can tolerate such an absurdity! You affirm that the gospel is appointed as a sure means of bringing about a total ruin to millions-the universalist has it a sure means of accomplishing a final salvation for all.

Calvinist. And according to Arminianism it will prove a sure means of accomplishing nothing! It may, or it may nol, just as it shall happen! All may be saved, or none! God may prevail, or the devil! hell may be useless, because tenantless, or all the universe besides may be depopulated to people it! all is uncertainty, nothing is sure! Now, agreeably to my system, something, at least, is certain; the purposes of Jehovah, seconded by his power to fulfil them, are a guarantee that he has not created in vain; nor has Jesus died, nor the scriptures been given, nor the gospel been preached, nor the spirit operated, but that all whom from eternity he designed for salvation, shall be saved.

Arminian. All whom he designed for salvation! I wonder then you don't turn universalist at once; for I am sure it is susceptible of easy and clear proof, that all were designed for salvation; and if all so designed shall be saved, why then, all shall be saved! This is giving in to universalism with a witness.

Author. Well, well, gentlemen, we may as well bring our conversation to a close, for you cannot sufficiently agree together to unite in opposing me: on the contrary, you make out a clear proof of my doctrine by the arguments which you urge against each other. One of you affirms, that there is, on God's part, a plenitude of power for the salvation of all: the other, that there is a plenitude of disposition. What, then, is left to me to prove? for a full disposition to do a thing, and a power adequate to its performance, implies with certainty that the thing shall be done. It must be evident to your candor, gentlemen, that each of your systems, taken separately, "limits the Holy One of Israel;" out of both, united, a theory may be framed which will well harmonize with the divine perfections. Universalism, in my judgment, is that theory.

Arminian. Nevertheless, I must still object against both yours and the Calvinian system, that, by assuming that all things are the result of divine appointment, they make God the author of all the sin in the universe!

Author. We make him the author of all things, indeed; so do

the scriptures; so does common sense; and so, I may add, does your own doctrine also, as has been shown before. It can make no actual difference between us in this respect that you say, God permits, while we say, he appoints, for the result is the same in both cases. I have a tiger chained to a stake; without my permission it can do no harm; there is a group of lovely children playing near by; the monster is glaring at them, his eyes flash fire, he claws the ground, and gnashes his teeth with rage. Shall I permit him to get loose among them? It is done; he has broke his chain; he has bounded into their midst: merciful heaven, what a scene of carnage ensues! their screams pierce my "ul! My conscience accuses me of the deed, but I am guiltless! I am guiltless! I only permitted it.

An act is sinful only as it is committed with a sinful dɅ sign; God's designs, like himself, are infinitely and unchangeably good, consequently, he cannot sin in any act or appointment of his, (however much suffering may be involved in its present operations,) because not only is such act, or appointment, designed for ultimate benefit to all who are affected by it, but the Being who so designed has power sufficient to bring such benefit to pass.

The tiger is loose, (by which I would personate sin and misery,) whether by appointment, or permission, you must see that the divine character is equally concerned in the event. Shall it roam and make havoc amongst God's offspring forever? or shall it be destroyed the wounds it has inflicted be healed, and the subjects of its violence be brought to see and experience, that, all things considered, it was better for them to have suffered from its fury for a time, that thereby their happiness might be enhanced for eternity? Your creed renders an affirmative answer to the former question-mine to the latter. And now tell me, candidly, which answer is the more consonant with the glory, the wisdom, the benevolence of the infinite Creator? Put your hand on your heart and answer.

To the question, "Why do you write, and preach, since, as all things take place by necessity, you cannot alter them ?" my answer is, I can alter such things as were appointed to be altered by my means. As before observed, when ends are ordained, the means for effecting them are ordained also; there is then all the use for means upon this scheme, as upon any other.

"But how would you reply to a criminal," (I may be asked,) "who should plead, that as it was foreappointed to him to com mit the deed, he ought not to be punished for it?" I would answer him, that it was also foreordained that he should suffer for the act. It was certainly foreordained that Judas should betray the Savior, and also that he should experience the woe pronounced upon him therefor.

If you don't like this view of things, good friend, whoever you be, the author will be most happy to have you refute it: show that it is contrary to scripture; contrary to experience, to fact; and bring forward, in lieu thereof, a scheme which shall unite the suffrages of all these in its favor; which shall better consist with the Omnipotence and sovereignty of the great Jehovah; and not only will the author become your most willing convert, but he will make you, into the bargain, his most sincere and humble bow of thanks.

EVERLASTING, FOREVER, &c.

A BRIEF VIEW OF THE ARGUMENT FROM THESE TERMS.

We are apt to forget, in this branch of the discussion, that the question is not about the meaning of English words; for as the bible was not written in English, the meaning of terms in that language can have nothing whatever to do with the settling of the inquiry as to its doctrines. The proper question before us is, What is the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words, which are rendered everlasting, eternal, etc., in our version of the scriptures ? In the attempt to maintain the doctrine of endless suffering, it has been most strenuously contended, that the radical and most usual sense of these words is unceasing duration. If, however, we attend to their applications, we shall have reason for considering this definition extremely questionable: they are applied to hills, and mountains; to the term of human life; to the Aaronic priesthood; to the Jewish ordinances; to their possession of the holy land. and to many other things of temporary duration. In one

instance, forever is applied to a period of three days. (Jonah ii. 6.) If such uses of terms were only occasional, if they occurred but now and then, and after long intervals, we might suppose them employed out of their strict and ordinary signification; but such is far from the fact; on the contrary, their application to limited periods is so frequent, that the best critics in the languages have defined them as "expressing duration, but with great variety."

That they are frequently used to express eternity is granted, chiefly as applied to God and his attributes; but then, it must be observed, their being so applied is no evidence, that this is their radical meaning, for we also find days, years, and ages, similarly applied. (Ps. lxxxix. 29; Mic. v. 2; Ps. cii. 24, 27; Isa. xxvi. 4; Ephe. iii. 21.) Yet surely none will hence infer that these words, apart from their connexion, imply eternity, although as thus applied they undeniably do. The same is true of everlasting, forever, etc. when the subject to which they are applied is in its own nature eternal, they are to be understood as expressing that sense; but when the duration of the subject is limited, they must be understood as implying but a limited duration.

Seemeth it at all probable, reader, that if the radical sense of these words were as affirmed by the doctors of endless misery, Jehovah would have employed them as he has in his commands to the Jews? He surely did not purpose that their peculiar religion should be of perpetual obligation; yet he directed that the priesthood should be everlasting. (Ex. xl. 15.) He set apart the house of Aaron to this office forever. (Deut. xviii. 5.) He gave the Jews the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. (Gen. xvii. 8; xlviii. 4.) He instituted the sabbath as a sign betwixt him and them forever. (Numb. x. 8.) The atonement was to be an everlasting statute. (Lev. xvi. 34.) Their ordinances of the passover, (Ex. xii. 15.) tabernable, (Ibid. xxxi. 17.) and circumcision, (Deut. xxviii. 46.) were to last forever. And the same term, in its duplicated form, is applied to their possession of the promised land, forever and ever. (Jer. vii. 7; xxv. 5.) Many similar texts might be quoted, in which these terms are used in a way greatly to have deceived the Jews, if their generally received sense had been unending duration; for they would in that c256 naturally have inferred that their institutions were to continue

without end, whereas it is well known that God meant it but as a preparatory dispensation, to be succeeded by another of superior excellence and glory.

In Hawes' Reasons against Universalism, (published by the American Tract Society,) it is affirmed of these terms that they "invariably imply the longest duration of which the subject to which they are applied is capable." About as true, this, as many other statements in the same work. Was not the Jewish sabbath capable of being continued longer than it was? Was Canaan incapable of being possessed by them to the end of time? Was not their priesthood capable of being continued indefinitely? Could not Jehovah have secured the sacerdotal office to the family of Phineas (in which it was to continue forever) for more than 400 years? Was the fish incapable of containing Jonah for more than three days? Truth is, that the declaration falls about as far within the range of truth, as does Nova Zembla within the torrid circle; if I had faith in its verity I should turn Jew at once.

Let us suppose a person, believing in endless misery, to be sent on a mission to a colony of Jews, for the purpose of converting them to christianity; he begins by acknowledging their religion to have been instituted by Jehovah, and to have continued in force for nearly fifteen centuries, but it at length (he tells them` gave place to the religion of Messiah, "who hath changed the customs which Moses delivered," and that all men are now called upon, under a penalty of eternal damnation, to abjure their former faiths, and modes of worship, and become the subjects of the gospel kingdom. They ask him what he understands to be the radical meaning of the terms everlasting, and forever. How, now, shall he answer them? If he say, that they only require to be understood in the sense of endless, when the subject is such in its nature, he will be conceding to universalism all it asks; he will be compromiting the main reliance of the dogma of endless suffering. This will not do. If, on the other hand, he tell them, with Mr. Hawes, that they invariably imply the longest duration of which the subject to which they are applied is capable, he will subject himself to their scorn. "What!" they will exclaim, "call you upon us to abjure the religion of our fathers, in favor of an upstart system which originated fifteen hundred centuries later, when by your own acknowledgement we are commanded to