death here spoken of would have been eternal; and as this death is the penalty of sin, therefore, the penalty of the law is eternal. 5. Finally, Mr. Austin thinks the penalty of God's law against sin is not endless, because the Greek word thanatos, which is applied to physical death, is also applied to moral death; and the scriptures say, by the use of this same word thanatos that both physical and moral death shall be destroyed. Now, how thanatos can be made to exclude physical life, when applied to physical death, and at the same time embrace an element of moral life, when applied to moral death, I leave the gentleman to explain at his leisure. As to the destruction mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55, it relates wholly to the death of the body, which will be revoked at the general resurrection. But this effects no change in the moral character; but, on the contrary, our Lord says, "they that have done evil shall come forth to the resurrection of damnation."

The foregoing are some, not all of the inconsistencies of the gentleman's reasoning on this point; and after this multiplication of words and flourish of trumpets, as though I were wholly demolished, or at best in a position where farther resistance would be fruitless, with a modesty only equaled by that of a certain general on the battle ground of Buena Vista, he calls upon me to surrender at discretion. I beg to be excused. I never surrender, much less in obedience to such a summons.

Mr. Austin says men fall into error and absurdity for the want of reason. This is true: it is the ground I have taken. It is the want of perfection, and infalibility in human reason, which makes revelation necessary. And the same deficiency in reason proves the point for which I contend, viz: that reason must not presume to dictate, negatively or positively, in regard to the plain doctrines of revelation. The truth of the doctrine should be determined by the testimony of revelation, and not by the approval, or disapproval of that reason which is so liable to err as to need the interference and corrective voice of revelation. If our reason sees occasion to approve a doctrine made known to us by revelation, we have additional satisfaction in receiving the doctrine as true but if our reason fails to comprehend, or to perceive the principles, and facts which sustain a doctrine of revelation, the doctrine is not on that accouut false.

As to pure reason of which Mr. Austin says so much, no such reason can be predicated of man in his sinful state. In his best, and most improved condition in this life, he is liable to err on the most vital points. Against this there is no security except in humble reliance upon the infallible teachings of revelation. I suspect however, should the gentleman give us a definition of pure reason it would be,-"that reason, which rejects orthodoxy, and embraces Universalism."

Mr. Austin's 11th negative argument is, that my doctrine repre

sents God, as" perpetuating voluntarily, unnecessarily, and forever, that which is in opposition to his nature and the good of his creatures." This objection does not lie against my theory, though it may be maintained with effect against the theory of Mr. Austin. The gentleman here admits that sin is, in itself, opposed to the nature of God, and the best good of his creatures. The real difficulty therefore, is, to account for its existence at all-not to account for the duration of its existence. The duration of sin and misery is subordinate in point of importance, to the fact of its existence. The above objection, a priora, against the supposition that sin would ever exist, would have much weight; but after its existence, it can have no force as to its duration. Adam and Eve while yet in the bliss and innocence of Paradise, might have reasoned, upon this principle, against the idea that God would ever allow them to be sinful and miserable. After the destruction of the earth by the floods, Noah and his sons might have used this argument to quiet their fears respecting the probability that sin would ever again curse the earth, regenerated, and now rising anew from a state of chaos: and the reasoning would not have been destitute of plausibility. But after the existence of sin-its prevalence co-extensive with the race-and its duration for so many thousand years, the objection we are considering against the supposition that it may exist forever, is perfectly futile. Why does sin exist at all? Mr. Austin cannot answer this question, without contradicting the position taken in this negative argument. Sin does not exist because God loves it, for it is "in opposition to his nature;" it does not exist for the good of man, for it is opposed "to the best good of his creatures." Why, then, does it exist? Mr. Austin says, if it exist forever, God must perpetuate it voluntarily. I answer, ifit exist at all, God must (on his principles,) perpetuate it voluntarily. Mr. Austin says, if sin exist forever, God must perpetuate it unnecessarily. I answer, (on his principles) if sin exist a limited time, God perpetuates it unecessarily. Mr. Austin must take one of the following conclusions. 1. God does now perpetuate, voluntarily and unnecessarily, that which is in opposition to his nature and the good of his creatures or, 2. Sin and misery, though "opposed to his nature and the good of his creatures," are, nevertheless, necessary to his glory and the interests of his creatures: or, 3. His theory is chimerical, his reasoning sophistical, and his conclusion false.

Mr. Austin's tenth objection to endless punishment is, that it represents God as violating "the moral principles he has enjoined on his creatures." That this objection is false, is sufficiently plain from the following facts. 1. It overlooks the nature and design of the gospel. In its nature it is adapted to the condition and wants of men as moral agents;-its design is to provide and offer salvation to men, not to compel its acceptance. 2. It assumes that God is bound to continue the means of grace and offers of life to sinners forever, however despised and rejected by them. But the scriptures directly and repeatedly declare the contrary.

He said God says his "spirit shall not always strive with man.” of Ephraim, he "is joined to his idols, let him alone." God did not continue his warnings to the generations before the flood forever, and his forebearance towards the Jewish nation ceased, when Christ said, “behold your house is left unto you desolate." Paul speaks of some who were given up "to believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 3. It presents a false view of the "moral principles God has enjoined on his creatures." It is true we should not be "weary in well doing," yet we are not responsible for the conduct of those whose benefit we seek, nor for the results of that conduct to themselves but after a certain amount of effort to restore offenders, we are directed to have no more fellowship with them to treat them "as a heathen man and Publican." 4. This objection assumes the very point in dispute, viz.-that the final perdition of the ungodly is inconsistent with the "principles God has enjoined on his creatures." This is so far from being true, that it agrees with the plainest declarations of his word, and harmonizes with his judicial proceedings in the present life.

In his reply to my argument on the common consent of mankind, Mr. Austin says he esteems it the weakest he has ever heard. This declaration was wholly unnecessary. I should have been led to suppose he regarded it in that light, from the extreme weakness of his answer. He repeats for the fifth or sixth time the delcaration of Cicero, that the ancients "invented infernal punishments of the dead, to keep the wicked in some awe in this life." He might have quoted "Julian the Apostate," or Voltaire or Payne, to sustain the same point, and even to prove that Christ was an arch impostor, and the whole system of Christianity an "invention." Cicero was a skeptic; he did not believe in the doctrines of a future state at all. Warburton says, "In his letters to his friends, where we see the man (Cicero) divested of the politician and the sophist, he professes his disbelief of a future state in the frankest manner." But should we allow Cicero to be good authority, the gentleman is far from the point he aims at, since the quotation from Cicero speaks only of certain "infernal punishments"—not of the doctrine or idea of future retribution. As idol-worship was and is a corruption of true divine worship, so the infernal punishments invented by the ancients were a corruption of the important truth, that men will be held responsible in another life, for their conduct in this. Mr. Austin says my argument is "predicated on the assumption, that numbers decide the truth of doctrines.” This is not true, though there is nothing more depended on than numbers to keep Universalism in countenance; hence the great anxiety to multiply converts. My object in presenting this argument was to show that the common sense of men, which is claimed in support of Universalism, is directly and decidedly against it; and, so far as it can have weight in the argument, it clearly sus

tains the views for which I contend. In regard to future and endless punishment, common consent has great weight, since it connects itself with God's original communications of truth to the human family.

A comparison of what I said of the rich man and Lazarus, with Mr. Austin's comments on the subject, will show what pains the gentleman has taken to misrepresent me. This can be done without my assistance. Mr. Austin's explanation of what Christ says of the rich man and Lazarus, is so childish, contradictory and absurd, as scarcely to merit the least attention. It even lacks his usual ingenuity. For instance: he says the great gulf spoken of by our Lord, "signifies the unbelief of the Jews." If this be true, it follows, as this gulf cannot be passed over, the Jews are fixed in eternal unbelief, without the possibility of escape, and the Gentiles must believe, and cannot do otherwise. Yet these suppositions are directly contradicted by facts on both sides of the gulf. Thousands of the Jews have believed in Christ, and passed over one way; and thousands of Gentiles who once believed in Christ have apostatized from him, and passed over the other way. He says the rich man represents the Jews, especially their priesthood. And yet we are told in the Acts of the Apostles that a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith" -and thus passed the gulf during Apostolic times, though Christ informs us it could not be passed over. The gentleman still farther says, the rich man in hell [hades] represents "the wretched condition of the Jews" and "the beggar represents the Gentile world." If this be correct, why did not Mr. Austin extend his explanation a little farther, and tell us that the rich man (the Jews) has for 1800 years lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torment-that the Jews (represented by the rich man,) have acknowledged themselves tormented on account of their rejection of the true Messiah and his gospel, and have deprecated by piteous lamentations, the consequence of their unbelief, earnestly desiring to be delivered from it--that they have besought in vain that Lazarus (the Gentile world) might come to their relief, especially that he might be sent to the five brethren of the Jewish nation, lest they also should come into that place of tormentwhile, on the other hand, Abraham has refused them the least alleviation, declared the gulf to be impassable, their case to be hopeless, and will not allow Lazarus (the Gentile world) even to warn the five brethren of the Jewish nation, that they may be saved from that place of torment. And while on the subject, it would have been well if he had given the explanation of the 30th and 31st verses-"And he said, nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, if they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Such are the wild and inconsistent views reached by those who sacri

fice sober criticism, and violate correct rules of interpretation, to obtain support for a false theory.

Mr. Austin says John v. 28, 29, describes a moral or spiritual resurrection. Let us look at this. 1. Christ had just spoken of moral death and spiritual resurrection in the 24th and 25th verses. He then says, verse 28th. “Marvel not at this :” at what! This that I have just said—" the dead (morally) shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and they that hear, shall live." Mr. Austin's explanation makes Christ repeat the same thing the second time, as a proof that it was true as announced the first time. That is, "marvel not that "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and they that hear shall live," because "the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and come forth," &c." by which I mean precisely what I have already said, though in different language"! 2. In the next place, look at the points in which the two passages differ. The first passage, (verse 25) says, "the hour is coming, and now is :"the second says only, "the hour is coming." In the first passage, the life spoken of is conditional-he that heareth my word and believeth hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life”—“ they that hear shall live." In the second passage, there is no condition expressed-the declaration is positive and absolute, they "shall hear his voice, and come forth." The first simply says, "the dead shall hear the voice of the son of God"-the second declares -"all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." The first passage (24, 25 verses,) may be applied to moral death and resurrection, without a figure; the second is highly figurative if such application be made made of it. From these points of difference, it is sufficiently evident that the two passages do not refer to the same event. 3. According to Mr. Austin's view of the 28, 29th verses, as the word graves is figurative the whole must be figurative. Hence the following would be a fair exposition of the passage. The hour is coming in the which all that are in the (figurative) graves (of figurative moral death) shall hear his voice and shall come forth; (from their figurative graves of figurative death ;) they that have done (figurative) good (in their figurative graves) unto the (figurative) resurrection of (figurative) life; and they that have done (figurative) evil, (in their figurative graves) unto the (figurative) resurrection of (figurative) damnation. Such consummate folly and confusion does Universalism make of the words of Christ.

Mr. Austin's 13th negative argument is, "that endless punishment dishonors God and disgraces Christ." Let us see. 1. He says it dishonors God. His argument to prove it, is, that God created the human race for his own pleasure." He tells us God took pleasure both in the "act of creation, and the end for which he created man." This is true, and on my principles I