draw all men to himself. And sir, this passage would satisfy me that Universalism is true, did not the phrase all men occur in it, for the figure used, and the means described, prove it beyond all dispute. Jesus will display his goodness, and draw a world to his own bosom, by the cords of love. Methodists have often declared, that there is not an unconditional promise in the Bible. There was originally a condition in the text before us- -that condition has been fulfilled, Jesus was lifted up. Now, therefore, the promise is unconditional. I WILL draw all men unto

me.

Promises of this nature may be found on almost every page of the Bible. Thus we read: "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14, xxii. 18.) Al the ends of the world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him. (Psal. xxii. 27.) He will swallow up death in victory, and he will wipe away tears from all faces. (Isai. xxv. 8.) Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear, not that they should be justly condemned, but that in the Lord they have righteousness and strength. (Isai. xlv. 23, 24.)

2. Rom. v. 20. For as by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous.' These words you assert, (and this is all, for you give no proof) simply teach, that provision is made for all men. But does not the text say, shall be made righteous? And therefore, does it not show, what Christ will actually accomplish, rather than what he is able, or has tl. means of

accomplishing? Observe, it does not say, as by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, provision is made for the righteousness of many; but it says, that many shall be made righteous. As though sensible that something more than a provision of salvation is taught, in these words, in order to evade their force, you declare, it is not said that all mankind shall be made righteous.' Now sir, if the word many, does not mean all mankind in the last clause of the text, it cannot in the first. Consequently, according to your explanation, all mankind did not die in Adam.

Not only so, provision cannot be made, as you admit for all, for many is the word used to express the number, for whom, what you call the 'provision,' was made. Besides, the word here rendered many, according to Parkhurst, means the whole bulk of mankind, and is equivalent to (pantas anthropous) all men, in verses 12, 18. Therefore, your declaration, that there is nothing said in the text, of all mankind being made righteous, is far from the truth, as the east is from the west.

Your attempt to rescue this text from my hands, on the authority of my statement, that the believer of to-day, may be the infidel of to-morrow, is a failure for three reasons:

1. It applies language, which I used with respect to men in this world, where all is imperfection, to their final state, where they will be freed from all sin and imperfection. And surely, nothing can be more unfair.

2. You deny that statement; and therefore ac

cording to your reasoning, my remarks on Rom. v. 19, are sound.

3. Paul in the 5th of Rom. shows, that grace will reign beyond sin, and abound more than sin. It reigns beyond, because it destroys sin, and makes all those righteous, whom sin had pollu ted. It abounds more, because it not only destroys sin, but makes all men endlessly happy. Thus he says, 'where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, that as sin had reigned unto death, even so might grace reign_through_righteousness unto eternal life,' that is, reign beyond death, and over all men. Now to talk about some becoming wicked, when 'death is conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin totally destroyed,' is absurd in the highest degree.

3. 1 John iv. 14. And we have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son, to be the Saviour of the world.' What have you offered to prove that this, does not teach Universalism? Not an argument! You have not attempted an argument! You have asserted, it is true, that it simply teaches that means are prepared for the salvation of all; but as this directly contradicts the text, it will only go for an assertion.

1. These words teach the purpose of God to save all men. Observe, 'the Father, sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.' Here the great purpose of God is clearly expressed. Now we have only to ask, whether God will accomplish this purpose? Hear his own answer. I have purposed, so shall it stand; (Isai. xiv. 24) the Lord hath purposed it, who shall disannul it?

As

(27) I have purposed it, and I will also do it. (Isai. 46, 11.) Methodists, I know pretend, that God purposed the salvation of mankind on certain conditions, which at the time, he knew, all would not comply with. Now while I admit, that his purposes are so far conditional, that none can be saved, without repentance, I deny that God could purpose what he knew would not be done, because this would be acting against knowledge. Man in all his folly, never attempts to do, what he knows he shall not. Neither does he attempt to do a thing in a way, he knows he cannot. And if God purposed to save only those who comply with certain conditions, and knew at the time, that all would not comply, he never purposed to save all. And therefore the text is false, if Methodism is true.

2. These words teach that Christ is the Saviour of the world. But how can he be its Saviour, unless he saves it? You will perhaps say he is a Saviour, because he offers to save. But is offering to save, saving? Suppose I see a man perishing with hunger, and offer to supply him with food, but do not, and the man dies, can I be called his Saviour? Assuredly not. But if we admit that offering to save is saving, even this does not entitle Christ to the appellation of a universal Saviour; for not one fourth part of the world has had the offers of salvation. This we know, therefore we know that Methodism is false. Because admitting the common explanation of this subject, Christ is not entitled to the appellation of the Saviour of the world.

The scriptures bear us out in this reasoning. They ascribe complete success to the Saviour.

They declare that Christ shall have the heathen for an inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession (Psal ii. 8.) that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand (Isai. liii. 10) and that having subdued all he will deliver up the kingdom to God. 1 Cor. xv. 24.

4. Eph. 1-9-10. Having made known into us the mystery of his will, &c. You seek to evade the force of my argument, drawn from this text, by saying, that the application I give it, proves too much, and therefore proves nothing at all. You then ask, ‘if all things means all men, angels, devils, beasts, birds, fishes, insects, and reptiles in heaven and in earth.' Now sir, when we consider that Christ came to save men, that the gave his life a ransom for all men, that the Bible is a revelation to men, concerning the will, purpose and pleasure of God respecting them, and that nothing is said within its sacred pages, concerning the salvation of beasts, &c. or about Christ dying for any but human intelligencies, your question appears lame t beyond expression. I admit, that the phrase 'all things' is sometimes used to express what God has created, and what he sees; and that then it includes all, and more than you have said; but when it is used in relation to salvation, it can only refer to those, who are its subjects, and for whom Christ died.

"That he might gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and on earth.' Now, if you limit all things,' as it respects things on earth, which Christ came to save, you must limit it, as respects things in heaven. And therefore you must say, that there will be hu