says he does not understand it, and then proceeds to disparage the book as authority on doctrinal subjects. To all this I reply,

1. I have not built any argument on the book of Revelation alone, though I regard it as good and unimpeached authority on any subject of which it speaks, and bow with deference to its teachings. I have quoted only three or four passages from this book, during this discussion; and these are not obscure, but relate to subjects abundantly and most plainly revealed in other parts of the Bible. The great body of my scripture proofs have been drawn from other parts of the divine "oracles."

2. Clarke's declaration, that he did not understand this book, had no reference to the passages which have been quoted by me. These were perfectly plain to him, and he applies them just as I have done. He made this remark in regard to its prophetic, figurative and symbolical representations. Though the book of Revelation, as a a whole, is obscure, and perhaps has never been fully understood by any one who has attempted to explain it; yet there are parts of it, which relate to personal religion, and the application of gospel principles, which are as plain and easy to be understood, as any other portion of the divine record.

3. In my friend's scriptural argument for the salvation of all men, he thought it perfectly proper to quote from the book of Revelation, and the little pamphlet denominated a “hundred arguments," which he has extolled so highly, contains a number of quotations from the same book. This book is of good authority, and it is perfectly proper to quote it, wherever a passage can be found, which, by hook or crook, can be pressed into the service of Universalism. But when I begin to adduce its clear and decided testimonies to fortify my position, the gentleman has all on a sudden, made an astonishing discovery! This book of Revelation is obscure-not to be understood--and cannot be depended upon as legitimate authority!!!! Truly, the old adage is correct,"circumstances alter cases." The gentleman has demonstrated to us, that he understands the difference between “meum" and "tuum," and that his cause has a this side, without a that side.

Mr. Austin repeats again, the stale and stereotyped assertion of Universalism, that my doctrine sends people to hell before they are guilty. Surely, a drowning man will catch at a straw. Are not all sinners guilty now? And will they not remain so, as long as they remain sinners? And suppose they die in sin, as thousands do, carrying their sinful character with them into eternity, and suppose there is in the future state a place which the Bible sometimes denominates hell, where, according to Jude 6: 2 Pet. ii. 4-9, the unjust are "reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished," will it follow that sinners are sent to hell before they are guilty? Nor is the case altered materially, if we adopt the Universalist notion of hell. If the sinner carries his hell with

him, as he prosecutes his sinful course, he will remain in hell as long as he remains sinful. And if he is transferred to the future world without repentance and reformation, he is in hell still; does it follow, therefore, that he is sent to hell before he is guilty? The full and final execution of the sentence is delayed, for reasons required by the government, and to allow time for the operation of that system of grace and mercy which has for its object, deliverance from final condemnation, of all such as embrace the offers of salvation. This subject has been so thoroughly discussed already, that to spend farther time upon it seems altogether unnecessary. There are a few other particulars which should have been noticed before, but have been inadvertently passed over.

In Mr. Austin's third speech on this question, he was seized with what the Latins would call "furor," in regard to the subject of total depravity. While in that state of mind he made a number of declarations, and performed some logical feats which may demand a passing notice.

1. He says I have contradicted myself on this point, since, in my "ninth reply on the second question, I distinctly repudiated the doctrine of total depravity." To this I answer, I have no where repudiated the doctrine of total depravity, as I have explained it in connection with this question, much less have I done so in my ninth reply on the second question, where I did not so much as name the subject at all.

2. He says, according to the doctrine of depravity as sanctioned by me, the infant whom the mother looks upon as the purest picture of innocence that earth can afford-is an INCARNATE FIEND! Perhaps the gentleman really thought he was uttering the truth. I will not say he did not, since it is impossible to tell what freaks his imagination played while his mental phrenzy continued. As a proof that my friend was not in "good case" when he made that remark. I need only state that he has elsewhere declared, that on my principles, infants come into the world in a state of MORAL PURITY." Now, these declarations are so far from being both true, that they are really both false. I am neither responsible for the one, nor the other. But what I have said and endeavored to make plain, is in substance as follows:

1. Infants are not totally depraved, because subjects of the unconditional benefits of the atonement of Christ, who is the "true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." -(John i. 9.)

2. Infants are not born in a state of moral purity, because they possess a nature that has sinful tendencies. The moral nature is perverted, and shows its sinful bent at the early stages of mental development. Every mother in this assembly is a witness to the truth of this remark.--(Job xiv. 4.)

3. Infants are born in a state of justification. By this I mean, they are not personally guilty on account of that original sin by

which the world is enthralled, and the nature of man perverted. Yet they need the benefit of that inward change, denominated in scripture regeneration, or being "born again." Chris unconditionally justifies, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies and saves all such as die in a state of infancy. Hence Christ says, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." See also (Rom. v. 18.)

4. Mr. Austin wishes to know with what propriety I can exhort a "being totally depraved to repent and reform." I answer, I never exhorted such a being to repent, nor do I know that I ever saw one. The gospel makes no claims upon such beings. Though all men are by nature destitute of power to do works of righteousness, yet, by the atonement, are they so far raised above, and out of the disabilities of their natural moral state, as to be furnished with gracious ability to repent and do works meet for repentance. Hence, when the gospel comes to the sinner, demanding faith and obedience, it finds him already supplied with gracious aid to the extent of his obligations to obey. I wonder where the gentleman learned his theology.

5. Mr. Austin wishes to know how a being totally depraved can grow worse and worse. Answer. I have not said a totally depraved being would become "more and more sinful," though I believe such a declaration would be perfectly true. It is just as proper to say that the depraved man may "grow worse and worse," as that the Christian man may become better and better. As the Christian who has obtained freedom from all sinful tendencies, in his glorified and sanctified condition in heaven, may, nevertheless, rise in holiness, and improve and expand his intellectual and moral powers, so the man who may have cut loose from all moral restraints, and given himself up to "work all uncleanness with greediness," may also find a corresponding ratio of increase in the inveteracy of his moral disease, and the perfection of his depraved propensities.

6. Mr. Austin thinks we have sufficient proof that all men will be finally holy and happy, in the fact that some of the most depraved do reform in this life. Now, if there be any soundness in this argument, it is as strong for me as for him. His argument is, that because some men reform in this life, therefore al men will reform in another life. The same argument turned against him would read, because some men degenerate in this life, therefore all men will degenerate in another life. The conclusion is as strong in one case as in the other. But as this reasoning proves too much, it proves nothing. And this is not the argument from analogy, as the gentleman says. It is a mis-statement of it-an abuse of it. The argument from analogy runs thus: As sin and misery now exist under the established government of God, they may always exist-as the happiness of man is often forfeited entirely in this life, so may it be in the life to come-as God's government punishes men without remedy here, it may do

1

the same hereafter. The probability of this can only be overcome by direct and positive revelation. But another defect in Mr. Austin's reasoning is, that he overlooks the fact that all the moral improvement effected in this world, is by the efficacy of those gracious agencies which arise out of the atonement; and that those who persevere in their depravity, do so in spite of the moral means employed to reform them, and render their condition more desperate on that account. To correspond with these facts, the gentleman's argument ought to be stated thus: Some of the most depraved are reformed in this world, by the gracious appliances of the gospel; therefore, those who reject Christ, and all the agencies employed for their salvation, and thereby increase their depravity and guilt, will, in another world, be reformed without any of these influences. What desperate resorts are required, to sustain a desperate cause? How different this from the doctrine of Paul? who says in regard to those who reject Christ willfully-There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."(Heb. x. 27.) But the gentleman, dissatisfied with his own reasoning, enters into another speculation. He thinks thoughts and reflections, a mature consideration of the past," &c. awakened by "that greatest of all changes, death," will induce a sincere and genuine repentance." That thoughts and reflections awakened at the approach of death, do sometimes lead to repentance I have no doubt; though in these cases, salvation is only obtained through the virtue of the atonement. But what shall we do with the numerous instances in which the sinner renders solemn reflections utterly impossible? Some proceed deliberately, and with "malice aforethought," to the awful work of self-murder: others, by a course of depravity, wreck their constitutions, throw themselves into insanity, and in that state put an end to their existence; and still others spend their lives in intemperance, and die with the "delirium tremens;" while yet another class end their lives in deadly strife, with depraved companions in the secret room of the gambler, or in obedience to the law of honor," voluntarily risk and lose their lives in an attempt to take the life of a fellow being, sustained, by shutting their eyes to all moral and religious obligations, or it may be, encouraged, like Cilley, to proceed in their fiend-like purpose by the principles of Universalism. Where are the thoughts and reflections in these cases, which are to lead to genuine repentance? Not yet convinced that he has proved his point, he falls back on another subterfuge, which contradicts and overturns all he has said before. His argument here is, that sin arises from the "promptings of our animal propensities" and "tumultuous passions," which exist in our bodies of flesh and blood;" but at the resurrection we shall have bodies "incorruptible, powerful and spiritual." I wonder if this argument imposed upon the gen

tleman himself? Did he not detect the incongruity between this and his other predicates? If sin has its origin in our “animal propensities," and the "promptings of animal nature," what has the gospel to do with human salvation? and why should my friend talk so much of moral means, the influence of the Spirit, solemn thoughts, reflections, &c.? Nothing can avail to convert the sinner to a righteous man, but a radical change of his physical constitution; and this must be effected, if at all, not by moral means, but by physical laws. Can faith destroy animal propensities? Can mental or moral processes work a radical change in the laws of our bodily nature? If the gentleman's view of the origin of sin be correct, it is manifest that death must be our Savior. We are sinners, because we have bodies of flesh and blood, and must remain so until the body is dead. Our only hope is in death. He who has so long set "perched upon his throne of skulls," and with his iron teeth has gnawed the flesh and ground the bones of millions, must come to our aid. One touch of his potent arm will lay our bodies and our sins low in the grave!!

In connection with this subject, Mr. Austin has talked of the facilities for reforming the sinner in another world-"the new scenes and associations into which death will usher them.” "mature consideration of the past, its errors and sufferings," &c., A he contends, will lead the most sinful to genuine repentance. Now look at this in connection with the notion of which we have just spoken, viz. that sin arises out of the body-the effect of "animal propensities" and "promptings." The body is dead, and consequently all sin is dead, and yet the sinner is to be reformed by new scenes and associations," and memories of the past!!!! What need of reformatory influences, after we have thrown off our sinful natures and escaped from the promptings of sinful propensities? O logic! what strange gyrations men have perpetrated in thy name!! Mr. Austin says the doctrines of the trinity, vicarious atonement, total depravity, etc., were brought into the church during the dark ages. In making out his case, he first quotes history to prove what no one has ever thought of disputing, that there was a time in the history of the church and world, denominated "dark ages." He in the next place goes into a systematic effort to prove what is equally indisputable, and has never been denied, that there were in the third and fourth centuries, certain philosophers who sought to corrrupt the doctrines of religion by an admixture of the philosophic notions of heathenism. These two points being established, he forthwith draws his conclusion that the trinity, vicarious atonement, total depravity, endless punishment, etc., were brought into the church at that time. To this I reply in two remarks. 1. Those Christian or semiChristian philosophers who corrupted the gospel, were led on by Origen, whose method of interpretation they adopted. All ecclesiastical historians unite in placing him at the head of this

spec