extinction of life, of consciousness, or of feeling: for if it were, eternal pain or misery would be impossible. This is my first argument against the destructionists.

20-My second is, that Jesus assigns to wicked men the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Now angels cannot die: for Jesus affirms they cannot. They cannot be annihilated or rendered unconscious of being. Hence as the devil cannot die, or cease to be under future torments, neither can the wicked: for the devil, wicked angels, and wicked men are to be co-partners in the same eternal fire-in the same everlasting punishment. And that the devil and his angels are to be tormented beyond their present sufferings is clear to themselves: for when Jesus came the first time they asked if he were about to torment them before the final judgment.

21-My third argument is, that if eternal punishment be eternal unconsciousness, an eternal ceasing to be, or annihilation, (for we use the word annihilation not in the quibbling sense of some who suppose a reduction to nihility impossible;) I say, if eternal punishment be eternal death in the sense of eternal unconsciousness, then those who are doomed to this state are punished no more than the harmless dove that sings among the branches, or the innocent lamb that skips in the meadow; for they too suffer an everlasting punishment-they go into the eternal fire with the devil and his angels, if that everlasting punishment and eternal fire be an eternal sleep, an everlasting unconsciousness, an endless extinction of feeling. These three objections to me are insuperable. Others are at hand.

22-These are not, however, the common arguments by which this system has been usually assailed. Dr. Chauncey, like many other Universalists, held the doctrine of the destructionists provisionally; that is, if he failed in proving the salvation of all men, he would then contend for the destruction or eternal unconsciousness of all wicked men. The great Dr. Edwards objected to this destructionism as follows:

23-1st. That the different degrees of punishment which the wicked will suffer according to their works, proves that it does not consist in annihilation, because that admits of no degrees.

24-2d. If this annihilation be preceded by torment of different degrees, then it makes eternal punishment to be a compound of previous torment and eternal annihilation. And this makes annihilation the least punishment imaginable, as that without any previous torment will be the doom of infants and the least culpable sinners.

25-3d. To be annihilated after a long series of torments would be no punishment at all; it would indeed be anticipated as a sort of rest or heaven to the miserable inmates of a temporary hell.

26-4th. To threaten men with "recompensing tribulation" and "taking vengeance in flaming fire" and "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," is to threaten them with putting an end to their miseries, if everlasting destruction mean an everlasting ceasing to be, or an eternal annihilation.

27-Met by such arguments as these, the talents and learning of Taylor, the ingenuity of Bourn, and the dexterity of Scott and Mason failed in the last century of making many converts to this theory-the pleasing salvo of dubious Universalists, the anodyne of those who have

too much sense for gross Universalism, and too little faith in the words of Him who will say, "Depart, you CURSED," not You BLESSED, "into the ETERNAL FIRE prepared for the DEVIL and his angels." "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, while the righteous enter into life eternal."

28-Life, let me add, is not simple being; nor eternal life eternal being, but eternal well-being; neither is eternal death the loss of being, or of consciousness, but the loss of eternal well-being. For there will be something to be blessed and something to be tormented forever and ever, independent of, and distinct from, eternal happiness and eternal

torment.

29-I am not, then, a Destructionist, a Restorationist, nor an ultra Universalian-not from any prejudice against any of them, but because I cannot find in the Bible a single sentence contextually interpreted, not a single word properly understood, favorable to any of these schemes. I claim no originality on this subject. I am not in love with any new theory, neither have I any traditional prepossession nor bias against them: I have long since made myself familiar with these theories and their evidence to see if there was any thing in them more worthy of acceptance than the old Protestant, Puritan, or Waldensian theories. I have found that the views of the primitive church, of the Protestant and Waldensian church, on this subject, are consonant to scripture, good sense, and sound reason, if I am any judge of such matters. Some of them may have spoken very incongruously, and done injustice to themselves and brethren; still the Arminian and Calvinian theories are incomparably more scriptural and rational than those of the Destructionist, Romanist, or the Universalist.

30-The Apostles could have very easily prevented all difficulty upon this subject by simply assuring us in definite language that all the wicked dead should become righteous men in another world in consequence of being tormented for a thousand years in hell; that they would eventually all become holy and happy; or if that were not the fact, they could have taught us that all the wicked dead shall be raised and tormented for a few thousand years, and then annihilated as an eternal punishment or rest from misery. But, sir, such ideas are not in the Bible, simply because they were not in the minds of the men who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

31-Now, sir, let me say to you with all perspicuity, that I neither adopt nor oppose any theory on this subject because it corresponds with, or differs from, my views of the primitive and present constitution of man. Nor would I non-fellowship a destructionist because of his theory, inasmuch as he teaches that it shall not hereafter and forever be with the righteous as with the wicked; nor would I make it a term of Christian union or communion that a person should agree with me in my exposition of future punishment. But, sir, the absolute denial of future punishment in another state of existence is with me a denial of the faith of Christ, whose errand into this world, whose death, burial, and resurrection for our sins and for our justification were altogether unjustifiable and unnecessary, if so be that man was not forever doomed to woe because of sin, or saved from endless misery by Christ's interposition. It is as unequivocal a denial of Christ's words as quoted by me in the 28th letter, as human speech affords. The boundary between 35*

VOL. II-N. S.

opinion and faith are to my mind clearly marked. To deny a fact and to differ in opinion, are, with me, two things as different as reasoning and believing as seeing an object and thinking about it. I have, moreover, uniformly found that those who deny the future punishment of wicked men, deny other facts in the Christian system that essentially change its nature, character, and design. But of this I may have to speak more plainly and fully hereafter.

32-After giving us in letter 29th a string of scripture texts speaking of Christ's kingdom in this world compared with the narrow limits of the ancient kingdom of God among the Jews-of the superabundance of grace in passing over millions of sins in an individual, while sin reigns to death for a single offence-of Christ's being called "the Saviour of the world" of Christ's praying in accordance with the will of God-of "every knee bowing and of every tongue confessing to the glory of God" -you proceed to ask, last paragraph, "How can all the foregoing scriptures be true, and yet the salvation of all men not be true?" &c. I answer, because not one of those scriptures speak of the ultimate and eternal salvation of all mankind; nor have you, by any sort of reasoning or proof, attempted to show that they do―nor can you!

33-If it were even said a thousand times that God is the Saviour of all men, while there are three distinct salvations repeatedly alluded to in the scriptures such as the salvation of the soul from the guilt, power, and pollution of sin-the salvation of the body and life of man from temporal evils-and the salvation of the whole man, body, soul and spirit, after the resurrection of the dead, so often spoken of in the sacred writings; and so long as there are multitudes said to be lost, perished, destroyed, and punished, your assumptions cannot be sustained by such passages of scripture as you have quoted. While Jesus says "the gate of life is strait, and the way leading thither narrow; and the gate of destruction wide, and the way leading thither broad, and many going in thereat, and few finding the other"-that "many shall at last seek to enter in and shall not be able," &c.-I say, with a host of such sayings, a few specimens of which I gave you in my last letter, it is impossible that those passages you have adduced can refer to the same subjects at all.

34—Remember I have called upon you to single out one, two, or three of your strongest proofs, and I will either show that they are wrested or perverted, or give up the controversy. But, sir, I presume to say that you will not hazard even this much. I want your strongest text, that I may the more fully canvass it and show its irrelevance.

35-You talk of some of the Christian Fathers, if not all, (!) having been Universalists. The Romanists say, with just as much truth and reason, that some of them, if not all, were good Papists. I want you to give us the primitive Apostles: throw none of your primitive dust in our eyes, Mr. Skinner. It is all a hoax. All the truly primitive Fathers ask, "How shall we escape eternal punishment if we neglect so great salvation?" "Of how much sorer punishment than temporal death shall the apostate be thought worthy?" Yes, sir, "our God is a consuming fire." There is nothing but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall destroy the adversaries of Christ's person and gospel. And says Paul, "If any man preach any other gospel than I have preached, let him be anathema-let him be accursed! yes, if an angel do it, let him be accursed!" Take care, then, lest that curse come upon you which is written in the Prophets; for Jesus says, "Fear Him who when he has killed the body, can destroy both soul and body in hell: yea, I say unto you, fear Him.". -Very faithfully and benevolently,

A. CAMPBELL.

Prophetic Department.

TO THE REFORMED CLERGYMAN.

Respected Sir,

I CONGRATULATE you upon the completion of the first part of your plan in the examination of the fulfilled prophecies, and beg leave to say that I have been much pleased and edified with the many very interesting facts and reflections which you have presented.

I must confess, however, that I am particularly gratified with the uncertainty of your conclusions when you come to speak upon those prophecies which are not yet accomplished, as, for example, those referring to the period at which the sanctuary shall begin to be cleansed. I believe, sir, you are right here; though to be sure inclination is a great help to belief, and, as you have no doubt discovered from the communications I had formerly the honor to address to you, I am disposed to believe that in interpreting the unfulfilled prophecies men are certain only in uncertainty, and consistent only in inconsistency. You will at least admit that it must be from an inclination the other way, if any literalist interpreter should assert that the late loud blast of the sturdy Layman's horn has laid your well-built arguments as flat as the walls of Jericho.

If, indeed, the predictions relating to the future are ever to be clearly understood, it will be I doubt not in the way you have devised; by first exploring the fulfilled prophecies and deducing therefrom just rules of interpretation. It may be that from them a grammar of the prophetic language can be compiled. At all events, so judicious an attempt merits approbation and success. Thus the rower looks in a direction precisely opposite to the point at which he wishes to arrive. But as this is a simile somewhat hackneyed, I would say that your course reminds me of the following incident:-The slaves of an ancient city having revolted against their masters and obtained possession of the place, came to an agreement that he amongst them who should first discover the rising of the sun in the morning should become the Governor of the city. Upon the appointed day, when all

were assembled before the dawn, one of them, instructed by his master whom from affection he had concealed and preserved from death, was observed to look towards the West, while the others fixed their eyes upon the East in eager expectation. The consequence was that he saw the shining of the sun upon the lofty mountains in the West long before the disc of the luminary appeared above the eastern horizon, and was accordingly ad judged to have gained the prize. It is possible, sir, that in addressing your attention to the past, instead of dwelling confidently and exclusively upon the future, like the literalists and the Layman, who, by the bye, is more dogmatical than any clergyman I know, you may be the first to see "the dawn of Joy's eternal day," and hail the rise of "Life's unsetting sun."

For my part, the conviction that the manner in which the prophetic writings have been descanted upon of late years is highly censurable, and calculated to impair their credit, as well as lead away the attention from facts to idle speculations, has induced me to interpose the opinions that men have pushed their inquiries too far in this department, inspired by curiosity or the love of novelty rather than of truth; that it was never intended for men to know the times and seasons which the Father has reserved in his own power, and that the unfulfilled prophecies can never be clearly understood until the events foretold shall have actually occurred.

My only object at present, sir, is, in the midst of so many conflicting views, to present again these sentiments as a remora in the way of too hasty conclusions. In proportion as I hold it important that Christians should possess a firm faith and a lively hope in the coming of our Lord, and should dwell upon the FACT with longing and delightful anticipation, in the same degree do I deprecate those fanciful conjectures and visionary theories respecting the time and manner of his coming, or the antecedent events, which lead to enthusiasm by creating false hopes, or weaken faith by disappointment; which confuse the mind rather than inform the judgment, and please the fancy rather than improve the heart.

Yours with much respect,

D. A.