this is to deny a future life altogether. If men, intellectually considered, cannot exercise penitence, they cannot exercise any other affection, and hence must be incapable of either pleasure or pain. Perhaps it may be asked, why the sentiment here opposed, should become so general, if it is not taught in the scriptures? It is no easy matter to trace every error to its source. The Jews in the days of Christ expected a temporal Messiah; but it would be difficult perhaps to account for this perversion of their scriptures. But the case before us is somewhat plain. The primitive Church generally believed in a future probation. Among the advocates of this sentiment may be mentioned Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind, Gregory Nyssen, John of Jerusalem, and many others. This doctrine was popular at the time the Romish Church was growing into power. On this scripture doctrine they found their absurd notions of purgatory and indulgences. These abuses were carried to such excess as to produce the Reformation in the sixteenth century. We all know the feelings which the early Reformers exercised towards the Papal Church; they were disposed to put down indulgences at all events. Believing that indulgences grew in some degree out of the doctrine of a future probation, they did not distinguish between the true doctrine and its abuse, but rejected them together. And this enmity to the Catholic Church has prevented, in a good degree, a faithful and impartial examination of the subject. The taunt that this is the Catholic Purgatory, has prevented thousands from examining the subject, and has silenced many who have believed that the grace of God extended beyond the confines of this world. But the faithful inquirer after truth will follow demonstration, wherever it may lead him. And what if this doctrine has been embraced and abused by the Catholics In the days of the apostles, there were those who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness. But must we as Christians reject every thing which has been abused? Must we yield every thing which the Papists have perverted? Must we give up divine existence, because the Papists entertained false notions of God? Must we give up the Eucharist, because they believed in transubstantiation? or the doctrine of forgiveness, because they believed in the absolution of the Pope? Every lover of the gospel, every friend of the Lord Jesus, will abide by the teachings of the scriptures, whether the doctrine be popular or unpopular, whether it has been perverted or not. The gospel itself has been unpopular, and is often abused; but we do not feel disposed to reject it on that account. So of the views we have here maintained. They may be unpopular; but we believe that they are the truth, and we are confident that they must and will prevail. They are interwoven with the very nature of the gospel, and we think that they must stand or fall with it. They grow out of the character of God, and are as immutable as the divine nature. They result from the mission of Christ, and must be adopted to give success to his reign. We do not then despair of the triumph of these views; but we rather rejoice that they are fast gaining ground, and trust in the promises of God for their final accomplishment. Let us then confide in the sovereign mercy of God, and yield cheerfully to him who has emphatically said, that his kingdom is not of this world. Restorationist contend that this doctrine is not only sustained by popular texts, but grows necessarily out of some of the first principles of divine revelation. They maintain that it is immediately connected with the perfections of the Deity; that God, being infinitely benevolent, must have desired the happiness of all his offspring; that his infinite wisdom would enable him to form a perfect plan, and his almighty power will secure its accomplishment. They contend that the mission of Christ is abortive on any other plan, and that nothing short of the "restitution of all things" can satisfy the ardent desires of every pious soul. On this system alone can they reconcile the attributes of justice and mercy, and secure to the Almighty a character worthy of our imi tation. They insist that the words rendered, everlasting, eternal, and forever, which are in a few instances applied to the miscry of the wicked, do not prove that misery to be endless; because these terms are loose in their signification, and are frequently used in a limited sense; that the original terms being often used in the plural number, clearly demonstrates that the period, though indefinite, is limited in its very nature. They maintain that the meaning of the term must always be sought in the subject to which it is applied; and that there is nothing in the nature of punishment which will justify an endless sense.* It is hardly necessary to enter into an elaborate argument to sustain the positions here laid down. It has been shown again and again by some of the brightest ornaments of the church, that the terms rendered everlasting and for ever are indefi nite in their signification, and are used with great latitude. Instances have been produced in which the Hebrew word olam occurs in the Old Testament, in connexion with terms and phrases, the literal rendering of which would be," for ever, and further," "for ever and ever, and farther," "for ever, and beyond it ;"-a circumstance which plainly shows that the word is used in a limited sense. In many places olam is rendered ancient and old, and applied to landmarks, people, paths, places, times, nations, &c. (See Prov. xxii. 28; Isa. xliv. 7; Jer. xviii. 15; Ezek. xxxvi. 2; Ps. lxxvii. 5; Deut. xxii. 7 ; Isa. lxiii. 9; Job xxii. 15; Prov. xxiii. 10.) This term is also rendered, any, long, any time, long time, long home, long dead, &c. All of which clearly proves that an absolute eternity cannot be the signification of the term in these passages. The term in the New Testament which corresponds with olam in the old, is aion, and is variously rendered. Paul speaks of walking according to the course of this world, of the ages to come, and of the mystery hid from ages and generations. In these passages aion is translated course and ages, and consequently is used in a limited sense. The same term is rendered world in nearly thirty passages of scripture. The apostle speaks of "the god of this world," "the ruler of this world," "the princes of this world," and the Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge. "disputes of this world;" of being " delivered from the present evil world," and of being "conformed to this world." We also read of the end of the world, of events which occurred before the world was, and before the foundation of the world; also, from the beginning of the world, and since the world began. We also read of the worlds in the plural, and even of the ends of the worlds. (See 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. v. 12; 1 Cor. i. 20; Gal. i. 4; Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 6, and many other texts.) In these and many other texts, aion is rendered world, and hence must have a limited signification; for it would be absurd to speak of this eternity, of the end of the eternity, &c. We would pursue this subject farther, but it is thought unnecessary. Every intelligent believer in the doctrine of endless misery will readily allow, that these terms are very frequently, if not generally, used in a limited sense. These terms are allowed to have a great latitude of signification-sometimes they are used in an endless sense, and sometimes in a limited sense. It is manifest then that they can prove nothing in this controversy. We admit that these terms are in a few instances applied to the misery of the wicked; but they do not and cannot of themselves prove this misery to be endless. The word is of doubtful signification, and its meaning must be sought in the context, or determined by the subject, or from other passages. The advocates of interminable punishment show the weakness of their cause, by resting it upon terms which they themselves allow to be of doubtful signification. In fact, the argument founded upon the words, for ever, everlasting, &c., if it were sound, would overthrow the whole gospel dispensation. The Jew can employ it against Christianity with as much force, as the believers in endless misery can employ it against the restoration. The gospel itself professes to supersede the legal dispensation, and rests its claims upon the fact, that the priesthood of Aaron, and the rites of the law were never designed to be perpetual. But the Jew will tell you that the terms everlasting, eternal, and for ever, are applied in nearly a hundred instances to the rites and ceremo nies, or something connected with the dis- | pensation of their great lawgiver; that these words imply an endless duration, and consequently prove the perpetuity of the law, and hence the falsity of the gospel. And how is it possible to meet this argument, unless we allege the fact, that these words are used in a limited sense? Let the believers in endless punishment refute this argument of the Jew; and when they have done that, they will see, that we can reply to them in their own language, and show that they cannot prove misery to be endless from the strength of these words, without proving at the same time that Judaism is perpetual and the gospel false. But we are told that these terms are applied to happiness as well as misery, and that if we limit the duration of misery, we limit the duration of happiness. A few remarks will show the futility of this argument. We do not prove that happiness will be endless, by the strength of these words, but by terms, and phrases much stronger than the words everlasting and for ever, by terms and phrases which have no exception in their meaning. It is said of the righteous, "neither can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels," they are said to be happy, "world without end," and to have an inheritance and a crown "incorruptible, undefiled, that fadeth not away." It is said of them that "they shall not be hurt of the second death,"-that "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying." They are likewise said to possess an enduring substance," and "a kingdom which cannot be moved." St. Paul assures us, "that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." While these terms and phrases, which have no exception in their signification, are applied to the happiness of the righteous: the punishment of the wicked is expressed by terms and phrases which naturally denote a limited period. They are compared to wool, hay, and stubble, to chaff, and a withered branch. There is also this remarkable difference between 66 happiness and misery; the former is an end, the grand object for which man was created, and the mediatorial kingdom established. But no one will say that misery is the end at which the Deity aimed in creation and redemption. Misery is a means and not an end. As a means, punishment is perfectly consistent with the divine character, and the design of his administration; but as an end, it would be repugnant to both. Endless happiness then is immediately connected with the character and purposes of God, and is as certain as his immutable designs; while endless misery is at war with the perfec tions of the Almighty, and subversive of his gracious designs. But we are told that the happiness of the righteous, and the misery of the wicked are contrasted; and that in this contrast the same terms, everlasting, and eternal, are applied to denote the duration of both; and that, if the one be endless, the same must be true of the other. This is the most plausible argument which can be urged in support of ceaseless torment. We will, however, state the reasons which satisfy us, that the argument is unsound. If there is any strength in this argument, it must rest either upon the meaning of the word "everlasting," or upon the alleged fact that happiness and misery are contrasted. As to the meaning of the word, we have already shown that it is used in a great variety of senses; sometimes it denotes endless, and sometimes limited duration. But its signification must always depend upon the nature of the subject to which it is applied. When it is joined to the happiness of the saints, it takes an endless sense; not from the natural import of the term, but from the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Endless happiness is established beyond a doubt, independently of the use of this ambiguous term; and having established that point, the word "everlasting" takes an endless sense, from the character of the subject to which it is applied. To make the cases parallel, the absolute eternity of punishment must be proved independently of this term. But the believers of ceaseless punishment always press this doubtful term into the controversy; and in this way they admit that they cannot prove their position without the passages in which this term occurs. But what sort of reasoning is this? Why, they attempt to prove a doubtful point by the use of a word equally doubtful. Let them prove the endless duration of punishment independently of the use of this term; and then, but not till then, will it follow with any degree of certainty, that everlasting is used in an endless sense, when applied to this subject of punish ment. Nor is it true, that the antithesis requires that the same term should have the same signification in both members of the sentence. Take the famous passage in the 25th chapter of Matthew,-" These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Suppose the meaning to be that, the one goes into endless happiness, but the other into a long and severe punishment. The contrast here is just as perfect, as though the one continued as long as the other. The object of the Saviour was, to contrast the condition of the two classes, rather than the duration of the life on the one side, and the punishment on the other. the word rendered everlasting occurs twice; and as it is inferred from this, that it must have the same meaning in both cases: we will refer to several other passages, where the same word occurs twice, and where all will admit that the sense is not the same in each case. In Romans xvi. 25, 26, Paul speaks of the "mystery which was kept secret since the world be gan, but is now made manifest, according to the commandment of the everlasting God." In this passage the word in question occurs twice; in one case it is rendered world, and in the other everlasting. In the latter case the term has an endless sense, because it is applied to the Deity; in the former case it is used in a limited sense, because the passage speaks of the beginning of the world. In Titus i. 2, the apostle speaks of eternal life which God promised before the world began. Here again the same word occurs twice. Once it is rendered eternal and applied to life, and consequently is used in an endless sense; and once it is rendered world, and must be used in a limited sense, for it would be an absurdity to speak of the beginning and end of eternity. In Habak. iii. 6, the word "everlasting" is twice employed; once it is applied to the mountains, which the passage declares, scattered," and once to the ways of God, which we know are unchangeable. "were Besides there is evidence in this very passage that the punishment here spoken of, is not endless. The Greek word rendered punishment is kolasis, which critics define to signify chastisement, or that punishment which is inflicted for the good We have here three several instances of the sufferer. Dr. Smith, in his Trea- in which the terms rendered everlasting tise on Divine Government, published a and for ever are twice employed in the few years since in England, says that same passage, by way of antithesis; and kolasis invariably denotes a corrective yet every person will admit that the word punishment. Hedericus gives chastise- has one meaning in one part of the sen. ment as the prominent meaning of kolasis. tence, and another meaning in the other. Grotius says expressly, "that kind of Why then may not the same term in the punishment which tends to improve the same construction be employed to denote criminal is what the philosophers called an endless duration in the one case, and a kolasis, or chastisement." See also " Im-limited duration in the other, in the 25th proved Version of New Testament." of Matthew, as well as in the 16th of RoHere it will be seen, that the very passage mans, the 1st of Titus, or the 3d of Hawhich is relied upon in proof of endless bakkuk ? misery, contains evidence of the limited nature of punishment. Chastisement of itself implies a limitation, and as the word everlasting is applied to chastisement, or a word of that import, it must be used in a limited sense. But as great reliance is placed upon the fact that in the 25th chapter of Matthew, From what we have offered upon this subject, I think it follows most conclusively that the words rendered eternal and for ever, are loose and indefinite in their meaning; and that we must look at the subject to which they are applied, in order to determine their sense in any given case. It has also been shown that there is noth ing in the nature of punishment which | would give an endless sense to the term, when applied to that subject; but on the contrary, chastisement, the only punishment worthy of a merciful God, necessarily implies a limitation. But in contending for the final subjuga. tion of the world, we do not overlook the agency of man. It is no part of our creed that man is to be passive in the great work of salvation. We believe that all men will ultimately be made happy; because we believe that all men will of their own accord bow submissively and become the willing subjects of the Prince of Peace. The free agency instead of constituting any objection to our views, is the medium through which the Spirit of God operates in bringing men to holiness and happiness. On any system of religion, those who are saved, are saved willingly; and if one free agent can be brought to penitence without impairing his freedom, the same may be true of all. Restorationists believe that the doctrine of the Restoration is the most consonant to the perfections of the Deity, the most worthy of the character of Christ, and the only doctrine which will accord with pious and devout feelings, or harmonize with the scriptures. They teach their followers, that ardent love to God, active benevolence to man, and personal meekness and purity, are the natural results of those views. Though the Restorationists, as a separate sect, have arisen within a few years, their sentiments are by no means new. Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, Gregory Nyssen, and several others, among the Christian fathers of the first four centuries, it is said, believed and advocated the restoration of all fallen intelligences. A branch of the German Baptists, before the Reformation, held this doctrine, and propagated it in that country. Since the Reformation this doctrine has had numerous advocates; and some of them have been among the brightest ornaments of the Church. Among the Europeans, we may mention the names of Jeremy White of Trinity College, Dr. Burnet, Dr. Cheyne, Chevalier Ramsay, Doctor Hartley, Bishop Newton, Mr. Stonehouse, Mr. Petitpierre, Dr. Cogan, Mr. Lindsey, Dr. Priestly, Dr. Jebb, Mr. Relly, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Belsham, Dr. Southworth Smith, and many others. In fact the Restoration is the commonly received doctrine among the English Unitarians at the present day. In Germany, a country which, for several centuries, has taken the lead in all theological reforms, the orthodox have espoused this doctrine. The Restoration was introduced into America about the middle of the eighteenth century; though it was not propagated much till about 1775 or 1780, when John Murray and Elhanan Winchester became public advocates of this doctrine, and by their untiring labors extended it in every direction. From that time to the present, many men have been found in all parts of our country, who have rejoiced in this be lief. This doctrine found an able advocate in the learned Dr. Chauncey, of Bos. ton. Dr. Rush, of Philadelphia, Dr. Smith, of New York, Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire, may also be mentioned as advocates of the Restoration. Most of the writers, whose names are given above, did not belong to a sect which took the distinctive name of Restorationists. They were found in the ranks of the various sects into which the Christian world has been divided. And those who formed a distinct sect were more frequently denominated Universalists than Restorationists. In 1785, a convention was organized at Oxford, Massachusetts, under the auspices of Messrs. Winchester and Murray. And as all who had embraced universal salvation believed, that the effects of sin and the means of grace extended into a future life: the terms Restorationist and Universalist were then used as synonymous; and those who formed that convention adopted the latter as their distinctive name. During the first twenty-five years, the members of the Universalist Convention were believers in a future retribution, But about the year 1818, Hosea Ballou, now of Boston, advanced the doctrine that all retribution is confined to this world. That sentiment at first was founded upon the old Gnostic notion, that all sin origi. nates in the flesh, and that death frees the soul from all impurity. Subsequently some of the advocates for the no-future |