denunciation under such circumstances, more preposterous still, as referred to the Supreme Being? It will readily be conceded, I trust," adds this writer, "that as no known system of divinity can be justly charged with such absurd principles, as the above supposition would imply, so that which Cowper adopted (whatever it might be), unquestionably cannot." Certain it is, however, that, to whatever cause this unhappy notion is to be ascribed in the case of Cowper, men of the most cultivated minds, and of the highest reputation for wisdom and piety, have maintained this doctrine, and drawn their arguments in its favour, from the pure and uncorrupted sources of genuine Christian truth. They have contended, that the words translated eternal and everlasting, cannot properly signify limited duration; that there may be everlasting punishment, without everlasting misery; that the former is the sentence invariably denounced upon the wicked, in the Sacred Writings; that those passages of Scripture, in which it is said, that the wicked shall perish or be destroyed, are clearly in favour of this doctrine; and that the second death mentioned in the Book of the Revelation, is decisive and final upon the subject. They contend, that death is the utter extinction of our being; that we have no assurance of our restoration to life in a future state, but through the medium of the Gospel; that the possession of existence is, in itself, a positive blessing; and that, as a second death is spoken of, and no subsequent resurrection is mentioned, the punishment of the wicked will be nothing more or less, than inevitable and final destruction.

Of the three preceding systems, we feel compelled to give a decided preference to the second, or that which teaches, that all mankind, after undergoing the necessary corrective discipline, will be fitted for the enjoyment of perfect and eternal happiness. How long or how short the time may be, which intervenes before this final consummation of all things, it belongs only to Infinite Wisdom to determine; but that such a period will arrive, in the course of revolving ages, reason appears to prove, and revelation to sanction. To this doctrine, no passage of Scripture presents so plausible an objection, as Mat. xxv. 46. These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. There is nothing in the etymology of the original word rendered indiscriminately

"eternal" and "everlasting" in this passage, which should prevent it from being applied in a more limited and confined sense. Lasting or age-enduring, is more expressive of the sense of the original Greek term alwvíov, than either everlasting or eternal. It is, no doubt, frequently used to denote unlimited duration; but is by no means restricted to this sense, either by etymology or usage. Its precise import must always depend upon the connection in which it is found, and the subject to which it is applied. Its application, therefore, in the present instance, to the punishment of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous, is no proof that both will be of equal continuance. "The difference between the nature of the two subjects, the difference between the substantives to which the adjective is applied, and the clear testimony of other passages of Scripture, which relate to the final destiny of mankind, all concur to show," as Dr. Smith observes, in bis "Illustrations of the Divine Government," "that, in the latter case, it signifies an endless, and in the former, a limited duration. Nor does the affixing of a different meaning to the same word occurring twice in the same sentence, afford any objection to this interpretation." For, no less than three passages occur in the Sacred Writings, in which this very word. is twice employed in the same passage, to denote limited and unlimited duration. One of these, however, will be quite sufficient to answer our present purpose; and this is selected only because the word happens in both instances to be rendered everlasting in the authorised version of the Bible. "The everlasting mountains were scattered," says the prophet Habakkuk,* "the perpetual hills did bow." Now, surely, no one will contend, that the term everlasting, as it is here applied, means unlimited duration. The connection plainly indicates, that the word must be taken in a definite and restricted sense. But the prophet adds, "His ways are everlasting." Here there can be no doubt, that the word is used to denote absolute eternity; for God is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, and to his years there is no end.

The doctrine, however, which it is the object of these remarks to illustrate, does not depend for its support upon the critical meaning of a word. It is taught without am

* Hab. iii. 6.-see also Rom. xvi. 25, 26, and Tit. i. 2, in the original.

biguity or disguise, in numerous passages of the Sacred Volume; and accords with all the ideas which we have learned to form, of the nature, perfections, and providence of God. That the intention of the Deity in creating man, was to produce happiness, is a position upon which the advocates of this doctrine may safely take their stand. "God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good." When life was originally imparted to man, it was intended to prove a blessing to him; and this benevolent intention, we are nowhere taught to believe will be ultimately thwarted, however long the accomplishment of it may be delayed. Evil is partial in its effects, and limited in its duration; but good is lasting in its nature, and coeval with the existence of God himself. "The misery produced by sin, is designed to answer the same benevolent purpose in the moral world, which the pain occasioned by hunger, accomplishes in the animal. That the evil which results from the bad passions of mankind, may be made the means of eradicating them, and of training the mind to purity and benevolence, we have unquestionable proof, in the daily events of life. This, then, which we see to be their effect with regard to some individuals at present, we contend, will be their ultimate effect with respect to all mankind. This doctrine reconciles every difficulty, and throws a glorious and cheering light on all the dispensations of the Deity. If it be true, every thing was planned by benevolence; every thing is guided by benevolence; every thing will terminate in benevolence, in exalted, eternal, and ever-increasing felicity to all.”* But let it not hence be inferred, that the wicked will go unpunished, or that their punishment will not be commensurate with their guilt. The Scriptures declare, in a language which is equally intelligible to all, that God will reward every man according to his works; but they declare, in terms no less express and positive, that he is long-suffering and gracious towards all, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. While, then, we are careful, on the one hand, to guard against every thing which would delay the accomplishment of God's benevolent intentions respecting us, we may derive comfort from the assurance, that he will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

*Illustrations of the Divine Government, p. 58.

It is usual, for the sake of distinction, to divide mankind into two great classes, the righteous and the wicked; and, in ordinary language, this distinction is sufficiently accurate, and answers many useful purposes. But there are many intermediate steps between the truly good man and the profligate and abandoned sinner, which are entirely overlooked in this classification. What is it, then, which constitutes the immense distinction between the moral character of the imperfectly righteous, and that of the partially wicked, that the portion of the one should be eternal misery, and that of the other everlasting life? In the present state, we see that all men are subject to the same discipline, and that no distinction is made by the Deity, in the moral treatment of his rational offspring. The differences which we perceive between the moral character of one man and that of another, are differences of degree, and not of kind; nor is there any reason to suppose, that, with respect to beings of the same order, the case can ever be different. To imagine such a difference, is to suspect God of partiality, and indirectly to charge him with injustice. The very idea is fraught with impiety; and cannot be entertained for a moment by any rational, unprejudiced, and sober-minded Christian. But that God is no respecter of persons; that he views all his creatures with an equal and impartial eye; that he wills the salvation of all, and is able to accomplish every purpose of his will, are truths which stand written on the brightest pages of Revelation, which cast a cheering ray upon the darkness and gloom of the grave, and which will finally conduct us, when the sufferings and imperfections of the present state are at an end, and the period of our moral discipline is completed, to joy unspeakable and full of glory, in a future and eternal world.

What Evidence can prove the Trinity?

(Continued from page 80.)

O. P. Q.

MIGHT we not expect, that our Lord himself would at least once have stated the doctrine of the Trinity in express language, and have insisted on the importance and necessity of believing it? Would he not, at least once, have declared formally and explicitly, that the first commandment was no longer to be understood in its plain and literal

meaning; the meaning in which all his hearers had been accustomed to understand it? The word God occurs nearly thirteen hundred times in the New Testament, and might we not suppose, that, in some one of these passages, we should be expressly told, that the term is meant to include, not simply one, but three persons or subsistences, to each of which that title is applicable? If, in every instance where this word is used alone, it implies a plurality in the divine nature, should we be unable to find one solitary example of the application of plural pronouns in the whole New Testament? Would neither our Lord, nor any one of his Apostles, have left a single sentence, in which the whole doctrine of the Trinity can be fully and accurately expressed? Should we expect to find no care to make accurate and evident distinctions between the doctrine of a Trinity and the dangerous Polytheistical notion of the heathens? The doctrine of the unity of God is more than once introduced in the New Testament, and laid down most clearly and solemnly. Our Lord himself repeats these most impressive words to the Scribes:-The first of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." Now, could we have supposed, that, as our Saviour knew this would be construed by all his hearers, as teaching that there is only one object of supreme worship, he would have omitted such an occasion as this of declaring, that in truth there are three? Could we have supposed, that since the main argument for the Trinity, from the Old Testament, rests on the plural form of x, which Dr. Wardlaw translates Gods, the Evangelist should have chosen to destroy this argument by using the singular noun 80s, which all know it is impossible should be translated otherwise than simply GOD?

If it should be said, that there might be reasons why our Lord did not publicly teach this doctrine, should we not expect some account of his private communications of it to his disciples? Would they have preserved no record of their first knowledge of a truth so wonderful, and so essential a part of the Christian system? If we can suppose, that our Saviour himself forbore to teach publicly that, which was, in fact, the great principle on which his whole Gospel turned, why this reserve in his disciples? The Gospels were not written till several years after his death, and many of the Epistles still later, and should we have expected, that they would not have given a hint of