Though we would not doubt the Dr's. candor when he describes, or endeavors to describe our sentiments, we very much regret that he should not have availed himself of the many opportunities and means within his convenience, of understanding the doctrine whose spread seems to give him alarm, and which he thinks it is his duty to disprove. He says 'It is maintained by some among us, that punishment is confined to the present state; that in changing worlds we shall change our characters; that moral evil is to be buried with the body in the grave.' In place of these statements, if he had been rightly informed, he would have said, It is maintained by some among us that as neither scripture nor reason show to us that sin will continue beyond this state of flesh and blood, so neither do they prove that punishment for sin will so continue; that when we exchange worlds, and this corruptible puts on incorruption, our constitutions will be essentially changed, as is particularly described by St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthans; and that we shall be equal unto the angels, and shall die no more, as Jesus testified to the Sadducees.

We are sorry the Dr. should say that we maintain that moral evil is to be buried with our bodies in the grave, because he has no reason to believe this, and because it has too much the appearance of a canting throw at what he was not disposed to treat with his usual candor. Another misrepresentation of our belief is found on page 222. 'Let me next ask, what fact can be adduced in proof or illustration of the power ascribed to death, of changing and purifying the mind.' Here the Dr. would make his hearers believe that we ascribe to

the death of the body the power to change and to purify the mind. He certainly never heard any of us state such views; nor has he ever read any such statement in any of our writings. We never ascribed the power to change us from this state to another, to anything but God who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead; nor did we ever ascribe the power of cleansing us from sin to anything but that which the scriptures mean by the blood of the Lamb.'

Our writings are before the public; if it had been his wish to state what we maintain, why should he not make use of our words? He could easily have done it. We complain of this neglect; we have occasion to complain that we are not treated by our opposer as he would be willing to be treated by us. Should he, as a minister of divine truth, stand up before a christian congregation and misrepresent a doctrine which he would guard them against? For a few moments such misrepresentations may deceive, and his misguided hearers may condemn a sentiment which better information may lead them, at a future day to embrace. Justice will certainly take place; the time will certainly come when the public will rightly judge in this case. Yes, after our brother who thus opposes us now, and he who writes in defence of what he misrepresents, have mouldered in the silent house of death, discerning eyes and candid hearts will judge of these things, and will judge correctly.

Our clerical opposers are much in the practice of stating to their congregations what they are pleased to call our sentiments and doctrine; but they are careful never to state them in the words, and in the way in

which we state them. On no consideration would they assent that we should stand in their pulpits, and state our views in our own way. But why, if they desire to state them themselves, why not let us state them? Then there would be no mistake. Nothing is more evident than the fact that they do not wish to have their hearers understand the real grounds of our belief.

But let us return to the Dr's statements, in which we shall discover that his mind was not on the subject of sin in the future state, but on the continuance of the punishment of sin. Sin deserves, calls for, and will bring down Future greater misery.' He does not say that the sin which is committed in this life deserves, calls for, and will bring down future greater sin; but future, greater misery. He has no heart, no desire, as expressed in this place, to vindicate the continuance and augmentation of sin in the future world; it is punishment, misery, which he so heartily maintains and so valiantly defends. In fact, it seems that we should do him injustice, if we should suppose that he means that an increase of sin was necessary in order to produce an increase of punishment; for that would involve the glaring absurdity, that a small degree of sin deserves, calls for, and therefore will attain a greater degree of sin! It seems, therefore, evident that he means that the sin committed in this world, is to be punished with greater misery in the next world, than that which it brings to the sinner in this. And this conclusion is further confirmed by a remark found on page 219, in which he asserts that sin never meets its full retribution on

earth.' On page 224, he says: It is plainly implied

2

in scripture, that we shall suffer much more from sin, evil tempers, irreligion, in the future world, than we suffer here.' Again, on page 229, 'The scriptures announce a state of more exact and rigorous retribution than in the present.' Page 226, 'In the state of retribution, he who has abused the present state, will find no such means of escaping the wages of sin.'

If we duly consider these quotations, and connect them, as we aught we are at once at a loss to know whether the Dr. understood his own statements. They certainly make out that every sin ever committed in this mortal state, will be more severely punished in the future, than it will have been in this; and that every individual of the human family, who has ever sinned in this world, or whoever shall sin in this mortal state, will be more rigorously punished in the world to come than in this! Now we honestly say, that we do not feel confident that the Dr. means this; but it is unavoidable from his statements. Should he ever condescend to explain himself on this subject, (which we do not expect) so as to show how any of our sinful race can avoid those awful miseries of the future world, will he at the same time be careful not to open a door for the escape of all!

Having shown that the Dr. is utterly confused in the labyrinth of his own unsupported assertions, we will next proceed to show that he has completely overthrown the very foundation on which his whole scheme is founded. He means to be understood to found his doctrine of future retribution, on the moral or free agency of man. See on page 224.

'In the present world, sin does indeed bring with it many pains, but not full or exact retribution, and sometimes it seems crowned with prosperity; and the cause of this is obvious. The present world is a state for the formation of character. It is meant to be a state of trial, where we are to act freely, to have opportunities of wrong as well as right action, and to become virtuous amidst temptation. Now such a purpose requires, that sin, or wrong-doing, should not regularly and infallibly produce its full and immediate punishment. For suppose, my hearers, that at the very instant of a bad purpose, or a bad deed, a sore and awful penality were unfailingly to light upon you, would this be consistant with trial? Would you have moral freedom? Would you not live under compulsion? Who would do wrong, if judgment, were to come like lightning after every evil deed?"

Here we have the foundation of the Dr's. scheme of future retribution. The whole consists, it is true, of his assertions. He brings proof of nothing. We are to take his bare word for the whole, and we are glad that such a scheme of consummate deceit and wickedness has no better support than his assertions. He repre.

sents the divine Being as contriving, by means of delaying punishment, to let temptations succeed in leading this moral agent into sin, for the purpose of inflicting a misery in the future world, to which the present is a stranger! A worse character than this will never disgust the fine feelings of moral goodness. What should we think of a father, who should place his child in the way of a temptation, which should expose it to plunge down a fearful and fatal precipice, and use every precaution to give success to the allurement? Is this a specimen of free agency? Is our heavenly Father the author of such free agency? Let our Dr. describe what he would call a system of wicked craftiness, that we may see the difference, if there be any.

But the Dr. destroys all his pretended freedom, for