2. Still farther. He is said to bear our sins. "He shall bear their iniquities." Christ was "once offered to bear the sins of many" he bore our sins in his own body on the tree." The Greek verbanenegkein," translated "to bear,” is correctly translated" to bear, to endure," or support what properly belongs to others, and thus confer a benefit. So Christ confers a benefit on sinners, by so bearing their sins, that they are or may be released from their sins and enjoy salvation through his name. This is yet farther evident from the propitiating office of Christ. To propitiate is to appease, to alone, to turn away the displeasure and secure the favor of an offended person, so far at least as to renew intercourse between them. This office Christ performs for us. Hence the following language "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood."--(Rom. iii. 25.) "And he is the the propitiation for our sins."—(1 John ii. 11.) "God loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."-(1 John iv. 10.) The Greek words here translated propitiation are ilasmos and ilasterion. One means propitiatory covering, the other propitiatory sacrifice, and both are derived from the Greek verb ilasko, employed by Greek writers to express the office of a person appointed to turn away the wrath of a Deity. The doctrine of these passages is that Christ has become a propitiating sacrifice in behalf of sinners, by which he secures the divine favor for all who will believe on him, and provides for covering their sins, or blotting out their transgressions. Hence Paul to the Hebrews says, "Christ, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God," "to purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."(Heb. ix. 14.) Also Eph. v. 2.-Christ loved us and hath given himself,” (uper emon,) in our stead, and on our account, "an offering, and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savor." Now, as Mr. A. is fond of quoting Dr. Clarke, I will give his comment on this passage. Pro-phora, an offering, thusia, a sacrifice, a sin offering, a victim for sin; that sacrificial act in which the blood of an animal was poured out as an atonement for sin. The Apostle's design was to represent the sufficiency of the offering made by Christ for the sin of the world--Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice for sin, without which we could never approach to God, and without which we must be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power."

3. It is also plain from scripture, that the sufferings and death of Christ do operate to deliver the sinner from sin and death. The prophet Isaiah, 531 chapter, says, he was "wounded for our transgressions"-"the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"" by his stripes we are healed." Also, John iii. 16.——“G1

so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish." The Greek word "apoleta" from "apolen," here rendered to perish, signifies to be totally lost, or utterly ruined-undone. Hence, the object of Christ's advent was to save men from being totally and irretrievably ruined—that they might not perish, but have everlasting life. Hence, says Clarke, "those who believe, receive a double benefit. They are exempted from eternal perdition, and brought to eternal glory."

Again: the blood and death of Christ are said to be the procuring cause of our salvation. It "behooved Christ to suffer, that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name"-he redeemed us by his "precious blood." We are said to justified by his blood"-through faith in his blood-reconciled to God by the death of his Son, and so on. These passages connect the justification and salvation of the soul, directly with the suffering, blood, and death of Christ as our propitiating sacrifice. And finally, Christ as our sacrifice and redeemer is the only hope of the sinner. So the scriptures: "neither is there salvation in any other"-"there is none other name given under heaven"-"I am the way, the truth and the life"-"no man cometh unto the father but by me"-" when we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." Thus "it behooved Christ to suffer." The word translated behooved, is from "deo," to bind, or fetter. The idea conveyed is, that the sufferings and death of Christ were the only means of salvation to the guilty. The door of hope was closed, until unlocked by the atonement. Had Christ not died, we never could have been saved: hence, the penalty of the law is eternal, and the atonement was designed to relieve man's condition, and provide a way of salvation.

4. But we are not done with this point yet: we argue the eternity of the penalty, and the sinner's liability to endure it, from the terms redeem, redemption, ransom, reconciliation, as used in the scriptures in regard to the work of Christ for a sinful world. The Greek word translated "redemption" and "redeem," is from a root signifying to buy, or purchase; and it is compounded with ex, out of, or from, making the signification to purchase out of, or from the power or thraldom of another; hence our English words redeem, redemption.

"Redeem," says Webster, "is to purchase back—to ransom— to liberate, or rescue from bondage, or from any obligation or liability to re-purchase what has been sold. In theology, to rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and its penalties." "Redemption to re-purchase captured goods or persons: procuring the deliverance of persons or things from the possession or power of captors. In theology, ransom or deliverance of sinners from

the bondage of sin, and penalties of God's violated law, by the atonement of Christ." In the correctness of these definitions, all standard lexicons, ancient and modern, Latin, Greek and English, agree substantially. Now the question arises, do the scriptures use these terms in this sense in their application to the salvation of men by Christ. In answer to this question we remark.

1. The condition of men is such as to need redemption. They are "dead in trespasses and sins"-in a state of moral "death""without strength"-"without God, and without hope in the world"--“carnal, sold under sin”—“lost”—“led captive by the devil at his will"-"under the curse of the law," and so on.

2. The scriptures say Christ has redeemed us. Gal. iii. 13."Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Gal. iv. 5.-"God sent forth his Son to redeem them that were under the law." You will recollect that to redeem is to buy back from a state of captivity, by the payment of some price. The question now is, what price did he pay for the redemption of the world? Answer: he gave himself, he shed his blood.

3. Hence 1 Peter i. 18, 19.-'Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due season."--(1 Tim. ii. 6.) Lutron, translated ransom, is the redemption money or price paid down for the release of captives. But Peter says we are redeemed not with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. Here, then, is the redemption price. Christ offered himself in sacrifice to satisfy the claims of moral justice, and thus redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Moreover, this redemption, procured by the death and blood of Christ, is denominated an eternal redemption. (Heb. ix. 12.) But if an eternal redemption--then the captivity was eternal without Christ--the law-the curse of the law from which we are redeemed, was eternal, in its nature, and would have held the captives eternally, if they had not been redeemed.

Also, we reach the same conclusion from the scripture doctrine of reconciliation. Reconciliation can only be effected where parties are at variance: hence, says Webster, "reconciliation is the act of reconciling parties at variance ;" and with this definition agrees the Greek text. The parties are God and man. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance-the whole world is guilty before God, and in the heart of man there is enmity to God-it is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. These parties then are at variance. But Christ is the reconciler "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son."--(Rom. v. 10.) "God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation." But, says Universalism, this reconciliation "re

fers wholly to man, not to God." There is but one party to be reconciled, viz. man. God has always been reconciled: hence, there is no other reconciliation than the removal of the enmity of the human heart. But this is a great mistake, as will appear from the following facts.

66

1. We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son, who has effected this object by offering himself without spot to God, as a sweet smelling savor, having obtained eternal redemption for us." 2. We were reconciled to God while we were yet enemies. How we can be reconciled to God in the Universalist sense, and yet be enemies, is a mystery. 3. Though Christ has accomplished the work of reconciliation, yet the sinner is unreconciled: "hence, the ministry of reconciliation was committed to the apostles, who besought men in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God.

The true view of reconciliation is, that the death of Christ opened the way-made it possible for man to return to God. Hence, says Christ--" I am the way, the truth and the life.” Would men have been saved, if Christ had not redeemed, ransomed, and procured reconciliation? If Mr. Austin answers no, he grants my argument, and acknowledges the eternal sanctions of God's law. If he says yes, he repudiates Christ and his gospel, as necessary to the final silvation of men, and relinquishes a number of the proofs on which he has depended most in this discussion.

I will now pay my formal respects to the gentleman's third negative argument, which asserts endless punishment to be a doctrine of heathenism. In reply I call your attention to the following points.

1. It is not true that the idea of endless punishment originated with the heathen. There is no proof of this, beyond what there is that the idea of endless felicity originated in heathen corruption. Indeed, there is as much proof that the notion of future punishment originated in heathenism, as that the eternity of its duration originated there. And I positively deny the existence of any proof of the heathen origin of either. That the heathen corrupted the doctrine of future punishment, as they did all other religious truths, is clear enough, but this in no way affects the origin or truthfulness of the doctrine. This corruption of religious truths, partly through ignorance and depravity, and partly for sinister purposes, is alluded to by some heathen writers. The declarations found in the writings of Cicero and others, refer only to the corruption of acknowledged truths; or if they mean more, the only advantage Mr. Austin can gain from it is, in bringing one heathen opinion to correct another. Cicero's view of it is but a heathen notion after all, and my friend has no confidence in the judgment of heathen. The heathen never claimed a human origin for any of their religious doctrines. They believed them to have been communicated to their fathers by the gods.

If here and there one of their writers has ever intimated any thing different from this, it is because they were skeptical in regard to all religion; hence are entitled to no more confidence when they make such declarations, than Voltaire or Paine is, in asserting the Bible to have originated in heathenism, or in the dark ages; or than Mr. Austin is, in making his thousand and one assertions without the least shadow of proof.

2. The heathen held many doctrines that are true, acknowledged true, by the whole Christian world, and not disputed by Mr. Austin. In connection with the doctrine of future and endless punishment, they held to future and endless felicity for the righteous. They also believed the doctrine of the soul's immortality, and made it the ground of motives to the practice of virtue. Will Mr. Austin repudiate these acknowledged and interesting truths, because they received the sanction of the heathen world? Is it because the heathen believe the soul immortal, that so many Universalists reject this doctrine; and that some of their oracles denounce it as "heathen chaff," and have turned it out of door as a "heathen intruder ?" Again: that great truth which lies at the foundation of all religion, the existence of one supreme and infinite God, was held by heathen, and made the basis of their religious doctrines, hopes and fears. It is true, the doctrine of the divine existence was greatly corrupted by their theory of subordinate deities, but above and in spite of all this confusion and corruption, the true idea of divine supremacy is still sure. the gentleman deny the existence of God, because it was a docWill trine of heathenism? We have as full evidence that these doctrines originated in heathenism, as we have of the heathen origin of the doctrine of endless punishment; and if Mr. Austin rejects one, to be consistent, he must reject the whole, on the ground that they were doctrines of heathenism.

3. Moreover, some of the peculiarities of the gentleman's theology were believed and taught by heathen. Such is the notion that sin arises out of our physical constitution; an idea clearly traceable to the heathen supposition of a perverse principle in matter, which at the time of creation, the omnipotence of God could not control. The doctrine of purgatorial purification, or preparation for heaven by means of punishment, which has constituted the burden of my friend's story during this discussion, was also a prominent feature in the Mythology of some heathen writers. Finally, that very Universalism, held and taught by Origen, and subsequently condemned by a General Council, was of heathen derivation. It was derived from the Platonic school, according to the consistent testimony of ecclesiastical authors. Now, let the gentleman go the whole figure, and make a clean sweep. If his mode of reasoning be sound, he must do this, or incur the charge of being inconsistent and uncandid. Let him reject future and endless felicity-the immortality of the soul--the existence