Paradise. The relation established between God and the Jewish nation, was dissolved when he gave them Saul as their king. And did he not reject Saul and Solomon from being kings, after having entered into covenant relations with them? In like manner, he may and will reject men from the relations of his spiritual family, when they rebel against his authority, and refuse to live in accordance with those relations. Now as this paternal argument has been repeatedly shown to be deficient and fallacious, and as this objection to the doctrine of endless punishment is founded on the idea that God's paternity is an attribute, and that it is the superior and all-controlling element of his nature, both of which are theological blunders of the grossest kind, we may dismiss it as entirely unworthy of a more extended notice.

The next negative argument of Mr. Austin is, that endless punishment hardens the hearts of those who believe it. To sustain this objection, he quotes several authors who have used language in reference to the perdition of the ungodly, which, to say the least, is of doubtful propriety. I have already expressed my views on this subject with sufficient plainness.

That God will be fully justified in the eyes of the universe, and that his sentence of endless banishment from his presence and glory, will meet the hearty approval of all holy intelligences, I have no doubt. Yet, I have no approval for the harsh and extravagant language sometimes employed in illustrating and enforcing it. But after all, I do not regard the quotations of Mr. Austin from the writers alluded to, nor any others that may be brought forward, as proof of hardness of heart, or as furnishing any evidence of the hardening tendency of the doctrine.

That class of men, and some of the very individuals from which these quotations have been made, have given the most exalted and unquestionable proof of their fidelity to the cause of Christ, their compassion and love for the souls of men, and their enlarged and expansive Christian benevolence. They have made personal sacrifices of honor, and ease, and money; they have endured much toil and suffering, and in many instances have sacrificed life itself, to further the benevolent designs of the gospel. The Christian world is indebted to these men for the preservation of the scriptures, and the maintenance of the institutions of Christianity, under circustances which tried men's souls, and when those who now denounce them as hard-hearted-as chuckling and exulting over the endless damnation of the sinner, would have quit the field, and left the cause in the hands of the destroyer. In the language quoted by my friend, I see nothing more than a zeal to vindicate the character and government of God from the charge of injustice-a zeal which sometimes betrayed itself into improper modes of expression. I deny this charge of hardness of heart and I appeal to the history of evangelical christendom to

sustain me in treating this groundless allegation with the contempt it so justly merits; and coming too, from such a source. What proof has Universalism ever given of its love for Christ and his cause, or its compassion for the souls of men? Where are its missionaries and martyrs, or institutions of Christian benevolence? They (Universalists) build a meeting-house here and there, and for a time endeavor to support regular meetings, but it is not because the "love of Christ constraineth them," for they preach Christ as a mere mun, of superior gifts and piety-it is not out of compassion to the souls of men, for they do not believe their souls were ever in danger of being lost in respect to their heavenly bliss. Their liberality in this direction is not founded on Christian principle, or inspired by Christian love or Christian zeal, but as has often been expressed by leading men among themselves, it is mainly, if not entirely, to oppose the orthodox. No! no!! if the world had no other dependence than Universalism, for its enlightenment and moral elevation, it would soon sink back again to a state of spiritual ignorance and barbarism.

Mr. Austin has finally ventured upon an assertion in regard to moral death, the import of which is, that it embraces moral life; that there is moral life in moral death. The way in which this should be made out, would indeed be a logical curiosity.

Death is the extinction of life, of whatever kind it may be, and it does not take place until life is extinct. Physical death is the the extinction of physical life, and moral death is the extinction of moral life. If there is moral life in moral death, on the same principle, there must be natural life in temporal death. If this be true, St. Paul should have said, "you hath he quickened who were dead (yet not so dead but that you had some moral life) in trespasses and sins." And Ezekiel should have said, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die ;" (a death which embraces a portion of life.) And who knows, but the general resurrection may be effected, not by the direct exertion of divine power, but by the recuperative energy of that principle or element of life which exists in death itself, and which will then exert itself-re-act upon death, and rescue from its grasp its numerous victims ?

Perhaps the gentleman has been led into the above view of moral death, by his definition of depravity, or, which is quite as likely, his definition of depravity has been invented to keep his other absurdity in countenance. He makes moral death, or depravity, to consist of "ignorance and sin." Is ignorance an inherent element of depravity? If so, it will follow by his own showing, that death is eternal, since there will always be more

A prominent Universalist in Springport, not long since declared it as his belief that the Bible was not a blessing to the heathen, but only made them worse; and another in Groton, denounced all missionary effort, and declared he would not pay cent to support the gospel any where, even by Universalists, were it not to oppose the orthodox.

or less of ignorance of the higher subjects of divine knowledge. But we deny this view of depravity. To be depraved, is to be wicked; but it is not wicked to be ignorant, unless our ignorance is willful. To be depraved is to be guilty, but we are not guilty because of our ignorance, unless we "love darkness rather than light, because our deeds are evil."

Ignorance is often a fruit of depravity, but it is not depravity itself. If it were, then the turpitude of our sin would depend upon the amount of our ignorance, whereas, the very reverse is the case-God holds us responsible according to our light, and not according to our darkness. The scriptures every where place the seat of depravity in the heart, and not in the head. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." "From the heart proceed evil thoughts," &c.

Mr. Austin relates the case of a woman who murdered her child, and he carries the idea that she did it to save it from the supposed consequences of sin in a future state. Well, suppose she did; thousands have murdered their infants to save them from the consequences of sin in this life, without any reference to eternity, or for reasons much less weighty. But my friend says she was insane. This is very likely, since there are few, if any, who would perform such an act, for such reasons, in their right mind. I strongly suspect, however, that the gentleman's design is to make it appear that the doctrine of endless punishment leads to insanity. If this were so, it would not be an argument against it, because there are very many things, true in themselves, and important in their relations, which often produce insanity. Insanity is connected with a great variety of causes, and not more with religion than with many other subjects. My friend had better pause awhile before he attempts to make evangelical religion responsible for all the cases of insanity. This is, I know, a favorite trick with Universalists, but I have facts, which, if necessary to use them, will place this subject in its proper light.

Mr. Austin farther remarks that the doctrine of probation and retribution go together. Very true-I have made no effort to separate retribution from probation. It is my doctrine that the sinner is a subject of retribution during the whole of his probation; but how this fact is to be turned against probation itself, or against the doctrine of endless punishment, is to me a mystery. The admission (which I did not expect from Mr. Austin,) that the present is a state of probation, though connected with retribution, cannot be separated from the conclusion which I drew from my argument on probation, viz: a liability to come out of this state of probation without the requisite qualifications for that higher state for which this is the proper trial. And understand, the case is not changed in its aspects or liabilities, if those who issue from this state of probation without the required preparation for heaven should be placed upon another, or upon a series

of probations in another world. If they may pass one probation without reformation, in spite of the moral influence of that retribution connected with it, they may pass another and another. As retribution and probation do not bring sinners to repentance, but in thousands of instances they wax worse and worse under the disciplinary and retributive inflictions of God in this world, any extention you may please to make of the time of probation, can furnish no sufficient security that it will have the desired effect on all. Let it be observed, also, if probation be extended into eternity, so must retribution be extended, and the gentleman must take future punishment as a consequence, with no assurance that it will ever end. If the gentleman extends his probation into another world, to obtain relief for those who are incorrigible here, I call on him to furnish the grounds of his expectation or confidence, that the end will be more surely and successfully attained there, than it has been here.

But this notion of a series of probations, or an extended probation, covering an indefinite portion of the future existence of sinful men, is wholly gratuitous and chimerical. It is an invention of Universalism, which its advocates always carry with them, but constantly conceal, unless pressed into a corner, and obliged to produce it to meet a pressing case of necessity. I utterly deny that it has any, even the slightest or remotest authority from God's word, and I challenge the gentleman for any proof to the contrary.

I have said that the present is a state of retribution as well as probation. But understand me, I do not admit it to be a state of perfect retribution. Both the righteous and sinner are "recompensed in the earth;" but what we see of it here is but the incipient state of that retributive administration, the perfect results of which will only be seen at the end of human probation. God gives to the righteous the first fruits of his glorious inheritance, and to the sinner the prelude of eternal damnation, as an indication of his final doom, in case he is incorrigible in his sinful course. But the completion and perfection of God's retributive administration will only be realized, when the decisions of the last day shall be given and executed according to the works and moral character of God's moral subjects.—(Rom. ii. 6-16.)

Mr. Austin has perverted my argument on the "moral turpitude of sin." I did not derive the enormity of sin from the character of the sinner, nor did I argue that a finite being can commit an infinite act. I know this is the representation given of the views of others by Universalists, and Mr. Austin would be glad to have it so in the present case. My argument was based upon the nature of sin-the design of sin--the perfection of the divine character-the infinite obligations violated by the sinner--and the consequences of sin. As it displaces infinite good, it is in its nature and consequences an infinite evil. Holiness and happiness

585

in a boundless duration is an infinite good, not because of the ca pability of man, but because it is designed to constitute his bliss forever. Should sin remove this holiness, it would, for this reason, be an infinite evil, and not because a finite being can commit an infinite act. A thing may be infinite in one sense, and not infinite in another-may be infinite in the sense of being endless, Hence, though the sinner though not infinite in any other sense. cannot commit an act which is infinite in its own nature, he may commit an act, the influence of which is infinite in the sense of being endless. And as there are many sinners committing such acts, and refusing contrition and reformation, they may justly be made examples to the universe whose infinite interests they are injuring, by a punishment which is infinite, in the sense of being endless.

I have charged upon Universalism the enormous impiety of degrading the sufferings of Christ to a level with the sufferings of a Mr. Austin does not dispute, but mere man in ordinary cases. admits the charge, and affirms the sufferings of Paul and others to have been of the same kind, and for the same end, with the sufferings of Christ. I did not expect the gentleman would admit this, though I had no doubt they were his real sentiments. I hope I shall not hereafter be complained of, as doing injustice to Universalism, in representing it as an artful and seductive form of infidelity.

Having thus far cleared my way through the cavils, objections, and negative arguments of my opponent, and successfully, as I believe, maintained all the points in my main argument, I will take another step by presenting my eleventh proof, founded on the

COMMON CONSENT OF MANKIND.

Mr. Austin has once, at least, during our debate, appealed to Now I propose to show you, that the the common sense of men. doctrine of future and endless punishment is in accordance with the common sense of mankind. By this, I mean the deductions of common reason and common observation, or the common opinion of mankind, as formed by the exercise of the common understanding, upon the best grounds furnished them by the light of reason and the facts of nature. The light of reason I say that very reason which Mr. Austin has made the ground of an argugument against this self same doctrine. I will show you on the contrary, that it proves the doctrine to be true. For while the failure of reason to comprehend a doctrine, does not prove it false, the fact that reason approves a doctrine, or the grounds on which a doctrine rests, is certainly a very strong argument in its favor. Even on Mr. Austin's principles of argumentation, if the fact that reason contradicts a doctrine proves it to be false, then, certainly, reason approving a doctrine, proves it to be true. And what else have the heathen world had to guide them on this subject, but