proof of their compatibility with an all-wise, all-powerful, and supremely benevolent First Cause.

But this is not the place to vindicate, but to unfold the policies of this long protracted and superlatively interesting war. Since, however, we have mentioned the mercy and wrath of God, to prevent any one stumbling at the threshold, we would observe-that as no one can show how the above enumerated perfections of the Deity could have been revealed had not Satan fallen into rebellion, or sin appeared amongst the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of this earth, we must either argue that these are not necessary perfections of God; or that the revelation of them, and consequently the knowledge of them, is unnecessary to any of his creatures; and therefore that God has perfections which need never to be known, never to be admired, adored, or loved by his own beloved children. This is more irreconcileable to every principle of reason and human knowledge than the fall of Satan and the apostacy of man.

But some will say, 'Is wrath or anger a perfection or an attribute of God? Is he the subject of passions or affections? Can he pity, commiserate, have compassion, and be angry as we do?' That we may miscall pity, compassion, mercy, anger, wrath, and misinterpret them, will not be disputed. But that "God is angry with the wicked every day;" that his only begotten Son "was moved with both pity and indignation," cannot be doubted or denied. These, indeed, become with us passions, or fits of feeling; but with God they are perfections. It is his glory always to be opposed to sin-to hate it, and to be angry with sinners. To show mercy and to manifest indignation are also worthy of the Governor of the universe. Nay, indeed, as the black and dark robes of night sometimes in the midst of day veil the heavens and seal up the sun from our eyes, that the gathering fire and tempest may burst upon mortal senses with more awful sublimity and grandeur--that men may fear, and wonder, and adore Him who makes the clouds his chariot, and who walks upon the wings of the wind; so God, whose name is Love, sometimes "willing to show his wrath and to make his power known," awfully executes vengeance upon transgressors-makes them drink the vials of his fiercest anger, and pours forth his wrath and fury upon them from the overflowing cups of his indignation.

While it is a sin for Christians to "be angry without cause," it is a sin to them not to be angry at sin, at themselves when they transgress, and at those who dishonor God's holy institutions. We must not, then, think lightly of that perfection of God, call it anger, wrath, indignation, vengeance, or simple hatred of sin, which gives that stern and awful majesty to his character, which,

to all pure and holy beings, renders him "fearful in praises,” amiable and venerable in their sight.

To return: Had Satan been annihilated or crushed by a single exertion of the omnipotent hand, doubtless it would have been, to the eye of Omniscience, a most impolitic measure; for in the administration of the sovereign government of a universe every act must be considered, not in relation to a part, but in relation to the whole. To have annihilated the rebel and his host, had it been possible, would indeed have stayed the contagion; but it would have been absolute loss without any gain-a blank without any prize-a loss of society in heaven-a breach in the armies of the skies without any advantage to universal being, except the demonstration of the consequence of sin, which, by the remedial system, is gained more fully and with much better effect, and also with the filling up of the empty seats vacated by the overthrow of the confederated rebels.

But, as before intimated, we have for our present task the unfolding rather than the vindication of the policy of this longprosecuted war. To put down sin in the universe, to prevent its recurrence, and to save sinners from its desolating reign, constitute the three-fold end of the remedial system. Not any one of these, but all of them are prominent in this splendid scheme, characterized by so many displays of the deep and manifold wis dom of God. To prevent this consummation is of course the aim of the opposition; and from these points are we to view the policy of the belligerents. This policy is not to be learned in an hour, nor by the consideration of a few incidents, but from a very close survey of the rich and various facts and documents furnished in the faithful record,

In order to expose in our feeble measure, the grand traits of this admirable policy, we shall have to survey in the first place the remedial system so far as it was unfolded in the antediluvian age of the world. To deny its truth, corrupt its meaning, and obliterate the memory of it, have ever been conspicuous traits in the policies of the Prince of darkness. But on this we must reflect for another month. A. C.

Discussion of Universalism.

Dear Sir,

MR. SKINNER TO MR. CAMPBELL.

No. XXI.

RICHMOND, Va., March 21, 1838.

YOURS of the 9th inst. reached me last evening after a ten or eleven days' journey. It is related of a certain kind of fish, that it emits after it a dark substance, filling the surrounding waters with

1

blackness, thereby to elude its pursuers. But I am in hopes the superincumbent darkness proceeding from the emissions of your pen will yield to the light which a few plain facts in the case will be able to produce. I shall not, however, follow the example of my illustrious opponent by seeming "to sport with his frailties," and by charging him with "sheer imbecility," "singular impotency," "assumed stupidity," "truthless assertions," "wayward fancies," "total destitution of even an elementary knowledge of language," &c. &c. These and similar charges are all, no doubt, vastly polite, especially in a MAGNUS APOLLO of theologians and critics, and will serve greatly to enhance his honor and glory in having entered the lists with such an opponent! But as I aspire at no such high honors, you must pardon me for not bandying such phraseology nor returning such compliments.

2. I have no doubt our readers, as well as myself, are desirous that we should "ascend from words to things," and leave, as soon as possible, a logomachy in the discussion of which the great literary opulence of my opponent compels him to assume la grande hauteaur du mepris exhibited in your last. I should scarcely have returned to say any thing further on the second and third propositions, had not your last exhibited uncommon ardor and assurance in defence of positions I deem wholly untenable. A few passing remarks on some of your statements and the exhibition of two or three important facts bearing on those two propositions, I think, will soon set the matter at rest.

3. You say, par. 3, I "confound chastisements and punishments." I think these are scripturally synonymous. But if not, it is certain, if Paul speaks truly, that "all are partakers of chastisements," and if the Deity is not wofully disappointed in the results proposed, they shall finally cause all to be "partakers of his holiness" and "yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness." See Heb. xii. 6-11.

4. In saying you had attempted to prove endless punishment merely by the force of aionios, and that you had no other reason to give, I meant to be understood relative to the second proposition, i. e. the discussion about aionios, on which we were then engaged. And I can now think of no argument you adduced in favor of endless punishment but the very word in dispute. You made no attempt to show from the nature of punishment, that it must be endless. What other argument did you adduce?

5. The mode you adopt, par. 7, to sustain former evasions and denials relative to aptharsia and athanasia, is singular enough. You assume that immortality is not an attribute of God, essentially and necessarily pertaining to his being and person, but is a sort of commodity which he has laid up as a possession, to which he can have access, and make such use, as occasion may require! Verily, my learned opponent is growing wiser in the mysteries of his mysterious theology every day he lives!

6. It is amusing to witness your efforts to evade the force of your own concessions, par. 8, relative to akatalutos, apthartos, aptharsia, athanasia, aperantos, and aidios. After admitting "that five of them embrace the idea of duration," you wish to neutralize that concession by adding, of the six, "One of them excepted, they never but by implication, import duration." Very well, if they import it by implication, it is sufficient to sustain my proposition, inasmuch as you have not

shown, and cannot show, that the duration they imply is even a limited duration. Yet for availing myself of the concession, you indignantly charge me with perverting your words! Strange perversion this, of a concession which, in attempting to evade, you do but confirm! You attempt to ridicule the idea of duration being attached to those words which you confess imply duration!!

7. But to put a veto on all further evasion of your concession, or denial of my position, I now inform you that there is something more than an implication of duration in several of those words, and shall give my authority. Robinson, one of your own favorite lexicographers, and in all conscience orthodox enough for any one, unless he be a thorough Catholic, gives perpetuity as one of the definitions of aptharsia. He also says of apthartos, it is "spoken of things imperishable, enduring. 1 Cor. ix. 25.; 1 Pet. i. 4, 23, and iii. 4."

8. So far from being convinced by looking into dictionaries that aperantos refers to space only and not to time, a much fuller conviction of the opposite is the result. Jones in his Lexicon, (London ed. 1825,) which comprises the substance of Dainm. Sturze, Schleusner, and Schweighaluser, gives "endless, boundless," as the definitions of aperantos. It is here derived from a, priv., and peraino, to carry to an end, terminate, finish, execute, accomplish. Perasmos, the corresponding substantive, signifies conclusion, end. Eccl. iv. 8. Robinson defines aperantos, "unlimited;" Loveland, "endless, boundless, excessive." I might multiply authorities, but it is useless.

9. With all these facts staring us in the face, how strange the obstinacy that can still persist in denying the propriety of connecting any of these words with duration, or with punishment, if the Scripture writers had intended to represent the latter as endless! Would it be absurd, sir, to talk of akatalutos, aperantos, &c. punishment, when you translate the former, and the best lexicographers define the latter, endless? The only absurdity in the case would be the monstrous idea that punishment itself could by any possibility be endless. And I am fully satisfied that the grand reason why none of the inspired writers ever applied either of them to, or connected them with punishment, was that they did not choose to represent the latter as endless.

10. I now proceed to a further notice of aidios. I did not, as you say, derive it from hades; but merely said some respectable critics so derive it. I made the remark because you so confidently affirmed that all the learned world were agreed that it was derived from aei. You now say I cannot name an exception. I mention the name of Nathaniel Scarlett, of London, who in conjunction with Mr. Creighton, a learned clergyman of the Church of England, gave a new translation of the New Testament in 1798, which was highly commended both by the Critical Review and the Monthly Review cotemporary therewith. See a Note on aidios in that version; also a note of similar import in Kneeland's Translation, published in Philadelphia, 1822. I, however, concede that a majority of critics are with you as to the derivation of aidios, and I have no disposition for a controversy about that, when we are agreed as to the meaning of the word—that it signifies endless.

11. But while I concede that aidios is derived in part from aei, I shall be obliged to cross your path in another very important point, where you say, "it is incontrovertibly certain that aidios derives all its

endless duration from aei." For it has another and very important root, which I must thank you for putting me in the way of examining a little more critically. It is dios, which Jones' Lexicon defines thus: "Dios, divine, (fr. Zeus,) divine in nature, incorruptible as salt is said to be, Il. i. 214, pure, serene, Od. t. 540, divine in power, vast, immense, mighty, formidable, m. 104.-venerable, noble, dia gunaikon, divine of women. Zeus, gen. dios, accus. dia and zena, Jupiter, a poetic name for the high and pure air, from a Hebrew word signifying to commandin Arabic to shine-and is pronounced theia, and in Persian zee, of the same origin as theos [God] or the principle of light.”

12. Thus, sir, we see that quite as important a root as aidios has, is the very name of God. It is this that gives it a much stronger import of endless than aion has: for while the second root of aion simply denotes being, the second root of aidios denotes the divine being. It signifies not only endless, but divine in nature. This also beautifully confirms the explanation I before gave of Jude 6., that the chains there spoken of were the divine counsels, or the endless and changeless purpose of God. But you think this explanation only "helps the truth." I think so too: but it is a truth very different from the theory you attempt to sustain. Recollect these wicked beings were to be held in these endless and divine chains only until "the judgment of the great day." Do you imagine, sir, that because it was God's eternal purpose that his Son should die for sinners at the time he was crucified, that therefore his Son must eternally die?

13. In no passage of Scripture is aidios applied to punishment, though I think it would have been, had the Divine Spirit intended to teach endless misery. Hence by your own admission that it unequivocally signifies endless, and my more ample proof, my third proposition is triumphantly sustained in both of its alternatives. In proof of the second alternative contained in it, viz. a word that could "certify us that God, angels, or saints shall have duration without end," I will now add to the six words already adduced, the four following, athanatos, immortal, not subject to death, and akeratos, akerasios, and akerios, pure, imperishable, not subject to decay, undecaying; thus making ten in all. Do you wish more?

14. Like a drowning man catching at straws, you still feebly but vainly attempt to sustain your second proposition. No matter if revelation itself is overthrown, if you can successfully oppose Universalism, the truth of which yourself are constrained to pray for! How reckless! Are you not aware, sir, that the position you assume in paragraph 24, makes as much against the Bible itself as it does against Universalism? If the Bible declare in one place that God will punish or cast off for ever, and in another that he will not cast off for ever, what must we conclude? Why, certainly, one of two things, either that the Bible contradicts itself, or that the phrase, for ever, is used in different senses, or extent of meaning, in the two passages. I take the latter ground: inasmuch as we know that God does reject, or cast off sinners for a season, denominated for ever, or for an age; and when in other and different connexions, he says he will not cast off for ever, this phrase being sometimes used to express endless duration, I understand it in these cases in the latter sense. But you seem to take the opposite ground, and, as a Christian, turn suicide and would destroy the Bible