hand, the most of what is praiseworthy in self-denying and selfsacrificing efforts for the good of mankind, temporarily and spiritually, has been displayed by those who believed the ungodly would finally perish. But for the blessing of God on their labors, in a moral sense, the world would be a blank. Mr. Austin's ninth is, that endless punishment destroys the parental character of God. The paternal argument has been amply discussed during the debate, and I am more than willing to submit it to the judgment of the audience and public.

As a tenth point of opposition to the affirmative of this question, Mr. Austin says it violates the moral principles God has enjoined on his creatures. So far from this, we have seen it perfectly corresponds with the instruction given for regulating our intercourse with each other. The only difference is, that we are all in the same condemnation; hence, God may properly assume a position in respect to us, as the arbiter of human destiny, and the executor of his moral laws, which we cannot assume towards each other. The eleventh is, that it makes God perpetuate sin, voluntarily, needlessly, and forever. In reply, I have shown that this objection stands with all its force against Universalism, with the addition of that most blasphemous notion, that God is the direct author of sin, though it is in opposition to his nature and the best interest of his creatures. The twelfth negative argument of Mr. Austin is, that it makes the Deity dependent on man for the accomplishment of his purposes. In answer, I think I made it ap. pear to your satisfaction, that this objection rests upon an assumed and false view of God's purposes, and also that he refuted the argument himself, by proving too much by it. The thirteenth objection of the gentleman is, that the affirmative of this question dishonors God, and disgraces Christ. Under this head I have turned the tables upon my friend, and demonstrated that it is his theory which dishonors God, by representing that he not only created man in such a state that he "falls into blasphemy," but actually and absolutely subjects him to it, against his will-that it is his system that disgraces Christ, by representing that he came to save men from that to which his own Father had subjected them against their will-by representing that he came to save all men in their final state, when on the principles of that system, no one was ever lost in any such sense-and finally, by placing him in such an attitude, that neither in this world nor in the world to come, is he, or can he be, the Savior of all men. His fourteenth negation is, that the doctrine of endless punishment is not found in the devotional exercises of Bible Christians. In reply, it has appeared that this objection is false in fact, and that if allowed to be valid, it would disprove many things which Mr. Austin himself pretends to believe. My friend's fifteenth negative argument is, that it consigns nine tenths of the human race to endless torments. To make out this point, he assumes that all infants

must be lost, because they cannot believe-that all idiots and insane persons must be consigned to perdition for the same reason —and that all heathen must fail of future felicity, because they have not the written word and preached gospel. These are declarations which he ought to know to be perfectly groundlessin direct opposition to the teachings of all evangelical Christians, and the plainest, and frequently repeated statements of God's word. As infants have never sinned personally, they are all saved unconditionally through the atonement-idiots are not at all responsible--and the heathen are only accountable for the moral advantages they possess. "In every nation, he that feareth God and worketh rightousness is accepted with him." The gentleman's sixteenth, which is that endless punishment consigns moral men to hell, bears with as much force against limited as endless punishment, in proportion to its duration. Besides, it assumes a false standard of morality, and overlooks the fact that God is no respecter of persons. Mr. Austin's seventeenth negative argument alledges that the affirmative of this question makes religion a matter of selfish and sordid calculation. Take from the above, the terms selfish and sordid, and to what remains I have no objection. I have sufficiently vindicated my views from the charge implied in this negative argument, and have also shown that as Universalism leads men to cast off fear and restrain prayer, it is open to one of the most serious charges which Almighty God brings against the enemies of truth and righteousness. The eighteenth negative argument of Mr. Austin is, that endless punishment destroys the peace of those who believe it. That the exposure of our fellow men to misery and danger of any kind, should affect our minds, is not strange. Were our minds not susceptible of such a feeling, we should be insensible to those motives which address themselves to the sympathies of our nature, and are intended to engage us in efforts for the good of mankind. But these feelings afford no more proof against future, than present punishment-against that which is endless, than that which is limited in duration. The expressions quoted from Saurin and Dr. Barnes, do not equal in the intensity of the feeling they disclose, those made by soine of the inspired writers in respect to the moral condition of men. Jeremiah said, "Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night," &c. St. Paul had "great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart." Our Lord wept over Jerusalem; and on another occasion, declared, "my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." What a pity that these blinded individuals had not been enlightened by Universalism. Instead of weeping and being sorrowful, they would have laughed for joy. They would have seen that all this misery, arising from depravity, is, after all, a fine moral speculation, which is being managed by the universal Father, for the benefit of his creatures, in which sin and

misery are the capital invested, and the profits will consist in a corresponding amount of holiness and happiness.

In the gentleman's tenth speech, I find very little worthy of attention, or calling for reply, save a few fantastic Universalist expositions of scripture, in which, as a dernier resort, he flies to the destruction of Jerusalem for relief from the plain and forcible teachings of those passages which cannot be perverted in any other way. I really do not know what Universalists would do, were it not for Jerusalem. On their principles of interpretation, the destruction of Jerusalem is the key to the whole Bible—it is it is the principal business of revelation, to tell the world of the destruction of Jerusalem. The great pains Mr. Austin has taken in his comment on 2 Thess. i. 9, to run round and round the subjeet, and obscure and cover up the plain language of the passage before he ventures to bring out his own views, is itself a suspicious circumstance. But after all, his explanation of it must strike every intelligent mind, as so perfectly unreasonable and childish, that to name it, is a sufficient refutation. To be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power, he says, is to be banished from Jerusalem, and from the holy temple, where God's presence was believed to be manifested in a peculiar manner to his chosen people. That is, the Jews who resided at Thessalonica, a heathen city, were threatened by St. Paul with everlasting banishment from the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and this threat was executed when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army, long after the death of the apostle, and many, if not all those Jews to which Mr. Austin supposes the passage refers. This is truly wonderful. But the gentleman thinks his view is favored by the meaning of the the word alethron, translated destruction, and which he says means, "pain, suffering of any description." But it happens, Donnegan defines it, ruin, perdition," and Clarke on the same word, remarks as follows: "What this everlasting destruction consists in, we cannot tell. It is not annihilation, for their being continues, and as the destruction is everlasting, it is an eternal continuance and presence of substantial evil, and absence of all good, for a part of this punishment consists in being banished from the presence of the Lord-excluded from his approbation for ever; so that the light of his countenance can be no more enjoyed, as there will be an eternal impossibility of ever being reconciled to him.” I should not have quoted Clarke on this point, direct and relevant as his language is, if Mr. Austin had not used his name in connection with the subject, and thus attempted to make him responsible for an exposition of scripture, which he would regard as violating common sense, the established rules of Bible criticism, and as being in itself, unnatural and foolish in the extreme. Farther on this point we have only to say: 1. The apostle says, "To you who are troubled, rest with us." Neither the apostles

nor other Christians had rest in that age, from persecutions and tribulations. The rest to which they were directed, was their futire heavenly inheritance. 2. He farther adds-" When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels in flaming fire." We might as well look for a full explanation of this language in the destruction of Rome, as the destruction of Jerusalem especially as connected with the punishment of the inhabitants of Thessalonica. 3. "Taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is probable the persecuting Jews were included in this reference to the ungodly, but the description answers more particularly to the ungodly persecuting Gentiles-"those who know not God, and obey not the gospel." There is no reference to the Jews, as distinguished from other sinners. 4. This vengeance was to be executed when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be a imired in all them that believe"-which event has not yet taken place, and will not until he shall consummate the purposes of the gospel dispensation. The gentleman says his view is corroboratel by Hammond and other commentators. But he has furnished no proof of this, and if he takes the same liberty with Hammond that he does with Clarke, we have no reason to suppose Hammond gives him any support whatever. It is probableMr. Austin takes his authorities from "Page's Selections." This author does not scruple to garble and misrepresent the views of orthodox commentators, as often as it suits his purpose. Finally, Mr. Austin overturns all he has said in explanation of this passage, by the use he afterwards makes of the term destroyed. He quotes (Rev. xx. 14,) "Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire," i. e., "were destroyed." Now, if destruction in this case is perpetual and irretrievable, as I contend it is, and as Mr. Austin admits, it remains for him to show why it does not mean the same in Thess. i 9, and why he does not agree with Hammond, who says, everlasting destruction, in this place, means "utter destruction." Moreover, as hell is to be destroyed without remedy, by being cast into the lake of fire, according to Mr. Austin's own admission, it follows that the being cast into the lake of fire mentioned in the next (15th) verse, implies a destruction equally irremediable. Now, as he insists that "destruction" signifies "pain, suffering of any description," it is plain from his own reasoning, that those whose names are not written in the book of life,' and are therefore "cast into the lake of fire," are doomed to interminable pain and suffering. That is, his own reasoning supports the doctrine of endless punishment.

On the sin against the Holy Ghost, I need only make a remark or two in addition to what I have said elsewhere. 1. Mr. Austin connects the name of Clarke with his exposition of Matt. and Mark, on this point, and asks whether Methodist clergymen have ever given their people the views of their own Dr. Clarke. His

ness."

ners.

object in this is to convey the impression that Clarke sustains his explanation. But nothing can be more false. Our people read Clarke for themselves: thousands of copies of his commentary are found in their libraries. Clarke's views are, in the main, my views, on this and most other theological points, and so they are the views of Methodists generally. And on the the sin against the Holy Ghost, he clearly sustains the doctrine of endless punishment. His language is, "Even personal reproaches, revilings, persecutions against Christ, were remissible; but blasphemy, or impious speaking against the Holy Spirit, was to have no forgive And the language, "neither in this world, neither in the world to come," which he says is equivalent to "neither in this dispensation. neither in the dispensation to come," he regards as a strong method of affirming the hopeless condition of such sinIf sinners such as are there described have no forgiveness under the Jewish or Christian dispensation, it follows they have no forgiveness in this world, and if forgiven at all, it must be under some dispensation in the future world, which is not identified with the Christian dispensation, and of which we have no information. If Mr. Austin will develope any such means of forgiveness and restoration, we shall be bound to submit the case. 2. But Clarke says the word never, found in Mark iii. 29, is not found in some ancient manuscripts. This is true. But does he say it ought to be left out? He mentions the fact, to show that those mannscripts are deficient, and to call attention to the word never, as an essential part of the true text, and as necessary to the sense of the passage. The word never is also necessary to make the sense of the passage correspond with the parallel place in Matt. xii. 29. The force of this passage cannot, by any fair means, be explained away. All the facts and circumstances being considered, the conclusion of Tholuck is fully sustained, viz: "What Christ says concerning it, (sin against the Holy Ghost.) seems clearly to imply a degree of opposition against Holy truth, which leads to eternal unhappiness."

Heb. vi. 4-6, on which Mr. Austin has commented at length, does not refer to common cases of backsliding at all. Hence, all he has said of my denying one of the distinguishing traits of Methodism, is perfect nonsense. I adduced the passage to show that the scriptures represent the condition of some sinners as hopeless. Clarke says the passage refers to "apostates from Christianity to such as reject the whole Christian scheme, and its author, the Lord Jesus." He farther adds-"the design of these solemn words is evidently to show the Hebrews that apostacy from the highest degrees of grace was possible; and that those who were highest in the favor of God, might sin against him, lose it, and perish everlastingly." The reason why it was or is impossible to renew such characters to repentance, is found in their rejection of Christ, "the Lord that bought them," without