was "zealous, and profited in the Jews' religion." As to the "righteousness" required by the "law," he " was. blameless." He "lived in all good conscience," and even in persecuting the Church he was sincere, and "verily thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus." And yet this is the man whose conversion my opponent thinks will account for that of the drunkard and the self murderer, at the moment of death!

66

we

But he thinks Paul was made holy (for this is the point of discussion) without his own agency. Where is the proof of this? There is none. My opponent does not pretend that there is any. He has not one single remark to this point. His assertion is all have. He tells us that "he was a bitter persecutor, and continued his course until the moment when he was struck down by the mighty power of God, and converted to the faith of the Gospel." What does he mean by conversion" in this case? If he means that Saul was "made holy" without his own agency, I deny it. If he means that he was convicted of sin, I admit it. From the ninth, twenty-second, and twenty-sixth chapters of the Acts, and from the seventh of Romans, it may be seen that he was not made holy without his own agency. If this be so, then there is nothing in all the reply to invalidate what I have said against the drunkard, the self murderer, &c, being made holy in the moment of death.

In relation to the necessity of holiness in

་

order to salvation, which I have said I did not see on the principles of Universalism; my opponent, by changing the word "need," for "advantage," has found an opportunity to treat the subject with a little pleasantry. "This is," he tells us, "as if one should say, 'I see no advantage in a man's enjoying health, for if he be sick, he suffers all the pain himself. I see no advantage in a man's being careful of his limbs, for if he break his bones, he suffers all the pain himself.' To us a contrary conclusion would appear more proper, that whole limbs, health, and holiness, were very advantageous, for this same reason-that broken bones, sickness, and sin, always produce pain." To correct the small error in the above I would say, on the principles of my opponent, I can see no necessity of being at the expense and trouble of sending for a physician when one is sick; for let sickness alone, and it will cure itself. I see no necessity in a man's taking care of his limbs; for if he break his bones, the pain will set them. And to us it appears, on the same principles, that, to show mercy to him who is suffering the penalty of the law for his sins, whether in the pain of sickness, broken bones, or otherwise, would be treating him "unjustly," that is, injuriously.

I have now gone over the reply as far as it relates to the " argumentative part of my lecture ;" and it is much easier to tell what I do not find, than what I do. And here 1 cannot but call your attention to a few particulars re

specting my lecture. In order to establish the conditionality of salvation, I commenced with the moral powers of man, and noticed his free agency in a way that I thought would oblige my opponent to pay some attention to it. This done, it was easy to discern the sense in which I used the word condition, viz. as being the action of a free agent; and in this sense quoted many passages of Scripture to prove that faith, repentance, and obedience are conditions. I then pushed the argument, by showing what is the situation of the impenitent sinner at his last moment; when it becomes the imperious duty of the Universalist to dispose of the threatenings of the Divine law, by answering the questions, are they true, or are they false, at this moment? If true, how can the impenitent sinner be saved? If false, where is the sincerity of them? How can God condemn the sinner in the morning of his days, or at twenty years of age, and not condemn him at the last moment of a life of four-score years spent in sin, especially when he dies in a state of intoxication? Will God save a sinner in a way to make null and void the threatenings and penalties of his own law? Would not this be making his own law contemptible? And, finally, how can God make the sinner holy without the use of his moral powers? On these points, and on the reasoning in support of them, I did expect that something would be attempted in a direct way; but in this I am disappointed. There is only one of all these points that has been brought into view

in the way of argument, that of making the sinner holy without his own agency; and the proof of that rests on the case of infants, (which has been shown not to be a case in point,) and that of St. Paul which is brought without a single argument or remark to support it. Perhaps my opponent may think that his having said I "make some things conditions, which are in fact constituent parts of salvation," is proof that there are no conditions of salvation. Other argument than his bare word he has produced none; and if he thinks this is proof, I presume he is the only person in this audience that does.

Now, I ask the candid of every name, as well the Universalists as others, whether the doctrine of universal salvation can stand with the conditionality of salvation, and the free agency of man? and if not, whether these points ought not to have engaged the attention. of my opponent? I ask again, can that doctrine stand against the truth of the threatenings and penalty of God's law? The question is already answered in the negative. How then is the sinner to be saved who continues in sin down to the last moment of his earthly existence, and then dies by his own hands? Finally, I ask, can that doctrine stand if the arguments and reasoning in the lecture are correct? Are you, any of you, willing to rest your souls on the truth of that doctrine, while those arguments and reasons remain unanswered? Perhaps you will say you are, because the Scrip

tures teach the doctrine: I therefore come, in the third place,

To the proofs of that doctrine, as exhibited by my opponent, in his reply. And I cannot but observe here, that he was too hasty in attempting to produce Scripture proof of his doctrine, before he had answered my Scripture proofs and rational arguments against it: especially as we had mutually agreed to a discussion. But what discussion is there when the proofs and arguments on one side are entirely neglected on the other? But though he neglect my proofs, I shall not pass over his arguments. My opponent has produced a large number of Scripture passages to prove the salvation of all men without future punishment. Here are properly two points-salvation-and that without punishment. To prove either of these points separately, and much more to prove them jointly, he will need the most powerful evidence, especially as it is to stand against all my proofs and arguments unanswered. Let us see whether his proofs are sufficient for these purposes.

t

You will recollect that when the future judgment was under discussion the other evening, my opponent urged, on nearly every passage I produced," Does this passage say the judgment is in the future state ?—Not a word of that." This was his parrying stick, which he never put out of his hand, and which, probably, did as much for his cause as all the arguments he brought. This argument is at least as good