forever. Dan. ii, 44. That is, it shall stand, until it hath "put down all rule, and all authority, and power" that is not based on the principles of the Christian religion, and having put all civil and ecclesiastical despotisms under his feet, those enemies to the pure and peaceful reign of the Messiah, he winds up all by the resurrection of man's body from the grave; he calls this the last enemy, in distinction from those he had put under his feet, and because it was the last act of his mediatorial office, previous to his giving up the kingdom to God the Father.

EXTRACTS

From the Evangelical Magazine, and Gospel Advocate.

In Vol. 7, No. 9, February 1836, in an article taken from the Rambler No. 3, by Rev. C. Spear on Forgiveness, his second Paragraph is in these words "the great object which the writer has now in view is to show the vast importance of exercising a spirit of forgiveness."

Mr. Spear in enforcing this duty, adverts to the petition in the Lord's prayer-" Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," and to the exhortation of the apostle "Be kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you."

The same writer, in No. 4, of the Rambler, No. 10, of the periodical, quotes the following text: "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy upon him, and unto our God and he will abundantly pardon." Isaiah lv, 7, Here the writer admits the exercise of mercy and forgiveness, on the part of Deity; and yet who would believe it,-in this very article he denies the exercise of mercy and forgiveness on the part of the Almighty,-thus supporting both sides of a contradiction. We have given one side of this contradiction;

W

6

let us give the other "the motive generally employed by theologians to produce repentance is the avoidance of punishment: but this is not right. There is no way to escape the consequences of past transgression: 'he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons with God,' though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished. Such is the testimony of holy writ." In answer to the foregoing we observe; first, that, however Mr. Spear may support the opposite sides of a contradiction, he must excuse us for dissenting from the conclusion, that scripture supports both sides too. We will now quote the passages to which Mr. Spear has alluded, for the purpose of showing that universalists are sometimes Ted into error by not fixing upon some principle, to reconcile the seemingly apparent contradictions of scripture for want of which they set the bible at war with itself.

In our Lord's prayer, is the following petition "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Matth. vi, 12. In Ephesians iv, 32, it is thus written, " And be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you." In these two passages quoted by Mr. Spear is the doctrine of forgiveness on the part of Deity taught. That the writer understands these passages as teaching that the Almighty exercises forgiveness towards man, for sins that are past, is evident from the use he makes of them, which is, to enforce the duty of forgiveness by man to his fellow man. Now, as the forgiveness enjoined on man to his fellow is a sober reality, we are not to suppose that Mr. Spear believed that the forgiveness taught by our Lord and the apostles was as it respected the Almighty, a mere rhetorical flourish that meant nothing. If Mr. Spear did understand those texts as teaching that God does forgive the past sins of those who forgive others, what are we to think of his consis tency, in quoting the following passages, in support of the opposite theory? "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of per

sons." Col. iii, 25. "Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished."

He says, "such is the testimony of holy writ," and this he gives in proof that man cannot escape the consequences of past transgression. What Mr. Spear would make forgiveness to refer to, when exercised by Deity towards man, we cannot imagine. We always took it for granted that forgiveness, whenever it was exercised, was a remission of the penalty for sins that were past. The idea of forgiving sins before they

are committed is novel to us.

If Deity does exercise forgiveness, it must be done either before or after the commission of crime. Mr. Spear says, it is not afterward. Hence the only conclusion we can make from the premises afforded us is, that forgiveness takes place before the crime is committed. If this is an unfair conclusion, we hope Mr. Spear or some of his friends will set us right.

As far as we have been able to understand this writer, in the above production, he has supported both sides of the contradiction, to do which, with success, he has pressed the scriptures into his service, and by so doing has afforded infidelity an opportunity of drawing the triumphant conclusion, that the bible is at war with itself.

But so

We are not willing to admit that the bible or the Christian religion as supported by the bible, are in any way chargeable with contradiction. Had not Mr. Spear's anxiety to support a favorite conclusion-a conclusion alike repugnant to scripture and common sense-betrayed him into an error, we have too much charity to suppose him capable of prostituting scripture intentionally, in support of two opposite conclusions. eager are universalists to establish their notion that punishment for sin is all inflicted in this life, that they may thus set aside the doctrine of future punishment, that they have established a theory (already noticed in this work) setting aside the doctrine of divine mercy or forgiveness, and have proclaimed to the world that man shall suffer the entire penalty of his crimes whether he repents or not.

Being acquainted with Mr. Spear's views on this subject we were astonished when we got hold of this last article, to find him supporting opposite conclusions, and that in the same article, and endeavoring to do it from scripture too.

We will now endeavor to rescue those texts from the use to which Mr. Spear has applied them. We are conscious that scripture (when properly explained) can never be made to support an inconsistent system. Hence no other system but

the one we advocate can reconcile the seeming inconsistency of those passages. The truth of our views is written on those passages, as with a sun beam. Take the passages on punishment: and first, "he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done." The verb doeth is in the present tense and stamps the character on the wrong doer, to whom the threatnings of the gospel are applied. Now there is no doctrine more clearly taught in the scriptures than the conditionality of the gospel promises and threatnings. "Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Wo unto the wicked it shall be ill with him, for the reward of his hands shall be given him." Isaiah iii, 10, 11. Here the promise and threatning are exhibited without any condition annexed; but the following passages show that all such promises and threats have a condition implied if not expressed. "Say unto them, as I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways, for why will ye die? O house of Israel." These have no allusion to the death of the body, that will die whether men turn or not. Neither could it mean spiritual death, they were carnally minded already which is death. Only one more death remains which is eternal death, "Therefore thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness." Ezekiel xxxiii, 11, 12. The latter text shows

the fallacy of Mr. Spear's theory, in respect to the sinner not escaping the penalty of his past sins.

Another writer in the Evangelical Magazine, and Gospel Advocate, whose signature is Amicus, has in an attack upon the Rev. Josiah Keyes, presiding elder at Cazenova, advanced the following doctrine: to wit, "It was not because Adam had transgressed that he should return but because he was out of the ground, of dust, etc. Temporal death was an inevitable and dependent consequence upon the fact, that Adam was of dust: yes, temporal death was as certain upon Adam from the time of his first creation, as that he was of dust." Again, in the next paragraph he says, "I believe and shall attempt to show at the proper time, that temporal death of man was the original design of God." And in the following paragraph, he says, "But whether he sinned or not, the great event of death temporal was before him, stamped on his material nature, and involved in the truth that he was of the dust, and therefore must have returned to dust again." The writer further observes, “It would seem, by the strange doctrine which you teach that God created man immortal, and man made himself mortal."

I have no design of stepping in between this writer and Mr. Keyes, to help the reverend elder out of a scrape. As I conceive he labours under an error as well as his antagonist, I am quite willing that he should fight out his own battle: but believing this writer to be in an egregious error on the subject of temporal death and mortality I feel a willingness to put my readers in possession of the truth as it respects these particulars.

In the first place then: we notice the gentleman's view of temporal death. His opinion is that it was part of the original design of Providence, concerning man. He supposes that mankind were made naturally subject to dissolution, and would have died whether they sinned or not. We differ from this writer for the following reasons: first, we believe, from the evidence of God's goodness, exhibited in the volumes of nature