could not be on the principle of revenge or retali ation, as you say future punishment is; for this Would be rousing the Governor of heaven to endless anger, for the sin of a moment. Not only so, God is immutable, and cannot be angry in the sense you say.

Besides, why should the Deity, who wills the salvation of all men, whose nature is love, and who sent his Son to save the world, perpetuate punishment eternally, when it destroys his purpose, and prevents the accomplishment of his will? Paul differs with you entirely on this subject. He declares that God chastens for our profit, not like some earthly fathers for his pleasure; and as there is no profit in endless punishment, it must be limited in time, as well as various in degree. Hence God says, he will not contend forever, Isa. 1. 16; that tears shall be wiped from 'all faces, Isa. xxv. 8; and that death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed, 1 Cor. 15. Punishment, therefore, is, beyond all doubt, limited in duration.

As it respects your 20 names of the place of future wo, I will only observe, that assertion will not, in this discussion, be admitted as argument. First prove that these twenty texts relate to the future world, before you talk of the names by which you suppose hell is designated. I will only add, several of these texts I have in this discussion proved, relate to this world, and the rest have been so explained by Pearce, Clarke, Hammond, Lightfoot, Kenrick, Cappe, Gilpin, &c.Thus do you contradict in your explanations, not only Clarke, but all distinguished commentators. I deny, sir, that a single text out of your twenty, has reference to the future world; and until you

prove that they have, they must go for what your assertion is worth.

I will now proceed to an examination of the twenty-four passages which you have brought against Universalism.

1. 1 Cor. xvi. 22. On this Clarke says: "Does not the apostle refer to the last verse in the Bible? "Lest I come and smite the land with a curse." And does he not intimate that the Lord was coming to smite the Jewish land with that curse, which took place a very few years after, and continues on that gainsaying and rebellious people to the present day? What the apostle has said was prophetic, and indicative of what was about to happen to that people. God was then coming to inflict punishment upon them. He came and they were broken and dispersed.”Note in loc.

Hammond, Pyle, Wakefield and Rossenmuller, refer it simply to casting out of the Church. As it respects your definition of Maranatha, it is entirly unfounded. Parkhurst says, it means simply, "cursed art thou." Shall I take all these authorities, or your word?

2. 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. "We are unto God a sweet savour," &c. Here you assume that saved signifies endless happiness, and perish endless death. But the apostle says, "in them that are saved." The fact is, from the Roman custom of giving "grand triumphs" to those generals who obtained great victories, the apostle drew a figure to illustrate the effects of preaching. At these triumphs, the odor of the incense and smoke of the sacrifices, filled the whole city. And as these were a savour of life, to the conquerors, so they

were a sovour of death to the conquered. Thus it was with the Gospel; to the believer it was the savour of life, to the unbeliever of death. But as life and death are common terms to express the moral condition of saints and sinners on earth, the text proves nothing respecting the future state. "We know that we have passed from death unto life." "Dead in sin." "He that believeth hath life." This explanation is confirmed by Horne, Gilpin and Hammond. The latter says:-" For by our preaching the gospel, we perform a very acceptable service to God, and bring in glory to his name, offer up a sweet smelling sacrifice unto him among all sorts of people,both among the penitent believers which receive the faith, and live according to it, and the impenitent unbelievers that receive it not. For though this sweet perfume, to the obstinate impenitent hath been the most perfect poison, (as high perfumes sometimes are,) they have grown the worse for the gospel's coming among them; yet to all that have forsaken their old courses of sin, and obeyed this call to a new life, it hath been the most comfortable vital savour that ever came to them."

3. Phil. iii. 19. "Whose end is destruction." Pyle explains this as follows:-" Their notions and views of religion are all temporal, and their chief aim is at the gratification of their sensual appetites and pleasures; they boast in what they ought to be ashamed of; and, for such irreclaimable prejudices and practices, God will destroy their whole nation with a most exemplary destruction.." Par. in loc. Whitby is of the same opinion.

Your argument, that destruction cannot mean temporal death, because the good also die, stands opposed to two facts. 1. The god of these people was their belly-that is, they were sensual, and devoted to the gratification of their appetites and passions. And are not such people now destroyed? Alas! See the thousands hurrying to an untimely grave. 2. Temporal destruction is often threatened as a punishment. This none will deny. And is it not a punishment, a sore punishment? So it was regarded under the old dispensation, and so it is now regarded. The fact that the good must also die, does not affect this in the least, because to die, as a punishment, and a natural death, are two things quite different.Your argument, therefore, is fallacious; for the end of these people was temporal destruction.The apostle speaks of their temporal, not their eternal end.

4. Heb. vi. 8. "Is nigh unto cursing." On this Dr. Clarke says:-"It is acknowledged, almost on all hands, that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.— This verse is, in my opinion, a proof of it; and here I suppose the apostle refers to that approaching destruction, and perhaps he has this all along in view, but speaks of it covertly, that he might not give offence."

He then adds, "there is a good sense in which all these things may be applied to the Jews at large;' and after showing this application he says, 'the Jewish nation was then nigh unto cursing, about to be cut off from the divine protection, and their city and temple were about to be burnt up by the Roman armies.' Thus sir, the text agrees with

Universalism even though 'rejected' and 'burned,' do not mean saved; for there are rejections and burnings, besides endless wo. Had you nothing but such a turn to give in justification of your view of this text? This is all you have given! Oh how weak is error! how feeble all the arguments by which it is supported!

5. 2 Pet. ii. 20. "The latter end is worse with them than the beginning." As Peter was speaking of apostates, and showing that their character after apostacy, was worse than before, I need offer nothing on this text. By their latter end, he means, as the context shows, not their final state, but their state as apostates. So says Kenrick.

6. Matt. xxvi. 24. Judas. According to your application of this text, there are two startling and awful facts: 1.That Judas was born and raised up to betray Christ, and for fulfilling the purpose of God in this, was sent to an endless hell. If this be not reprobation with a vengeance, then I know not what is. Say no more, Sir, against Calvinism, while you argue for such a doctrine. 2. That the endless ruin of one man was essen-tial to the salvation of others. "Offences must needs come, but wo unto that man by whom they come."

Now, sir, rather than adopt two such awful conclusions, I would say, that our Lord used a proverbial expression, common among the Jews, when any great calamity was about to fall on an individual. Expressions of this nature were frequent. Hence they said of people who surmounted great difficulties or performed great things, they had removed a mountain; and from this Paul borrowed his figure in 2 Cor. xiii. 2, and