fire which St. Jude speaks of he supposes to be the fire by which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, called eternal, aionios, on account of the great length of time it lasted;" and to support his supposition, gives another supposition mentioned by "Whitby," that "this fire lasted from Abraham's time to the beginning of the second century," a period of about two thousand years. This was a long time for a literal fire to last; and really I" suppose" there is no more foundation for this report than there is for that of the "apples of Sodom," or "the pillar of salt," into which Lot's wife was changed, as still remaining, but which noboby can find: but there is another report as credible as that mentioned by Whitby, viz., that the land where those cities stood was sunk, and that the Dead Sea occupies the same spot. And I should think, after all the assurance manifested by my opponents, it would not be a little mortifying to be obliged to resort to supposition and such legendary tales to support the doctrine of universal salvation.

My opponent's remarks, if such they may be called, upon the passages which speak of the unbeliever dying in his sins and the hypocrite's hope being cut off, having little in them beside words, and nothing like argument, I pass over; but I stop a moment to notice those on the texts produced to show that the "end" of the impenitent "is destruction," that they "bring upon themselves swift destruc

tion," &c. He says, "I will now point out the deficiency of your argument here: the word end is used in the Scriptures with a great variety of significations. Telos, rendered end, is used to signify an event, consequence, fruit, recompense, a short sum, an impost or tar," &c. He adds, "Your sole dependence is placed on the word end, as though it invariably signified final destination, which is not true. How quickly your proof melts away when brought to the blaze of truth!"? Let us look at this "blaze of truth." Let it be observed that I contend that end here means final destination, while my opponent denies it, and gives us, according to the Greek, six other significations of the word. Let us see how they will apply to our subject: Take Phil. iii, 19, and read, not whose end, i. e. final destruction, but whose "event" is destruction-whose " consequence" is destruction-whose "fruit" is destruction-whose "recompense" is destruction-whose "short sum" is destructionwhose "impost or tax" is destruction. Now you have all the significations my opponent has given of this word, and you have ours, and you may take your choice, with the assistance of his "blaze of truth."

The new recruit my opponent has brought in from Cambridge Port is a man full of words, and has access to a college library, as large and rich as any in the country. Let us hear him a little farther on this subject. He says, "Mr. Scott, do you love to read the

Bible? if you do, see Ezek. vi, a chapter selected out of many to which I might refer you, in which you will find an end, the day of trouble, fury, anger, destruction, all come upon men in this life." Here I would ask, because the point was overlooked by my opponent in my lecture, if "trouble, fury, anger, and destruction" come upon incorrigible sinners in this life, and the Scriptures tell us that this is their end, whether there is another end, an end of joy, mercy, and salvation, after their end, and if so, where it is to be found in the Bible?

In my lecture I quoted several passages of Scripture to show that "God allows sinners a space to repent,-affords them all necessary means and helps, and admonishes them that these opportunities and privileges will not always last, and that when they end, their condition becomes hopeless." In the reply my opponent brings in, as though contained in my lecture, a passage which was not in it, and makes it the only one on which he comments, and leaves out an important passage that was in it, Prov. i, 24-28, where God says to the wicked, "Because I have called and ye refused, &c., I also will laugh at your calamity, &c. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer, they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me."-I say this passage was unnoticed in the reply, and the argument on all the other passages totally evaded, for which, as well as for many other observations,

he must thank his brother W. And here is a good opportunity to give a specimen of his general mode of reasoning. He says, "You quote thirdly Isa. lv, 6, 'Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.' What does Isaiah say here about God's accepted time, or the day of salvation? Nothing. What does he say about the future state? Nothing. Can we even prove from the passage that he believed in any future existence? Certainly not. Reader, this is Mr. Scott's," alias, Merritt's, " direct proof of future punishment. I should think a man a wizzard who could prove future punishment by that which does not prove future existence. Let us drag on to the next passage," &c. Now these are the words, and this the method of the man who was brought here to reply to my lecture; and you may observe how dexterously he has shifted to keep my argument out of sight. My argument is built upon the word while, twice used in this text,-" Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near," and is expressed in these words: "Here it is intimated that God will not always wait to be gracious, that he will not always be found." By keeping my argument out of sight, by a palpable misrepresentation of it, he has left it whole and entire; but has he done me justice in misrepresenting my argument? Has he done himself justice as a public teacher of religion? Has he done justice to the audience, who have

a claim to the undisguised arguments of both disputants? Above all, has he done justice to the text, and to the cause of truth? The remarks on some other passages quoted in the first part of my lecture I pass, as there is nothing in them to invalidate my reasoning and arguments. But an argument for future punishment which occurs in this part of the lecture, founded on the genius of religion, the scope of the Scriptures, and the providence of God; and which, it is believed, was entitled to serious consideration, my opponent has passed without noticing. It will avail him nothing to say that this, and other matter which he has passed in the same way, was not in Scott's Letters, and therefore the reply did not reach it. Why then did he bring in that reply as an answer to my letcure ? He had my lecture before he made his reply; and surely he was not bound to confine himself to the matter I had borrowed from Scott, but might have replied to my new matter. But I see his difficulty: had he acknowledged new matter in my lecture, the audience would have seen that Whittemore's reply to Scott could not be a reply to me.

In coming to the second part of my lecture, the first thing I shall notice is the charge that I take away the doctrine of future punishment "entirely from Scriptural ground." This was Mr. W's remark upon the first part of Mr. S.'s letter, before he came to his direct Scripture proofs; but in my lecture I have changed