But we have the au

ANS. Not in every instance. thority of Dr. Clarke that it so means in this instance, at least. Are Partialists certain it never means salvation from sin? If not, this captious question is of no avail.

3. "Peter gives a reason in the next verse why this restitution will take place. He commences it with the conjunction FOR, and you know this always brings in a reason.-"For Moses truly said unto the fathers: a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me: him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul which shall not hear that prophet, (shall be saved? No! No!) shall be destroyed from among the people." Verses 22, 23. The reason Peter gives for this Universal Salvation is, that souls will be destroyed"!

ANS. A few pages back we had occasion to hint that Mr. Hall is a scholar, but here we have it demonstrated. He talks about the "conjunction for," and predicates thereon an argument! Truly, "the schoolmaster is abroad"! Is'nt he marvellously qualified to criticise the original Greek, as he does largely in this section ?No doubt his Greek criticisms will have great weight with the learned; especially when they understand that he does not even know the grammar of his own language, and can hardly compose three sentences correctly! Out upon such graceless hypocritical pedants! and yet the man is to be pitied who thus ignorantly assassinates himself in type!

"They who will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed." But what of that? Do we not read: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but IN ME IS THINE HELP”!

Thus men may be destroyed for their sins, but nevertheless, in God there is help! And has he not said: "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail." Psa. lxxxix. 30, 33.

4. Mr. Hall tries to involve us in difficulty in regard to our views of Christ's second coming. He takes for granted the Bible teaches but two comings, and that the text teaches a coming of the Saviour at the time of the restitution of all things. Hence, as we hold Christ's second coming took place at the destruction of the Jewish state, he argues the text refers to that event.—On this we remark: 1. It is doubtful, at least, if the text teaches a coming of Christ yet future. The declaration is, the heavens are to receive Christ until the times of the restitution. But is there one word about Christ then leaving heaven? Not one word. The meaning may be; the heavens are to receive him as Lord, as Saviour, as Redeemer, until the times of the restitution, when he is then to deliver up the kingdom to God, and he himself be in subjection to the Father with the world of mankind. 2. Many Universalists, among whom is the associate Editor of the "Star in the West," believe in a third coming, and refer the text with many other passages to that event. 3. Dr. Macknight, who is in high favor with Campbellites, contends for four different comings of Christ, as being mentioned in the New Testament. See Clarke's Commentary, preface to 2. Thes. In the proper place we shall allow the Dr. to speak for himself; informing the reader, meanwhile,

that we most heartily approve of all he says of Christ's second coming.

NOTE. Since writing the above we have had access to "Bush on the Resurrection," and are pleased to find his view agreeing essentially with our own; especially as expressed in paragraph 4. We refer those who are curious to examine this subject further, to Mr. Bush's work, p. 348, 360.

SECTION XXIV.

VISION OF THE APOSTLE PETER.

The theme of Mr. Hall's remarks in section XXV. is the vision of the apostle Peter.

As usual, he seizes upon some particular feature of our views-such as will enable him to make himself and his opponent ridiculous-and carefully withholds from his readers a true statement of the whole case.

Rev. E. M. Pingree, in his debate with Dr. Rice, had said, "The Bible speaks of the present Joy of those who believe the gospel of God's impartial grace., It is related that Peter, after he was converted to Universalism, felt great joy. He was not always a believer. The Saviour had said to him, 'when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren.' He was converted to Universalism by a vision as related in Acts xi. 5, 10."

This statement gave Dr. Rice an opportunity to discharge a great quantity of gaseous nonsense; and Mr. Hall, when compiling his book, appropriated at least ninetenths of it to himself; and, without informing the reader that the opinion he attacks is that of but one individual, so far as he is informed, -he unscrupulously

holds the entire Universalist denomination responsible for its truth!

Is this candid? is it honest? Mr. Hall believes in the annihilation of the wicked: Would it be just to hold the entire Campbellite sect responsible for his opinion? Would they not disclaim such a procedure? Undoubtedly; and we disclaim Alexander Hall's conduct as being unfair, ungentlemanly, and dishonest.

It is not necessary that we disclaim Mr. Pingree's view of the matter; he is able to maintain himself against a regiment of such crooked imbeciles as the author of "Universalism against itself." Nor is it necessary that we adopt his view; it is merely requisite to give his explanation of his own language, which, we think it will be admitted, he is the proper person to define.

By the term conversion, he simply means, that Peter's knowledge of the gospel became more extended-he received new truths. True, he had declared the final restitution of all things; but, his knowledge of God as a universal Father, and the present equality of all in the plan of the gospel, he did not then, perhaps, fully comprehend. Mr. P. takes the position that the inspired writers were frequently made the mediums of divine communications which they did not fully understand; and hence, it is not unreasonable to believe that Peter did not, eight years before this vision, clearly understand all the great truths comprehended in the sublime announcement of the final restitution of all things. Mr. Pingree has recently maintained these vicws in an article published in the "Star in the West," and proved by citations from Partialist commentators that they are not alone peculiar to himself. We would also refer the reader to a Partialist book, called "Bush on the Millen

nium," where he will find the opinion, that the sacred writers did not always fully understand the nature of their communications, argued at length.

We have thought proper to say thus much in justice to Mr. Pingree, and to ourselves; and we shall conclude this section with an extract from a little work largely circulated among us, called "The Book of Promises”— an entire section of which we shall lay before the reader.

"Acts x. 11, and xi. 5. On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew .nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the house top to pray, about the sixth hour: and he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet, knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And then came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common. This was done thrice; and the vessel was received up again into heaven."

The great sheet knit at the four corners, Dr. Clarke thinks was intended to be an emblem of the universe and its various nations, to the four corners of which the gospel was to extend. The Jews and Gentiles, says the learned Doctor, are certainly represented by the clean and unclean animals in this large vessel: these, by the ministry of the gospel, were to be offered up a spiritual sacrifice to God. Peter was to be a prime instrument