dantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immuta bility of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge, to lay hold upon the hope set before us,"-Heb. vi. 1318, The angel that preached to shepherds from heaven, proclaimed "good tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all people." No doubt this was easily told; for multitudes of the heavenly host joined with the angel, saying, "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men." Now, reader, exercise a little patience, and hear Mr. M. "It is very congenial with the nature of deluded and presumptuous man, to believe a doctrine that is a great deal older than Winchester and his dialogues, even as old as the dialogue between Eve and the serpent, 'Ye shall not surely die. So the devil preached, and so his servants still preach." According to this representation of Mr. M. it appears that the angel who declared the oath of Jehovah, to Abraham, was a devil! The angel that proclaimed to the shopherds was a devil!! and multitudes of the heavenly hosts were devils!!! If we should return Mr. M's compliment, and say the devil preached Calvinism, and so his servants still preach, he would think we censured. Should we not then, to defend ourselves, show him his misrepresentation ? The devil preached, "Ye shall not surely die ;" and of course will not need salvation: the Universalists preach that all men die, and will be saved from a state of death. "As in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. xv. 22. Respecting the age of this doctrine we make no doubt, but what it is as much older than Mr, M. as it is older than Winchester and his. dialogues. We, therefore, think he would have appeared better. had he treated both the doctrine and the name of the pious and departed Winchester, with more modesty.

III. In this section Mr. M. quotes Eccl. xi. 10, †1, 14, to prove there can be no alteration for the better

after death. He must be extremely unhappy in his choice of this scripture to support his theory. How can a person that has no knowledge be miserable? They can no more be miserable, than they can change from a state of misery to felicity.

Another mode of attack, which Mr. M. adopts, is from the destructive nature of hell fire.

He says,

There is no such thing hinted as that hell is purgatorial; its fires are punitive, and not sanctifying." In reply to this it may be observed, there are many calamities, which befall mankind, that Mr. M. would no doubt be willing to acknowledge, are not directly purgative or sanctifying, and yet by other means they find deliverance. We expect salvation through Jesus Christ from all the woes that befall us, and not from the abstracted efficacy of the woes themselves. If God has made a hell where there can be no improvement or instruction to all eternity, I think it becomes Mr. M. to prove it. A positive assertion is not satisfactory. Mr. M. would have us understand by the fires of hell being punitive that they impart no discipline or instruction, and, consequently, there can be no deliverance from them. David says, Ps. cxvi. 3, “The pains of hell gat hold upon me ;" and in Ps. xviii. 5, "The sorrows of hell compassed me about." Was he not altogether in hell fires for the sorrows of hell compassed him, and the pains of hell gat hold of him? Mr. M. supposes it will be so with all the wicked ; sorrows will compass them, and pains get hold of them, and they always must bear them. Why? Because hell is not purgatorial; but its fires are puni~ tive. Then good old David, a man after God's own heart, must be damned eternally. But he talks of deliverance. "Great," says he, "is thy mercy toward me; and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell."-Pe. lxxxvi. 13. We believe God, who delivered from the lowest hell, can deliver from other hells, notwithstanding it is thought hell is not purgatorial.

IV. As Mr. M. has evidently assumed a false prý

position in the first sentence of this section, his con clusion, of course, remains unsupported. His following train of reasoning to support the most arbi trary of all systems, must be equally absurd. "The same reasons," says he, "for aught that scripture teaches, that makes it proper that they should suffer punishment six thousand years, will make it profer, after all Winchester's dreams, they should suffer seven thousand," &c. Would Mr. M. have men reduce this reasoning to practice? The same reasons thatTMTM would make it proper to whip a boy six days in a week, would make it proper to whip him seven; and the same reason that he should suffer seven, will still exist that he should suffer seventy times seven. The same reasons that the troubles of the righteous should be many in this world, will justify their being seventy times as many as they are; and if it be just, they be seventy times as many as they are, it will be just, they should be seven millions as many. "Yes, with out another sacrifice, and we have no reason to expect that," the righteous "must suffer" their troubles "for ever." Thus, reader, it is left for you to judge, whether Mr. M.'s sweeping arguments do not return upon him, and sap, upon his own system, every ground of hope on which he would build.

V. This section contains no argument in favor of endless misery, except from the force of the word everlasting a term which has already been under cor sideration.

VI. "This judgement," says Mr. M. "shall be final. We have already proved that after this there is no gospel, and that this punishment will not in a finite time give infinite satisfaction, why then should the sentence not be final?" How has Mr. M. proved that a judgement of separation is a final judgement? We see how unsuccessful he has been in his attempts in the preceding sections. What he has asserted is more than a matter of doubt to us. We verily believe he has not proved it. He thinks the wicked must be punished endlessly, to give "infinite satisfaction ;”

but who is infinitely satisfied with such punishment? Can it be the God of boundless love, or his holy law? When will satisfaction in endless punishment be complete? Never; because such punishment will never be finished. On Mr. M.'s plan, this infinite satisfaction can never exist. Whether men are punished, or whether they are relieved, the infinite dissatisfaction remains; else, it could not require additional punishment, Infinite satisfaction in endless punishment may be fitly represented by a tiger. If he has no prey, he is not satisfied; if he has prey, he is not satisfied, because he wants more.

If a judgement of separation be final, when will the dispensation of the fulness of times arrive, when God will gather together in one all things in Christ? We read in 1 Cor. xv. 26, Improved Version, "The last enemy shall be destroyed, even death." In the common translation the words that and is are supplied, and much obscure the meaning of the passage. When the last enemy is destroyed, we have no reason to look for any other remaining. If death be the last enemy, it must be the last kind of death that has an existence. The final judgement" is not a scripture phrase, neither do we read in the Bible of "the finally impenitent." These are scholastic phrases, which assume the sanction of divine revelation from long usage and popular prejudices. They ought, therefore, to be viewed with an eye of jealousy, before they are admitted by the true biblical critic, and associated with the divine communications of God's word.

SAMUEL C. LOVELAND.

N. B. Since the above Reply was prepared for the press, the writer was favored with an answer to Mr. Milligan, by Br. Robert O. Randal, which was published in the North Star. On this account he relinquishes his claims on the Editor of the Star, as he has fulfilled his promise,-thanks him for his politeness to Br. Randal and the public, and requests him to present a copy of this to Mr. Milligan.

"HEAVEN LOST."

A few days ago, a Tract was handed us, containing a piece under the above title, and said to be "extracted from Baxter's Saints' Rest." This Tract, which was printed at Andover, Mass. for the New-England Tract Society, was presented to a certain family in one of our neighboring towns, with a view to dissuade them from the dangerous faith (as they supposed) of universal salvation. The sentiments are truly horrid; and nothing less than the respectable name of Andover, would justify their being noticed in this work. From that extract we make the following:

"As the loss of the Saint's rest will be aggravated by losing the enjoyments of time, it will be much more so by suffering the torments of hell. The exceeding greatness of such torments may appear by considering, -the principal author of them, who is God himself;the place or state of torment ;-that these torments are the fruit of divine vengeance;-that the Almighty takes pleasure in them;-that Satan and sinners themselves shall be God's executioners ;—that these torments shall be universal,-without mitigation,-and without end."

"The principal Author of hell torments is God himself. As it was no less than God whom the sinner had offended, so it is no less than God who will punish them for their offences. He hath prepared those torments for his enemies. His continued anger will still be devouring them."

"The place or state of torments is purposely ordained to glorify the justice of God. As God will then glorify his mercy in a way that is now beyond the comprehension of saints that must enjoy it: so also will he manifest his justice to be indeed the justice of God. The everlasting flames of hell will not be thought too hot for the rebellious; and when they have burned through millions of ages, he will not repent him of the evil which is befallen them. Woe to the soul that is thus set up as a butt for the Almighty