"To educe from evil good, and better still in infinite progression," is a godlike scheme; and the policy which accomplishes this is supremely grand and interesting. Creation, vast and diversified though it be, is too short a page on which to transcribe all the perfections of the godhead. The volumes of Universal Providence, Human Redemption, and Eternal Judgment, are indispensable to the full manifestation, and consequently to the full and perfect enjoyment of the infinit fountain and source of all being and of all bliss. Light and shade are both necessary to illumination, and the dark lines are often the most luminous. Black though this ink be which flows from my pen, still it will illuminate some minds; and though there may appear black, and dark, and awful lines in the great series of divine administrations, nevertheless the blackest and the darkest of them may perhaps throw the greatest light and lustre over the face of the divine government, and make the Deity stand out before the universe infinitely more pure, and holy, and lovely in our eyes than had there been no darkness at all. The whole Divinity must be revealed before he can be known, as certainly as he must be known before he can be enjoyed; and this is a revelation which creation and providence without redemption never could have perfected; for how, let me ask, could mercy, compassion, condescension, forbearance, justice, vengeance, wrath have been revealed had sin and Satan never appeared in the dominions of God! If the justice, mercy, and truth-if the vengeance and wrath of the godhead ought to be known to perfect in our minds the divine character, then was it necessary that neither Sin nor Satan be crushed, or blotted out the instant they appeared "Nor yel could sin forgiving Grace Some weak or corrupted minds object to the whole scheme of divine justice, mercy, and wrath, because they cannot or will not see how sin and Satan can be necessary to any scheme of divine government, and yet in and of themselves wholly evil and eternally to be reprobated; nor can they distinguish between the simple permission of their admission on the part of the Supreme Governor, and his positive and direct volition of their being and existence. Yet certainly these are different things. To create evil, and to bring good out of evil-to permit sin and overrule it, are not the same thing. Though attributes of the same mind, they are as diverse as mercy and wrath. But the fact of the ex istence of evil and good, both natural and moral, is indestructible proof of their compatibility with an all-wise, all-powerful, and supremely benevolent First Cause. But this is not the place to vindicate, but to unfold the policies of this long protracted and superlatively interesting war. Since, however, we have mentioned the mercy and wrath of God, to prevent any one stumbling at the threshold, we would observe-that as no one can show how the above enumerated perfections of the Deity could have been revealed had not Satan fallen into rebellion, or sin appeared amongst the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of this earth, we must either argue that these are not necessary perfections of God; or that the revelation of them, and consequently the knowledge of them, is unnecessary to any of his creatures; and therefore that God has perfections which need never to be known, never to be admired, adored, or loved by his own beloved children. This is more irreconcileable to every principle of reason and human knowledge than the fall of Satan and the apostacy of man. But some will say, 'Is wrath or anger a perfection or an attribute of God? Is he the subject of passions or affections? Can he pity, commiserate, have compassion, and be angry as we do?" That we may miscall pity, compassion, mercy, anger, wrath, and misinterpret them, will not be disputed. But that "God is angry with the wicked every day;" that his only begotten Son "was moved with both pity and indignation," cannot be doubted or denied. These, indeed, become with us passions, or fits of feeling; but with God they are perfections. It is his glory always to be opposed to sin-to hate it, and to be angry with sinners. To show mercy and to manifest indignation are also worthy of the Governor of the universe. Nay, indeed, as the black and dark robes of night sometimes in the midst of day veil the heavens and seal up the sun from our eyes, that the gathering fire and tempest may burst upon mortal senses with more awful sublimity and grand.. eur-that men may fear, and wonder, and adore Him who makes the clouds his chariot, and who walks upon the wings of the wind; so God, whose name is Love, sometimes "willing to show his wrath and to make his power known," awfully executes vengeance upon transgressors-makes them drink the vials of his fiercest anger, and pours forth his wrath and fury upon them from the overflowing cups of his indignation. While it is a sin for Christians to "be angry without cause," it is a sin to them not to be angry at sin, at themselves when they transgress, and at those who dishonor God's holy institutions. We must not, then, think lightly of that perfection of God, call it anger, wrath, indignation, vengeance, or simple hatred of sin, which gives that stern and awful majesty to his character, which, to all pure and holy beings, renders him "fearful in praises," amiable and venerable in their sight. To return: Had Satan been annihilated or crushed by a single exertion of the omnipotent hand, doubtless it would have been, to the eye of Omniscience, a most impolitic measure; for in the administration of the sovereign government of a universe every act must be considered, not in relation to a part, but in relation to the whole. To have annihilated the rebel and his host, had it been possible, would indeed have stayed the contagion; but it would have been absolute loss without any gain-a blank without any prize--a loss of society in heaven-a breach in the armies of the skies without any advantage to universal being, except the demonstration of the consequence of sin, which, by the remedial system, is gained more fully and with much better effect, and also with the filling up of the empty seats vacated by the overthrow of the confederated rebels. But, as before intimated, we have for our present task the unfolding rather than the vindication of the policy of this longprosecuted war. To put down sin in the universe, to prevent its recurrence, and to save sinners from its desolating reign, constitute the three-fold end of the remedial system. Not any one of these, but all of them are prominent in this splendid scheme, characterized by so many displays of the deep and manifold wis dom of God. To prevent this consummation is of course the aim of the opposition; and from these points are we to view the policy of the belligerents. This policy is not to be learned in an hour, nor by the consideration of a few incidents, but from a very close survey of the rich and various facts and documents furnished in the faithful record. In order to expose in our feeble measure, the grand traits of this admirable policy, we shall have to survey in the first place the remedial system so far as it was unfolded in the antediluvian age of the world. To deny its truth, corrupt its meaning, and obliterate the memory of it, have ever been conspicuous traits in the policies of the Prince of darkness, But on this we must reflect for another month. A. C. Discussion of Universalism. Dear Sir, MR. SKINNER TO MR. CAMPBELL. No. XXI. RICHMOND, Va., March 21, 1838. YOURS of the 9th inst. reached me last evening after a ten or eleven days' journey. It is related of a certain kind of fish, that it emits after it a dark substance, filling the surrounding waters with MR. SKINNER TO MR. CAMPBELL. 211 blackness, thereby to elude its pursuers. But I am in hopes the superincumbent darkness proceeding from the emissions of your pen will yield to the light which a few plain facts in the case will be able to produce. I shall not, however, follow the example of my illustrious opponent by seeming "to sport with his frailties," and by charging him with "sheer imbecility," "singular impotency," "assumed stupidity," "truthless assertions," "wayward fancies," "total destitution of even an elementary knowledge of language," &c. &c. These and similar charges are all, no doubt, vastly polite, especially in a MAGNUS APOLLO of theologians and critics, and will serve greatly to enhance his honor and glory in having entered the lists with such an opponent! But as I aspire at no such high honors, you must pardon me for not bandying such phraseology nor returning such compliments. 2. I have no doubt our readers, as well as myself, are desirous that we should "ascend from words to things," and leave, as soon as possible, a logomachy in the discussion of which the great literary opulence of my opponent compels him to assume la grande hauteaur du mepris exhibited in your last. I should scarcely have returned to say any thing further on the second and third propositions, had not your last exhibited uncommon ardor and assurance in defence of positions I deem wholly untenable. A few passing remarks on some of your statements and the exhibition of two or three important facts bearing on those two propositions, I think, will soon set the matter at rest. 3. You say, par. 3, I "confound chastisements and punishments." I think these are scripturally synonymous. But if not, it is certain, if Paul speaks truly, that "all are partakers of chastisements," and if the Deity is not wofully disappointed in the results proposed, they shall finally cause all to be "partakers of his holiness" and "yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness." See Heb.xii. 6-11. 4. In saying you had attempted to prove endless punishment merely by the force of aionios, and that you had no other reason to give, I meant to be understood relative to the second proposition, i. e. the discussion about aionios, on which we were then engaged. And I can now think of no argument you adduced in favor of endless punishment but the very word in dispute. You made no attempt to show from the nature of punishment, that it must be endless. What other argument did you adduce? 5. The mode you adopt, par. 7, to sustain former evasions and denials relative to aptharsia and athanasia, is singular enough. You assume that immortality is not an attribute of God, essentially and necessarily pertaining to his being and person, but is a sort of commodity which he has laid up as a possession, to which he can have access, and make such use, as occasion may require! Verily, my learned opponent is growing wiser in the mysteries of his mysterious theology every day he lives! 6. It is amusing to witness your efforts to evade the force of your own concessions, par. 8, relative to akatalutos, apthartos, aptharsia, athanasia, aperantos, and aidios. After admitting "that five of them embrace the idea of duration," you wish to neutralize that concession by adding, of the six, "One of them excepted, they never but by implication, import duration." Very well, if they import it by implication, it is sufficient to sustain my proposition, inasmuch as you have not 212 DISCUSSION OF UNIVERSALISM. shown, and cannot show, that the duration they imply is even a limited duration. Yet for availing myself of the concession, you indignantly charge me with perverting your words! Strange perversion this, of a concession which, in attempting to evade, you do but confirm! You attempt to ridicule the idea of duration being attached to those words which you confess imply duration!! 7. But to put a veto on all further evasion of your concession, or denial of my position, I now inform you that there is something more than an implication of duration in several of those words, and shall give my authority. Robinson, one of your own favorite lexicographers, and in all conscience orthodox enough for any one, unless he be a thorough Catholic, gives perpetuity as one of the definitions of aptharsia. He also says of apthartos, it is "spoken of things imperishable, enduring. 1 Cor. ix. 25.; 1 Pet. i. 4, 23, and iii. 4." 8. So far from being convinced by looking into dictionaries that aperantos refers to space only and not to time, a much fuller conviction of the opposite is the result. Jones in his Lexicon, (London ed. 1825,) which comprises the substance of Damm. Sturze, Schleusner, and Schweighaluser, gives "endless, boundless," as the definitions of aperantos. It is here derived from a, priv., and peraino, to carry to an end, terminate, finish, execute, accomplish. Perasmos, the corresponding substantive, signifies conclusion, end. Eccl. iv. 8. Robinson defines aperantos, "unlimited;" Loveland, "endless, boundless, excessive." I might multiply authorities, but it is useless. 9. With all these facts staring us in the face, how strange the obstinacy that can still persist in denying the propriety of connecting any of these words with duration, or with punishment, if the Scripture writers had intended to represent the latter as endless! Would it be absurd, sir, to talk of akatalutos, aperantos, &c. punishment, when you translate the former, and the best lexicographers define the latter, endless? The only absurdity in the case would be the monstrous idea that punishment itself could by any possibility be endless. And I am fully satisfied that the grand reason why none of the inspired writers ever applied either of them to, or connected them with punishment, was that they did not choose to represent the latter as endless. 10. I now proceed to a further notice of aidios. I did not, as you say, derive it from hades; but merely said some respectable critics so derive it. I made the remark because you so confidently affirmed that all the learned world were agreed that it was derived from aei. You now say I cannot name an exception. I mention the name of Nathaniel Scarlett, of London, who in conjunction with Mr. Creighton, a learned clergyman of the Church of England, gave a new translation of the New Testament in 1798, which was highly commended both by the Critical Review and the Monthly Review cotemporary therewith. See a Note on aidios in that version; also a note of similar import in Kneeland's Translation, published in Philadelphia, 1822. I, however, concede that a majority of critics are with you as to the derivation of aidios, and I have no disposition for a controversy about that, when we are agreed as to the meaning of the word-that it signifies endless. 11. But while I concede that aidios is derived in part from aei, I shall be obliged to cross your path in another very important point, where you say, "it is incontrovertibly certain that aidios derives all its |