Recapitulation.

It is unnecessary for us to burden our book or the patience of our readers with a reprint of the recapitulation which Dr. Adams appends to his "Argument," and a repetition of comments on each item, inasmuch as it is but a catalogue of "the principal topics which he had introduced, all of which we have presented and thoroughly disposed of in consecutive order all but one. This one, which he recapitulates here, was comprised in the closing paragraph of his fourth proposition, and stands there in these words :

It being frequently argued that the sins of a finite creature cannot be punished forever, because a finite creature cannot merit infinite punishment, it will be enough to meet this, in passing, with a single remark, viz: That if this be so, then, even if the whole universe should sin forever, the whole universe cannot be punished forever, because the whole universe, after all, is but finite."

In putting forth this argument, our friend must have had some confused thought in his mind which was without form and void. We can discover no point to it. It was never argued that if a finite creature should sin forever, he could not be punished forever. The position which he aimed to strike but failed to conceive, is this,- That a finite creature, for an act of disobedience in the infancy of his being, does not justly merit endless punishment. And this Dr. A., and his fraternity generally, now concede, in that they assume endless sinning as the ground of endless punishment. The argument, therefore, from

the consideration of disproportion and injustice, against perpetuating punishment endlessly in the future for a present misdeed of a finite creature, is not touched at all by the remark which our friend thinks is enough to meet it," viz: "That if this be so, then, even if the whole universe should sin forever, the whole universe cannot be punished forever, because the whole universe after all is but finite." Nothing in all this discussion has affected us so unpleasantly, as this strange lack of perception, on the part of our learned friend, of the relation of ideas. Because sin, being a moral disease and death, must involve the misery of its subject as long as he continues in it, even if it were eternally, it does not follow as a legitimate inference that for the mere fact of being in sin to-day, an eternity of inflicted misery is incurred. And this very improvement in "Orthodoxy" of which we have spoken, making endless sinning the plea for endless punishment, virtually explodes the theory of a day of judgment at the end of time, to adjudicate endless punishment on men for the sins of this life. Light is breaking in upon the minds of those whom ecclesiastical authority has long imprisoned, and is verifying the beautiful language of prophecy; "The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is sprung up.”

APPENDIX.

SINCE the closing up of the "Discussion," which occupies the foregoing pages, the conduct of Dr. Adams has been such in relation to it as subjects our deep seated respect for his motives, and confidence in his religious integrity, to a severe and unpleasant test. He declined making any rejoinder to our Reply. He would not attempt to prove in fault any of our argumentative disproofs of his uses of the sacred Word, expositions and arguments which are judged by great numbers of the most learned and pious theologians in our country to show conclusively that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Bible. Though his Argument for Endless Punishment was written expressly at our request, for our columns as a part of a discussion with us, and he was not ignorant that the publication of the whole together in book form would furnish the reading public in all future time with more ample means for judging understandingly of the relative merits of our labors and our theories, and the evidence and nature of Christian truth, yet he employed the menaces of a worthless expost facto copy-right, and his earnest personal remonstrances, to deter us from binding up the two parts of the Discussion together, to the latter of which in our delicate regard for his feelings, we wrongly yielded in the publication of our own edition of the book; yet he forthwith published his part in

a separate tract, and has since procured it, with others of his tracts, to be published by Gould and Lincoln in book form, just as if he regarded it unquestionably true, when he knows that he has not the power to vindicate a single position in it from the annulling force of the arguments in reply.

We are aware that this style of expression, to one who will take no pains to acquaint himself with the facts in the case, may appear egotistical; but we ap peal to all men who care sufficiently for the truth to examine this Discussion with care, that we speak only in the modesty of reverence for God's word. We put in no claim of self-ability; but we do know that holy men of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, have used language which is susceptible of being understood, and we speak for the simplicity and force of truth.

Turn, for instance, to Dr. A's fifth Proposition, on the Curse of the Law, and then to Chap. iv. of the Reply. When we read his proposition and argument on this point, we were confident that he had entirely overlooked the language of Moses in Deut. xxix., and Lev. xxvi., describing certain temporal calamities and declaring them to comprise all the curses written in the book of the Law, and to be reformatory in their designs; and we believed, in our charity, that, on having his attention called to these Scriptures, and to the philological argument, he would withdraw that proposition from any subsequent edition of his document. But he cares for none of these things. He republishes, in different forms, and sends abroad as widely as possible, his bold position, knowing that it

directly gives the lie to the explicit declarations of God's word. It pains us to make these statements; but duty to our opponent, respect for the Bible, and a sincere regard for the religious interests of the community, compel us to do so. It is a plain case, and we challenge the severest scrutiny.

Besides this persistent disregard of the facts and arguments of the negative part of the Discussion, in the republication of his decisively revealed errors without correction, the same willingness to mislead the public in respect to these matters is clearly evinced in the following, which we transfer from the columns of the Christian Freeman of April 8th, 1859.

DR. ADAMS AT HOME.

OUR respected friend, Rev. Dr. Adams, as our readers have seen, chooses not to make, in our columns, any rejoinder to our part of the late discussion between him and us, that is, our "Review" of his

Argument for the Scripturalness of Future, Endless Punishment." But it will be interesting to the public to be posted up in his outside movements in relation to this matter.

Well, on Tuesday evening, March 8th, Dr. Adams delivered in his Vestry a "Doctrinal Lecture," which, throughout, had reference to this discussion, though it does not appear from the report of it in the papers that he made direct quotation from us but in one instance. The report in the Boston Evening Transcript, of March 10th, represents him as thus opening and proceeding to prosecute the business of his lecture: