If I confounded the literal and figurative sense of the term visible, it was unintentionally: I supposed, from the nature of the things to but I supposed which it applied, the reader would make the distinction; too much in this case, and thank you for marking the distinction, as it may prevent other readers from misconceiving my meaning.

I fully admit that the person of Christ is not at present visible to us, that there is no manifestation of him at present adapted to our senses; we view him with the eyes of the understanding—as he is made known by the gospel, and God in him as his truth and grace are revealed to us in the New Testament.

You say, "Truth will out;" it will, Sir; and I know of no method more likely to bring it out than friendly controversy: this, I trust, is my motive for writing, at any time, upon polemical subjects.

After all, I cannot perceive wherein we differ in our ideas of the person of Christ. If there be a real difference, and you will have the goodness to point it out, you may expect to hear further from,

Sincerely yours,

CANDIDUS.

LETTER III.

ON THE

ANTIQUITY OF THE UNIVERSAL DOCTRINE.

SIR,

HAVE already attempted to prove the high antiquity of the Universal doctrine on two grounds of reasoning, which I conceive the Mosaic writings to furnish. First, the total silence of the law upon the subject of endless punishment, and its evidently teaching the doctrine of limited Second, the promises of punishment and subsequent restoration. Jehovah contained in those writings, which, when compared with corresponding passages in the New Testament, fully authorize the conclusion that the whole race of man will be restored to purity and happiness. I will now endeavour to prove that the Mosaic writings contain a third ground of reasoning in favour of our main argument.

If it can be shewn that the doctrine of endless punishment is utterly irreconcileable with the account which Moses gives of the character and perfections of Deity, but that the Universal Doctrine perfectly agrees therewith, it will follow that his account of the Deity may be argued from as a collateral proof, at least, of the truth and antiquity of Universalism. This is what I will attempt to shew*.

*As one leading design of the Scriptures is to make God known to his creatures, I think, the plain and positive declaration of Jehovah concerning his own character, perfections, and designs, furnishes direct and conclusive proof of the disposition from which he will act, and of

Moses besought the Lord to shew him his glory, (i. e.) I conceive those divine attributes which he glories in the display of, and the manifestation of which will redound to the immortal glory of his great name. In compliance with his request, we are informed Jehovah "passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands [of generations] forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that cutting off will not [totally] cut off*; visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation]." Exod. xxxiv.

the ends which he will pursue in all his dealings with them; seeing it is impossible he should ever act contrary to his avowed character and attributes, or pursue ends unworthy of himself; but I have said, collateral evidence, that our opponents may not say we lay undue stress upon what they call mere inference and deduction.

ונקה לא ינקה

66

1. The

which our translators render, "And that will by no means clear the guilty]," I have translated," And that cutting off will not [totally] cut off;" for which I give the following reasons. common rendering flatly contradicts the context; for if God will by no means clear the guilty, or forgive guilty persons their iniquities, which is admitted on all hands to be the import of the phrase "clear the guilty," how is he a being forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin?" And how can the passage be reconciled with the general tenor of Scripture, respecting the forgiveness of sins? 2. My rendering agrees not only with the immediate context, but with all the circumstances related in the preceding chapters. Israel had sinned-God had threatened to consume them-Moses had interceded for them-Jehovah had condescended to afford fresh manifestations of his mercy-as a confirmation of which Moses desired to see his glory-and the Lord, to confirm his expectation of the divine favour being continued to guilty Israel, deigned to proclaim his name; but for him to declare, when proclaiming his name, that he would by no means clear the guilty, would be like nullifying all the previous declarations of his favour to his guilty people: on the contrary, for him to say, that cutting off he would not totally cut off-that he would punish in measure, but not exterminate, or cut off from all hope of mercy, would be a confirmation of his previous gracious declarations, and confirm the hope and confidence of Moses and the Israelites. 3. I conceive the rendering which I have given to be the literal import of the original. Parkhurst gives, as the leading idea of the word to clear, clear away, as a city of its inhabitants; to be utterly destroyed, as by the curse of God. See his Hebrew Lexicon. 4. Our translators have sometimes rendered it cut off, (Zech. v. 3.) and desolate, (see Isa. iii. 26.) and I think they ought to have rendered it cut off, Exod. xxxiv. 7. On the whole, I think the word includes the idea of cutting off wherever it occurs; but it may be asked how this can be the case when it is used to express a person's being innocent, or clear from guilt. I answer, in that case it expresses all imputation of crime being cut off, or removed from the person. Again, it may be enquired how it can include the idea of cutting off, when it is used to express a sinner's being pardoned? I answer, because pardon is dispensed through the cutting off of a victim, and because the sinner who is pardoned has the charges cut off which before stood against him to condemn him.

VOL. IV.

6, 7. Upon which passage I would submit the following remarks to the reader's consideration.

I Can the doctrine of endless punishment ever be reconciled with the divine character, as proclaimed by Jehovah himself to Moses? Is it consistent to suppose the being who declared himself merciful and gracious, and who is acknowledged to be unchangeable, can ever become so destitute of mercy, so estranged from every gracious principle, as to punish his offending creatures from mere principles of revenge and vindictive fury, and to make them the objects of his overwhelming wrath, implacable resentment, determined hatred, and unabating vengefulness, for the errors and crimes of a few years, to all endless eternity? Yet all this the doctrine of endless misery supposes. Can it be the part of mercy and grace to devastate a considerable part of the creation, to exterminate millions of rational creatures, to render their existence, and all the dealings of God with them, a mere blank, where nothing can be traced, unless it be the eternal waste made by his own hand, of millions of rational intelligences, formed by the Most High for his own glory? Yet this the gloomy doctrine of annihilation supposes. The being who can punish for no other conceivable purpose but to make miserable, or to exterminate the punished, must be full of something very different from mercy and grace, and can never be shewn to sustain the character which Jehovah proclaimed to Moses. From a being who declares himself full of mercy and grace, abundant in goodness and truth, knowing that he is infinite in wisdom and power, it is reasonable to expect the extirpation of sin and misery, and the confirmation of his creatures in purity and happiness, and that the punishment which he inflicts must be subservient to merciful and gracious purposes.

2.

66

Keeping mercy for thousands,-visiting the iniquity, &c. unto the third and fourth." The translators have supplied the word generation in the latter part of the sentence, they ought also to have done it in the former, as the words contain a direct contrast between the duration of mercy and the continuance of displeasure; the former is said to extend to thousands, the latter only to the third and fourth, and generations is as much implied in the one case as in the other. Hence we learn that the divine mercy is to the duration of divine wrath, in the proportion of thousands to three or four-a vast dissimilarity this, and much to the honour of the righteous Governor of the world. Something very different is implied in the doctrine of endless punishment: if that doctrine were true, the words of Jehovah should be reversed; it should be said, that he keepeth mercy for a few generations; but that he will visit for iniquity not only to thousands of generations, but to all endless eternity, in comparison of which thousands and even millions of millions of generations are as nothing: this would be a comparison infinitely dishonourable to God. I leave the reader to judge whether the supposition of endless punishment does not flatly contradict the above positive declaration of Jehovah.

3. "And that cutting off will not [totally] cut off." This clause, the rendering of which I hope I have already substantiated, goes directly to

prove that punishment will be limited, and not extended to absolute endless destruction, consequently can never be made to agree with either of the comparatively modern doctrines, that of eternal torments, or that of endless extermination, which suppose that cutting off the Lord will totally cut off, in opposition to his positive declaration to the contrary. Thus I conceive the antiquity of the Universal doctrine is countenanced by the proclamation which Jehovah made of his name to Moses.

That God will ever remain, and by all his dealings with his creatures prove himself to be, what his earliest promises intimated, and what the proclamation of his name already noticed expressed, appears, not only from the consideration of the unchangeableness of his nature; but also from the declarations which he made to Moses, see Exod. iii. 14. The first is I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE*. All his promises and gracious declarations are intended to inform his creatures what he will be to them, and his declaring." I will be that I will be," shews that he is above all influence that his designs cannot be nullified by the conduct of mortals-that he will display his absolute sovereignty by carrying them all into effect. The second is, Jehovah's adding, after he had said, he was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, "This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." This shews that throughout all ages or periods, he will act in pursuance of his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that in them and in their seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed; and that this shall be his memorial whereby his truth and sovereign authority shall be known unto all generations or nations.

I remain, dear Sir,

Yours, &c.

PHILALETHES.

Our translators have rendered

I am that I am; but

is the future tense of, to be, therefore cannot mean I am; but must mean I will be. The common rendering expresses nothing that is peculiar to God in distinction from every other being, as any being may say with truth, I am that I am, for every being is what he is; but the rendering I have adopted expresses what is peculiar to God, what no other being in the universe can with propriety apply to himself, for none but the Most High can say, I will be that I will be: and this rendering agrees best with the context, which treats, not of the abstract nature of Deity; but of his manifesting himself in order to his accomplishing his promises.

CRITICISM ON ACTS IV. 28.

SIR,

THE following quotation is taken from Emlyn's Tracts, page 255. by inserting it in your Miscellany for the investigation of your readers, you will oblige,

Yours, &c.

A READER.

INDEED that text (Acts, iv. 27, 28.) as translated, may mislead some to think that God determined the rulers to crucify Christ; but if the nominative case be placed before the verb, as is natural, the true order of the words will be thus

"Both Herod and Pontius Pilate were gathered together against this holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed to do what thy hand and thy counsel determined to be done."

The last words, "to do what thy counsel determined," may relate to Christ, and not to the wicked rulers.

DIFFICULTY ON THE RESURRECTION,

SIR,

BEING one day in company with some pious friends, our conversation

took a turn on the Resurrection. I stated our views, relative to the resurrection of the saints at the beginning of the Millenium, and the general resurrection at the end thereof. A person present brought an objection to this view of the subject from Job xiv. 10-12. "But man dieth, and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up; so man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." I supposed this text related to the general resurrection, without having any reference to the first resurrection, Rev. xx. 4. But he contended that the word man was an aggregate term, including the whole of mankind, as in the first verse, Man that is born of a woman," &c. &c. intends the whole of the human race. And therefore Rev. xx. must not be taken in a literal, but in a figurative sense-I should be glad to see some observations on

this subject.

Yours, &c.

T. PAYNE.