have seen but two as yet, and it is likely there will be but very few here. I alone stand responsible, and I stand fearlessly, because I have truth for my basis. But that this is a fundamental question, as Mr. Austin himself admitted, will be sufficiently apparent when we advert to the single fact, that if men must be punished for all their sins, and to the full extent of their deserts, there is no such thing as the atonement of Jesus Christ. The view that is taken of this question by Mr. Austin and the Universalists generally, subverts the whole Gospel. If there be no atonement, then we must take a different view of every element of the Gospel, for the atonement of Christ is the centre around which every other Gospel truth revolves they derive their vitality, efficiency and power to save from the atonement. But this doctrine of human punishment, of expiating our sins by punishment, stands directly in the place of propitiation which God has set forth, through faith in Christ's blood, that he might be just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus. I regard this question therefore as important, that on its settlement depends those other most vital points, a vicarious atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the enjoyment of salvation here and the assurance of everlasting life hereafter. In short it is a question of no less importance than whether the world is without hope, or whether God in his goodness has visited us with a dispensation of grace and mercy. My friend is surprised that I and others who believe with

should take such pleasure as we do in this and other doctrines, but hy should this excite surprise, since the Gospel of Jesus has been troduced for the purpose of relieving man from the necessity of umnation? How can he be surprise that we should believe in the onement of Jesus, when it is expressly said that he suffered the just or the unjust that he might bring us to God? How with the Bible in his hand can he entertain surprise that we should adopt those doctrines which lay at the foundation of the whole Gospel system; and on which the hopes of men with respect to eternal salvation are built? Were our doctrines built on some chimera of the brain, were they maintained with a pertinacity which indicates a mere fondness for old errors, had they no support from the scriptures, were it not necesary to take this ground in order to move in harmony with God and the teachings of his holy word, then there might be some foundation for the gentleman's remarks, though it would be still more surprising, that the Gospel, introduced for the world's salvation should after all afford us no relief, nor furnish us with a single elememt of salvation: such would be the case were the doctrine for which he contends true. He says that if he errs, it is on the right side of the question. How is it on the right side of the question? If he errs, it is in leading the sinner to suppose he has no other punishment to endure than that which he receives as he passes through this world. He errs in leading the sinner's mind away from the atonement of Christ, deluding him with the vain hope of expiating his offences by the few aches and pains of body and mind, which are

common to our earthly existence. Is it a trifling error to deny the Lord who bought us? To go about to establish our own righteousness, refusing to submit to the righteousness of God? I ask whether his error is on the right side if it should be found the incorrigible sinner cannot satisfy for his own offences without eternal banishment from the presence and glory of God? This question is yet to be discussed, and yet he assumes this error to be a trifling one. The truth is, if it be an error, it is one whose consequences are most fearful: it leaves the sinner entirely without the means of salvation. But on the contrary, should my views be erroneous, no one will be punished less, no one will be induced to sin more. Universalism teaches that the punishment of the sinner ceases when he repents. So I teach: but I do not teach that repentance pays the debt, but that in connection with faith, it is indispensible to pardon and salvation.

Í assure the sinner he may escape the punishment of his sins, but it is only on condition that he yields to the claims of the gospel made upon him now-that he exercises thorough repentancebecomes holy in heart, and life, and dedicates himself to God without reserve. Only in this way can the virtue of the atonement be applied in his salvation, God never pardons the sinner until he sees in the heart, a fixed purpose to forsake sin and lead a holy life. There must be an inward hatred and hearty renunciation of sin. Nor can the sinner repent when he pleases, because the power to repent is of God, and he may withhold the grace of repentance when the sinner presumes upon his mercy. And if after the reception of the pardon given for sins past, they depart from the truth then embraced, they lose the benefit of that pardon. Take these facts in connection with the doctrine I advocate, and then say if you can, that it encourages sin and transgression.

The authority of God and of his law, arises from his goodness, Mr. Austin tells you, that it is because his mercy endureth forever, that he posesses authority to make law for sinners. This is a singular idea. I acknowledge his goodness is a ground of obligation to obey him; but I always supposed that goodness was only a sin gle attribute of the Godhead; and that his authority arises from harmonious exercise of his attributes. But my friend says it is h goodness alone. What then becomes of the justice, holiness, in mutability and every other attribute that constitutes the divine cha acter. His goodness alone, he says is the source from which em nates his authority.

There are some other points in connection with law, which have not now time to discuss. The subject will come up in the last question, and I promise to give Mr. Austin, enough of law before this discussion is terminated.

I now take up my third argument in support of the affirmitive of this question. It is based on the sufferings of Christ for sinners. What was the object of his sufferings? I take the ground that man

was and is benefitted really and prospectively by the sufferings, and death of Christ, and that this benefit embraces salvation from punishment. This I argue, first from the fact that Christ suffered. There is no way in which we can account for the suffering of Christ only on the supposition that they operated for the benefit of man. 1. He did not suffer for himself-he was without sin, in heart and in life. He had violated no law and on his own account was obnoxious to no penalty. Suffering as it exists in the universe is the direct or indirect result of a violation on the part of intelligent beings, of the laws and conditions of their existence. But as Christ had never violated any law, but was in the highest sense of the term just, it is evident however we may account for his sufferings, he did not suffer in his own behalf. Nor is suffering a necessary accompaniment of a work of benevolence, excluding the idea of expiation for offences. To suppose this, would be to suppose the benevolent works of God were attended with pain to himself, or that holy angels diminish their own happiness by ministering to those who are heirs of salvation. The question therefore again recurs, what was the object of Christ's suffering? If it was not to expiate his own offences, nor yet because suffering is necessarily connected with a work of benevolence, why did he suffer? Let the apostle answer the question: "He died the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God-he suffered for us, he bore our sins in his own body on the tree." Let the prophet Isaiah answer the question: "He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his stripes we are healed." Now if my friend Mr. Austin, can tell me how all this can be done without any provision for salvation from punishment, I would like to hear it. But is it asked how the death of Christ operates to deliver the sinner from punishment? I answer, it is by the power of expiation and propitiation. Let St. Paul illustrate this point: Scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man, some would even dare to die." Here, to die for a good man," says Doddridge, "is to lay down one life in order to save another." But God's love was commended to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. That is, he laid down his life in order to save the lives of others." The Greek prepositions anti and uper, used in these and other quotations, and translated "for," signify for the benefit, or in the room and stead of others. So King David, "would to God I had died for thee." Evidently the expression of a wish that he had died in the room and stead of Absalom. Says the learned Dr. Knapp, a distinguished German theologian, "when this phraseology is used in the New Testament with reference to Christ, it always means that he died in the stead or in the place of men, to deliver them." The meaning is this: "Since Christ suffered for our sins, we ourselves are freed from the necessity of enduring the punishment which they deserve." See vol. ii. page 305. That is, Gos

a

pel salvation embraces deliverance from just and deserved punishment. The penalty of the law violated by the sinner, is so satisfied by the suffering and death of Christ, that those who repent and believe in him, are freely justified and exonerated from the legal consequences of their sins.

We now present our Fourth Argument, founded on the doctrine of redemption as expressed in Galatians iii. 15. "Christ hath reclaimed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." To understand the force of this passage, and by consequence the force of this argument, we must first understand what the curse of the law is. I suppose Mr. Austin will agree with me that the curse of the law is the punishment which it inflicts on the transgressor. Hence say the Scriptures, "cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." He who disobeys incurs the penalty of the law; that is, is liable to the threatened penalty. Besides, the Greek word katara, signifies malediction or punishment, proceeding from the sanction of law, and is so used in the Greek classics. In this case it is the curse or punishment which proceeds by the authority and sanction of the divine law, to visit the sinner with a just and deserved punishment. If this is not so, Mr. Austin can tell us what it does mean. This passage says, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, that is, from the punishment which the law denounces against the transgressor. To be redeemed is to be ransomed or delivered from pain, distress, liability, penalty, or any exposure. If this is not what it means, my friend will be able to tell us what it does mean. But until we have more light, with Webster, Walker, Richardson, and Donegan, to sustain us, we claim that to redeem, is to buy off from exposure, bondage, penalty, suffering, &c. Hence, as Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, it follows that as our Savior, he has made provision for our "deliverance from just and deserved punishment," and the proposition under consideration is sustained.

When I ceased speaking last, I was on my second argument and had not finished it. I will therefore now proceed to finish that argument. I closed by saying that to deliver man from guilt would be to deliver him from punishment unless they were punished after they ceased to be condemned. To deliver him from condemnation, would be to relieve him from punishment, unless they were punished after they ceased to be condemed. Take what view of the salvation you please, deliverance from punishment must follow. On the principles of Universalism to save a sinner from his sins, it must he effected in one of three ways. 1. Before he is punished. 2. After he is punished. Or, 3. At the same time he is punished. But either of these suppositions would involve absurdity. If he is saved from sin before he is punished, then if he is punished at all, he must be punished as a sinner after he has become a Christian. If after he is punished, then there is no room for salvation, since he is no longer guilty or condemned; all the consequences of sin are

fulfilled on his own person. There are no consequenees of sin for which he is to be saved. If he is saved at the time of his punishment, then it follows salvation, and damnation meet at the same moment, in the same person. Hence they either become identical or destroy each other. That is, the unbeliever believes at the same time he disbelieves, and is saved on account of his faith at the moment that he is punished for his unbelief. The only rational conclusion is that salvation from sin, involves deliverance from punishment.

Here, then, Universalism and Jesus Christ occupy antagonistic positions. The congregation must make their selection.

I will not take up another argument at this time, but I wish to make a remark or two. I hope my friend Mr. Austin will find it convenient to define his position in his next speech with regard to the place where this punishment will be inflicted and whether he believes in punishment after this life, or whether all this punishment may be endured in the present state.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S SECOND REPLY.]

Gentlemen Moderators:-My friend as he sat down, requested me to define my position in regard to the place, where men are to be punished. If my opinion on that point was of importance to the discussion of this question, I should not hesitate to make any explanation that might be deemed proper. But I really can conceive of no reason why, in this debate, I should be called upon to express my views on that subject. The question is not where, when, or how, men shall be punished; but simply this:-Are men to be saved from just and deserved punishment, or not? To this single point, the discussion must be confined to be profitable. I shall have no hesitation in defining my position on future punishment, when it is legitimately in the sphere of our investigations. But why turn aside from the question before us and enter on topics which will lead us far away from the real matter at issue. It is comparatively of no importance to the sinner, nor has it any practical bearing on his mind, to inquire where he will be punished. The great fact which he wants to know, and the only one which excites his solicitude, is, whether he will be punished at all. Convince him that he will surely receive a just punishment for all his sins, and it will have the effect to deter him from wickedness. But if he believes he can avoid punishment-that a way is open for him to sin and escape the penalty, he is strongly tempted -nay, encouraged, into its commission. He cares not when or where God would have punished him, if he can but escape that punishment. Hence the unprofitableness of leaving the open track before us, and entering upon discussions in regard to the time and place of punishment. If my friend wants to lead off in that direction, I have no objection; but I shall not follow him. I intend to confine myself to the particular question