expected that a man will reaphis harvest where he sows his seeil. There is no intimation in the above passages that he who soweth to the flesh shall reap the fruits of the seed which he sow ed in the spiritual and eternal world. ' Behold the right eous shallbe recompensed in the earth: rauch more the wicked &the,8inner."'(Ib.) Whether the passages rffer- ed to, refer to this world or the next, we ^shall enquire mftre particularly in the sequel. We would 1. observe: as to the passage whicb he has quoted to prove hie prin ciple, that the righteous do receive some recomperase ; & muchmgre that the wicked and the sinner are visited, in this world, more or less, with divine judgments, by which the holy God testifies his displeasure against their evil ways, is what we have never denied: and this' is all that is intended in the above text. It does not ^sert that their wAoie recompence is received in this world, and it it did, it would contradict the whole tenor of scripture,-«e- J Ti UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED. AND THi Tins we sball have occasion fully to show in anothet place. But 2. What he here lays down as a principle, (and It appears to be a favorite, and a fundamental principle with him too) that " a raan will reap his harvest where he sows his seed" — that is, that a man will receive the whole amount of his punishment where he comraits his crimes ,•-¦ • unless he supposes some men ivill continue to sin in an other world — goas to preclude all punishment beyond the grave. For it would be injustice to punish any after thcy have received their full recompense, and this they are supposed to have received vvhere they sinned — in this world. It would be satisfactory to know what our Ex aminer's views are upon ihis point ; whether he believes any wiU be punished ajler death, or not. The general; strain of his arguments, if we can perceive their tenden cy, says not: — hut he does not corae out and avow the sentiraent openly. In his work he has published pieces frora others, upon both sides without any expression of a])probation or disapprobation on either side! His course upon this subject appears to savour much of policy ; — he appears to want the privilege of taking either side, as the exigency of the case may require ! ! But we would observe 3. that the principle that " nian will reap his harvest where he sows his seed," goes effec tually to destroy all connection between our actions in this World, and our state in the world to come. On this prin ciple we conceive that no motive can be taken from the fu ture and eternal world, to influence our actions in this Ufe. If so the doctrine of immortality, can be of no vital importance to the cause of morality and practical piety. But if all motives drawn from the eternal world are en tirely nugatory, how futile is a great part of the Bible f --it being one continued series of motives drawn from the future and eternal world, to induce a course of obedience in this! What follows upon this proposition is an attempt to show the " gross absurdity" ofour inferences from tMO passages. — " Observer says that on the doctrine of the restitution * though he' the sinner ' may reap corruption as the fruit of his present doings, yet that corruption would not be the opposite of everlasting life, seeing it will Isajie in it,' &c, A per&on for some cfimo is aentpiiceji ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ES-TABLISHED. 55* to ten years imprisonment in a dungeon — he then is set at liberty. Would it do to say that the punishraent he is to endure in his solitary dungeon, will not be opposed to liberty and the light of the sun, seeing it-will issue in it," [P. 166.] It appeared to us that there w as a perfect an tithesis, in these passages, between " corruption, in» dignation and wrath," &c. on the one hand ; and " eter nal life" on the other: which would be absurd were not the two in sorae repects equal. The supposition that tbe apos- tic would contrast a few dayssuffering tli£ lash, or taking a salutary medicine, with an " eternal weight of glory," without adding any thing to show its superiority in point of duration — or the connexion between them, appears to us, a " gross absurdity" with a witness !-i-His comparl^ son is altogether irrevelant' In it the length and terrain* ation ofthe " imprisonment," is specified. If the apos tle had as particularly liraited the punishment ofthe wick ed, this would have settled the question. But there is no limitation of this punishment: it is contrasted with " eter nal life," and there it is left, to make the natural impress.* ion, that it must in sorae respects at least, be equal. But to conclude. We now see no reason why we should change our views in relation to the passages which were quoted under our first proposition. That they do indeed express the future and final states of men in contrast, we still believe. Our Examiner, clearly perceiving that the inevitable consequence, from these passages, thus cir cumstanced, must be, that if the happiness of the righ^;- eoushe endless, the misery ofthe wicked must be endless likewise, denies that they refer to a future state at all,- — But in doing this he has in many instances, done violencfc to both the text and context ;— iand has neutralized sorae of the most direct evidences in the bible, for tlie eternal happiness of the righteous. We think it a clear case, that if the eternal state, is not asserted, in at least, some of these scriptures, it cannot be found in the bible. Let Our Examiner examine, and show us where " life and immor* " tality are brought to light by the gospel." And let him see, ifhe can find a passage, which raay not as fairly be applied to the present state, asthose which we have pro- ,diiced in our first argument. And if it do appear, that in his zeal to do away the doctrine of eternal punish- mentj he also does away that of eternal felessetlness. 1& UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE it will certainly be no inconsiderable argument against - his method of explaining the scriptures, & indeed against the theory, to defend which, he is forced to resort to sucft a method ! ! ! , "No. VII The Argument founded upon the strength of tjie terms, depended. Our second argument is deduced from those passages which express the duration of future punishraent by the terras everlasting, eternal, &c. The editor enters upon the exaraination of this argument in his usual style, thus: — " He has assuraed a position which should have been established before he proceeded in his arguments. If by future punishment he means pun- i^braen.]!; in a future state of being, he should have shown that these scriptures describe, and have relation to sueh punishraent in distinction from the punishment inflicted in this state of being. Till he does this he is building upon a sandy foundation." (P. 166.) This would appear very singular, were it not the language of one who is in the habit of pressing his opponent to the labouring oar, when he should ply it hiraself!! We maintain, (and shall fully establish it in our next nuraber, ) that the literal ^ proper signification ofthe qualifying terras in question, is inter- minable, or endless duration. And " itis assumed as a first principle in the interpretation of language, that all other things being equal, the primitive and literal mean ing of a word, is to be preferred to any figurative and secondary sense; and that if the connexion, or the nature ofthe case be such that it cannot be taken in its original signifieation, all other circumstances the same, that which is next to it is to be adopted ; and so on through ail the various significations whicb use has sanctioned."* *Says Mr. Horne : — " Although the plain, obvious, and literal sense of a passage may not always exhibit the mind of^ the Holy Spirit, yet it is ordinarily to be preferred to the figurative sense and is not to be rashly abandoned, unless absoluto and evident ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. 7? Upon this principle of intei-prctition (and who will con test it?) we have a perfect right ro presume, that these terms in the places in (Juestion, are to be taken in their literal and proper sense. This ground we shall maintain until he. shows that the connexion, or the nature ofthe case is such, that these words', in the places in question, should uot he understood in theii- proper signification: un- tilhe does this, our " position" is by no meaus " assu med:" — it is legitimately our o vn. This point gained, it will be a matterofcour.se, that the passages under con- sideijation refer to " a future state of being" — unless what is strictly endless may have an end: — and this we suppose he will not assert. The burden of proof, upon this point, rests entirely upon liira: — and until he proves that these terms are to be undiii'stood figuratively, in the passages under consideration, these passages are con clusive evidence in our favor. This he does attempt to do, by laboring to prove that they refer to this litb* only We will now pas.s to examine what he has diredtcd to this point. \:f- He explains Dan. xii. 2. by comparing it and iis con nexions, wi*h some'passages in the 24th. of Mat. (F. 167.) Weadmit tliat this part of tie prophecy of Daniel, and some parts of the prophecy of Christ, are very sirailar, and probably refer to the sane events. But w'e have be fore shown the insufficiency of his reasons for apjilying the prophecy of Chri,st ex:!iisively to the destruction of Jerusalem: — and as we ha e taken away his foundation, his superstructure ofcouru' cannot stand! But as further evidencn that this passage in Daniel, ha.s its fulfilment in this life, he introduce«i the 3d verse: necessity require such litend sense to be given up." (Horne'p^ Iritrodoction to a critical atwiy and knowledge ol the scriptures. Vol II. P. 500.) ' And the learned Hooker: — '* I hold it for a most infallible rul^in expositions of sac-^d scripture, fhat, where a liters^ coifi^truction will stapd, th". farthest from the letter i^ common-. lythe worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this li centious and deluding art, which changes the meaning of words, _ as alcheray doth, or would do the substance of metals, making of anything what it pleasea, aUd bringing in the end' all truth to notiiing.'' (Hookei^B Eeclesiastical Pclity, Book V-, Chapter 5§-*60.) ' ' ' 7{| UNIVERSAL S.\LV ATION CONSIDERED, AND THE '* They that be wise shall shine," &c. and remarks up on it as follows: — " They that turh many to righteous ness." The verb is in the present tense. They shine forth while they are employed in turning many to right eousness, an evidence that they are on earth." (P. 169.)' The verb turn is in the present tense to-be-sure: — but shall shine, and upon this the whole depends, is in thefirst fu ture tense. He speaks as though there were but one verb in the passage and goes on to paraphrase it as though it were tliroughout inthe " present tense." This he must certainly know is not the case. The critical acumen which he has displayed in this ca.sc, is really admirable! This gentleman applies Mat xxv. 46: — " And these shall go away into everlasting punishmeBt" &c. tothe punishment ofthe Jews, on the destruction of Jerusalem. (P. 167.) And to support this application of the passage he quoted Mat xvi. 27, 28. (See P. 169.) " Forthe Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he shall reward every man according-; to his works. Verily I say unto you there he some stand ing here, which shall not taste death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Christ's com^n^ inthe glory of his Father, in the £7th verse, we conceive, re fers to a different event from his coming m his kingdom, in the 28th. For this coming of which he first spealcs is accompanied by circumstances wbich did not take place within the life tirae of any of those who were then stand ing there. This coming is marked by the following circumstan ces: 1. He would coipe " in the glory of his Father." S. " With his angels."^ And 3. Then he would " reward every man accordingto his works." Now in what sense does our Examiner suppo;^ that this last particular, es pecially, (waving the others,) was fulfilled on the des truction of Jerusalem? Here is an universal retribuiio^i spoken of: " Then shall he reward «ii;er^7nfln." — It will ] not answer for the editor after what be has said upon the ' " unequivocal" meaning of the " term every" to say that " every man" means the Jewish nation only. This would be to abandon the ground which he has taken, and to give up many passages upon>hich he inutehrelies,,as support ing tbe doctrine ot universal salvation. Now as we hav« ETERNAL PIWISHMENT, 8tc. ESTABLISHED. fS no evidence that Christ has yet come under the above cii*. cumstances, we must conclude that the coming there forei told is yet to take place. But his coming in his kingdom, (verse 28) is of anoth>. er kind, and not improperly adverted to upon this occa sion. As though he bad said: " And that you may not doubt, that there shall be a day of judgment, when X shall come clothed with divine majesty, to render unto men according to their actions in this life, let rae assure you, there are some here present that shall not die till they shall see a fair representation of this in events which will soon take place, especially in my coming to set up my mediatorial kingdom with great power and glory, in tbe increase of my church, and the destruction of mine en emies." Benson. [See also Wesley, Dr. Coke, and the Continuators of Pool, upon the place.] This passage then does not go to prove thatthe coming of Christ spoken of in Mat xxv. 31 — 46, refers to the destruction of Jerusa lem: — so far from this, that it plainly appears, that those parts of it which most resemble that passage, must them selves be referred to the second coming of Christ. But thatthe last paragraph of the 25th, of Mat, does not re fer to the event to which the editor applies it, w ill per haps appear more clearly after considering the following particalars: 1. On the comingreferred to in this place, *' all na tions" are to be " gathelbd hefore him" and judged — re warded or punished according to their respective charac ters: — But this did not take place on the destruction of Jerusalem. 2.* Upon the occasion described hy.our Lord, the right eous are rewarded in consideration of the good character they had previously sustained: But this does not answer to the ^entiies being received to the privileges of the gos> pcL (See Rom. X. 20. Isa. Ixv. 1.) But 3. The punishment to be then awarded, to tbe wicked, is that which was " prepared for the devil and his angels:" But we know not where it is written, that being taken captives hy the Romans, and sold for slavea among the different nations of the earth, is the punish ment " prepared for the devil and his angels" ! We need adduce no farther reasons at present, for rejecting his ap plication of tiiisportion of the scriptures: it rg forced, es eo UmvERs.vt. s^lvai ion considered, and f ite tremely unnatural, and is evidently an expedient to ac commodate the peculiarities of his system. He next notices some passages from the hook of Rev, (See Rev. xiv. 10. 11..— xix. 3. xx. 10.) In order to li mit these pas.sages to the present world, he quotes chap. xv(. 1. Upon this he observes : "We here learn that the angels were comraanded to pour out the vials containing the .seven last plagues upan the earth ; nothing said about reserving any to be poured out upon sufferers in an endless heU." [P. 169.] The phrase, " the earth" by a raeton)^- my, is often used for tbe inhabitants of the earth, or some part of them. In the place which our Examiner quotes^ this phra.se refers to the inhabitants of tbe anti- christian state. Now in the narae of reason, what does this prove eoncernitig the duration of this punishmentv' The-ir be-, ihg denominated " the earth" it seems, must, according to this Expositor, certainly prove that the " fulfilment" ofthe prophecy in relation to them is " confined to tinife." Conclusive reasoning indeed! , Again he says: ," When the duration of this tormentis expressed by the terms forever, and forever & ever, these terms are put in apposition with day and night, clearly indicating that this torment is endiiied where time is measured by day and night." (PP. 169, 170.) Answer. The phrase " day ^- night" in this place is evidently used figuratively, for cnntinually-—i^easingly. This is the more clear, as it is used in tliis* nse, in other places in tills book. In chip. iv. 1 — 8. it is said: " And the four beasts rest not day and night saying holy, holy Lord God Alraighty." Aga:n vii. 15. " Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in bis tem ple," &c. Now will the gentleman say, that these pas sages describe what occurs " where time is measured by day and night." — Ifnot where is his arguments But his argumnt may he successfully retorted: day^ flight " is put ill apposition with" forever and ever — " clearly indica ihg" thatit is equivalent, or iraplies the game thing in th ,'^^. place — so, he is defeated by the reac tion of his own argument ! Now candid reader; you have fairly before you, the editor's reasons for limiting the terms in question. Haa he offered any thing like an argument, to show that these terms should he understood out of their natural meaning. ETERNAL- PUNISHMENT. &c. ESTABLISHED. 24. in the places which he has examined? — For our part we-. confess, we pterceive no force at all inall tha;t he^has said, upon this point:— The argument from these passages; as- yet stands uneflected- We shall next-proceed to consider whaf'the Editor hass said upon the authorities which we produced to she;w the- meaning and extent of the terms everlasting, etemal^ kt. (See this work pp; 30 — 32. ) He says: " Thestatements of theselearned Doctors—. serve only to estahlish what the learned well know, that these woi-ds sometiraes express an endless and sometimes a limited duration." [P. 170.] This is a gross misrepre sentation of what is expi-essed in the quotations in ques tion, at least as to two of them. These authors do not- say what tliese terms " sometimes express:"— but what is their " proper grammatical sense." This Dr. Clarke says is •- continued being:" and Mr. Fuller, " alwayst being. " Wh at is the proper and literal sense of these term'sr is the question: — and to this we shall closely adhere i.- That they aie sometimes used in a limited sense, we do not deny ; but this is nothing to the point Let him sho^v timtthis is the casein those passages which speak of fu ture punishment: — until he does this, he begs the ques tion ;— and is himself " building upon a sandy foiinda' tion"! He has indeed made an efibrt to establish this pointy but with what success we have just seen. He con tinues : " End less m isery fin ds no s upport from these words ; they are qualifying terms and the extent of tbeir signification is ent-iipely governed by the things which ¦. tNy qualify." [Ibid.] What is this but sayingthat *' they are qualifying terms," and yet- they do not qualify the st^jectsA.0 which they are applied, but the subjects qualify them? In this case we should suppose that the words tW which they are applied would be the • qualifying terms.-* An-old^'ulein grara;mar, is, that " an adjective is a word added to asubstantlve, to express its quality:"— -but ac cording to the Universalist Interpreters, this rule slHiuld 1 now be reversed, — andishouW be; a substantive is a word added to an adjective to express its-quality ! What work these Linguists make, to estahlish their notions! In or* der to in validate the evidence with vvhich they are met, from tbe sa'iptores, tbey torture to death, both the rul(^$- of language and .gsmmon sense III K S2 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CDNSIDERED, AND THB The editor is also rauch raistaken in relation to the pas sage which we quoted frora Dr. Huntington. He says, in this, the Doctor " gives what was once his opinion upon these words — beforte his eyes were opened." &c and in thisway he accounts " for the absurdity so visible in the extract" [Ibi^.] But this extract is taken from Cal-, vanism Improved — a vindication of the doctrine of unin Versalisra: and was indeed his opinion when an univer salist, as any one must know who has the smallest ac quaintance with his system. There would be " absurdi ty visible in the extract," if the Doctor held to universal salvation upon tlie. principle of every man's receiving the. •whole of his punishment, as does the editor: — but instead of this, he asserts this doctrine upon the ground of C4ris<'s suffering the whole of the sinner's punishment, as his sub stitute. He says: " This doctrine of saving universal grace is perfectly consistent with the most plain and posi tive declarations ofthe word of God, that thp pains of he^^ ^all be endless ; and that the wicked shall go away in to everlasting punishment, in all the boundless extent of these words, and many others that convey the same idea ofthe endless punishment of sinners, and that in the plain est possible manner of expression. In their surety. Vic ar, or substitute, i. e. in Christ ' the head of every pan' they go away into everlasting punishmentin a' true and- goepel sense." [See Calvinism Improved pp. 164 — 165.] We do not intend to attempt a refutation of the Doc tor's, scheme;* but have judged it necessary so far to give a View ofit, astosliow that what is expressed in the extract above alluded to, is perfectly consistent with his scheme of universal salvation: And that his, is indeed what we presented it for: — the testiraony of an uni- . ver.satist: — the editor to the contrary notwithstanding! But the editor thinks that the extract in question, " Shows how weak the arguments in support of endless misery are, when predicated u)>on the strength of these terms," for he *' should think that even God hiinself could choose language to express interminable punislunent much plainer than it is by the original words translated/ore^'er, signi- *This scheme is ably refuted by Dr. Strong inthe 3d partof hi« book entitled, " T'hf. doctrine of Eternal Misery reconciled with the Infinite Benevolence ef God.'* ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. 8S fyingana^e. a long period, or interminable duration." [Ibid.] The Doctor says in this extract that the " bible says that sinners shall be damned to interminnUe pnnish- ment, . as plain as language can expi-ess, or any man, or even God hiraself can speak," and expresses great aston ishment " that some who believe that all mankind shall in the end be saved, will trifle with a few words, and most of all with the original word and its derivatives transla ted foiwer, &c. and says that " all the learned know that this word in the Greek signifies an age, a long. peri* od, or interminaUe duration." Now it is plain that he predicates the assertion that ' the bible" asserts " that sinners .shall be damned to interminable punishment." & his charge of tnfiing agamst some of the universalists, upon the signification ofthe " oi-iginal word and its der ivatives translated forever- &c. This word he says *' signifies an age, a long period, or interminable duratioii.*^ From tbe whole of this, we can come to no o\hcr conclu sion than that he supposed this " word and its deriva tives," iiieraWyamrf^iropcrii/ to signify " interminable du ration." — though they raight be wied figuratively ami im properly., for " an a^e" or •* a long period." We cannot roalte good sense of what this author says in any other way. and in this way of andersfranding him, he displays no weakness in the argument drawn from the strength, of the terms: — but did he indeed display weafe?iess, it would lie in the author's manner of stating the argument, & not in the argument itselC Dr. Huntington held to universal Salvation ; but he did not arrive at his conclusions in the ordinary way:— he admitted the infinite evil of sin ; — the proper force and £aeaning of all the Divine threatenings ; — & the " bound less extent" of the terras used in relation to future pun ishment. But he believed the sinner would be eternally damned in his substitute, and not in person. Dr, H's. system does not differ raaterially from what is called the Rellian System, frora John and J^mes Reily, of England. This system is exhibited in a Book enti tled " Relley's Union."* It is said that this system is *Tbe main principles of this book are overturned by Dr. Ed wards in a few pages, in the Appendix to his book ag'aijist Dr. Chauncey. ^a4 UNIVERSAL SALVATION EONSltJEBED, AND THB held by Mr. Mitchell of New York:* It is hoWeVfer'se- verely reprobated by Mr. Kneeland. f Much as the sichemes of _theae mighty champions of Universalism are at variance: when the doctrine of eternal punishment is to he contpst^jd, they move in unis$n. Ko, YIII. — The argument from the strength of tha terms, ubsvmed. In this number we shall give the argument which is deducedfrom the strength of the terms used in relation to future punishment something more at lerigth. And we propose to obsuerve the following order : I. TPogive additional authorities for theproper and lit eral raeaning of the words rendered ^xie»;tostin^, &c. If. show the sense in which these words are used by the sacred Writers. &.II.I. That the particular construction in which "they are used in relation to punishment, is never used far limited duration. I, Wc are to give some additional autliorities to show that the proper and literal meaning of the terms in ques tion, is duration absolutdy endless. By the ancient Latin writers, the word aion is trans lated 3tvum at)d setemitas : and aionios, asternus. " This word (aion.) is translated by Sully and others, SBeculum, yetas, annus, and sternitas. Athanasius, Jerome, Hillary, and Ambrose, render aionios, eetemus. Chrys ostom -i^peaking ofthe punishment which is qualified by aion says, that * it is a punishment from which they es cape not.' And Theopholact, that it is ' not to be remit ted either here or elsewhere, butto be endured both here And elsewhere,* Cyprian renders it «ternus. His lan- ^lage ia, ' guiliy of an eternal sin never to be blotted oat.'-" XiEIGH'S CBBTIRA SACRA. *See Tract Noi, published bythe New York Universalist Book Sociey?^ ' tS«e I^eeland'aXectUfgi pp. 108—110. A ^otis.. ETERN.iL PUISlfSHMENT.&c. ESTABLISHED. 85 " In4he Vulgate Latin version, the word aion is al- most constantly rendered setermj-,. So it is likewise by the early Christian Fathers. Jerome, in bis. Commentary on Mat xxv. 41, uses thefdllowing language: ' Let the prudent reader attend to the fact, that'the punishments ave eterml, iind the life perpetHnl. tlifat he may thus es cape the danger of ruin ? Tertulian, in his apology again.st the heathen, in allusion tothe samepa.ssage saVs thatthe righteous shall enter upon the retribution of «(er- nal Wfe, and the wickedshall goi into fire equally perpet0d.l aiHl daraWe. Irenieus, that ' tire fire is eternal which mv Father has prepared for the devil and his angels.' A- gain he quotes the text Mat xxv.41. thus: 'Depart ye cursed into etemal fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels,' and then adds tiiis comment: « -Beca^ise intimating that eternnl tire was not prepared principally for man, but for him who seduced him and caused him to sin.' And again: *^ punishraent rM only temporcU tut eternal.' Chrysostom in his Latin works homily xvi. speaking on Mat. xxv. 41. uses this language'. » Go' he says ' ye cursed into efeniai fire.'" THE CHKISTiAN ADVOCATE; (A magazine published in Philadelphia,) Vol. III. pp. i56i 157. An able article signed A. C. In the Lexicons these words aretranslated thus: aion,, ^rum, seternitas, sojculuai ; quasi (as if) aei on always being, or existing, Hehericus. Aion serum, mundus, scepulum: q. e. (which is) aei on. SCHEEVEXIUS. Aionios is 3eternus, sempoternus, perenais. Hedeeicus. JEternus. ScHREtEiitrs. The Latin words above ai'e defined in English as fol- lowst .Mrum, Eternity, an age. ^termtas, Eternrty, Duration without beginning or end. Soeculum an age, the life of men, tlie worlil. Mundus, tiie world, the uni verse. w. This is the first place in the scrip tures in which olam occurs as an attribute of God, and here it is evidently designed to point out his utmost dura tion: that it can mean no limited time is self evident, be cause nothing of this kind can be attributed to God. Thtf' Septuagint renders the words Theos aionios the ever exis ting God. From this application of the words, we learn that olam and aion originally signified ETERifXi. or du ration without end, olam signifies he was hidden, concecde^ or kept secret:* and aion according to Aristotle, De Gselo, Lib. 1- Chap. 9, and a higher authoiity need not be sought, is compounded of aei always, and on be ing — aion estin apa tou aei einai. The sarae author infur ma us that God wa^ termed 4isffln, because he was always esdsting kaleitai Aisan de aeiousan. De, Mundo, Chap. 7. in fine. Hence we see that no words cah raqre forci bly express the grand characteristics of eternity than these. It is that duration which is concealed^ hidden or *'' It hath been said, that there is notbitig irithe hebfew root olam and its derivatives, wbidb imply end) ess duration ; and thaf it can be thus understood only when the nature of the subject ne cessarily requires it, as when it is appliad to God. This mat ter deserves attention. Itis known that:^n6 moaning bfthis ^ord is hid or obscured; and I have no doubt but this was its original raeahing, as all words were first applied to sensible ob jects. A finite mind cannot comprehend in^nite ; so that infin ite or eternal duration, is in its nature bidden or. incomprehen sible by man. But no limited duration, be it ever so long, ip In its nature incomprehensible or hidden. — The original applica tion of this word fo duration in the Hebrew language, waa" doubtless on tbe ground I have mentioned ; andits natural mean- Ing is..dQration in its natflte incomprehensible ; and none btft endless or el»mal duration is such. There is great beauty and energy in applying theword in this' manner to the 'e.xfstewcfe of' God, and to other thingswhich ate eternal in the endless senee. In the Greek* language, absolute eternity is expressed by the quality of existing or continuing alwaysi In the Hebrew, from its being hidden, orincomprehehsible in its nature, by a- finite mind. In the Latin from its being without end or limit,. and in theEngSshby a derivation from the Latin in the same manner." Dr. Strojig. (See Benevolence and misery pp. 100... 101.) '8^-, UNIVERS .VL SALVATIQNCONSIDEKED. ANDTHE kept 'Secret from ail, created beings:-— which is always ex-- isting, still running OJir bwt never running ouT-r-one in terminable incessant, and immeasurable duration: it '.is THAT, in the wAoie 0/ wftic/i G.od alone can be said toexi-- ist; and that which the eternal mind can alone, oompre, he^id. " In jail lauguages words have, in process of time, de- \»ated froin their original acceptations, and have become accommodated to particular purposes, and limited to par- tif ular meani.ugS' This has happened both to the He brew o^aw and to the Greek aion: they have been bothj usedto express a imiied time, but, in general, a time, the limits of which are unknown; and thus a pointed ref erence to the original ideQl meaning is still , kept up. — — Those who bring any ofthese termsinan accoraraodated aens^, tOffayora particular docti-ine, &c. rauat dqiendi on the. good graces of their opponents for permission, to, Tise them in this way, For as the real gr,ammaticalj meajning of both words is eternal, and all other meanings only accommoffflfed ones, sound criticism, in all mattera of dispute concerning the import of a word or- term, must have recourse to tiie grararaatical raeaning, and its use among the earliest and most correct w'riters in the lan^^ guage, and will determine all accommodated meanings, by this alone. Now the first and best writers in both languages apply olam and aion to express etemal in the proper meaning of that word." Dr. Ciahke.. (See his^ note upon Gen. xxi. 33) Froip the above authorities, (and though 6rt(er cannpt be ohtained, yet more of the same character might be ad-, ded,) it appears from the etymology of the original He brew and Greek words rendered etenia^, &C. and frortir their use araong the earliest and best writers iu thpSe,- l^ngu^ges, that their literal and , proper meaning is infinite, duration^-rralways being. On the prin ciple of interpretatioi) which we.ha>e. laid down in the preceding number, the ground is now fairly gaiur ed, until our opponent shows that these, wjirds are to bcj taken in a figurative and an improper sense, when used. in reference to future punishraent. Though what immedi ately follows, is not absolutely essential to the argument: -^it will however greatly corroborate it.- We shall noVr proceed $0 enquire for, ^ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. &c ESTABLISHED. 89 Jl. The use which the sacred "Writers make of these words. In this part of the enquiry we shall conRne ourselves to the New Testament, and of course to the Greek word aion and its derivatives ; as every thing material in this part ofthe controversy will hie embraced in this range. That these words are to be taken in the unlimited sense when applied to punishment, is corroborated by the sen.se in which they are used when applied to other subjects. This we shall now show by referring to all the places in whichthey occur and showing the senses in which they are used. ** Aion," says Dr. Edwards, in his reply to Dr. Chauftcey, " reckoning the reduplications of it, to be hut single instances of its use, occm's in the New Tes tament in one hundred and four instances ; in thirty two of which, it means a temporary duration.* In seven it may be taken in either the temporary or endless. f In : sixty-five, including six instances in which it is applied to future punishment, it plainly signifies an endless du ration,:}: How then could Dr. C. say, that it is comnpon- ly if not always used in the sacred pages, to sigaif;Jf an age or dispensation only? And that this is almost the perpetual use ofit *The places are Mal. xii, 32, xiii, 22, 38, 40, 49 xxiv, 3, xxviii, 20, Mark iv, 19' Luke i, 70, xvi, 8, xx, 34, 35, Acts M, 21, Rom. xii, 2, 1 Cor. i, 20, ii, 6, twice, 7, 8, iii, 18, x, 11, »Cor. iv, 4, Gal. i, 4, Eph. i, 21 , ii, 2, vi, 12, 1 Tim. vi, 17, 2Tim. iv, 10, Tit. ii, 12, Heb. i, 2, ix, 26, xi, 3. •(¦The places are, Mark x, 30, Luke xviii. 30, John ix, 32, Eph. ii, 7. iii, 9, Bol. i, 26, Heb. vi, 5. JTheplaces are as follows: Mat. vi, 13, xxi, 19, Mark xi, 14, Luke i, 33, 55, John iv, 14, vi, 51, 58, viii, 25, twice, 51, fi2, X, 28, ix,*26, xii, 84, xiii, 8, xiv, 16, Acts xv, 18, Rom. i, 25,ix,5,xi,36,xvi,27,lCor. vtii,ia,2 Gor.ix, 9,xi,31,Gal. i,5,Eph, iii.ll, 21, Phil. iv,20, 1 Tim. i, 17, twice, 2 Tim. iv, 18, Heb, i, 8, V, 6, vi, 20, vii, 17,21, 24, 28, xiii, 8, 2 J, 1 Pet. i, 23,25, iv, 11, V, 11, 2 Pet. iii, 18, 1 Johnii, 17, 2 John 2, Rev. i, 6, 18, iv,9, 10, V, 13, 14, vii, 12, x, 6, xi, 15, xy, 7, xxii, 6. — The eix instances in which it is applied to future punishment, are, Mark iii,29, 2 Pet. iijl7, J«d. 13, Rev. xiv,ll, xix, 3, xx,10j T 90 UNIVERSAL "SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THfi " The adjective aionios is still hiore unfavorable to Dr. C's. system. It is found in seventy one places in the whole New Testament : sixty-six, beside the five in which Dr. C. allows it is applied to future punishment* Itf every one of the sixty-six instances, except two II. Tim. i. 9. Tit. i. 2. it may, to say the least, he understood ill the endless sense." (See Edwards against Chauncey P|p. 251. 252.) Another writer gives the following distribution of the senses in which the words occur. " Without having res pect to tlie words as .substantive or adjective, or to their number as singular or plural. I find they occur one Awn- dred <^ ninety-nine tiraes in the New Testaraent. I have* examined everyplace where they are to he found, & have ' arranged thera, as belonging to the different subjects un der the following heads: Tothe Mosaic dispensation — 0. The world itself with the various ages and revolu- 1 . ; tions which have passed. J God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, together with 1 .^ the reign of Christ, J Ascriptions of glory & praise to God, Christ, &c. 24. Eternal life and blessedness, 65. Eternal death and punishment, 21. (See Methodist Magazine, Vol. III. P.-217.) 199. According to this distribution, leaving out the 21 times in which it is applied to punishment, the word' is used 135 times in the endless sense, to 43 times in the limited sense. If we were then to decide upon the sense in which the words are to be taken in the places where they are ap- *The places are. Mat. xix, 16, 23, xxv, 46, Mark x, 17,30, Luke X, 25, xvi, 9, xviii, 18, 30, John iii, 15, 16, 36, iv, 14, 36, V, 24, 39, vi, 27, 40, 47, 54, 68, x, 28, xii, 25, 50, xvii, 2, 3, Acts, xiii, 46, 48, Rom. ii, 7, v, 21, vi, 22, 23, xvi, 25, 26, 2 Cor. iv, 17, 18, v, 1, Gal. vi, 8, 2 Thess. ii, 16, 1 Tim. i, 16, vi, 12, 16, 19, 2 Tim. i, 9, ii, 10, Tit. i, 2, twice, iii, 7, Phi- lem. 15, Heb. v, 9, vi, 2, ix, 12, 14, 15, xiii, 20, 1 Pet. v, 10, 2 Pet. i, 11, 1 John i, 2, ii, 25, iii, 15, v, 11, 13, 20, Jude 7, 21, Rev. xiv, 6.^The five texts in which Dr. C. allows aionois to be applied to -future punishment are. Mat. ^viii, 8, xxv, 41, 46, Mark iii, 29, 2 Thess. i, 9. To which is to |)e added Jude 7. ETERNAL PtTNISH.MENT, &c. EST.\BLISHED. 91 plied to punishment, by the sense in which they are gen erally used, the coraparative evidence in favor ofthe un limited sense, is, to the limited, as 135 is to 43. Fara« ther: If the words in question do not express unlimited duration there are no terms in the Greek language which do In this case it wonld have been impossible for tho Jvriters ofthe New Testament to have found appropriate erms, in the language in which they wrote, to express the proper eternity of God — or the endless duration ofthe happiness of the righteous. This raust have occasioned them many perplexities and embarrassmerits, whenever tbey had occasion to introduce these subjects. But does any thing of this appear? — Is there the smallest evidence, from any source, of such poverty in the Greek language? Not any indeed, buta torrent of evidence to the contrary! III. We pi"oceed to show that these words are used in a particular construction, when applied to punishment, in which they are never used in a limited sense. " But" says Dr Edwards: '• if aion nsed absolutely did generally signify a raere temporary duration: it would not thence follow, that it has the same restricted significa tion when governed by the preposition eis. It is never applied to future punishraent but in this construction - In the whole New Testaraent it is used in this construc tion, sixty one times, in six of which it is applied to fu ture punishment* That in all the remaining fifty-five it is used in the endless sense, I appeal to the reader. If in those fifty-five instances it be used in the endless sense ; this surely is a ground of strong presumption, that in the six instances, in which it is applied to future punish ment itis used in the same sense." (Ibid.) Now if the radical aiid proper signification ofthe words rendered etemal, forever, Ac. is always being: — If these words are ordinarily used by the New Testament writers to express endless duration: — And finally, if they are *In this construction it is found in all the texts mentioned in the last marginal aote^ in page 89, except Acts, xv, 18, Eph. iii, 11,21. Once in 1 Tim. i, 17, and 2 Pet. iii, 18. I have been thus particular in noting all the texts, in which «j07i occurs in the New Testament, that the reader may exam ine them and judge (or himself, whether I have given adjust ffpteaentotion of the use of that word by tbe inspired writers. 92 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE used in a construction when applied to future punish ment, in which they are never used in a limited sense: — Does it not amount toa moral ceitainty, that when these words are connected with future punishment they express the absolute eternity of that punishment ? Now after all this evidence upon this subject would our readers suppose that any raan bad the teraerity to declare himself " able to prove that these words do not, in any instance, necessarily convey the idea of eternity ; nor yet of an endless duration of time" ! And yet this declaration is made by a man who has thought himself sufficiently ac quainted with the Greek language to give to the public a new version of the New Testament! — A man of no less pretensions as a critic and a polemic than the Rev. A. Kneeland!! (See his Lectures P. 189.) The main argument by which he attempts to support this extraordinary position is " thatthe substantive, or foot is used in the plural number. For" he says " every school-boy w ho has paid any attention to his grammar, knows that a noun or substantive, expressive of tirae, which is used in the plural nuraber, cannot give an idea of duration without end ; but must be a period that has both heginning & end ; otherwise there could be but one of the kind. And this is the case iii all languages as well as the english" — (See Lectures P. 190.) This criticism did not originate with Mr. K. It was wielded by Mr. Vidler in opposition to Mr. Fuller and the latter gentleman very fairly meets it as follows: " Words in English that are properly expressive of endless duration, — may not or dinarily admit ofa plural; and, if this were universally thscase, it would not follow, that it is the same in Greek. Nor is it so: for the idea of endless duration, is frequent ly conveyed by these very plural forms of expression. — Thus in Eph. iii, 11. kater prothesin ton aionon; accor dingto his eternal purpose. 1 Tim. i, 17. To de Basilei ton aionon aphiharto aorato mono sopho Theo time kai doxa eis tous aionas ton aionon, JVow unto the king eternal, im mortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever ^ ever — Render these passages how yoa will, you cannot do them justice, unless you express the idea of un limited duration. And though the English terms may not admit of what is terraed a plural forra, yet they adrait of what is equal to it; for though we do not say everlas- ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED, 05, tings nor eternities yet we say forever^ ever; and you might as well contend, that/orcrer cannot properly mean unliraited duration, seeing another ever raay be added to it, as that aion must needs mean a limited duration, on account of its admitting a plural form of expression.— You might also with equal propriety, plead for a plural ity of evers in futurity, from the phraseology, as for a plurality ot ages from the Greek." VI. Letter to Mr. Vid ler.— See Fuller's works Vol- II, pp. 381, 382.) After this reply the objection should have rested forever. But it is urged by Mr. K. with as much assurance as though it had never been successfully met: — and indeed as tho' it were a discovery of his own ! Mr. Kneeland thinks he has found a term more expres sive of endless duration that those which are applied to punishment: and argues from it thus : " Speaking of our great high priest, who was raade priest by an oath, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron. St. Paul saith (Heb. vii, 16.) ' Who is raade not after the law of A carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life Calla kata dunamin Zoes akatalutou J but ac^- cording to the power fakat.dutouj of indissoluble life . Here is a word in the original which is not connected with punishment, misery, or death, any where in the whole Bible ; yet it is coiinected with life to denote its durability. If this word could have been so much as once found connected with death^ the same raanner as it is here with life, it would havp-given more support to the doctrine of endless misery than all that is contained in the bible beside. Is it not strange, if St. Paftl^'bslieved in this unraerciful doctrine, that he did not so much as once, in all his writings, connect it with punishment or death^." (See Lectures P. 196.) Theword akatolutas ac- cording to Parkhurst is from a neg. ^ katalutos dissolved, which is from kataluo to dissolve. JVot to be dissolved, indissoluble — [See Lexicon] and is only once used in the New Testament. But if this word is more sighificant of endless duration than those generally used why is it not ordinarily used in conneotion with the existence of God and the happiness ofthe righteous? — This raust be unaccountable. This argument, as the former, was urged by Mr. Vidler and was replied ta by Mr, Fuller thus: " It ii 44 UNIVERSAL SALVXTION CONSIDERED. AND THE true, the term akatalutos is here applied to life ; but not' as you insinuate, to that life of future happiness which is opposed to punishment. The life here spoken of, is that which pertains to our Lord's priesthood, wliich is opposed to that of Aaron, wherein men were not suffered to con tinue by_ reason of death. The word signifies indissoluble ; and being applied to the nature of a priesthood which death could not dissolve is very properly rendered endless. . It possibly might be applied to the endless happiness of good men, as opposed to the dissoluble, or transitory en joyments of the present state ; but as to the punishment of the wicked, supposing it to he endless, I question whether it be at all applicable to it. 1 can form no idea how the term indissoluble, any raore than incorruptible can apply to punishment. The word kataluo to unloose, or dissolve, is true is s'aid to refer to travellers loosing' their own burtlen.sv or those of their beasts, when they are resting by the way: but there are no examples of its having been used with reference to the termination of punishment ; nor does it appear to be applicable to it. — In its most comraon acceptation in the .New Testaraent, it signifies to destroy, or demolish — and you will scarce ly suppose the sacred writers to suggest the idea of destruc tion which cannot be destroyed." (VI. Letter to Vidler.) In fact the word ^katalutosis no raore expressive of du ration without end than the words aion ^ aionios: — and could just as well be used figuratively, or inan accommo dated sense. It raight be said of the matrimonial covenant that it is indissoluble because it is ihade fior life, or of any corapact, that it is indissoluble, if it is intended liy t!ie parties, to continue a long time, or indefinitely. It will not he pretended but that the English words eternal and endless naturally signify unliraited duration. But who has not read, or heard, of the eternal sriows of the polar regions — eternal fame, &c. And who but has often heard in familiar conversation of an endless talk-'^ er — an endless task — an endless cowf ewtJOJi^ &c. But what would be thought ofa person who wouldjcii^e forward & argue from this, that these terms are indetermin ate ; and do not naturally signify any thing raore than a long time ? The strongest terras in any language may be used in an accommodated sense : but would it be good logic . tp conclude from this that they have no natural detei^ifi- ETEItWAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. gS ate meaning, or iftlvey have any, that it is no more ex tensive than the accomraodated one? This wonld be coni sidered sophistry so wretched as not to require a serious refutation: — but it would be precisely of a piece with the reasoning of our universalist opponents upon this subjects No. IX — The argument from implication o'E^B.Nonti. Our third arguraent in favour of eternal punishment, is built upon a number of scriptures which are supposed to imply the doctrine. The editor has remarked upon quite a large proportion of these sci'iptures : —whatever is of iraportance in his remarks we shall uow ckrefully consider. In his commencement he complains that we " have no^ introduced one argument to support that the many pas sages" which we have " quoted, have reference to that punishment to which" we apply " them." (P. ITO.) It is difficult for us to perceive what he would require of us. Our arguments are founded upon the natural and obvious meaning of these passages; — would he have us bring ar- giements to prove thatthe language employed in them means what it is comraonly understood to mean? It ap pears to us that he ought rather to bring " arguments to prove" that it means something else: — and until he does which, the natural meaning mu.st stand. He now gives us a number of criticisras upon Mat xii, SI, 32, and Mark iii, 29. whicii speak of the sin against the Holy Ghost. He informs us that the "true and orir ginal meaning" of the Greek word aiom, is, " dispensa tion" and gives to us what he considers " a more proper translation ofthe passage" (Mat xii, 39.) thus: " It shall not be forgiven him neither in this dispensation, n«^ither in the dispensation to come:" and adds the fol lowing parapl^a&e: " i. e. neither in the dispensation of the law of Mo^es, — neither in the dispensation which was to follow." (Ibid.) We need add nothing upon the proper meaning of the word aion: this subject we have BufficienUy discussed in the preceding number. But iS 96 UjNI V ERSAL SALVA 1 iOM CONSIDEKED, AND THE we were to allow that aiojii, in this place, signifies dis. pensation ; will it be possible for him to show that " the dispensation to come," is not the last and final dispensa tion of mercy to fallen man? Where is his proof that there will be another dispensation, after the dispensation of the gospel is closed, in which forgiveness will be ex tended to this sin, or to any other? It is not so clear _to us that the " mode of expression" ittiplies any such thing, but entirely to the contrary ! In proof of this he quotes Eph. ii, 7. i. 10. But before these passages will afford him any help he raust show that ' the ages to come' and ' the dispensation ofthe fulness of time,' refer to ages, &c, . beyond ' the world to come' — and that in these passages there is a promise off orgiveness to thesm against the Ho ly Ghost: — but this he will not be able to do. He gives us another specimen of his critical knowl edge and research, in what he calls " a correct transla tion" of Mk. iii, 29. * hath never forgiveness,' as follows: •' Hath not forgiveness [eis ton aiona] unto the dispensa tion or age:" — and remarks: " eis ton aiona nnto the age or dispensation, is left out which perverts the text." [Ibid.] Here we beg leave to dissent: — Eis ton aiona is the phrase, commonly rendered forever. Ouk echd aph-, esm eis ton aiona, is literally, hath not forgiveness forev er, or to eternity. This, every reader will at once per ceive, is precisely the same in sense, as, hath never for^ giveuess. Eis ton aiona says the learned Dr. Geo. Camp bell, with a negative particle, when the sense is not con fined by the verb, has invariably the sarae meaning, ¦which is nerer. [See his note on John viii, 51.] But we will now put this subject within the grasp of the plainest reader. We will refer to a number of passa ges where this ph ase [eis ton aiojia] occurs, and render and explain them according to our editor, and then see where bis criticism will lead hira. ' " But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst [John iv, 14.] According to his translation: shall not thirst (ets ton aiona) unto the dispensation, or age! " If any man eat of this bread he' shall live forever." (vi, 51.) i. e. he shall live unto the * dispensation ! " If a man keep my sayings he shall nev er see death." [viii, 51.] — He shall not see death unto the dispen.?ation ! " And I give unto tbem eternal life, ETEBNAL PDNISHMENT, 6fc. ESTABLISHED. 97 and they shall never perish." (x, 28.) They shall not perish unto the dispensation. " And whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die." (xi, 26.) ShaU not die uuto the dispensation! " His righteousness re maineth /orerer (2 Cor. ix, 9.)i. e. unto the dispensa tion! " But he that doth the will of God abideth for ever." (John ii, 17".) i.e. according to our translator, he abideth feis ton aienaj unto the dispensation ! So according to this famous critic, those who drink of the living water shall not thirst unto the dispensation, but they may afterwards ! Those who eat of the bread oflife shall live, unto the dispensation, after which they may die — yea die eternally ! Those who keep the say ings of Christ shall not see death, unto the dispensation: — but alas ! what then ? they may indeed see death ! Christ's .sheep to whom he gives eternal life shall not pensh, unto the dispensation, hut then they may indeed perish ! Those who live and believe on Christ, shall not die, unto the dispensation, but then, sad to tell, they may die ! The righteousness of those who disperse abroad, and give to the poor, remaineth, unto the dispensation, but per haps no ion^rer / And he that doeth the will of God, a- bideth unto the dispensation, but then he may be removed ! These are the consequences to which the gentleraan's " correct translation" will lead him! Nothing need be added to show their absurdity. He proceeds next to examine Heb. vi, 6. ' It is impos sible to renew them again unto repentence.' (See P. 180. ) These words be thinks only " teach if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance in the same way they weie first renewed." But pray sir, in what other way would you have them renewed? As you have not told us, and as we have nothing in -f,he scriptures uiion the subject, we must still wait to be informed. But be enquires: " If it is impossible for such ever to be reclaimed — why all the exhortations to them to re- tui-n?" The editor would do well to distinguish between a state fit partial backsliding and that of total apostacy : — ¦ in one case they are exhorted to return ; in the other we know not that they are. Now without repentance there can be no salvation : hut here is a case in which repentance 98 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AxVD THE is iTJiyossiftie:— Therefore in this case there can be no sal vation, t Much of-his explanation of H^b. x, 26. ' There remain eth no raore Sacrifice for sins,' i.s in perfect accordance with our views. As he says: " There was no other" sacrifice" which would prove availing: even the sacri fice of Jesus was of no effect while they rejected it" — "The case" says Dr. Clarke " is that of a deliberate a- postate; one who has utterly rejected Jesus Christ and his atoneraent?, and renounced the whole gospel system. To hira there remaineth no mm-e sacrifice for sins ; for there was but ONE Jesus ; and this he has utterly rejected." But to save hiraself, the editor raust attempt to show that these characters will ultiraately receive Christ ; and so. though no other sacrifice will avail for thera, yet they will be interested in tAiS. But the scriptures by which he attempts to establish this point we have previously ex plained: (Seepp. 22 — 25, & 64,65,) and this explana tion reraains unanswered. He now passes to consider Luke ix, 25. ' What is a man advantaged if be shall gain the whole world ard lose himself or be cast away.' [See P. 181.1 Hs. would not have been so hard set to cbmprehend what we .eant ' by a raan being lost in a desert and yet saved in f ict,' had he attentively considered what he quotes fro .1 us a few lines below, thus: ' But he cannot be lost so as to be cas* away and yet finally saved.' Our idea was .siraply this: lhat a man could not be cast away final ly, and yet he finally saved. And it appeared to us that it was a final casting away, whieh our Lord intended. But he attempts to make out from Rom. xi, 2. 15. that those who are cast away will be " regained. " Now it is evident that the apostle speaks of casting away in two different senses. In one sense Israel was not cast away, verse 2. ' God hath not cast awav his people.' But m another, they were': for verse 15, he says, ' if the cas/inff away of thera be the riches of the world,' *c. "They were not irrecoverably cast away, but were rejected or cut off trom the privileges of the visible church ; hut if they did not ' abide still in unbelief,' they should ' be grafted in again.' [verse 23.] But is it certain from this that tho«e who lose themselves, or are cast away, in our Lord's sense, ami i& the sense which the apostle first mentions. ETERNAL PUNTHMKNT, Ssfc.ESTABMSHED 99 will ever " be received as life from the dead?" Certain ly not ! His next effort is to defend his system against the con clusion which was drawn from the words of Christ con cerning Judas. [Mtit xxvi, 24.] ' It had been good for that man ifhe had not been hern,' He first reraarks: " The verbs being in the present tense will allow this conclusion, it had been good for him if he had not been born then." [Ibid.] It is extremely unpleasant for us to be under the necessity to detect a man of our Examiner's pretensions and reputation, in so many egregious gram matical errors: — but we can not otherwise do justice to the truth. If he will carefully and candidly enimine the passage he will find thatthe " verbs are" not "in the present tense!" fen. J Was is in the iraperfect tense, and CegennetheJ is in thefirst anrist pass. & is correctly r«:;ii- dered in the imperfect tense. This be ought frankly to acknowledge upon a review ofthe subject. In order that this passage may read to suit him, he must add the par ticle •¦¦ then" to it. But what error may'not be supported from the scriptures in this way? If we may take the liberty to add qualifying words, to limit or extend the sense to our liking; the bible will be like a nose of wax- it will accommodate itself to any thing! But lest this sho-"Mnu*^be satisfactory he tries anoth er method: " It would have heen good for him had he not have been born at all ; that is, had he died in an un timely birth and gone imraediately to rest" [Ibid.] But perhaps it might adrait of a query whether not being " born at all" is the ,sarae thing with having *' an un timely birth and going iraraediately to rest" — Is an un timely birth no birth ataH? This ig a singular discovery! He next throws in the following objection: " But to force this passage concerning Judas, to mean that it had have been good for him never to have had an existence, is a severe reflection upon the character of God. If this be its meaning it tells us that God has given an existence which will prove an eternal curse to its possessor." [Ib.] To this we answer: 1. It is by no means forcing the pas- .sage to put upon it this meaning — it is legitimate and natural. And 2. Many of the gifts of God prove curses totiieir po.ssesf5ors: — but so long as it is not a necessary f/>nsequence, but is owing entirely to the abuses of tiie 100 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED. AND THE recipients, these arc not " reflections upon the character of God." It is indeed a new doctrine, that the Almighty is to be answerable for our turning his grace into las civiousness— and that it reflects upon his character to say he has given what might have been highly advantageous to its possessor, but what in consequence of abuse, turns out otherwise! Again,he says: " If this form of speech prove the endless misery of Judas, sirailar forms of speech will prove the endless misery of some of the most renowned worthies." After introducing the language of Job. [Chap, iii-] and Jeremiah [Chap, xx.] he concludes: " No one'presumes that Job & Jereraiah are the subjects of endless misery," [Ibid.] We have heen inclined to consider the hasty & passionate language of Job and Jeremiah, in the places above cited, as the ebulitions of huraan infirmity. And can our Lord he supposed to have been in the same tera per of mind, and under the influence of the sarae incor rect views,when he uttered these words concerning Judas, as were Job and Jereraiah when fretting against the Lord? How can it he pretended that there is the sraall- est paralell between the two cases? The many efforts which have been raade by Universalist writers to dis pose of this passage, by altering the translation — adding to the text — explaining away its force — and perverting its raeaning ; show most conclusively how fatal it is fo their theory !* The editor next considers Mark ix, 43 — 48. '—their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.' He denies that these words have reference to " an eter nal and invisible hell." But the Greek word Gehenna, here rendered hell, is always usad in the New Testament wit.h reference to the place of punishment in the invisible and eternal world. Mr. Kneeland says indeed, that, " the raost learned have not proved, neither will they ever attempt to prove, that Gehenna in the New Testa- *In these various shifts. Examiner follows the principal Uni versalist writers. See Winchester's Dialogues pp. 82 91. The Universalist: In seven letters to Amyntor by Wm. Pitt Smith. PP.. 173— 176. Minutes ofthe debate between Messrs. Kneeland and M'Calla pp. 77—93, and M'Calla on Universat ism pp. 195 — 199. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. 101 ment, has reference to any other place than the valley nf Hinnoin." [Lectures pp. 179, 180.] Now we think weare prepared to show to the contrary! — We raay not be ac quainted with those authors to whom this gentleraan would give the character of " raost learned :"-'-hut we have con.sulted those upon this subject, who must be ac knowledged to stand as high in the republic of letters as any others. Bdxtoet upon this word says: ponitur pro loco eeterni exitii it is put for the place of eternal destruction. ScHKEvnius : — Locus suppliciorum seternorum the place of eternal punishment. Heoericcs: — Vallis Hinnim, locus suppliciorum the valley of Hinnnm — or place ofpunishment. Parkhurst says: " Gehenna is used in the Ixx. fop the Heb. Gyben fliiwnom Josh, xviii, 16. So Gehenna ofthe New Testament is in like manner A corruption of the two Hebrew words Gy a 'Folley, and Hinnom, the name of a person who was once the possessor ofit. This valley of Hinnom lay near Jerusalem, and had been the place of those abominable sacrifices in which the idola trous Jews burned their children alive unto Molock, Baal, or the Sun. " From this valley having been the scene of those infer nal sacrifices, and probably too frora its continuing after the tirae of king Josiah's reforraation [2 Kings xxiii, 10.] a place of ahominable Jilthiness and pollution ; [See sen.se II, below;] the Jews in ou;* saviour's time used the cora- pound word GeAinnom for /leW, the place of the damned.'^ This appears from that word being thus applied by the Chaldee Targums on Ruth ii, 12, Ps, cxl, 12, Isa. xxvi, 15, xxxiii, 14, and by the Jerusalem Targura, & that of Jonathan Ben Uziel on Gen, iii, 24, xv, ir.f , *R. David Kimchi in Pa. xxvii, 13, says that Gehinnom was a very contemptible place near Jerusalem, wiiere nil manner of filthiness and dead carcasses were cast ; and that a continual fire was kept there to burn them : hence the word is used very frequently by the Jewish Ribbins, to signify tbe place where the wicked are punished after death. (See Dr. Clarke's Note up- on the Targum. Cant, viii, 6.) IThe Targum says : " Mighty as hell [Gehenna'] is the f^nraity which the people bcw ynt® us, and Uie hatred whicb iff2 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE " II. It commonly denotes iraraediately AeH, the place or state of the damend, as Mat v, 29,30. x. 28, Comp. Mat. xxiii, 15, Jas. iii, 6. And in Mark ix, 43, 44. &c. Our Lord seems to allude to thet^rms which continual ly preyed on the dead carcasses that were cast out into the valley of Hinnom, Gehenna, and to the perpetual fire there kept up to consume them. Comp. Ecclus. vii, IT, Judith xvi, 17." f Greek and English Lexicon. J We do not question but the word Gehenna alludes to the valley of Hinnom, but there are very important raarks of difference between them. In the valley of Hinnom the hodies of men were burned — but in Gehenna their souls and bodies. (See Mat x. 28.) Again in the valley of Hinnam the worm died and the fire was quenched, but in Gehenna the worm dieth noi and the fire is nnt quench ed ! Nor can it he questioned but our Lord alluded to a literal garden, when he said to the penitent Thief • to day shalt thou be with rae in Paradise. (Luke xxiii, 42.) But who would argue from ibis th;.: unthing more ¦ a.s in tended than that he should be with him in bodj- in i lit eral ^'ardeit .* But this would be quite as consistent and logical, as to say that dhrist exhorted his di.sciples to ¦f' fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in" the valley of Hinnom ! And how is the soul to be destroyed in the valley of Hin nom? Mr. Kneeland says: " Because God has power to destroy, it does not necessarily follow that he will He has power • ofthese stones to raise up children unto A- braham.' See Mat iii, 9, hut wc have no account that he ever did." (Lectures, P. 181. A Note.) The case however which the gentleraan brings forward is a very different one from the case in hand. In this, God's pow er or abilily to destroy the soul and body in hell, is ur ged as a motive for the /ear of God: but if all that was they have reserved for us, is like the coals of the tire of hell [Gehennal which the Lord created on the second day -of the creation of the world, to burn therein those who commit idolatry." Again, [on Isa. xxxiii, 14,] it says : « The ungodly are i"''ged and delivered into hell for an eternal burnino-"—ox " the Gehenna of everlasting fire." [Clarke's GoiB.tnent'^ry on Iss. tax, 33, xxxiii, 14. j ETERNAL PUNISHMENT) &c. ESTABLISHED, 103 intended by it was that he was able indeed, but never would do it, in any case; what irapression would this make upon his audience? How would it enforce his sub ject, any raore than to have told them that God was able to bring another flood upon the world ; — when he ha» said that he will no more do it ? — Can any one suppose that our Lord in this solemn warning had no meaning at all ?— rWhere the scriptures assert the ability of tbe Al mighty to support aud save his people, it is equivalent to sL positive proraise that he will do it: (See Eom. xi, 23. xiv, 4,) Many instances of this kind raight be refered to, but we must not enlarge.* We raust return to the editor for a moment before we dismiss this subject. He labours to prove that the words of Christ in the passage in question " have refer* ence to tirae & are fulfilled upon the earth," frora Isa. Ixvi, 23, 24. We shall not deny but the prophet primarily refered to the pliysical evils which would come upon the disobedient Jews: but allowing that Christ correctly ap plied his words, we must conclude that they had a further meaning: for he applies thera to hell (or GehennaJ which,. we have shown is the place of future and eternal punish* ments. Instead of explaining the words of Christ by those of the prophet^ we explain the words of the prophet hy those of Christ; which is the raost judicious course of the two, we leave to the candid and intelligent to judge. The passages to which he refers (Jer. vii, 20, and xvii, 27,) which say thatthe fire which should be kindled inthe gates of Jerusalem should not be quenched, imply that it should not be extinguished until it had utterly consumed their city: — but is this-any evidence that the fire of hell, which shall prey upon the soul, shall ever go out? Cer tainly not, unless the soul is to be literally consumed, or annihilated. *Jt may he proper to notice that there Rre two other worde rendered hell : — Hades and Tarti^russ. Hades most general- ly signifies the unseen world in general, or seperate state of both the righteous and the wicked ; bui in turn'- cases, the place of punishment. This word occurs in Mat. xi, 23, xvi, 18, Luke x, 15, Acts ii, 27, 31, 1 Cor. xv, 55, Luke xvi, 23, Rev. i, i8, vi, 8 ,xx, 13, 14. Tarlaruss occurs only once in tbe N. Tes tament. [2 Pet. ii, 4.]It is used by the heathen poets for the place of punishment, so also by the apostle in this place*- 304 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND TriE Mr. Ballou supports another construction of the pas sage in question. He says: " accordiug to the connexr ions in tiie 9th of Mark, these words were spoken by Christ to his disciples." And of the unquenchable fire, he says, " it is the same no doubt, as described in notes on former parables." By turning back to these " notes on former parables," we learn that " thjs unquenchable fire, is the fire of divine love, which is God himself," & that " the manifest design of this fire, is to save by its purifying qualities the subject on which it operates." — (See Notes upon the parables pp. 18, 35, 37.) So accord ing to this famous expositor, our Saviour would say, ' it is better for thee to enter into life, &c. than to go into God,' or into " thefireof divine love," and be "saved by its purifying qualities." — Rare Divinity! — Query: what life can that be which is better than to go into God, or into heaven? The Editor next considers John viii, 21, * ye shall seek me and shall die in your sins, whither I go ye can not come.' He thinks that " Jesus did not mean the death of the body inthe above passage," and that this '.'•.is evident frora its connexion and by the raanner he uses the term deaiA, in this chapter." (P. 185.) But is it a strange thing for the inspired writers to use a term in different senses in the same chapter? Indeed we find the terra deathused in different senses in the sarae verse! — (See Esek. xviii, 26.) But he says " believers as well as unbelievers raust die a teraporal death." (Ibid.) Sure ly I — But not die m their sins, it is to be hoped ! Now that the Saviour did not refer to spiritual death, is evident from the fact, that those to whom he spake, were then actually dead in this sense: — and we cannot suppose that he would have threatened them with what had already come upon thera. Exarainer supposes what Christ said to his disciples John xiii, 33, equally implies " their endless misery." (Ibid.) But Christ did not tell his disciples they should 4ie in their sins ! This is a raaterial circumstance in whicii the two places differ. He just glances at the account which our Saviour gives of the rich Man and Lazarus, [Luke xvi,] a part of which we had quoted. As he has " not roora to consider" this relation [orpar«fe/e, as he calls it] " fully," he just gives ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. &a. ESTABLISHED. 105 us a ci!«e to the corrects understanding of it '• The great gulph is unbelief and sin." — Indeed! Then it would seem that ' they which would pass over unbelief and sin, to faith and holiness ' cannot,' and ijice versa .' — And can^' not sinners believe if they will? Why then must they be • condemned because they have not believed?' — '* But" continues he, " when God shall finish transgression and make an end of sin — when death the last enemy shall be destroyed, then deliverance from the state which these passages. describe will be wrought." [Ibid.] Ah! And cannot the sinner pass " unbelief and sin." till " death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed?' " Surely then our good editor labours for the reformation of mankind in vain ! Should he hereafter exhort his hearers to believe ix. refonn, they will probably answer him: * Not quite yet sir: 'they who would pass' the • gulph' of unbelief and sini • cannot' •• until death the last enemy shall be destroyed," then every diflSculty will be removed — the ' great gulph' will be dried up — or a bridge will be flung over it — or some other expedient will be found out by which all will be able to pass at once' ! ! ! He finally slightly notices Jas. ii, 13, ' For he shall havejudgment without mercy that hath showed no mer cy.' Without attempting an explanation of this passage, he proceeds to ask " Do God's judgments extend beyond his mercy, or his mercy beyond his judgments? Is his anger omnipotent over his love, or his love over his an ger?" [Ibid.] Each of the Divine attributes occu pies its appropriate place in the Divine Administration. It will not answer to exalt one to the expense ofthe other. If the good ofthe universe requires, that the finally im penitent should be eternally punished, it would not only be consistent with the goodness of God to inflict such pun ishment, but his goodness as the moral governor, would absolutely require it. The gentleman adds: " Jehovah after having pro nounced bythe prophet Zephaniah as severe judgments as the scriptures contain, turns in mercy to the same people saying, ' theLord bath taken away thy judgment' " [lb.] Thejudgments pronounced by the prophet were the cap tivity and dispersion of the Jewish nation: — Taking away thdr judgment, refers ta their restoration to their land — - IS 505 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB That these are as " severe judgments as the scriptures contain," we deny, — and ask hira to make it appear Now Tnercy is the source of human salvation: But in the passage in question a case is stated "> ivhich judgment shall be exercised without mercy: — Con.^equently in tiiis case there can he no salvation. Let our opponent/airijf meet this argument. No. X. — TAe argument deducedfrom the limitaition of the day of grace to this life, DErENDED. We come now to the support of our 4th and last argu. ment. This is founded upon " those passages whicb imply that a change of heart and a preparation for heav en are confined to this life." The first passage cited under this head, is Isa. Iv. 6, • Seek ye theLord while he maybe found, call ye upon hira while he is near.' Upop this it was remarked that * there will be no successful calling upon the Lord after a certain period ; and consequently no salvation.' The Editor attempts to avoid this conclusion as follows: «' The reader by reading frora this verse through the chapter, will learn that this call will prove effectual = « So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth ; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I send it' v. 11. If it is God's pleasure that all shall return, it will be accomplished ; for it ' shall not return unto me void but shall accomplish that which I please.'" (P. 186.) A little attention to this passage will enable us most clearly to see, that it is hy no means to the Gentieman's purpose. In his application ofit be &e^s thequestion: — be assumes thatit is God's pleasure that aiMshouldbesa\ed unconditionally, and thatthe word of God is sent to accomplish this purpose. This we deny j and until it is proved, the passage does in no wise serve his cause. But if we were to admit the passage in an absolute sense, itis still consistent with our viewe ef the 6th vera*. Fey ETESNAL PXmL'SHVreNT, 8cc. EST.\BLISHED. lOf where fhe gospel is faithfully promulgated — its doctrines plainly stated — its duties strongly enforced^ — its promises and its penalties clearly set forth: — So that the wicked are alarm?d — those who repent and believe are justified — & the faithful are strengthened and encouraged — it does not return unto him void ; — it accomplishes that which he pleases: — He piea,9es that his word should raake a clear and full exhibition of his character and perfections: — and that the plan of .salvation, should be so unfolded as to ena ble all those who w ill. to come to him & he saved ; & that all others should be left without excuse. All this is done, and still the servants of God inall ages exclaira: " Who hath believed our report, and to whora is the arm ofthe Lord revealed." Many do not profit " the word not being mixed with faith."— ^Hearing as it were " by the way side,'" or " on stony ground," they do not bring forth fruit Now will the editor deny these facts — contradict the passage which helias brought forward — or give up his explanation of it? — he may choose which side of the alteriative he likes the best! He next reinarks upon Prov. i, 24 — 28. ' Because I have called, and ye hav« refused.' &c. No remark was made upon this passage, it was left to speak for itself. — What the Editor supposes our views of it, he thinks, " really shocking." (Ibid. ) It is shockmgindeed that man is a subject ofso ranch misery, as he is, under the sun ; but it is no less a truth on that account. He continues: •* Then are his tender mercies extin guished indeed — then has his anger at length fully tri umphed over hia goodness." (Ibid.) This is in the true stili» of universalism — a mighty effort to effect the pass ions! Solomon says: " The sluggard will not plough by reason of thecold,therefore he shall beg in harvestand have nothing." Now according to Examiner, though the sluggard upon some idle pretense, should neglect to plow his field and cast in his seed, until " the summer is over,'* if he cannot plow and raise a crop then, — or en joy plenty without using these means at all; "then are God's tender mercies extinguished indeed" ! What cause must this gentleman see to complain of the goodness and justice of Providence, becau,se all the Idlers in the land do not enjoy plenty: — because supplies do not come up sp'-.tt^ tancously out of the ground, or rain down ff om heaveii« ¦JOS UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AIsT> Ti,E 'as did the manna to supply the children of I.grael! He continues in tiie same stile: " Can we suppose that an unchangeable God who loves all the works of his hands, will finally mock and laugh at the miseries of his creatures?" (Ibid.) His ' laughing at their calamities' &c. wc are to understand figuratively. It is intended to show the utter inefficacy of all their efforts when it is too late. Again he says: " But it is not God who is brought to view or represented as speaking in this passage. But it is wisdom personified in the feminine gender." [Ibid.] We will be greatly obliged to the gentleman ifhe will in form us who, or what this wisdom is. The most natu ral inference from all that he has said upon this subject, would be, that he believed wisdom to be some malignant being, {or principle.) He says" itis not God," — that we are not to " suppose that an immutable God will mock and laugh at the raiseries of'his creatures." The conduct here ascribed to Wisdom, would in his view, be very un suitable in the Divine Being, under any circumstances. — What indeed he would make of JVisdom we cannot tell ! We have supposed that fFisdom personified in the book of Proverbs, is the Wisdom, or council of God : — thatit embraces the different raodes of divine instruction: and that it is precisely the same as if every thing said of Wis dom, were said of God himself. Its being * personified in the feminine gender" is nothing against this view. Ho finally adds: " Furthermore if this passage wafi speaking of ' a change of heart' it does not specify this life as tbe only time for this change." (PP.185, 186.) It does however clearly refer to a tirae when the blessings which are held out in it, cannot be obtained : — other pas sages give us the most direct inforraation when this time is, which we shall see presently. He next remarks upon Luke xiii, 24 — 29. ' Strive to enter in at the strait gate,' &c. Here he arauses hiraself. with what he supposes a contradiction in us. It was remai-- ked upon this passage that ' it is plainly iutiraated that none will be able to enter in who have not agonized here.' In reply to this reraark, he refers to what we had said in another place viz: ' Those who are not in a situation to understand the import ofthe conditions of salvation, or capable ofperforraing them shall be saved unconditional ly." He then asks, " whether those who are saved un- ETERNAL I'UNISHMENT, 5cc. ESTABLISHED. , 305" conditionally 'agonize here.'" (P. 186.) We supposed that our Lord in the passage under consideration spake with reference to those, onlif. who were ' in a situation to understand the import of conditions—and capable of perforraing thera.' It was only with reference to such that the remark was made, that ' none would be able to enter there who had not agonized here ' — If it be necessa ry we will now say that we exc:pt all others. This effort ofour friend forcibly reminds us of the old adage, " a drowning man will catch at a s^raw"! The next passage which he particularly notices is Heb. xii, 15 — 17. ' Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God.' &c. Upon this passage it was remark ed that ' if we turn away from him who speaketh from heaven, it will be equally impossible for us to ol)tain tbe blessing, as it was for Esau wiio had sold his bir.'.iright.' It is not here said that Esau was eternally lost: Tbi.s Is what we would be far from asserting — as we conceive there is no evidence of the fact. But that he, irrecoverably lost his birthright. Though ' he sought it carefully with tears,' he did not, he could not regain it. Now to make any consistency of what the Apostle says upon this sub ject, in the passage under consideration, we raust suppo.se him to caution the Hebrew ciii'istians against failing of, or losing the grace of God, as Esau did liLs birthiiglit, i. e. irrecoverably, and so fi 'ding no place for repentance/ though they might seeA; it C'lrf fully with tears. Esau getting a blessing of iuiotlier kind, affords no grounds to infer as our edioi- does, that" for those who seem to corae short are blessings for future disjiensations to unfold." [P. 186.J For tiiis is farther than tbe Apostle carries the comparison: indeed it would be entirely con trary to his ohy ious design in Xhe comparison. "But can the gentleman inform us what " blessings" (bere are ic maining for those who finally " fail ofthe grace of God?" For our part we can find none! " Then" [that is, inthese " future dispensationfi,"] says he " all Israel shall be saved." Very true — all the true Israel — but he should recollect that ' tbey are not all Israel which are of Israel. ' [R'jni. ix, 6-] He finally comes to the last pas.s'age which was intro duced under this head. It is Rev. xxii, ll. 'Hcthatis unjust let him be unjust still, and he which is filthy let tiO UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED. AKD THE hira be filty still.' &c. From this it was af giied that ' be yond a certain period there shall be no more change of character but every one will have received that impress ion which will remain forever.' But the editor thinks, •' the language ofthe text does not coramunicate that idea," for " duration in the text is merely marked by the word still which signifies a short or a long period of time, but never an endless duration." (Ibid.) In this he is very much mistaken. Ifhe will take the pains to consult Mr. Walker's or Dr. Johnson's large Dictionary, he will find one sense of the word is, " always, ever, con tinually." And the word occurs in this sense in the scriptures. [See Ps. Ixviii. 21, Ixxxiv, 4. Rom. ii, 23.) We |)y no means contend that this is the exclusive meaning of this word, or that anything could be infered from the word itself, out of its connexions But used as it is in the passage in question with reference to the final state of man, the inference vvhich was drawn from it is pertectly natural and jUst. But the editor continues: *' This passage-^is prophet ical of what was near at hand at the tirae it was communi cated. This is evident from its connexions. In the pre ceding verse it is Written » Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book for the time is at hand.' " [Ihid.j But he should have noticed that this is said as much of the whole book as of this particular part ofit. And would he say that all the events predicted in this prophecy were fulfilled near the time in which they were revealed to the beloved Disciple? What we are to understand by the time being at hand, is, that the tirae was near when these prophecies should 6e^n tobe fulfilled. (Seethe Continu ators of Pool, Benson, and Wesley on the place. ) And Mr. Winchester allows the words, ' he that is unjust let him be unjust still,' ^c. to be spoken with reference to the time which shall succeed the general Judgment: (See Dialogues P. 188,) but thinks those who are then unjust are to be restored at sorae subsequent period, and that these words are a kind of irony, like 1 C/ir. xiv, 38:— «• But if any man be ignorant let hira be ignorant." But it is diflicult to see if the unjust are to remain only for a time, until sufficiently humbled, in corrective pun ishment, and then are to be restored, why they are not rather exhorted to profit hy it, and eneeuraged to hope ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c ESTABLISHED. Ul. for deliverance, instead of being treated ironically !-«. 'These words arecertainly too serious and portentous for a mere irony! It should also he considered that it is said, ' he that is righteous let him be righteous still,'.&c., and would Mr. Winchester say that tliis is a mere irony? — The cases are exactly parallel, and there is as much evidence of irony in one as the other. He proceeds: " Ifit were allowed that the above scrip tures limit the day of grace, they hy no means indicate that a • preparation for heaven is confined to the present* life."' (Ibid.) In this we think him mistaken. But as this i.s an important point we shall here introduce a num ber of considerations which will contain some additional evidercein favor of the position, that a 'preparation for Heaven is confined to the present life.* 1. We are told in the scriptures that ' now is the ac»- ceptedtime — and day of salvation," and are exhorted ' to day to hear his voice' and not to ' harden our hearts'— and to ' seek the Lord while he may be found and call up^ on liim while he is near.' [See 2 Cor. vi, 2. Heb. iv, 7. Isa. lv, 6.] From these scriptures we infer that, this' is the day of grace, or salvation ; — hut a time will corae, when, if we shall have hardened our hearts, the Lord- will not be found.- — That will notbe the day of salvation, but the day of retribution, 2. The shortness and uncertainty of human life arc or* ged as a reason why we should attend to the business of- sdeuring an interest in Christ. [See Luke xii, 35 — 48. I Pet iv, 7. Eccl. ix, 10.] But upon the supposition that the day of grace continues after death these arguraents would be without force — for it raight be at once replied; ifthis business is not accomplished in this life, it may, be, yea it certainly will be in the life to come.' 3. We are expressly told that ' there is no work-, nop devise, nor knowledge^ nor wisdom, in the grave whith er' we go, that* the night cometh wherein no man can work/ [See Eccl. ix, 10. John ix, 4.] Hence it appears that this work cannot be done after death. Does not this expressly limit the day of grace to this life? — Certainly unless indeed theday of grace will continue, when there is no work to be done — no device to be invented—no knowledge or wisdom tobe exercised by us, in what il2 UNIVERS.VL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB our hand findeth to do.'— The learned Jewish Rabbi Kim chi says: " There is no conversion of the soul atter death." , But 4. There is no scripture evidence for an opportu nity, after death, of obtaining an interest in Christ— We are no where told that the work that shall remain un done at death, shati be done afterwards. This upon the Restoration hypothesis is altogether unaccountable! But upon the supposition that the day of grace will con tinue after death to sorae unknown period, even to " ages of ages." as we cannot be certain that those who reraain unsanctified after death, will then be treated es sentially different from what they are in this world: As we know not that tiieir agency will then be overruled— that salvation will then be forced upon them contrary to their desire ;— and tl. at they will not then have the sarae unholy opposition to God, and the same power to rebel against hira: — it would still be uncertain whether they would so iraprove their opportunity as to be saved! For anything that appears^ it may he as difficult to persuade men to love God and comply with the terms of reconcili ation after death as before. Supposing then the day of grace to continue after death, what evidence does it afford ofthe Universal Restoration? The editor quotes " one scripture" as entirely deci sive in this case: it is Rom. V, 20, 21. " But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so raight grace reign through rigiiteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." [See P. 186.] As he has ofteu introduced this passage in this discussion, it will be proper, in this place, to enquire into its true meaning. He has built no particular argu ment upon it: But Mr. Winchester argues from it thus: " Sin reigned unto death this is certain ; so shall grace reign tin ough righteousness, not only so far as to make iife possible to all, but certain for all ; or else the reign of grace would not be so extensive and powerful as that of sin." [See Winchester's Lectures Vol. II, P. 264.] in answer to this it is urged 1, " Thatthe phrase ^race did inore abound has no reference to numbers ; because sin abounded to all, and grace eould not abound to more than ad. 2. That the Apostle in the comparison whicii he draws between Adam and Christ, cansiders the coi: dem ETERNAL PTOIISHMENT, Uz. ESTABLISHED. 113 nation of the one offenc8,of Adam, as coming upbn all man kind then in him: and so on the other hand he allows that ' by the righteousness of one the free gift carae upon all men unto justification oflife.' Here the subjects of con demnation and justification are exactly the same in all respects. But the Apostle does not stop here.— He carries the advantages on the part of Christ be*- yond the disadvantages on Adam's side ofthe comparison. For 3. He shows that provision is made for many offences • and not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift, f«r the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence, death reigned by one ; much more they which received abundance of grace and the gift of right eousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.' (Ver ses 16, 17.) But then thequestion is, are all mankind the receivers of this |:race and the gift of righteousness? — For pf such only, it is said that where sin abounded grace did much more abound. The Universalists say yes ; but matter of fact and the word of God say no." (Universal Salvation Refuted pp. 37, 38.) In his conclusion he pronounces all the evidence which we have produced in favor of eternal punishment, " pre sumptive" & "equivocal" at the best: for he says, "there isnot a term or form of speech applied to misery that is not applied to things which we know come to an end." (P. 186.) Not to say that this is a loose and unguarded statement, made without a due regard to fact ; — wa would observe; that we bave seen in the course of thia in vestigation that the same terms and forms of speech, are used with reference to the duration of future punishment, which are ordinarily used with reference to the dura tion of the happiness of the righteous, the existence, uf God, &c. The editor then in order to be consistent with hiraself, ought of cpurse, to conclude, that the evidence of the eternity of happiness, and the eternity of God, is also " equivocal!" But as it must be acknowledged that the doctrine of eternal misery, if it be true, is of as much importance as that ofthe eternal happiness of the glorified, he wishes .to know," why the scriptures do not establish it with as m'uch certainty." (Ibid,) We answer they do!— But he quotes Isa. lv, 17, as more " positive" than any thing 0 Jl* UNIVEHSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, fco. Which can be found for eternal punishment Mr. Kneel and in debate with Mr. M'Calla challenged him to bring i passage where the same phrase is used in reference to punishment, as is used in this passage in reference to happiness, rendered « world without end ?' And Mr. M* Calla gave him as substantially the same, Ps.4x, 5.—. *' Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed ihe wicked, thou bast put mittheir name forever and ever, or to tbe eternity of endless duration, or world viithout end." (See M'Calla on Universalism pp. 276, srr.) But supposing that a phrase could not be found ofprecisdy as many words — just so arranged ;—ff there be plain and positive testimony that is equivalent, ought not this to satisfy us? Weti. this, we contend we have! Those who have attended to what we have adduced in proof of the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have no ticed the difiiculty which Examiner has found in getting round it, will know how to estimate his assertion that he finds "not a single passage tp defend it from tbe weight of testimony against it." (Ibid.) He bas adduced some *' testimony against" our doctrine,but when correctiy un derstood, it is at once perceived to possess no " weight" whatever, in his favor or against us ! But he thinks this doctrine one " in which no good heing in heaven or in-earth can rejoice, or pray for its accomplishment" (Ibid.) And does he rejoice in limited punishment, and pray for its accomplishment? Did Mr. Winchester, Dr. Chauncey, and others, rejoice that some sinners would remain in hell for " ages of ages,'* and pray that it might be accomplished ? We should rath er suppose not: — and yet they did not question the truth of this doctrine. We have now comfdeted our review ofthe editor's "re ply." And though we have considerably transcended the bounds, which we originally proposed to this rejoin- der, (particularly in the five latter numbers,) we hop* not much of it, will be considered altogether redundant. After having viewed his arguments in their strongest light we are still fully persuaded that Universalism is alto- ft'Xri'jidefensiblel But though we still differ from him in sentiment, to his concluding prayer, that " in con- «i.t- i-§ this controversy, -good motives may influence our labours," we most siocerely and heartily respond Anatr^ CONSZDSRISD, &C. FART IIL A Defence OF THE TOREQOING BBJOINOEB. No. I. — l%e nature of Salvation. As fhe editor published five numbers of the rejoinder, be of course must publish something at the same time which would pass for an answer. In this part we shall review this answer, and though we must be brief we shall consider every thing which is important to the general argument. He commences witb an incorrect statement thus: " Ob« server still perseveres in the sentiment that there is no Junishment for any sin save for the sin of rejecting the lediator." [VoL If, P. 11.} It appears to us altogeth^ er unnecessary to explain this point more particularly than we have done. Were we to do so we could not ex pect to " remove" his " objections," in his view ofthe subject :— we would however just observe ; that he wa« perfectly aware that we had said, * all sins unrepented of,' will he punished ina future state:' — why he should make the above assertion, with this fact before him, we are unable to say. All that he says upon this point was fully answered before it was written, and of course itis Qli^e^essary to add any thing farther. Ithe remark itself ii« UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED. AND THfc Which has called forth such a flood of words from him was merely explanatory, and though we still consider it appropriate, yet if it were to be given up it would notet- fect the general argument In our remarks upon Examiner's explanation ot the sim iles used by the writer which we reviewed, h^ thinks we have " really displayed a kind of ingenuity, but that " it would have been more pleasant had it not have been displayed at the expense of good sense." (Ibid.) If w^e have " displayed ingenuity atthe-expensjof good sense, (though it may perhaps be considered as rather a sin gular case) we are thinking that it is quite as " pleasant as to sacrifice " good sense" without " ingenuity"! We shall now see that if Examiner has not done this, he has come very near it In explaining his friends similies he says: " He asserts salvation only from that punishment consequent on our reraaining sinners." (Vol. I, P. 130.) Upon this we observed that * on his hypothesis we were never in danger of " remaining sinners," of course we were never in danger of ' the punishment consequent upon* it:~this tben is a salvation from nothing.' To this he re^ plies: " Universalists believe that Jesus shall save his people from their sins. Now does it consequently follow that itis a salvation from nothing.' " (Vol. II. pp. 11,12.) It appears to us that the '* good sense" which the gentle man ordinarily exercises might have enabled hira to see that we were not speaking of his views of salvation in general, but of those which he made his writer express with regard to salvation from the consequences of sin — This being, according to universalism, a salvation from what we were never in danger of is indeed a salvation from nothihg i But he continues: " Observation teaches that the chil dren of men are sinners — ^reason teaches that there is dan ger of their still remaining^sinners." (Ib.) Does "reason teach that the children of men are in danger of remaining sinners?" Then it teaches that the salvation of all men is not absolutely certain! For if it were absolutely certain, as' Universalists assert, that all will turn from sin and be saved, there would be no danger of any remaining sin ners, unless there is danger of an absolute certainty failing, which is a contradiction. If then" reason teach= es tjj^" aey 'are 19 danger of remaining sinners,' as Unj- ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. &fc. ESTABLISHED , , Uf versalism teaches the contrary, it raust be an unreasona ble doctrine! Now which side of the dileraraa will Ex aminer fake? Acknowledge that the salvation of which he speaks is indeed a salvation from nothing, — or give up the idea that the salvation of all men is certain? He may take his choice. As to the Universalists holding to a " present salva tion," we should be happy tobe convinced ofthe fact: but we have not heen able to discover it in their writings. There appears too much indistinctness, not to say inco- herency, in their views of a change of heart: — too much of a disposition to cepfound. all real distinction be tween the characters of the righteous and the wicked, to admit of any such idea. And when we read in the arti cle which we were reviewing, " when we are saved from this £sin] we are saved from all punishment, all distress, and evil of every kind," we euuld perceive no idea either expressed or implied, but whit went to identify salvation, in whole and in part, with deliverance from " evil of every kind." Nor do we yet perceive any error in our conclusion, or that we are " in the sarae condition" at all. Examiner says.- " Observer' and all others who believe in endless punishment for sins committed in this life, must acknowledge, either that an eternity of mental sin and alienation go unpunished, or that an eternity of punish ment is inflicted on beings after they have becorae perr fectly holy." (Ibid.) Answer: The idea that the sinner is consigned to eternal punishraent for sins coraraitted in this life, by no means concludes that " an eternity of men tal sin and alienation go unpunished :"-^for it must he considered that the sinner is consigned to punishment for his sins, considered in connexion with all their aggrava tions: — and one of tbe greatest will be, that he has re duced himself to the necessity of remaining in a state of "mental sin and alienation" eternally. So his being consigned to eternal punishment, is receiving the whole of the punishraent which he deserves, for all the sins of his whole existence. As to the notion which the gentleman seems to have re ceived, that sinners after death will become " perfectly holy," because they cease to corarait crimes, we would k^ leave to reply to him i a the Ian guage of a ftrofAer Uni- 11» UNIVEHSAL SALVATION OONSIDERED, AND THB Tersalist: [Such upon the Restoration Scheme.] Mr. Hud son in his letters to Mr. Ballou says: " Every man who has committed sin, is a sinner, and will always retain that character, until he repents. If I committed murder ten years ago, I am considered and treated as a murder er at the present day, by bim who knows the thoughts and interests of my heart unless I have repented and reform ed. And a man who goes out of the world in the perpe tration of such horrid crimes, will be a murderer in a fu ture state, unless it can be proved that he reforms in the instant of death. But you say a man cannot be a sinner when he has ceased sinning. I reply; a murderer con fined in a dungeon has not only ceased from murdering, hut is in a situation, where, perhaps, he can commit no actual sin. But does this render him holy? Is every wrett;h to be regarded as a saint, simply because he has mr opportunities of pursuing his villanies? The principle you advance proves this, or else it is nothing to your pur pose."* The " Universalists," it seems tben " do not believe that the "righteous are endlessly rewarded for their righteousness in this world." (Ibid.) All the attention that this part of their faith (or rather their unielief) will require from us, will be, simply to contrast it with the lahguage of Christ He says: • Great is your reward in heaven.' (Mat v, 12.) Again: « Thou shalt be recom pensed at the resurrection of the just ' (Luke xiv, 14. ) " Neither do they believe in precise alotments of time to punish men ; neither do they believe in the manifest ab surdity that when he begins to recieve his punishment be ceases to sin. But Universalists believe as we have said hefore, that sin and misery are inseperably connected as cause am effect"_(Ibid.) It is very difficult to ascertain ^hat particular scheme of Universal Salvation Examiner believes. But he must believe that the misery which is inflicted as the punishment of sin, is inflicted after r*We have not had the priviUge of consulting Mr. Hudson's work. The abov|. extract is copied trom Th! Anti-Unive^s J. ut-a paper published at Providence, R. I., by Origin Bach- e or. This work is peculiarly calculated to expose thf errors of T?rrNrb!j' "'" ^«% of nboral publicUoB^grtSea ETERNAL PUNISHMENT; ite. ESTABLISHES, 11» the sin is committed: — for we know of no " rules of ju risprudence," which limit the punishment of a crime to the time of its commission. But if the punish'mept of sm succeeds the sin which it punishes, no matter bow soon ; as he does not believe in exoneration from punish ment nor " in the manifest absurdity that when he [thki sinner] begins to receive his punishment he ceases to sin:" at every stage of the sinners punishment, he lays a foun dation for still further punishment, and so he must con» tinue to be punished forever, or the sins which he com mits during the last stage of his punishment must go un punished! These are some of the serious " difficulties under which the system of Examiner " is struggling"! We shall now proceed to notice what ho has said in re ply to the objection that his system does away the idea o£ pardon. In an important particular he appears to have altogeth er misapprehended us. In replying to him we observed: ' All that is necessary for us to make out is, that the punishment inflicted, is all that the justice of God and his law require : and this our editor will not deny.' Now what we intended was simply, that the punishment in flicted, is all the punishment that the justice of God re quired should be inflicted. Not as he seems seriously to suppose, that tbe justice of God requires nothing but pun ishment— not even obedience and love! From this blunder of his own, he draws sweeping consequences — arraigne our candor, ^c. ^c. [Seepp. 12, 13.] Our argument upon this point is this: If the sinner re° ceive all the punishment which he deserves, or justice re quires, as the editor asserts: — As pardon implies 'M gracious exoneration from deserved punishment /^-^the idea of pardon would be totally inconsistent with his theory, i But he maintains that punishment does not " satis^ the divine law," and of course, he thinks,, sin must siM be forgiven, after it has received all its punishment— (Ibid.) The controversy upon this point then, seems at last to turn upon the proper idea of the pardon of sin. He, according to his reasoning, supposes it to consist, in tlyt act of dispensing with the sinners obedience, after he haa received all the punishment which he deserves. If tbi0 be the true notion of pardon, then indeed may bis views «f puuishment be cousisteat w^h that doctrin,e. But hf 120 UNIVEHSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE what authority is this definition of pardon supported? Surely not hy any of our english standards, or by general usage ! Universalists must use the word parrfon in a sense entirely peculiar to themselves. It is coraraonly under stood to imply the remission of apenalty — exonerationfrom ¦ puniihment: in this sense we understood it when we ur ged that it was inconsistent with our opponents notions of punishment. This we now maintain is the correct notion ofthe pardon of sin, andthe consequence which we first drew from it, we do bcnestly think perfectly legitimate. He finds much fault with the translation «f Isa: xL 2, which we gave from several learned critics. He says it " is so manifest a pervertion that but very little need be said to make it appear." (P. 13. ) Not to insist that Vat>- ablus, Vitringa, Bp. Lowth and Dr. Clarke, are enti tled to, at least, as much confidence, in matters of sacred criticism, as Examiner:-^and that what he says appears a little too highly seasoned with arrogance: — we will at tend to his reasons. He says: " By adding words not ifound in the original text, and by altering the tense ot verbs, they have endeavored to shield their beloved doc trine from the deluge with which this passage sweeps it." (Ibid.) If the translation be allowed tobe somewhat par aphrastic, as it is supported by the best reasons, and the original ¦ will very well bear' such a rendering, it cannot be proved" a manifest pervertion". As to " altering the tense of verbs," it may be observed: that whether the verbsberendered I n the pastor future tense, the case is precisely the same as to the question in hand. And it cannot be denied but that the prophet refered to events then in futurity, though as is very coramon in the glowing stile of the prophets, they are spoken of as though they bad already taken place. Hence changing the tense of the verbs from the past to the future, can have no effect upon the doctrine of the passage. Indeed the Universalist wri ters raake raore use of this circumstance in the prophetic writings than any other! Mr. Winchester upon John vi, S7— 39, says: " As to the small variation of the words from given, to giveth, of which some would fain take ad vantage ;— it is nothing to the purpose ;~for as the sense IS perfectly the same; and differs only in the timing of the verb, it shows the weakness of the cau.se, which de fends upon such cttticisms." |See Winch(;st5r's Lectures/ ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, ke. ESTABLISHED. 121 Vol. II. P. 26.0.) So by a little attention to the subject, and a littie of Mr. Winchester's help, we are saved from heing engulphedia the " deluge" of Examiner's sweeping conclusions ! The argument from a number of passages of scripture, which we informed him he had not noticed: he thinks " sufficiently embraced in" his " answer." (Ibid.) Bnt We still say that he has not noticed it What he has said upon some ofthese passages, in another connexion, is to tally irrelevant. Our argument from Es. *iii, 10 — 12, the editor does not attempt properly to meet, or flhow that it is not fair ly deduced from tbe passage. He disposes of if, by set ting in opposition to it, a number of passages which as- sert, that God will reward eyery man according to his works. But there is not the least contradiction between these passages and the one in question. Th^sy do not as sert thai all men receivie the whple of their reward as they go along — in this world. If they ultimately receive it^ all that these scriptures assert will be literally verified. And that these passages must be refered to the fpture worli| for their accomplishment we shall now proceed to proye.^ 1. The scriptures clearly assert that rewards & pun ishments are not equally distributed in thip life. This Da vid fully asserts in the Ixxiii Ps. He saw tlie wicked iji great power and prosperity ; not in trouble as other men -^pride compassing them about as a chain — violence cov ering them as a garment— their eye§ standing out with fatness — having more than heart could wish. And not at first reflecting upon^e punishraent that was resieryed for them in another w^Jd ; he began tp be * envious at the foolish,' ^-c. and Sjs^s: ' Verily I have cleansed my heart in yaiu and washed my hand? in innocensy — for all the day longhaye l.heea plagued and chastened eyery morn- *| Chr.on- vi, 30; is perhaps, an exception. What Solomon meant by praying that the Lord would render unto every raan -accprding.to all bis way,' &c., was ' that he woul^ restore thm declaring those who suffer chastisement and disciplinary pains, accursed merely on that account, expressly declares them blessed. [Ps. xciv, 12. Heb. xii, 5, 9.] If therefore the damned suffer a mere chastisement from the hand of God, they are not accursed, but are tb blessed sons or children of God." Finally- " If the punishment of hell be a mere whole some discipline, then what the apostle says ofthe discipline of christians in this life, may be said with equal truth and propriety of the punishment ofthe damned: thus, we glo ry in damnation ^nowing that damnation worketh re pentance, and repentance salvation !" [See Edwards a« gainst Chauncy, .pp1^53 — 70.] Examiner thinks ^af>' jtis obvious that tbe reason as signed for Adam's r&turoto the dust was not that he had ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. 12? eaten tf the forbidden fruit, but because" he was 'taken out ofit* [Vol ii, P. S3,] If then the circuastahce of his having been taken out of the ground, is meatioued as the reason of his returning to the dust, it is equally the rea son of all the evils spoken of in the connexions— and if all these evils are the natural effect of this cause, aad not the penalty of the law, where will he find the •' sentence" of which he has spoken ? We think it is not to be found f As in many other particulars, so in denying that tempo ral death is the consequence of sin. Examiner follows Mr. Ballon,, and some other modern Universalist wrb> ters. Mr. B. says: " If man was not mortal before transgression, he must have been immortal ; ifhe was m- mortal he was not subject to change, but remains in the same immortal state." [Treatise on Atonement, P. 36.} This profound man, in the greatne.ss of his wisdom, con» founds immortality with immutability ! We never dreampt that the human body w as immortof inthe sense in which he uses the term- Bnt what we contend for, is this: that had man have retained his rectitude, he would have been eitempt from tempor 1 death, as frora all other evils. -.• W hether this exemption would have been the effect of sorae law of nature, or of the immediate support of the Author of his existence, is of no particular importance t6 the argument the fact itself is all we contend for. Mr, Drew forcibly argues this point -from the immuta bility of God, thus: " The same raoral causes which ox^ ist when the body is destroyed" [upon the supposition of its being destroyed without sin,] " mtist have been in exisl tence when it was created ; because God is necessarily immutable, and tbe creature is presumed to have* under gone no change. If, therefore, under these given cir cumstances the body could have been destroyed, we must^ presume, either that creation and dissolution are the same thing, or that two opposite effects have resulted from the same cause. To suppose the former we are for« bidden by fact, and to suppose the latter is a contradic tion. The final result niust therefore^e, that the humaQ body must have been immortal. Audience also, since thi8..theory and preserit fact are aj. variance with each other, the dissolution wbich the hum&n body undergoes, must be attributed to some other cause ; a cause distinct from any which has hitherto been explored; a cause 1^ UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE which did not then reside in man, and which could noj at any period whatsoever reside in God." [See Treatise on the Resurrection, P. 15.] A respectable class of the Universalist writers agree with us upon this point Dr. Huntington upon Gen. ii. 17. says: " I believe the more comraon construction of tius commination, by protestant divines is right, viz; that total death, temporal and spiritual was to take place on all human nature on that very day. In the day thou eaiest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt become mortal, even thou Adam and all human nature with thpe. Thy soul ateo shall sustain great damage and unhappiness, that is, spiritual deaith, in some awful degree, without theleast ground of hope that the case shall ever become aiiy better with thefc." (Calvinism Improved, P. 29.) Mr. Winches.ter says: " The sentence of death was proiiounced, even the death ofthe body, in these words— *cl ust thou art,'" &c., and allows expressly that our '< bodies diein consequence of sin." (See Dialogues pp. 125, 126.) So, " obvious" as Examiner thinks it is, thattemporal death constituted no part of the: penalty of the la}v, these two Universalist writers, think that the contrary is quite " obvious!" We will now leave him to ; settle this difference with his own authors! He thinks according to our theory " it would take three eternities to punish men according to what strict justice deraands: one for original sin, another for actual sins, anda third ^ for rejecting his glorious offers.' " (P. 33.) We would just beg the gentieman to recollect that we have all along said that we are not exposed to eternal death for the original offence, and that rejecting the of fers of mercy, is actual sin and nothing else. From what then, but actual transgression have we directly, or indirectly, argued that justice demands eternal punish ment? His retort is of course ineffectual — And when he said that *< the first created pair— could not stand by their ovvn strength," if he meant they were not " independent oi God," we have nb difference with him upon this point— But if we have qnderatood him, he supposes that the fall of man was a necessary consequnce of his being placed, in a siate of probation. In this we differ with him, apd^till ETERNAL PUNlSHMElir T, &c ESTABLtSHliD. 129 insist, that there could be no justice in condemning men, npon this principle. We have made no " attempt to support the old prov- erb ' the fathers have eaten sour grapes aud the children's teeth are set on edge.'" (Ibid.) Why must our views be misrepresented in order to Ije successfully opposed? If it is not because they are invulnerable in their legitimate form, we know not the reason ! " It is difficult" it seems, for him to "conceive how that ' all have sinned in Adam,' before they were capable of moral action." (Ibid.) It vvould perhaps he as difficult for hira to conceive how Levi paid tythes in Abram, , be fore he was capable of any action! (See Heb. vii, 9) ^But what is meant by our sinning in Adara, is our being in volved in the consequences of his sin: can he notconceiye how this can be? But as the docti'ine of original sin is not directly embraced in our design, we shall not dwell at length upon the evidence by which it is suppdrtfed. The arguraents which we drew frora several passages, to establish the doctrine of man's being restored, to a state ot initial salvation, stand like the beaten anvil to the stroke, against the wordy warfare whicii he has. wa ged against them. He first met these arguments . with great courage and exerted his powers at reasoning, and eritiasni to answer them. But since our defence, he pass es over them as lightly as possible! Indeed in .the gen tieman's second effort, there is little beside witicisms-— erroneous statements— and evasions ! ! No. Ill — The Atonement, The editor comraences his "' reply" to our number ou At6nement with a bitter coraplaint of misrepresentation. We think however that no great exertions will be neces sary to show that his chargeis altogether unjast. The question at issue, is, how is the justice of God satisfied for sin? He says, by every man being brortght " to the requirements ofthe law." (See Vol. I. P. 129.) Now as there is no disputebetween us whether the jus- 0. *. "^ iSO UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE tice of God is satisfied with obedience, for the time being; the only question being how the law and justice are satis fied for sin, or ' for past failures:' And he said, that justice would be satisfied when all men are brought to the requirements of the law: It appeared to us, with the evidence of demonstration, that on his system, * subse quent obedience makes ample amends for past transgress ions.' and that • pardon and grace' are altogether super ceded. But this, he thinks is misrepresenting him, because he had said in another place ; " Neither can fu ture obedience satisfy for past disobedience." He should however recollect that what we said was a deduction from his premises, and not a stateraent of what he had asser ted as his belief! If he does not receive the conclusion which we drew from his premises, he should show, that it does not naturally flow from them. He then might say we had reasoned incorrectly, or unfairly ; but this itself would not substantiate the charge of misrepresentation. If be sees proper to lay down premises in one place, and disclaim the doctrine which necessarily flows from them, in another, and thus contradict himself,, it is not our con cern! He raay reject the natural and necessary conse quences of his theory, and yet retain the theory itself, if h6 choose ; but he must notbe offended, if we continue to 'assert these consequences legitimate, until he shews tliem to be otherwise. ^ We might in our turn complain of misrepresentation.— We know not what grounds he had to represent, as our faith, that " Divine justice requires endless misery in addition to perfect obedience!" (P. 56,) For surely such a notion has no more relation to any part of our system, than has the doctrine of transmigration ! ! Nothing need be said upon the various remarks which he has made, up on what he has thus erroneously attrihuted to us. We will leave hira to enjoy all the happiness possible,in spend ing his energies upon a mere man of straw!! . The gentleman accepts the invitation which we gave hira, to prove that ' Christ will in fact make all men o- bedient.' (Ibid. ) He first adduces as proof bf this, John i, «9, * Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.' We suppose that he would assume that te- Hing away the sm of the world, means making all men tihedient. This will oot be granted :— -but it willhe mais- ETERNXL PUNISHMENV, fee ESTABLISHED. KI tained on the other hand, thatit implies:. So making an atonehaent for sin, as that the penitent and believing may be saved: — or placing aW men in a state of salvability. His next proof is Col. i, 10. ' For it pleased the Fath er that in him should all fulness dwell: and having made peace thro' the blood of his cross, by hira to reconcile all things unto himself; — whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.' If we should adrait that all things, &c. include all raankind. it is true that it pleased the Fa ther to i-econcile all. asit would have pfeaserf him not to give Ephraim up : (Ho.sea ii, 8.) Or as it would pieose hira thatthe sinner should not die: (Esek. xxxiii, 11.^) Thatis, it would piease him on the terms of the gospel to reconcile all men, &c. That this is the true sense is evi dent from the 22 and 23 verses. Here their heing presen ted holy, &c. is suspended upon the condition of their continuing in thefaith. So the very thing which Examin er brought this passage to prove certain, is in the con nexion left hypothetical ! It seems that he supposed us to hold the doctrine of ab solute imputation and substitution, because *' the writer'* we 'first took up on this point was writing again.st it !' We will now apprize him. that we never undertook to defend all that he was " writing against:" We sufficiently qual«- ified our views upon this subject in the outset. It seems difficult for him to understand what we meant bj • public justice.' Thus he proceeds: " Has public justice a requirement'' if it has, does it require so rauch punishment as the justice of God, which according to Ob server is endless punishment? if it does then Christ suf fered to the amount or according to this justice." (Ibid.) ?' The word justice" says Dr. Edwards, " is used in three different senses. Sometimes it raeans commutative justice, sometimes distributive, and sometiraes j-emerai or jniblie justice. Commutative justice respects property only, and the equal exchange and restitution of it. Dis- i gument stands thus: Itis God that worketh in foUr-'-there' forg /work out your own solvation. ETERNAL PUNISHMENf , &c. EST.\BLISHED. 135 T J s the question, whetber repentance and faith are tho gf'T oi God, or the act ofthe creature, has embarrassed ma- n> "iinds. we will still detain the reader upon it, while we lay before hira a few lucid observations from tw® eminent divines. Mr Shinn concludes an able investiga- tian »i this subject thus; " 5. Confining the query to that »C! or exercise ofthe raind in believing, by which we are itifl . iiced to do the works of God, and hy which we re ceive tbe indwelling comforter, properly called gospel faith, we raust say either: (1.) That it is an act of th* t sman mind, independent ofany influence from above, or (£ ) That it is an act of God, producing an effect upon the iTjan mind, without any voluntary act of that raindj c ,3 ) That it is a voluntary act of the human mind in c^idju! ction with, or aided by, an iramediate influence of the H'lly Spirit. If we admit the^rst, it will follow tiiafe r? a. 1 is able of himself and independent of any spiritual assistance from God, to believe with a faith that justifie eh the ungodly, that purifieth the heart, and overcometh tae ?»'^orld. This contradicts the whole tenor ofthe goB» pel. If we admit the second, it will follow that faith is EC gospel duty enjoined on man, but is as exclusively th© act of God, as the creation of the world. I think ther© is no possible altemative but to admit the third, that faitk is a voluntary actof the human mind, in conjunction with, ©raided by an immediate influence ofthe Holy Spirit.'* (Sh inn's essay on the plan of salvation.) The profound and ingenions Mr. Fletcher says: " Faitk is the gift of God to believers, as sight is to you. The parent of good gives you the light of the sun, and organs proper to receive it: beplaces you in a world where that Kght visits you daily : be apprizes you, that sight is con ducive to your safety, pleasure and profit: and every thing around you bids you use your eyes and see: nevertheless you may not only drop your curtains, and extinguish your candle, but close your eyes also. This is exactly tbe case with regard to faith, Free grace removes (in part) the total blindne.ss, whieh Adara's fall brought upon us: free grace gently sends Us some beams of truth, which is ¦ti\e light ofthe Sun of righteousness ; it disposes the eyes of our understanding to see those beams; it excites m various ways to welcome them ; it blesses us with many» J^rhaps with all the means of faith, suefe as opporttteit 135 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE ties to .ipar, read, inquire ; and power to consider, as sent, consent resolve, and re-resolve to beheve -her? 'th. But. after all, believing is as rauch our own act as .ser -ks;. We may. nay, in general do, suspend, ororait the o..; of faith : especially when that act is not yet become habitual, and when the glaring light, that sometimes accompanies the revelation ofthe truth, is abated. Nay, we may im itate Pharaoh, Judas, and all reprobates: we may do by the eye ofour faith, what sorae report that Democri tus did by his bodily eyes. Being tired of seeing tbe fol lies of manldnd, to >-d himself of that disagreeable sight he put his eyes out. We may be so averse from the light,, which lightens every man that comes into fhe world ; we ma) so dread it hecause our works are evil, as to exem plify like the Ph?isees, such awful declarations as these: Iheir eyes hu . e they closed, lest they should see, &c. — Wherefore God gave them up to a reprobate liiind, and they were blinded." (Fletcher's Checks, Vol. H.P- 230.) Exarainer continues: " It is written that the ' good ness of God leadeth to repentance' hy which we learn that God is the raoving cause of repentance." (Ibid.) In this we fully acquiesce. Again: " Peter also testified that < hira (that is Christ) hath God exalted— i-to give repen tance to Israel-' Thus repentance is a gift" (Ibid.) Christ was exalted to raake it possible for us to be saved on the condition of repentance — and to procure the grace necessary to enable us to repent. Hence it is said that he was exalted to giv repentance. But we are not to sup pose that the exercise of repentance is exclusively the work of God, for if so itnever could be a duty required of us, any raore than to create a new world! The comparison which we introduced, of a labouring man, he .strains heyond the bounds w hich we aet to it. — We did not assert any other point of reserablance hetween the case and the .subject, than the difference which exis ted between the condition and the benefit. No raetaphor will bear in all respects. Indeed by pursuing the course wh'ch he has taken in this case, with the parables of Christ th'-y V ould appear absurd & foolish. Does not the editor ser the sarae absurdity in the parable in which the Sav iour represents " the great salvation of God and the con.iiti ,ns upon wfiic^* it is suspended by a hard days la- hour and" a' penny,' which he sees, in our comparison? ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c ESTABUSHfiD. tSf This he may see by candidly exaraining that parable! In remarking upon, Acts iii, 25, 26, he insists that, ** turning them from their iniquities, Peter calls the blessing." (P. 76.) Though we had given a different ex planation of this passage, yet it is by no means important to our argument. We lose nothing at all by allowing his views of it. It will then be a question how the Lord turns the children of men from their iniquities. We con tend that he does it by means adjusted to the freedora of the human mind. In explaining Heb. viii, 10, 11, we said after Mr. Ben son, that the house of Israel referred to the * spiritual Is rael.' But if we yield this point likewise, it will be noth ing to our disadvantage. For all that can be claimed, is, tiiat there are no conditions esi^ressed in this passage. Were this to he conceded, it would still remain to be made out that they are not implied, and that they are not ex pressed in any other passage, and this will not be done. He thinks we have •' placed so mucb on man's indepen dent agency as makes hira capable of daraning or saving himself." (Ibid.) Weholdtono " independent agency'* in man. Hei^ " capable of damning himself" indeed, but not of " saving himself !" In remarking upon the use which we made of the Apos tle's reproof Nay but O man who art thou that repliest against God,'&c., he thinks to alarm us by associating us with calvinists. He says : " both Observer and Cal vinists are equally strenuous for the endless damnation of sinners, and all the difference that we can discern he tween them, is, tbey want sinners damned in their own Ivay." [Ibid.] Yea, just as much as Examiner wants them damned in his way .' ! He continues: " For our part we cannot see how it is any better to be endlessly mis erable according to the doctrine of Observer, than ac cording to the doctrie of Calvinists." ,[Ibid.] We do not suppose it will be " any better" for the sinner, i. e. any more tolerable: — Whether it will be any more consistent vith the Divine perfections, is not necessary to inquire, at this time. If endless punishment is consistent, upon our scheme, it is not necessary for us to enquire, in thia investigation, whether it is raore consistent, than upon the Calvinistic scheme: Nor shall "tve, now, enter into ao.y such enquiry. B 138 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB He insists that his scheme does not involve the conse quence that God will viaflate the agency of man, or act m^ dependent of it. in his salvation. [PP. 52, 77.] How then is the salvation of all men certain? The great universal ist writei'. Dr. CbaunCy, Says: " Such exertions of the. Deity, as shall he certainly effectual to restrain thera [free agents,] from perverting their faculties, look like, 2l moral impossibility, ora method of conducting towards free agents, which is unfit in the reason of things, as not being suited to the natiire of such kind of beings." {Be nevolence of the Deity, P. 219.] Now if" such exertions ofthe Deity as shall he certainly effectual to restrain free agents from perverting their faculties, is a moral irapos-. sibility," how can it be certain that all will iraprove their faculties and?he saved? But perhaps Examiner will take up sorae different theory of human liberty-'^as to this, we are not certain, for he has not specifically laid down hi& views of this subject. The whole of his evidence for unconditional salvation is nothing hut negative evidence, and is entirely without force! The scriptures and arguments which we brought forward, he has not attempted to answer: Should he re- .sume the subject, we invite hiin to this task ; and when it shall be completed, if he will bring one passage of scripture which goes to say that the salvation of moral a- gents is unconditional, we will yieild tiie point &— This w» say without fear. 'No. Y.-^The iVill of 6fo^.— CoJTOi.rsio«f. The editor commences his reply to the fifth number of .the rejoinder, in the following extraordinary manner; '•^Observer in his commencement appears like a man tri- timphing in a deceptive dreara, in which he fancies the * main bulwarks of universalism,' against which he had frowned in the aspect of a troubled cloud without rain or storm, to liave been 'given up without a struggle."* CVol ii, P. 100.] The gentleman's imagination, here, iias quite outstriped his judgraent. But the brilliancy-, ETEKN-AL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. 139 of hi« figures, we trust has not so injured the reader's op- . tic nerve, that he is not able to see that Examiner is quite wide ofthe mark! How he could make the above representation, unless he was in a " deceptive dream" we are not able to, see: — for certainly we intended to say directly the contrary ! That we did not expect the raain bulwarks of universalism, which we had attacked, would be given up without a struggle, and that we should then proceed to see with what success be had exerted himself in their defence! The reader is now requested to turn back to the fifth nuraber of the rejoinder, [P. 50,] and by reading the first paragi'aph, he will be prepared to de- cide~howhap|iy the gentleraa^^has been in understanding and representing our words. He seems to think we have changed our ground: for h& ¦says: " It has been a great theme in Observer's argu ments, formerly, that it is God's will or disposition to save all, but the reason why all are not saved, is, be cause his will will not be done. But now he supports that God's ' couneil w?ill stand, and that he will do all his pleasure.'" (Ib.) We have never denied, but, what is the will of God absokdely will certainly take place. The ab solute wiil or purpose of God is never frustrated: But what he wills or purposes conditionally is often counterac ted. In the passage which was under consideration, when we made the remark which he thinks so great a concession, we gave the will of God tbe absolute sense. He continues: " Now, the reason why all will not be saved, is because ' all things' whom it is the will of God to gather together in Christ, do not embrace every indi vidual ofthe whole human family.'* [Ibid.] No sir— this is not the reason why all will not be saved : nor have we given any such reason. Taking tiie will ot God absolutely in the passage in question, [Eph, i, 10.] we urged that it still did not prove universal salvation, until a number of things were made oat: And oneof these, was, that 'the terms all things, &,c, embrace every individual,' ^c.?~ And we still insist that the passage in question does not prove his point until he establishes the particulars which we noticed ; and do also deny that this is giving any suchreason why all will not be saved as he asserts it to be! ' Gathering together in one all things in Christ,' ac- eording to Locke, Macknight and Clarke, refers to ih® 140 UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB forming ofthe believing Jews and Gentiles into one cathr olic church. But according to Whitby, Doddridge, Wesley, the Continuators of Pool, Coke, and Benson, hy things in heaven, the angelic hosts are to be under stood, and by things in earth, believers of all nations! By their being gathered in one in Christ, Saints and An gels being at length joined in one great society or church. On eitherof the above explanations, it will be clearly perceived, that the good pleasure of God's will, may be taken absolutely without conceding any thing to our op ponent or at all changing our ground. He has manoeuvred largely to evade our reply to his ar guraent After varying and modifying his argument, so as to fortify it against our answer, he states the major proposition thus: " The wifimafe will of God concerning sinners must be done." (Ibid.) And then he supposes us to argue, that because the ultimate will of God concern ing sinners is not done now. therefore it raay never be done. But this is an incorrect representation of our an swer. Suited to the present state of his argument, our answer will stand thus: If the present will of God is not done now, it is po,ssible that the ultimate will of God may not be done ultimately. What we contend for is this: that there isa sense in which the will of God is to be taken, which does not ira- ply the absolute necessity and certainty ofthe thing willed. We supposed the existence of moral evil, in opposition to the will of God, to be an instance of this kind. And we might bring particular cases: Christ would often have gathered the inhabitants of Jerusalera: (Mat. xxiii, 37.) And God has nopieasitre in the death of the wicked: (Esek. xxxiii, 11.) And itis the will of God that all men should «07t; repent: [For he now coraraandsit, (See Acts xvii, 30.) and he cannot coraraand what is contrary to his will!] But the Jews 'would not,' and therefore were not gathered: Examiner allows that the wicked do die: (in some sense.) And how many thousands are this moraent impenitent? Now can our Examiner prove that God wills the final salvation of all men, iu any other sense, than he toomW have gathered the inhabitants of Jerusalem :— or wouldnot have the sinner die: — or would have all men, every where, repent this very moment? If he cannot his argument from the will of God is a mere rope of sand! ETEPSf AL PtrtHSHMENT, «c ESTABUSHED 141 'Those effusions of the gentleman, in which-he accuses ^sof Calvinism, skepticism, puerility, and [indirectly] of nnbelief and ignorance, i-equire no notice. His system must certainly have been in distress, or he never would ¦ have condescended to such wretched means of defence! We said that ' moral evil as much frustrates the will of God, as thefinal damnation of the sinner.' His reply to this deserves particular attention : Not because it ij9 ao rauch to the point, as because it shows the extremities to which he is driven- It is this: " Did Observer never think of the circumstances attending the history of Joseph and hisbretliren? Both these brethren and Jehovah had their designs and meaning in all the transactions of this affecting tragedj — they meant it for evil but he for good." (P. 101.) Now ifhe does not in tend by this to prove that the wickedness of Joseph's brethren was according to the will of God, and from this to conclude, that raoral evil in general is according to the will of God ; we cannot concieve what object he would have in view. But he had previously conceded that " sin is contrary to the will of God!" He has now changed his ground, — or else he is indeed opposing himself as well as us! But as he knows how mortifying it is "to meet with an opponent so identified with mutability:" (P. 100.) perhaps from sympathy for us, he has shifted bis preraises so rauch un der cover, as if possible, to elude our discovery and save us the mortification ! — But lie need not he exercised by too much re.gardfor our feelings ; he may come out bold ly and say, that all sin is according to the will of God!—^ This he must do in order t > sustain his argument: For if there Tie one sin in the history of all mor^l agents, which is not according to the will of God, this is enough for our purpose ; from this we would argue: that if the will of God might be counteracted in one case, it might be in another which cannot be shown to be materially dissimi lar! When we first took up this subject we argued that the necessary consequence of the universalist argument from the will of God, would be, that all sin is according to thewill of God: but he disclaimed this consequence al together: But hieing pressed with the argument, he in directly accedes to it, and indeed attempts to support it by the case of Joseph's brethren ! As to this case, wehave thought of it frequently ', — and 14,2 UKIVEESAL. SALVATION CONSIDERED. AND Trite perhaps as frequentiy as even Exarainer hiraself! Bat we never saw in it what he seems to suppose so obvifius. We see no difficulty in sup xii ng that God overruled that wi ked act for good, aisdstiii the actit.self was contrary to his wii!, and he was in no wise dependent upon it for ihe accomplishraent of his purposes. We cannot see that because God interposed and brought about an event con trary to the wicked designs of those treacherous breth ren, and contrary to the natural tendency of their act, he must necessarily be pleased with their perfidious deed? And if the editor should have the temerity to assert thia directiy be could not make it good!! Examiner brought forward a number of passages which he supposed afforded " unequivocal evidence" in favor of Siis doctrine. These we explained in a way whjch would make them con^stent with our system. Now, instead of defending his construction of them, he leaves them, with out makiiig any efforts to show that our construction is wrong! Butthough he deserts his ground, and at a time too w hen it would be supposed that he ought to be pre pared to proceed with energy, he does it with an air of as much triumph as though he had vanquished his, foe in fair fighting, and was returning from the field covered with glory, and loaded with the spoils of victory! But we cannot help thinking, under the circumstances, that his triumph is rather premature!! It would naturally be supposed from the manner in which he closed his examination ofthe fifth nuraber, that he was prepared to make short work with us. This was indeed the case: For here he silently closes his colurans against us : — and thus i)uts a period to the controversy, in his paper! Now vvhich " systera," whether ours or his, was " struggling under" the greatest "agony," we are willing to leave to the candid to decide! We have now done with " The Candid Examine r," for the present. In the course of this investigation, we have seen thatthe system of universal salvation advocated in this publication, excludes the doctrine of pardon: Con sequently, as our Lord informs us that the ineasure ofour love to him will he in proportion tothe amount forgiven, if wc have nothing forgiven we will not love him. Again: According to this system raan is saved on tlie ground of suffering the whole of the punishment which he ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, &c. ESTABLISHED. 14S (jeserves: This neutralizes the doctrine of atonement- renders the death of Christ a work of supererogation — . gives the sinner a claira to heaven on the principles of justice ; — and excludes the doctrine of grace, and our ob ligations to gratitude! According to this scheme salva tion is unconditional — man has nothing to do in the busi ness ; — all depends upon divine agency, and we have n» cause to fear that any thing essential will be left undoneT Let US Uveas we list, our etemal interests are perfectly safe! ! On Hiis theory all the divine threatenings are mere prejlises ofa salutary remedy: Gf course tliey contain no cause of alarm to the ungodly! — Nor have we any ev idence that the editor believes inany punishment after death: The monster in wickedness who dies with raurder in his heart, and the most horrid oaths upon his tongue, may go directly to heaven ! He who dies by the haKer, or perishes in the aet of robbery and bloodshed, is made in* finitely fclessed r while tbe pious is left to linger out a lifer of sufferings in this world of woe!! But finally: It ha» appeared that the grounds taken, to invalidate the doc- '4rine of eternal punishment, if adhered to in relation ta all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, would pros* trate the whole, and leave us destitute of hope ! ! ! Now candid reader: can this system he founded in truth.' Does it not sap the very foundation of Christianity? And must not its moral tendency be of the most deleterious character? We are aware that any enquiry into the proc- tical efficacy of this system is regarded by its abettors as almost, if not quite, sacrilegious: — That nothing so irritates their feelings, and calls forth such severity and , resentment. But we are not to he awed into silence upon this point "by this: — Though we would be far front intentionally giving them unnecessary pain, yet a sense of duty impels us to strip this theory of its mask, and ex pose its native deformity, that tbe unwary raay not bo caught in the snare. Permit us then dear reader to asic you, whether you are prepared to launch into the awful abyss of eternity upon this broken fragment of a wreck? To rest your eternal all upon it? Supposing there were wme probabilities in ifs favor, to one against it: would it be wise to expose yourself to one chance in ten to dwell in everlasting burnings ? Certainly not. In every view ofthe subject our's is the safe side of the c^uestioj^f 144 UNIVEHSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THE Add to this the weight of evidence in our favor, who lhat is Under the influence of correct views can hesitate? Let any one take th'e book of God — read it impartially — bowr down before the Father of spirits and ask divine illumin ation ; — then lay his I and upon his heart, and decide this awfully momentous question, as he expects to give an account to the Jucige of all, and see wbich side tho scale will preponderate. Though the poision^ns weed of universalism has flouFt ished raore or less, since it was transplanted from hea then to christian soil, by the heterodox Origin, the plow of truth will finally lOot it out " Truth is mighty and must prevail." The church is fast verging toward that glorious period when the corrupt dogmas of men will be dissipated by the glories of gospel truth, like the fog beforethe rising sun! Oh ! come the day, when every refV uge of lies shall be swept away, like the baseless fabric ofavisioB, and leave nota wreck behind! When the watchmen of Zion sh,all see eye to eye: when truth shall appear in her native loveliness ; & the church shall shine forth with refulgent glory, and become the praise of tha 'Whole earth. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, fee. ESTABLISHED. liS APFSNDZX.^ In this article we shall take a brief view of the opinion of the earliest christian writers on the subject of futur* punishment. CiEMENS RoMANiTssays: " If we do not the will of Christ, nothing will deliver us from eternal punishment." BarnAbas says: " The way of darkness is crooked^ and full of cursing. For it is the way of eternal death> with punishment." J^j^TiN Marttr says: " The punishment of the damned, is endless punishment, and torment in eternal fire." In THBopHrLtrs, it is" eternal punishment.'* Irenius in his symbol of faith, makes this one articlte, that " Christ would send the ungodly and unjust into everlasting fire." TEBTtntiAN says: " All men are appointed to eter nal torments or refreshments. And if any man," saith he " think that the wicked are to be consumed, and not punished, let him remeraber, that hell-fire is stiled eter nal, because designed fer eternal punishment," & thence concludes ; " their substance will remain forever, whose punishment doth so." St. Cyprian says: " The souls of the wicked are ^ept with their bodies to be grieved with endle^ tor ments." Lastly, Obhjiw records this among the doctrines of the church: " That every soul, when it goes out of this world, shall cither enjoy the inheritance of eternal life^ bliss, if its deeds have rendered it fit fi^r life, or it ijs to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if its sin* Jiave deserved that state." Though Origin gives the above as the doctrine of the church, he tool up a different sentiraent himself. For in some of his works he advocates the doctrine of restoration frora hell. This great man was bsd e^Jtray by Ms fond ness for the Platonic philosophy ; the ddctrines of which he eadeavorod to incorporate with th||M^"**'*» »yf*,*"f 4#« UNIVERSAL SALVATION CONSIDERED, AND THB Plato " in the conclusion of his Phaedo introduces Soc rates, in ohe df his most serious discourses just before his death, talking after the manher ofthe poCts of Tartaruss,* &c. ' That some, after haying gone through various punishraents, shall be purged and absolved, and after certain periods, shall be freed from tlifeir punishment.' " (See Leelands Advantages and Necessity of the christian yevelation.) > Dr. Mosheim speaking of the doctrine of the church in the third century says: " The christian doctors who had applied themselves to the study of letters and philosophy soon abandoned the frequented paths, and struck out into the devious wilds of fancy. Origin was at the head of this speculative fribe. This griat man enchanted by the charms of the platonic philosophy, set it up as the test of all religion ; and imagined that the reasons of each doc.^ trine were to be found in that favorite philosophy, and their nature and extent tobe determined by it" (See Mosheira's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, P. 214.) Again: " Origin in his i8ft*omato. Book x, expresses hiraselfin the followingmanner: ' the source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal or eicfernoi part of scrip ture. Let us therefore seek after the spirit and substan tial fruit ofthe word, which are hidden and mysterious.* And again ; ' the scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.' One would think it impossible that such expressions should drop from the pen of a wise man. But|the philosophy, which this great man embraced with such teat, was one of the sources of his delusion. He could not find in the bible the opinions he had adopted, as long, as he interpreted thaf sacred book according to its literal sense. But Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and indeed the whole phir losophical tribe, Could not fail to obtain, for their senti-> ments, a place in the gospel, when it was, interpreted by the wanton inventions of fancy, and upon the supposi-. tion of a hidden sense, to which it was possible to give 9II sorts of forins. Hence all who desired to model Chris tianity according to their fancy, or their favorite system of phiksmhy, embraced Origin's method of interpreta tion." (Ibid. P. 218. Note.) Mr. Milner says: " There is no ^oubt but, in a certain 3ease> Origia's succesB was great } hut 1 much foar tha^ ' ETERN\L PUNISHMENT, &C. ESTABLISHED. 14f in return, the pure gospel suffered greatly by an admix ture of gentilism.'* (See Milner's History of the church. VoKL P. 243.) Dr. Howeis says: " Indeed even then many of sound er principles disputed his [Origin's] platonic dogmas as heretical ; and his own diocean of Alexandria in two councils deposed and degraded him from the priesthood for false doctrines." (See Howeis' Church History, Vol. I, PP. 229 aso.) '^' The tenets of Origin which gave the mo.st offence, were the following: 1. That in the Trinity, the Father^ is greater than the Son, and the Son than the Holy Ghosit. ^. The pre-existence of souls, which Origin considered as sent into mortal bodies for the punishm^t of sins com mitted in a former state of he^ng. 3. That the soul of Christ was united to the word before the incarnation. -n 4. That the Sun, Moon, and Stars, &c., were animated and endowed with rational souls. 5. That after the resurrectionall bodies will be of a round figure. 6. That the torments ofthe damned will have an end ; and that as Christ had been crucified in this world to save mankind, heis to be crucified in the next to save the devils." (]V|o- sheim'3;Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, p. 427. Note.) We will close our list of extracts, with one which will not only go to confirm what is asserted in the above, with regard to the origin of the doctrine of a hell purgatory, but will sliow the use which was subsequently made ofit Dr. Ree says: " This doctrine of purgatory, which some derive from the platonism of Origin, the montanism of TertuUian, pretended visions, and pagan stories — rhet orical flourishes, and doubtful expressions ofthe latter fa thers, and in which we may discern an obvious resem blance to the famous pagan doctrine, concerning the pu rification of departed souls by means ofa certain kind of fire, was partly introduced at last in the spirit of it, to wards the close of the fifth century, and by Gregory the" great in the sixth century, but it was not, however, pos itively afiirmed till about the year 1140, nor maile an ar ticle offaith till the council of Trent." (Ree's New Cyg- Iqpasdiaupon the word purgatory.) : ..The above extracts we conceiv* fully ju.stify, the, foUo^J ing remarks: 148 UNIVERSAL 3ALV ATION CONSIDERED, fee. 1. Tliat the doctrine of the purification ofthe soul h? the fire of hell, originated in the heathen philosophy- 2. That it was with other heathen notions imbibed by Origin, and by him was first propagated in the church,. 3. That in order to accommodate the scriptures to these peculiar notions, a plan of explanation was introduced which would accoraraodate them to any set of notions, tho' the most inconsistent and absurd which were ever gen erated in a disordered imagination !* 4. That for these innovations in doctrine, Origin was censured by the constituted authorities ofthe church. 5. That this doctrine of purification by the fire of hell, was subsequently improved into the famous doctrine of purgatory as held by the Romish church. 6. That tiiose who argue from the opinion of OrigiA, that the primitive church held lo universal restoration, might with as much force argue from his opinions, that the primitive church held the absurd notions of the pre- existence of souls, — that the Sun Moon and Stars were animated and endowed with rational souls, — that after the resurrection all bodies will be of a round figure,— ' and that Chris! will be crucified in the other world to Save the devils! — For all these notions Origin held. But finally, we have seen from the most unequivocal testimony of the most learned and pious of the christian fathers, who flourished in the three first centuries, what was the faith of the church in its purest ages, upon the subject in que,stion. Some of these writers wei'e trained up by the Apostles themselves, and others by their immediate successors, and the remainder were but a very small reraove from them. Their language goes most conclusively to show, that they understood the scrip tures to teach the doctrine of the etemal punishmentnif- the finally impenitent ! This is strong collateral evidence in our favor. Based then, as we are, upon the word of God and the primitive church*^ we have nothing to fear. We may ' eari\estly contend for* this part of our faith, assured that it constitutes a part of that ' faith which was once delivered t» the saints,' and that it rests upoa an im movable foundation. •How exactly modern ITniversalists follow thin fanciful plan of eS. planation, may be sf en iji the Writings of Ballou, ^neelan^ &c Bsp. IHDEX: 15» 'i PART I. Sntrodoctory address to the Editor of the Candid Examiner.' 13 Sfo I.— In which theerronpqus notions of the Universalists, on the nature and grounds.of salvation are considered, 14 No. II. —In which the true notions of the nature, the gi-ounds, ^nd the conditions of salvation are stated and established, 18 No. IIf,~In which the universalist arguments drawn from the Will of God, general atonement, and the general terms often D^ediii relation to tbe subjects of salvation are considered, 22 Ko. rV.— Direct evidence in favor of eternal punishment, 26 No v.— Direct evidence, &c. continued, 32 PARF IL STo. I— Wherein it is considered, whether salvation implies de liverance from the punishment due to sin 3f Ko- H— Exemplary punishment — what was the proper penalty of the original law — and (vhetber salvation implies deliver- mce from it, 43 Ho.ni.—Gn the doctrine of Atonement, 49 Ko. IT — On tbe conditions of salvation, S4> JSo. V. — Arguments and scriptures supposed to support univer sal salvation considered, 60 Ko. VI. — The argument m favor of eternal pumshment founded apon contrast defended, 65 Ho. VH. — The argument founded upon the strength of the terms defended, - 7.5 No. vm, — The argument from the strength of the terms resumed, 84 K«. IX. — The argument from implication defended, 95 S7o. X. — The argument deduced from the limitation of the day of grace to this life defended. 106 PART III. Ho. I. — ^Tbe nature of salvation, 115 ^o.n. — ^The design of punishment, 133 Bio. m.— The atonement, , 129 Ho. IV —Conditions, 133 SJo v.~The will of God~Co»COTsws 138 ^g^ssti^ < 145 SR&ATJ&. Snpage 1, Motto, for St. Pattx, read SoiOMow, andtot SoioMON read St. Paul. 5, line ST, for promises read promise. 9, line 1, for maises read wozes. lb. lines 5 & 21, for Hornby read Horsley, Ib. line 5, for of read and. Ib. line 24, for absurd read oiioioMS. Ib. line 30, for wnirersfiJianism read 'univetsahsin» 34, in the note, line 5. for (itefA read die. 75, line 15, for irrei5eZtt7i< read irreieronf. Ib. line S3, for eideJice.? 'read evidences. 84, line 32, for Chiti-ra read Critica. ' 85, lines 26. 28 & 33, for ^rum read .^vuvu 93, line ii, for that read than. 99. line 17, for imperfect read pluperfect. iOl, line 18, for Volley read Valley. 122, line 5, after the word n^ood read sense. 1^4, line 37, for on read an. The following errors have occuffed in the course of this work: Jocephus for Josephus, Tertulean for Tertulhant Theopholact for Theophylact, Tartaruss for Tartarus, Go' ¦morrow for Gomorrah, Origin for Origen, and IreniuS for Ireeneus. There are still errors in the spe]liii|j of some words which are not corrected in this errata.