of all men, but not of every individual! To illustrate this, suppose the universe to consist of ten rational beings only, each capable of receiving fifty degrees of enjoyment. To produce the greatest possible felicity of the ten, five hundred degrees of enjoyment must be received, or fifty by each. Any thing short of this, would not be the greatest possible good of the ten. If it be supposed that five could receive the five hundred degrees of enjoyment on condition that the other five should be perfectly miserable, then the greatest possible good and the greatest possible evil of the whole ten,are one and the same! Because if the greatest possible good of the whole be consistent with the perfect misery of one half -then the greatest possible evil of the whole would be consistent with the perfect happiness of one half!

Mr. P. in reply to the following, "It would not be acting like a father on earth, if God were to doom sinners to endless torment," says "Is it like a father on earth, to inflict the temporal calamities which God often brings upon the children of men ?" He then speaks of poverty, shame sickness, loss of reason, death, drowning, burning &c. He "What would you says think of me if I should present such a strain of declamation, to prove to you that God never does bring such calamities on men ? Yet the argument would be just as good for the purpose, as it is to prove that God will not inflict eternal punishment upon some part of mankind." No principle can be clearer than this; viz. an earthly pa

rent will subject his child to any suffering which he is certain will be beneficial. No good parent will inflict any degree of misery upon a child for any other purpose. Why does not an earthly father consign his children to poverty, shame sickness, loss of reason, an afflicting death, drowning in the ocean, or perishing in flames? Because he is not able to produce any benefit to the child from such treatment. But will Mr. P. presume to say God can produce no benefit from every event of his providence towards every creature he has made? Will he charge God with positive cruelty towards any dependent being? Will he say God unfeelingly inflicts an endless injury upon any creature, and thus disregards the principle on which all good parents act? Certainly there is a very wide difference between any temporal calamity, even the keenest distress which shall terminate, and never-ending agony which necessarily excludes its subject from all possible good. But if all temporal misery shall be succeeded by imperishable enjoyment, the boundless goodness of Almighty God shall burst forth upon a joyful universe in an undecaying blaze of unclouded glory! Goodness delights in communicating happiness. If the goodness of God is infinite, it embraces all beings--if unchangeable, it will always continue-if directed by perfect wisdom, it cannot err-if accompanied by almighty power, all its designs must be accomplished. "The Lord is good unto all and his tender mercies are over all his works" Ps. 145. "His mercy endureth forever" Ps. 107,

The infinite goodness of God would prohibit the creation of a single being, who should, by any possible means, suffer more than he enjoyed during the whole of his existence.

3. We shall notice what Mr. P. says concerning the atonement. He concedes that Christ "has made an atonement for all men." In confirmation of this, he quotes several passages such as, Christ " gave himself a ransom for all-is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" &c. He then asks, "does this universal atonement secure the salvation of all mankind?" Let it be distinctly understood that Universalists do not contend that Christ saves men from the curse of the law in any other way than by delivering them from their sins-we do not pretend "that men will be saved by enduring" any curse, but by the grace of God, therefore in the argument which we draw from the atonement of Christ, we do not give "up the ground that a salutary discipline is the whole curse of the law-that sinners may suffer all that the law requires in a limited time-that God would not be good (i. e. universally good) if any be lost," as Mr. P. affirms. We give up no argument essential to the system we maintain, by advocating the universality and efficiency of the atonement of Christ, and it was a manifest misrepresentation, on the part of Mr. P. to say we do thus give up those arguments. We do not say Mr. P. was aware of this,but we say, such is the fact.

Mr. P. says, "the atonement was not made to pardon and save men irrespective of their character, but rather to render it consistent to forgive sinners when they become believers." He probably understands the atonement according to the sense, in which it is usually explained viz. "the satisfying divine justice by Jesus Christ giving himself a ransom for us, undergoing the penalty due to our sins, and thoroughly releasing us from that punishment which God might justly inflict upon us." But we do not so understand the atonement. Rom. 5. 11, is the only place in which the word atonement is found in the N. T. and that text is proof positive against the modern doctrine of atonement. It is generally taught that God receives the atonement, his justice is satisfied &c.-but the Apostle, speaking in the name of believers, says, we (not God) have now received the atonement." It is something received by men. What can it be? The Greek word kat allagen rendered atonement in Rom. 5, 11, occurs frequently in the N. T. and is rendered reconciliation. Dr. Adam Clarke says "It is certainly improper to translate kat allagen here,by atonement ,instead of reconciliation; as kattallaso signifies to reconcile & is so rendered by our translators in all places where it occurs. "2 Atonement is reconciliation to God. No wonder then it produced joy in those who had received it. God is unchangeable; consequently he was as much satisfied, from the countless ages of eternity,as he was after the death of Christ. Hence "God was in Christ

“

1

reconciling the world unto himself" 2, Cor, 5, 19. and never till the world of mankind shall have received the atonement, or reconciliation, will the object of the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ be accomplished. It is plain therefore that the atonement being made for all, will be manifested to all in due time.

The

We leave Mr. P. to reconcile his statement that Christ died "for the hardened reprobate as well as for the humble penitent with his own confession of faith"as well as he can. That confession says "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only. Mr. P. lays much stress upon faith. Faith may justly be considered an exalted christian virtue productive of the purest joy. But why did he keep the Presbyterian view of faith out of sight grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,is the work of the spirit of Christ in their hearts" &c. See "Confession of Faith." Now if the spirit of Christ works faith in the hearts of some sinners, and not others, are all sinners treated alike? Faith may be defined to be the exercise of the mind and feelings-but it can never create nor destroy any truth. If a part of the human race will be endlessly miserable, and if those who are doomed to be finally lost should have a correct faith, on the subject, they would believe in endless misery for themselves! If they should believe in Christ, it must be by the power of delusion! God has, or has not given eternal