prove the doctrine of eternal death, needs entertain no fears of discomfiture, let him assume what absurdity he may. You close your observations under the first head of your discourse with the remark that, "as eternal death is the separation from God and the glory of his power, and a punishment of everlasting destruction, it must be a deprivation of all positive good which we are capacitated to enjoy, and the inflic tion of all the positive evil which we are capable of enduring.” I cannot avoid comparing this with what you told us in your second lecture, that God recognizes man as a free moral agent, and that he will never deprive him of this necessary constituent of his moral nature for the purpose of making him either holy and happy, or sinful and miserable:" and that God "will hereafter make him just as holy and happy as he can.' If depriving the sinner of all positive good which he is capa ble of enjoying, and inflicting upon him all the positive evil which he is capable of suffering, be doing the best by the poor creatures that God can do, you would confer a favor by informing me what would be the worst. And I should also acknowledge my obligations if you would inform me what is the difference between the best that your God can hereafter do te the sinner, and the worst that your DEVIL could do. I have thought on this subject considerably, and must confess that I cannot see much difference between the effects of infinite goodness and love in this case, and infinite malignity: that is, if such a being as the Devil had the sole disposal of sinners, and were inclined to do the very worst that the Devil himself could do, it would still be much the same as what "the Father of mercies and God of all grace" actually will do, while in accordance with his infinite compassion, he makes them "just as happy as he can." Perhaps if you were to prosecute this train of thought you might be led with the good and orthodox Dr. Emmons, to conclude that infinite goodness is rather more terrible than infinite malice would be; at all events, I would advise you to institute the curious inquiry whether in the course of these lectures, you have not sometimes introduced the character of the devil under the name of God. So small a mistake as this might, I think, be easily made by you, though I do not presume that it would wholly vitiate the argu ment. Under your second head in this lecture, you attempt to prove that "eternal life is the gift of God. It is not of ourselves, for it is obtained through Jesus Christ our Lord." He purchased it for us, and “prepares the soul" for its enjoyment, by the efficacy of his own blood and the operations of his holy spirit." Eternal life, you tell us, is not the reward of works. "We are rewarded according to our works, but not for our works." A very nice distinction; rather too nice to be seen or conceived. But does not this apply to our evil, as well as our good acts. Is there not indeed the same evidence to prove that the sinner shall be rewarded according to, but not for his works, as there is that the righteous shall? Again, if our happiness and misery throughout eternity be only according to our works here, I am afraid, Br. Remington, that we shall have little to boast of. I know not how it may be with your perfect Methodists, but we Universalists are constrained to believe that we are very well rewarded in this world for all the good we do here; and that the inheritance which is incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved for us in heaven, will be a gift, not a reward, and a gift too, according to the love and grace of God, and not ac2 cording to our poor and imperfect works in this present life. You tell us "there are degrees of glory among the saints in heaven, as one star differeth from another star in glory!— Eternal life entitles us to an admittance into heaven, and is heaven itself. But the reward of our works will be an increase of our happiness in heaven." This is a very pleasing doctrine, no doubt, and must greatly encourage your perfectionists, who thus have a fair prospect of attaining "the uppermost rooms" and "the chief seats" in our Father's house. But I fear these disinterested christians will yet be disappointed. It is not quite clear to my mind that heaven is to be awarded to mortals either for or according to their works.— The apostle speaks, 2 Tim. i. 9, of God" who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace." And perhaps what was thus begun, "not according to our works," will be finished as it was begun, according to the divine purpose and grace. And should this suspicion happen to be well founded, instead of being distinguished as special favorites in heaven, you may find yourselves at last, much in the condition of certain men in the parable, "who supposed that they should have received more than their fellows, but likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the good man of the house, saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou has made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day." The reply to these very natural and grievous complaints was just, if it was not satisfactory. "But he answered one of them and said, friend, I do thee no wrong; didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way; I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good?" No good act and no Of one thing, Br. Remington, we may rest assured; God, the judge of all the earth, will do right. We shall be rewarded and punished according to our works. evil act will be permitted to escape the all-seeing eye, and the equitable retributions of a holy and just God. But that our good works here are to make us great and exalt us to dignity in heaven and through eternity, is not so clear nor so consonant with the spirit of the gospel. As ever, yours, THOMAS J. SAWYER. LETTER XVIII. Dear Sir-Under the third head of this lecture you propose the following important question: "Unto whom will eternal life be given?" To this you reply, "that it will not be given to all the human family indiscriminately. It is not promised. to all men, either directly or indirectly. We challenge the whole world to produce a single passage of Holy Writ, which contains the promise or assurance that God will give to each member of the family of Adam eternal life." 66 This is very confidently said, and, no doubt, in all sincerity. But if you will allow so humble an individual as myself to accept a challenge which was boastingly given to the whole world, I will call your attention to Rom. v. 12-21. Here is language which no system of doctrine, or philosophy, which no subtlety or hair-splitting, and no learning or criticism or caviling will enable you to avoid. It is plain, direct and irrefutable; and proves, if words can prove any thing, that, as by the offence of one many were made sinners; so by the righteousness of one shall [the same] many be made righteous;" and that "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." "Thus we find," says Dr. Clarke, "that the salvation from sin is here as extensive and complete as the guilt and contamination of sin; death is conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and sin totally destroyed." It is, as Dr. Watts so well and evangelically sung― "All that the reign of sin destroyed And from the treasures of the Lord, It is thus orthodox men write and speak when they forget their creeds and yield themselves up to the influence of gospel truth! They find occasion for triumph in the all-conquering grace of God, and rejoice in the prospect of the complete destruction of death and sin. But if "death is conquered, * * and sin totally destroyed," as Dr. Clarke affirms on the clear Scripture warrant of the passage before us, it is evident that one text, at least, can be produced which fully answers what you demand. Others, however, shall not be withheld. When the apostle says that, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," what does he affirm but that " as we [all] have borne the image of the earthy, [the first Adam,] we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [the second Adam, the Lord from heaven]?" What is it to be made alive in Christ, if it be not to participate in a life that is divine and eternal? "The bread of God is he which came down from heaven and giveth life to the world." Who, Mr. Remington, are the world? Whom did Christ come to die for and to save? A few elect? No: you know, what all revelation affirms, that Christ came to save all men. He died for all; gave himself a ransom for all; and is the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world." This, then, is the world to which the Son of God "giveth life." But let me refer you to 1 John v. 8-12, Eph. i. 9-11, Rom. viii. 19-21, Philip. ii. 9-11, &c. And here allow me to remark, that one of the greatest errors of your sect consists in proposing no object of positive faith, no truth actually existing to be believed; no Savior really ours, to be accepted and loved. Every thing is conditional, vacillating and unstable. The gospel is no gospel till we believe it; Christ is no Savior, till we receive him and make him such. Now I cannot but think that the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation is true, and as true before, as after we believe it. Christ died for us, and is our Savior, and own him in this character. And before we receive him God must have given us eternal life, before we come into its possession. It was given us in Christ Jesus. "This," says the apostle, "is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." This being a positive fact, admitting no conditions and no doubt, the apostle was justified in affirming that "he that believeth not God hath |