Those effusions of the gentleman, in which he accuses us of Calvinism, skepticism, puerility, and [indirectly] of unbelief and ignorance. require no notice. His system must certainly have been in distress, or he never would have condescended to such wretched means of defence!

We said that moral evil as much frustrates the will of God, as the final damnation of the sinner. His reply to this deserves particular attention: Not because it is so much to the point, as because it shows the extremities to which he is driven. It is this: Did Observer never think of the circumstances atten ling the history of Joseph and his brethren? Both these brethren and Jehovah had their designs and meaning in all the transactions of this affecting tragedy-they meant it for evil but he for good." (P. 101.) Now if he does not intend by this to prove that the wickedness of Joseph's brethren was according to the will of God, and from this to conclude, that moral evil in general is according to the will of God; we cannot concieve what object he would have in view. But he had previously conceded that "sin is contrary to the will of God!" He has now changed his ground,-or else he is indeed opposing himself as well as us! But as he knows how mortifying it is "to meet with an opponent so identified with mutability:" (P. 100.) perhaps from sympathy for us, he has shifted his premises so much under cover, as if possible, to elude our discovery and save us the mortification !-But he need not be exercised by too much regard for our feelings; he may come out boldly and say, that all sin is according to the will of God!This he must do in order t› sustain his argument: For if there be one sin in the history of all moral agents, which is pot according to the will of God, this is enough for our purpose; from this we would argue: that if the will of God might be counteracted in one case, it might be in another which cannot be shown to be materially dissimilar! When we first took up this subject we argued that the necessary consequence of the universalist argument from the will of God, would be, that all sin is according to the will of God: but he disclaimed this consequence altogether: But being pressed with the argument, he indirectly accedes to it, and indeed attempts to support it by the case of Joseph's brethren!

As to this case, we have thought of it frequently ;-and

perhaps as frequently as even Examiner himself! But we never saw in it what he seems to suppose so obvious. We see no difficulty in supposing that God overruled that wicked act for good, and still the act itself was contrary to his will, and he was in no wise dependent upon it for the accomplishment of his purposes. We cannot see that because God interposed and brought about an event contrary to the wicked designs of those treacherous brethren, and contrary to the natural tendency of their act, he must necessarily be pleased with their perfidious deed? And if the editor should have the temerity to assert this directly he could not make it good!!

Examiner brought forward a number of passages which he supposed afforded" unequivocal evidence" in favor of his doctrine. These we explained in a way which would make them consistent with our system. Now, instead of defending his construction of them, he leaves them, without making any efforts to show that our construction is wrong! But though he deserts his ground, and at a time too when it would be supposed that he ought to be prepared to proceed with energy, he does it with an air of as much triumph as though he had vanquished his foe in fair fighting, and was returning from the field covered with glory, and loaded with the spoils of victory! But we cannot help thinking, under the circumstances, that his triumph is rather premature!!

It would naturally be supposed from the manner in which he closed his examination of the fifth number, that he was prepared to make short work with us. This was indeed the case: For here he silently closes his columns against us and thus puts a period to the controversy, in his paper! Now which "system," whether ours or his, was struggling under" the greatest "agony," we are willing to leave to the candid to decide!

We have now done with "The Candid Examiner," for the present, In the course of this investigation, we have seen that the system of universal salvation advocated in this publication, excludes the doctrine of pardon: Consequently, as our Lord informs us that the measure of our love to him will be in proportion to the amount forgiven, if we have nothing forgiven we will not love him.

Again: According to this system man is saved on the ound of suffering the whole of the punishment which he

deserves: This neutralizes the doctrine of atonementrenders the death of Christ a work of supererogationgives the sinner a claim to heaven on the principles of justice; and excludes the doctrine of grace, and our obligations to gratitude! According to this scheme salva tion is unconditional-man has nothing to do in the business;—all depends upon divine agency, and we have no cause to fear that any thing essential will be left undone! Let us live as we list, our eternal interests are perfectly safe!! On this theory all the divine threatenings are mere promises of a salutary remedy: Of course they contain no cause of alarm to the ungodly!-Nor have we any evidence that the editor believes in any punishment after death: The monster in wickedness who dies with murder in his heart, and the most horrid oaths upon his tongue, may go directly to heaven! He who dies by the halter, or perishes in the act of robbery and bloodshed, is made infinitely blessed: while the pious is left to linger out a life of sufferings in this world of woe!! But finally: It has appeared that the grounds taken, to invalidate the doctrine of eternal punishment, if adhered to in relation to all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, would pros trate the whole, and leave us destitute of hope!!!

Now candid reader: can this system be founded in truth? Does it not sap the very foundation of christianity? And must not its moral tendency be of the most deleterious character? We are aware that any enquiry into the prac tical efficacy of this system is regarded by its abettors as almost, if not quite, sacrilegious:-That nothing so irritates their feelings, and calls forth such severity and resentment. But we are not to be awed into silence upon this point by this:-Though we would be far from intentionally giving them unnecessary pain, yet a sense of duty impels us to strip this theory of its mask, and expose its native deformity, that the unwary may not be caught in the snare. Permit us then dear reader to ask you, whether you are prepared to launch into the awful abyss of eternity upon this broken fragment of a wreck? To rest your eternal all upon it? Supposing there were nine probabilities in its favor, to one against it: would it be wise to expose yourself to one chance in ten to dwell in everlasting burnings? Certainly not. In every view of the subject our's is the safe side of the question

Add to this the weight of evidence in our favor, who that is under the influence of correct views can hesitate? Let any one take the book of God-read it impartially-bow down before the Father of spirits and ask divine illumination then lay his and upon his heart, and decide this awfully momentous question, as he expects to give an account to the Juge of all, and see which side the scale will preponderate.

Though the poision us weed of universalism has flour ished more or less, since it was transplanted from heathen to christian soil. by the heterodox Origin, the plow of truth will finally root it out. "Truth is mighty and must prevail." The church is fast verging toward that glorious period when the corrupt dogmas of men will be dissipated by the glories of gospel truth, like the fog before the rising sun! Oh! come the day, when every ref uge of lies shall be swept away, like the baseless fabric of a vision, and leave not a wreck behind! When the watchmen of Zion shall see eye to eye: when truth shal appear in her native loveliness; & the church shall shine forth with refulgent glory, and become the praise of the whole earth.

APPENDIX.

In this article we shall take a brief view of the opinion of the earliest christian writers on the subject of future punishment.

CLEMENS ROMANUS says: "If we do not the will of Christ, nothing will deliver us from eternal punishment." BARNABAS says: "The way of darkness is crooked, and full of cursing. For it is the way of eternal death, with punishment."

JUSTIN MARTYR says: "The punishment of the damned, is endless punishment, and torment in eternal fire."

In THEOPHILUS, it is "eternal punishment."

IRENIUS in his symbol of faith, makes this one article, that Christ would send the ungodly and unjust into everlasting fire."

" saith

TERTULLIAN says: "All men are appointed to eternal torments or refreshments. And if any man, he" think that the wicked are to be consumed, and not punished, let him remember, that hell-fire is stiled eternal, because designed for eternal punishment," & thence concludes; their substance will remain forever, whose punishment doth so."

ST. CYPRIAN says: "The souls of the wicked are kept with their bodies to be grieved with endless torments."

Lastly, ORIGIN records this among the doctrines of the church: "That every soul, when it goes out of this world, shall either enjoy the inheritance of eternal life & bliss, if its deeds have rendered it fit for life, or it is to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if its sins have deserved that state.”

Though Origin gives the above as the doctrine of the church, he took up a different sentiment himself. For in some of his works he advocates the doctrine of restoration from hell. This great man was led estray by his fondness for the Platonic philosophy; the doctrines of which he endeavored to incorporate with the Christian system

$