tion,) and where the event may be prosperous or adverse, and must be one or the other, there will, there must always be, danger of the adverse issue. This calamitous termination of probation in reference to things of this life, often operates an entire forfeiture of earthly blessings. The same principle extends to spiritual things, and applies to the future, as well as present existence of man. This world is a state of trial or probation for the future. Whether we terminate this life, prepared to enter upon a blissful one hereafter, is a question to be settled by the manner in which we employ and improve our probation. As is the moral character at death, so will it be after death, and exert a corresponding influence on the endless destiny of man. If there be uniformity in the divine government, immutability in the operation of moral laws, and truth in the teachings of direct and positive revelation, there is liability and danger, and sufficient evidence for believing that some will prove recreant to their own highest interest, and forfeit their future and final happiness.

My eleventh argument was drawn from the common consent of mankind. In presenting this, I had two objects in view. 1. The refutation of the allegation of Universalism, that endless punishment is contrary to common sense, and 2. To show that so far as universal suffrage may be claimed as proof of the truth of a doctrine, that suffrage goes to sustain the affirmative of the question under discussion. Besides this, the doctrine of endless punishment amongst the heathen has the force of positive truth, inasmuch as it stands connected with the original revelations of God to the human race. What I have said on this point, may be summed up thus: 1. Future retribution, with its endless consequences to the ungodly, is co-extensive with the history of our race. 2. The doctrine exists, and has existed, from time immemorial, not as an invention, nor as a truth which they themselves have discovered, but is referred to antiquity, and claimed, as are all their fundamental religious views, as having its origin, in ancient divine communications, and as owing its preservation to the agency of tradition. 3. A fact, or doctrine, which exists among all nations, and by the agency of a general tradition, must have had a common source. This common source we have seen to be a common revelation. In confirmation of this, the prophecy of Enoch respecting the judgment which God would execute upon the ungodly, is referred to by Jude, as the punishment of those "to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever."-(Jude 13-15.) All that Mr. Austin has been able to say in opposition to this, is, that Cicero and one or two others bad intimated that the ancients had "invented infernal punishments of the dead," to keep the wicked in awe. Concerning this I have spoken sufficiently elsewhere.

My twelfth argument is deduced from the conditionality of salvation. By conditional, I mean salvation to men is suspended upon some recognition of obligation and duty on their part, without

which the gracious boon will not be conferred. The very idea of a condition, supposes that it may or may not be performed; and if not performed, then the promised, but conditional benefit, will not be enjoyed: that is, that which is made conditional to man, cannot be acquired by him, and will never be possessed, if the condition be refused, or neglected. Mr. Austin has admitted that salvation in this life is conditional, but has failed entirely to prove that it is not conditional in regard to our future and endless state. On the contrary, I have proved the conditionality of salvation in respect to both states. 1. From the nature of salvation. It is not physical, but moral. It is deliverance from a state of guilt and depravity, contracted and made our own, by voluntary sin; hence requires the action of the will, in the reception of that gospel provision intended to deliver us from it. Gospel salvation is always and everywhere the same, whether enjoyed in this life or after death, it is the same in its nature, and must be enjoyed on the same terms, if it be enjoyed at all. If not, then there is no uniformity in the Divine proceedings; the constitution of the Gospel will be different at some future time from what it now is, and that which is conditional at one time, will be unconditional at another. But these absurdities are not to be thought of. The constitution of the gospel will always remain the same; as long as salvation shall be offered to men at all, it will be upon the same terms: "He that believeth, shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned." 2. The same fact is confirmed by the absence of all evidence whatever, that any man who dies in a state of sin and depravity will be saved in heaven, either conditionally or otherwise. 3. We have seen the Bible abounds with direct and positive proof on the subject. Scores, if not hundreds, of passages, assert directly, and indirectly, the conditionality of present and eternal salvation, thus establishing, as truth, the liability and danger of failing in the attainment of final holiness and happiness.

The thirteenth argument offered by me to sustain the affirmative of this question, is drawn from the contrast exhibited in scripture between the righteous and wicked. “God's face is against the wicked," but "he takes pleasure in them that fear him." I have shown that in respect to the approbation of God and the enjoyment of moral happiness, this contrast exists in this life— is strongly marked in death: that on the principles of analogy and philosophy, the moral character must be the same after death, that it is when that change takes place, and must remain so, until modified by moral agencies employed for that purpose. I have also proved by the positive declarations of Christ, that the same contrast will exist in the resurrection state, as also in the day of general judgment, and will modify and give character to the decisions of that august occasion. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." As far into futurity as we can trace the existence of man, we find

the same opposition of character between the righteous and wicked, drawn by the hand of inspiration, and fixing its immutable stamp on human destiny. Where will this contrast end? In vain has Mr. Austin attempted to answer this question, and afford relief to this picture.

A strong and unanswerable argument has also been deduced from the doctrine of a future and general judgment. There is no one portion of Christian theology more hated by Universalists than this. The reason is obvious. If they allow a future and general judgment, they must also allow punishment subsequent to the decisions of that day, and then they have no data on which to predicate an argument for the final holiness and happiness of all men. The judgment is against Universalism, therefore Universalists are against the judgment. But the Bible has put this subject beyond all dispute with every honest mind. It is impossible for any unsophisticated mind to read the Bible with a sincere desire to know the truth, without being convinced of the propriety and truth of the doctrine of a future and general judgment. The outline of proof on this subject is as follows: 1. God has a right--it is his prerogative, if he chooses, to have a day of general judgment, for the general and final distribution of rewards and punishments. 2. Such an arrangement is necessary, to justify the ways of God to man. Scripture and matter of fact afford most positive proof that the present is not a state of perfect retribution. 3. On the Universalist theory of punishment, this world is not a state of perfect retribution, since, in very many cases the reformation of the sinner is not secured, but he becomes worse and worse to the last day of life. If the object of punishment in these cases, be attained at all, it must be in the future state. Hence there must be punishment, and consequently judgment, after this life. 4. This is farther confirmed by the fact that men cannot be rewarded nor punished according to their works, until the influence those works have exerted in the formation of human character shall be fully realized; and this will not be, until human probation is ended, and the gospel shall be preached to sinners no longer. 5. The Jews believed and taught the doctrine of a future judgment, as is abundantly evident from their historians and rabbinical writings. 6. This doctrine is most copiously and emphatically taught in the scriptures. The passages which relate to this subject fix the time of its occurrence after this life, and denominate it the day of judgment-the judgment of the great day-the judgment to come-the judgment seat of Christ, &c. They also declare God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world-and that the wicked are "reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished."

My next (16th) argument, is founded on the Bible view of the inal condition of the sinner. Under this head, we have demonstrated from scripture, 1. That the unrighteous shall not inherit the

kingdom of God, or of Christ; that they have no inheritance there; that they shall not see God's kingdom, and shall not enter into it. But, if the sinner has no inheritance, and cannot acquire any, it follows he must fail of final holiness and happiness. 2. We have seen that the scriptures declare the wicked have their portion in that worldly and temporal happiness which pertains to this life, and that in this respect they are distinguished from the highteous, who have their chief reward in the life to come. 3. It has also appeared that the Bible reveals a place of future punishment, by the terms Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus, as well as by unavoidable inference from the general doctrine and teaching of scripture, and that the unrighteous are consigned to this place of punishment when they leave this world. 4 The word of God represents the condition of some sinners as hopeless. 5. Sinners are threatened with eternal punishment, and said to be in danger of it, which would be very inconsistent and improper, if no such punishment were possible. 6. The future punishment of the wicked is said to be their end, their portion, and eternal.

My 17th and 18th arguments having been presented in my last speech, are so fresh in the recollection of the audience, that they need not be referred to again, by way of recapitulation. In this review of my course of argument on this question, I have omitted many important points, for the sake of brevity, but the audience have had them in the course of the debate, and they will all be found in detail in the published form of this discussion. Taken as a whole, I have given you a chain of proofs which cannot be broken by any effort, either of logic or sophistry. That God's character, works, government and word, should furnish so many and strong proofs of the truth of a proposition, and yet that proposition be false, may be regarded a moral impossibility.

To break, or weaken the force of these affirmative proofs, Mr. Austin has presented the following negative considerations. 1. That the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. He quotes several authors with approbation, who say the "blessings and curses," promised in the Old Testament, "consisted altogether of worldly benefits and punishments,” and yet he quotes from the same writings to prove the final holiness and happiness of all men; and farther states that the doctrine was contradicted by the Old Testament writers, though, if we are to believe him, there was no mention made of the subject. In my scriptural argument I have shown that the doctrine was taught there, in various ways, and that the Jews generally be lieved it; a fact which Mr. Austin has been compelled finally to admit. 2. He has argued that endless punishment is opposed to the dictates of reason. To sustain this position, he proceeded to exalt reason above revelation. On this point he took the ground occupied by every skeptic in the land, and fully justified their logical processes. If I mistake not, I have shown both the unsoundness

of his proposition, and the skeptical character of his reasoning, to the satisfaction of every candid mind. 3. In the next place he insists the doctrine of endless punishment is of heathen origin. In answer to this, I have proved that the heathen themselves (Cicero, and one or two others excepted, who did not believe in a future state at all,) claimed the doctrine in common with other religious truths, as a revelation from heaven. I have also traced its connection with God's ancie: t revelations to the patriarchs. Moreover, I have made it plain, that if this negative argument have any force, it must bear with equal weight against the doctrine of the Divine existence, and of future, endless felicity, since these truths were believed by heathen, and were of heathen origin, in the same sense as was the doctrine for which I contend. His fourth negation is, that it violates all natural sense of justice. His fifth is, that it violates that fundamental rule of God's gov ernment which ordains that men shall be punished according to their deeds. The weakness and folly of these positions have been made so apparent, that farther remark upon the point is uncalled for. Indeed, these two points embrace only one idea, which is founded in assumption, argued in sophistry, and contradicted by scripture and matter of fact.

Mr. Austin's 6th negative is, that endless misery destroys all certainty in the administration of rewards and punishments. The bare statement of this is a sufficient refutation. It comes so directly in contact with scripture, that it is a wonder the gentleman should make such a declaration. While it is asserted, "God is no respecter of persons"- -"he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned," it can never be uncertain whether the righteous will be rewarded, or the wicked punished. His seventh is, that the doctrine for which I contend, makes God's character repulsive to the better feelings of the human heart. Of course, he would have us believe that the better feelings of the human heart, are those possessed by Universalists. But to make out his case, he quotes a number of authors who have used strong expressions in regard to God's displeasure towards the sinner. However men may have represented God's character, I deny that the doctrine under consideration does, when viewed in its relations, and in connection with the reasons for it, represent the character of God in any aspect inconsistent with his justice or his love. And indeed, after all the pains taken to give us quotations from orthodox authors, he has presented nothing more strong, and emphatic, than the language of Jehovah himself, in respect to the moral desert and future punishment of the wicked. The eigth negative proof is, that the sentiment to which he stands opposed makes men hard-hearted and cruel. To prove this, he quotes Tertullian and two or three others who have employed extravagant language in regard to the final perdition of the ungodly. And this is the sum of his proof. While on the other