opposition. I am reminded here of the reply of a Quaker, of whom a Presbyterian asked, "Where was your religion before the days of George Fox?" The Quaker replied, “Friend, where THINE never was-in the BIBLE!" So I now say to Mr. Rice, in relation to Universalism and its novelty.

As to his second argument, it is no argument at all. He says we must rely upon Lexicons to explain the word "salvation." Then I am not allowed to define the terms of my own proposition; am I? but must prove universal salvation, according to the definitions of Lexicons! Not so; I have stated what I mean by the terms of the proposition; and the doctrine thus defined, I intend to prove by the SCRIPTURES.

My friend comes again to the resurrection. He speaks of those who die in sin, and asks if they are raised to the incorruptible state. Have I not proved, by Mr. Rice's Confession of Faith, that he believes that THE SAINTS die in sin? He said he was glad that I quoted it, and I am glad that he is glad; for it proves that the saints require a change after death, according to Presbyterianism. But I have more proof. Perhaps the Confession of Faith is not so good authority as Mr. Rice himself. On page 742, of his Discussion with Mr. Campbell, he says:

"Heaven is a holy place. An infinitely holy God reigns there; and holy angels bow around his throne. God has taught us that nothing impure can enter into the holy city; that none from earth but the spirits of just men made perfect' can approach his presence. Men are deeply depraved. Even the MOST GODLY groan under indwelling corruption. Tell them, that they must, by their own exertions, in view of the motives of the Gospel, prepare themselves to see God; and they will sit down and weep in despair. A man is suddenly called to die," etc.

That is, when he is called to die, he is imperfect. So, then, the saints die sinners, and require a change AFTER DEATH. This is plain; is it not?

With regard to the passage quoted, about "not accepting deliverance," and a "better resurrection," I ask, a "better resurrection" than what? Why, "better" than

to natural life; not "better" than the resurrection to endless misery.

Did Paul expect, by his own efforts, to "attain" the resurrection to IMMORTALITY? His expression is, “not as though I had attained, or were already PERFECT." He means by that, that he desires a higher resurrection, a state nearer perfection, in the present life. So none of those passages quoted relate to the resurrection of all the naturally dead. The 15th chapter of 1st Cor. relates to all that die in Adam, and thus differs from all those passages. As to the passage in Acts, it is equally true that there is no difference of condition spoken of, concerning those who were to experience that resurrection. HOPED for the resurrection of the "just and the unjust," because he believed all would be saved-the unjust become just.

66

Paul

Is it to be supposed that the benevolent Apostle hoped" for a resurrection of the unjust which would make them UNJUST FOREVER? which would cause them to rebel against God's government, and curse and blaspheme his holy name to all eternity!? Would he hope for this? Did he believe it? Can you believe it?

We find John v. quoted again, and Mr. Rice speaking of a resurrection from "the graves" of superstition, ignorance, and depravity, in which "they have done good," etc. But that was not my suggestion; I said nothing about depravity. I said that all are not in their "graves,' literally speaking. The bodies of many are not there! Some have been burned; some drowned; some devoured by wild beasts, and others have mingled with the elements again. Every particle of dust that is blown about, may be some portion of their bodies. It cannot mean the graves of the literally dead, therefore. The bodies are not there. It does not refer to the resurrection of the natural or material body. That, the Scriptures do not teach. They teach that we are to have SPIRITUAL BODIES; and dwell in heaven in bodies, not of the flesh, skin, and bones, we have here, but in incorruptible, immortal, spiritual bodies. But, says Mr. Rice, those saints who came

out of the graves near Jerusalem, at the crucifixion of Christ, and walked into the city, had natural bodies. How does he know it? and what resurrection was that? The final resurrection to an immortal state? Probably not; we have no evidence but that they died again; and I suppose they did,-as did Lazarus, doubtless, after his resurrection from the grave. He was raised up, in his natural body; but it was not the resurrection to immortality.

But again on John v.; "they who have done good," or "evil;" who are they? All the naturally dead? If so, how are infants embraced in the resurrection? for they have themselves done neither good, nor evil. They are excluded, by this interpretation; and this shows it was a moral resurrection, not a natural, physical one;—that the words were used with a figurative signification.

66

What has Mr. Rice to do with the doctrine of judging men " according to their works?" I will show you what he believes on the subject, by reading a passage on the 16th page of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith: By the DECREE of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. Those angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably DESIGNED, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life. God before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love (mark!) WITHOUT any foresight of faith or GOOD WORKS, or perseverence in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace." We see, therefore, according to my. friend, Mr. Rice's doctrine, (and it will not do for him to present any argument here to overthrow his Creed ;) that man's destiny hereafter depends on the GRACE and DECREE OF GOD, without respect to faith, or works, or conditions

of any kind; i. e. God FOREORDAINED some of his children, at the beginning, to be endlessly happy, and some to be endlessly miserable! Now what has my friend to do with "good works?" He need not quote passages to prove good works necessary to salvation. They have no bearing on this question. It depends, according to his own doctrine, upon the ABSOLUTE WILL of God, determined before the world began; and the number of the saved then determined on, can be neither increased nor diminished.

My friend attempted to ridicule the explanation I gave of the 5th chapter of John, as to the word "graves which I said had a figurative meaning, and was applied to moral darkness in this life. See here! Was not Cornelius the centurion in a state of ignorance and moral darkness? Yet he was a good man, and did good, and was benevolent and just to all. Still it was necessary for him to hear the GOSPEL, in order to be saved. He did hear it, and was saved. Now here is an instance in point. Cornelius was a good man; yet he required to be saved, with the Gospel salvation. He was in the condition represented by the graves," in John v.

66

So in the case of the ten virgins; five of whom were wise, and five foolish. When the Bridegroom came, five were prepared, and five were not. They were all in darkness during the night in which they waited for the Bridegroom., Yet some in that darkness, did well; and some did evil, and so were cast into a state of condemnation, or “damnation,”—cast out; and this passage also will serve to illustrate the 5th of John.

Mr. Rice says that, according to a Universalist writer, John wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem. What has that to do with this subject? Have I said any thing about the destruction of Jerusalem ? I have quoted from Matthew. If I quoted from John, I do not recollect it.

He speaks of Paine's Selections. I hope he will look at the title page of that work. It is not Paine, whom some might think to be the infidel writer, Thomas Paine; but Rev. LUCIUS R. PAIGE.

We now come again to 1 Cor. xv. My friend again asks, What is that something more? and says that I hide behind it. My friends, did I not tell you what that" something more was? I ask you all, Did I not explain it ? I showed that all were to be SUBDUED TO THE SAVIOUR, that God might be " ALL IN ALL." That was something more than a mere physical resurrection; was it not? You see I have not hid behind it.

But he says Christ shall "put his enemies under his feet." What are the enemies referred to? Are they not sin, and the devil, and death-the "last enemy"? Does it include MEN, the same that are said to be "subdued" unto Christ? These are not said to be put under his feet; they are not included in this category. Besides, I did not quote that verse to show that men shall be reconciled to God. I quoted the text which said all men shall be SUBDUED unto the Saviour, that God might "be all in all ;" and that is a part of the "something more,” which the gentleman cannot see. Hence he can find nothing but a mere physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians xv. He speaks, too, of its being only an exercise of physical power. On this point, I will read from the 635th page of Mr. Rice's Discussion with Mr. Campbell: "Now if

God could originally create man holy, without words or arguments, who shall presume to assert that he cannot create him ANEW, and restore his lost image, without them; or that he has now no power over the HUMAN MIND beyond that of argument and motive?" And yet he calls the resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. only a mere exertion of physical power! not affecting man's moral state. Thus I make Mr. Rice meet his own statements.

Again: my friend says it is his fourth argument, that Universalism makes the soul material and mortal. That depends on the meaning attached to the word "soul,” in its existing constitution with the body. For example, if he means the word used as it is in the Bible, sometimes: as where it is said that Jesus Christ laid down his soul, or life, in death, and that the soul "shall die," etc., it is mortal. But if he means the spiritual part of our nature,