cation. Some of these as they return from the revels of Bacchus, fall in the highway and perish with cold, or are smothered under the drifting snow; some fall into the water and are drowned; some are consumed in their burning houses; and others, some in one way and some in another, are overtaken by death while beastly drunk, or so far intoxicated that they have no power to save themselves. Here the Gospel can have no effect. Here motives, whether of grace or wrath, are entirely useless. Here then can be no repentance. And are these made holy and taken to heaven while they are drunk? In the name of the great and dreadful God, tell us how these people are made holy, give us Bible assurance of the fact, or cease to preach this doctrine.

Consider the case of those miserable human beings who, having contemned the Saviour of the world, and despised religion, in their last moments are filled with despair and enmity against God, and die dreadfully blaspheming the name of God and of Christ, like the unhappy Altamont, and the once honourable Francis Newport.Here was a state of mind perfectly the reverse of repentance, and apparently forsaken of God.

Consider the case of those who commit murder and are executed in the same contempt of God and religion in which they had broken all laws human and Divine. Of this class I saw and conversed with one about thirty years ago. He was clearly convicted of murder. But neither

the sentence of death, then soon to be executed, nor any consideration of his miserable condition, or of the freeness and richness of the grace of God, could induce him to submit to Jesus Christ for pardon. In the same obduracy of mind he remained to the moment of his execution.Here was no repentance, no holiness, and we believe, no salvation.

Finally, consider that class of men who add suicide to murder. Witness the case of Wm. Bedle, of Weathers

field in Connecticut. He was a professed deist. He very deliberately killed his wife and children, and then, with his pistols held to his ears, launched himself into eternity! Many similar instances might be mentioned, as you all very well know. And here it is worth our while to pause and ask,-Does the law of God cease to condemn this last, murderous act, by which a man throws himself out of the world, and away from the place and means of repentance? Does God interpose for this bloody man, and, contrary to the only way revealed in the Gospel for the salvation of sinners, fit him for heaven without repentance? Surely he who can believe this, must have his understanding strangely warped by the love of system!

Lastly. The objection assumes every thing, and proves nothing. Where is the proof that God will, at the last, set aside the threatenings and penalties of his own law? -that he will release the sinner from the obligation of the conditions of salvation, and produce holiness in him in a way to supersede every desire and effort of the sinner?-that he will at last save those who have neglected their own salvation, and die as they have lived, in their sins? The Saviour tells us of some, that they shall die in their sins. Can they die in their sins, and at the same time be saved from their sins? We have a demand upon the Universalists to tell us how those who die in their sins are made holy at the last moment, or saved from future punishment. If they have found the proof of these things, let them tell us where it is, and what it is. We cannot take assumption for proof in a case where so much is depending. We can take no indirect proof of the salvation of all men, while there is so much evidence of future punishment. In particular, we demand the most substantial proof that God will produce holiness at last, in all those who have broken his law, and abused his goodness through life. Nothing but the most direct and positive evidence will satisfy us on this point. The time of

our death is an eventful crisis with our souls. To the natural gloominess of that hour, a thousand horrors are added by the least uncertainty respecting the future state. To die comfortably and safely, we need the witness of the Spirit with our spirits that we are the children of God,— we need the evidence of grace in the fruits of a sanctified heart and holy life ;-in a word, we need all the support and comfort which an application of the promises of God's word can give us, and in order for this, we must know that we are the characters to whom the promises belong. If we would die like Paul, we must be able to say with him, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day. But those who have neglected the conditions of salvation, who have made no preparation to meet their God, but come to their last hour with the sins of their whole lives upon them, cannot leave the world in triumph, cannot look forward into eternity with holy rapture, but generally die as they have lived, in spiritual lethargy, or, more frequently, are appalled at the thick darkness before them, draw back, utter a groan, give up the ghost,-and where are they? Thus if you inquire at the mouth of the "lively oracles" of God's word, they will show the importance of performing the conditions of salvation. If you "ask death beds, they can tell." If you ask Christians, especially those who once were Universalists, but through grace have been brought to see the truth as it is in Jesus, (and their number is not small,) they will give their consentaneous testimony in favour of the same great truth, the importance of the conditions of salvation, and to this also, that Universalism is a cunningly devised fable, calculated mainly to deceive and to destroy unwary souls.

Nov. 8, 1827.

ANSWER II.

Remarks on Mr. Paige's Reply to Lecture II.

"For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord," Rom. vi, 23.

I will just remark upon this text, that if eternal life be the gift of God through Jesus Christ, eternal death must be the wages of sin; because they are fully opposed, the one to the other.*

In remarking on the reply to my second lecture, I shall begin with my opponent's second division of our subject; because that will detain us but a short time.Here he notices some remarks of mine, which, in his opinion, are "unprofitable at the least." I am not at all disappointed at this complaint. In my note, in which I gave him the offer of this house for his replies, I informed him that I was going to warn my congregation against the evil tendency of Universalism; and I never designed that discussion should shut out admonition. If I had charged that doctrine with being "a cunningly devised fable;" if I had made an apostrophe to it as a "deceiver and destroyer of immortal beings," without proving it to be such, my opponent might have complained; but to complain before he had confuted my arguments, is complaining out of due time. The propriety or impropriety of the expressions he complains of, can only be determined by reference to the importance of the subject treated of, and the character of the evidence in support of it. If it be true, that at the last moment of the impenitent sinner's existence he is as much exposed to future wrath as at any former period, then no language can adequately express "the horrors, the falsehood, and the blasphemy of

There was a reason at the time for this motto and remark; and though not immediately connected with the answer, I let them remain.

Universalism;" but if it be true, on the other hand, that all the threatenings in God's word cease at that time— that God produces holiness in the impenitent, unbelieving sinner without his desire or effort, and this can be shown, then I have done wrong, and will retract what I have said. Till this is done, I am forbidden by a sense of duty, to refrain from warning the sinner through fear of offending him.

I do not blame, neither have I blamed, my opponent merely for "adopting" the sentiments, or the language of another person. I have done this myself when I have found what I wanted in an author. All writers do the same, not even excepting my opponent, whose method of treating the subjects in dispute, and whose comments upon the Scriptures, appear to be nearly all borrowed, and whose turns of thought are more destitute of originality than most other writers. Whether the manner of his lugging in this subject, and then informing the congregation that I had practised plagiarism toward my brother in not "giving him due credit" for his production, when no person had seen them, and when I confided them to him informing him expressly that my manuscripts were in an unfinished state, and when his manuscripts also came into my hands in a like unfinished state-I say, whether his doing these things, under these circumstances, proceeded from reasons of brotherly love, the audience will judge.

But when I applied the "lash," as he is pleased to call it, I did it not without reasons. He had adopted, or at least appeared to adopt from Rev. H. Ballou, comments on two passages of Scripture which so entirely changed their character as to make them in spirit and in word, new texts. At the same time he did not use his wonted perspicuity of expression, but a circumlocution, as though he thought the congregation might not be prepared to

* My opponent has addressed me by the appellation of "brother” through the whole discussion.