and so change and constitute their nature as to render them capable of inexpressible and never ending misery, for the sole purpose of glutting a vengeful disposition, which is supposed to exist in the mind of the friend of sinners---the God of tender mercies---the Father of the spirits of all flesh? Does not the scriptures represent to us, that it was the tender mercies of our Heavenly Father, that caused him to send his Son into the world to die for sinners? And if he knew that such awful consequences would be the result of that act, may it not be said that his tender mercies are like those of the wicked--cruel? Or if the God of tender mercies acted under the influence of the most friendly feelings towards sinners, in sending his Son into the world to save them; and if, after all the exertions of divine goodness, some will not be saved, would it comport with our most noble views of the excellency of his character, to suppose the tender mercies of our Heavenly Father would be changed into a spirit of vengeance, transcending that of a demon; so that he should delight to hate, and render as miserable as possible, those sinners whom he once loved and pitied? If we may judge of the purposes of God from the character given him in the scriptures, we may safely infer from his immutability, that if it was once his purpose to do sinners good and not evil, he will always have the same gracious purpose in view :---hence it follows that the purpose of God in raising sinners from the dead, is to better their condition, and not to make it infinitely worse:---"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels of God in heaven."---Matt. xxii. 29, 30. Luke says, "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” Here our Saviour declares, that to be the children of the resurrection will make us the children of God, and equal with the angels of God in heaven,

The heresy of St. Paul, for which he was accused of the Jews, before Felix, the Governor, consisted in believing that in the resurrection of the dead, the condition of the unjust, as well as the just, would be bettered.---"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, That there shall be a

resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."--Acts xxiv. 14, 15. Here we see that St. Paul's hope towards God was, that there would be a resurrection of the unjust as well as the just.---The difference between his faith and that of his accusers, was simply this: his enemies allowed, that the unjust would be raised as well as the just---and St. Paul hoped it would be the case. The accusers of the great apostle of the Gentiles did not hope for the resurrection of the unjust, although they expected it would take place. This shows that those who accused the apostle of heresy before the governor, were truly orthodox in their faith, with regard to the resurrection of the unjust---they did not expect that the unjust were to be bettered in their condition in the resurrection, while St. Paul hoped that they would. If the apostle did not expect that even the unjust would be bettered in their condition by the resurrection, how could he hope that they would be raised? Is it possible that St. Paul could hope for the resurrection of the unjust, if he entertained the same views, with regard to the resurrection of the wicked, as is entertained by our orthodox brethren? How could any pious christian hope for such a scene of horror and desperation, as is presented to us in the views of our orthodox brethren, with regard to the resurrection of the unjust? It is impossible to hope for any thing which we do not desire.---Hope is built on desire and expectation. These are the two pillars on which it stands--remove either, and hope must fall! Now, is there any christian in God's universe, that desires to see any portion of his fellow creatures raised to suffer the vengeance of endless burning? No! impossible! Therefore, St. Paul did not expect that the unjust would be raised up to such a state of endless suffering--if he had, he could not have hoped for it.

It will no doubt be objected, that the scriptures teach that some are to come forth to the resurrection of damnation. I an swer, the scriptures do not teach that any are to come forth to damnation at the general resurrection of the dead. But precisely to the contrary---all shall be made alive in Christ---all are to be changed---raised incorruptible, immortal, and in glory. The resurrection of damnation is only mentioned once

in the New Testament: John. 29. And our Saviour declared that the hour was then coming, when that resurrection should take place. By comparing the 28th and 29th verses of this chapter with Daniel xii. 1, 2, the reader will find that our Saviour was speaking with reference to Daniel's resurrection,

which was to take place at the time Michael the Prince was to stand up for the people of Israel, when there was to be a time of trouble, such as nevor had been from the foundation of the world, unto that time. Our Saviour referred to this prophecy of Daniel, and applied it to that state of condemnation which was to come on the Jewish nation, at the time when the Roman army was to besiege Jerusalem. See Matthew xxiv. 15 to 21, and Mark xiii, 14 to 19. Now, if it be admitted that Jesus Christ was correct in his application to the prophecy of Daniel, the resurrection to damnation has long since taken place; and nothing more was intended by that resurrection than the moral and political condition in which the Jewish nation was placed, by rejecting the Messiah. Our Saviour represented them as being dead, and compared them to whited sepulchres: but by his ministry their hypocrisy was exposed; they were brought forth from their graves, and stood condemned before the Son of Man, by that word which he said should judge them in that day. Any other construction of our Lord's remarks on the resurrection to damnation, would involve a contradiction in his ministry. If we are to understand him as teaching that all who have done evil, in the general resurrection of the dead, are to be raised to damnation, how are we to reconcile it with the doctrine he taught the Sadducees! He taught them that in the resurrection of the dead, they were to be as the angels in heaven. He makes no distinction with regard to characters, but speaks of the dead in general terms. One of the evangelists says, that he declared, that all who attained to that world, and the resurrection, should be equal to the angels in heaven. Now, as our brethren in the opposition believe that all will attain to that world and the resurrection, it follows that either they are, or our Saviour was mistaken with regard to the resurrection. I leave it with the reader to judge where the mistake lies.

A REPLY TO

DR. ADAM CLARK'S NOTES

ON THE PHRASE

EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.

THE following extract is from the "Western Star," a politi cal paper printed at Lebanon, Ohio; and inserted in that paper, we presume, as an indirect answer to a reference we make to Dr. Adam Clark's definition of the words hell, and hell-fire, in our public discourse delivered in Lebanon a short time before the said extract made its appearance. Our first reference was to the remarks of the celebrated doctor, in his notes on Mat. v. 12. "Shall be in danger of hell-fire-shall be liable to the hell of fire." "Our Lord here alludes," says Dr. Clark, "to the valley of the son of Hinnom-Ghi Hinnom. This place was near Jerusalem, and had been formerly used for those abominable sacrifices in which the idolatrous Jews had caused their children to pass through the fire to Moloch: a particular place in this valley was called Tophat, i. e. firestove, in which some suppose they burnt the children alive to the above idol." Our next reference was to the doctor's notes on Mat. xi. 23, where he makes the following remarks :“Shall be brought down to hell.-The original word is hades-the invisible receptacle, or mansion of the dead; answering to Sheol in Hebrew. The word hell, used in the common translation, conveys, now, an improper meaning of the original word; because hell is used, now, to signify the place of the damned. But as the word hell came from the Anglo-Saxon halen, to cover or hide, hence the tiling, or slating of a house, is called, in some parts of England, particularly in Cornwell, helling to this day; and the covering of books, in Lancashier, by the same name; so the literal import of the original word was formerly well expressed by it." We did not make this appeal to the doctor's notes to prove that he was a Universalist, or that he denied the doctrine of endless punishment: this we well knew was not the case. The sole object of the appeal, was to show, that, according to the learned doctor's exposition of the original words, sheol, hades, and gehenna, which are all

rendered hell, by the translators, and also his etymological remarks on the word hell, go to prove that there is no word in the Hebrew, Greek, or English language, expressive of any such a place of future punishment, as the doctor, and other or thodox divines, so gravely talk of. We frequently hear these learned gentlemen talk about "the place of the damned," and of "damned spirits;" and yet they all tell us that Sheol and Hades, both mean, in their proper language, the grave, or the state of the dead in general, whether good or bad; and that Gehenna, sometimes rendered hell, means the valley of the son of Hinnom, near Jerusalem; and that hell itself means nothing more than to cover or to hide. Now we would ask these "rev." gentlemen, if there be such a place as that of "damned spirits," what is its proper name? Or is the place so sacred that it is not to be named? If it is not thus sacred, we would be glad if some of those gentlemen of "sound learn ing and criticism," who talk as gravely about the place as if they knew its geographical position, would give it a name, that hereafter they may talk of "the place of damned spirits" with less confusion than they have heretofore done. We think it devolves on the advocates of endless punishment to prove there is such a place, before they talk with such confidence about its endless duration But, admitting it is the case, that there is not a noun in all the known languages expressive of this nameless PLACE of "damned spirits," and that it can only be talked of by borrowed natnes, which are the proper signs of other ideas; does it follow as a matter of course, that spirits once damned, are endlessly damned? or has Dr. Clark been more successful in finding words to express the endless punishment of his "damned spirits," than he was in finding a name for their place of punishment? We will now attend to the extract, and see whether or not this be the case.

Extract from Dr. Clark's Commentaries."

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment," Matthew, xxv. 47. "No appeal, no remedy to all eternity! No end to the punishment of those whose final impenitence manifest in them an eternal will and desire to sin. By dying in a settled opposition to God, they cast themselves into a necessity of continuing in an eternal aversion from him.

*Butsome are of opinion that this punishment will have an