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

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

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 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 hear the sentiments nakedly expressed. In this case I thought it my duty to express the sentiments, and let the congregation see that *My opponent has addressed me by the appellation of "brother" through the whole discussion,

when the inspired writers speak of the "fire of vengeance" in the way of admonition, they do not mean the "love of God," or the "fire in which God appeared to Ezekiel;" and when they tell us, "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment," they do not mean that it is "appointed unto men who are high priests once to die in their sacrifices.".

Perhaps I might be allowed a word in this place respecting the spirit and character of a disputant. I would say then that he should never engage in controversy but with an eye to the glory of God, nor with any weapons but those which are spiritual. But he is a soldier, and must use the sword of the Spirit. He should be severe or otherwise, according to the character of the error he opposes. Is it one of opinion merely? He should use all gentleness and forbearance. But if it be an error of magnitude and of manifest vicious tendency, and especially if it assumes a plausible appearance, and employs the arts of sophistry in its defence, it must be dealt with severely its false colourings must be stripped off, its sophistry must be detected;-irony, and sarcasm, and the admonitions of Scripture may all be employed. If the principal character of the error to be opposed, and of the arguments in its defence, be that of absurdity, then ridicule may be resorted to to bring it into contempt. Sometimes the character of error is such that it can have no influence apart from the method of setting it forth, and the