the position that gospel salvation embraces deliverance from just and deserved punishment, is singular enough. All will recollect that those passages were most positive-that there were no ifs, or ands, about them-that they declared in so many words, that God did in certain cases, punish less than the iniquities of sinners deserved. His explanation of these passages was preceded by such a flourish of trumpets, that my curiosity was not a little excited! I began to think perhaps my friend has discovered some new and unlooked for method of evading the force of those plain and posi tive declarations. Well, after securing the attention of all, and creating great anxiety to hear, he brings out the denoument; and what was it? Why, those persons were smarting under the inflictions of divine punishment, and really supposed they had been punished less than they deserved! O wonderful discovery!! But for the fact that it is the old stereotyped exposition of Universalism, I should certainly recommend my friend to obtain a copy-right. What miserable quibbles the advocates of Universalism are obliged to resort to, to give their theory, even the semblance of truth! Who but a Universalist would have invented such an interpretation of these passages; and what system but Universalism, requires such a species of theological jugglery? How absurd-“smarting under the inflictions of divine justice, they conclude they have been punished less than they deserve." The gentleman is fond of reasoning from the family circle to the government of God, when it suits his purpose. Does he find anything in the paternal government to confirm this chimerical notion? Does the disobedient and perverse child, smarting under the inflictions of the rod, deduce from his punishment, the conclusion that he has not been punished half enough?

I will next notice the gentleman's scripture proofs for the doctrine that God never forgives punishment. He presented a list of passages which go to say, that "God will render to every man according to his deeds," and that "there is no respect of persons with God." All this I cordially admit. So far from denying this, I laid it down at the commencement of this debate, as one of the five principles which govern the administration of law, and divine punishment, that when the law is violated, there is no power in the sinner to escape the punishment, nor does the law itself provide a remedy. Mr. Austin has not taken the slightest notice of these principles, and yet undertakes to prove from scripture what I not only admit, but took considerable pains to state in a clear and concise manner that God" will render to every man according to his works." Here we have another of my friend's controversial tricks. In the same connection, I stated that the penalty of the law would be inflicted upon the sinner to the full extent of his deserts, unless the law-giver, or governmental power should resort to some expedient that would satisfy justice, and support good government, while the sinner becomes the subject of clemency. I further stated that

this expedient is found in the gospel, and doctrine of atonement. The sinner can only escape through Christ, who is the propitiation for sins," to declare the righteousness of God in the remission of sins that are past-that be might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." My friend attempts to sustain his argument against me, and to prove that God never forgives in the sense of remitting punishment, by those passages of scripture which declare that every man shall receive "according to his ways," and that God "will by no means clear the guilty." The fallacy of this argument lies in supposing these declarations absolute, and unconditional, whereas they are all associated with conditions, expressed or implied. To be convinced of this, it will only be necessary to consider two or three of them, as examples of the rest. Take the passage from Proverbs-"though hand join in hand the wicked shall not be unpunished:" the same verse adds" but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered:" Delivered from what? Why, from the punishment inflicted on the stubborn and wilful, who join hands in their course of iniquity. Equally easy is it to dispose of the passage taken from Exodus 34th chapter. "The Lord God, merciful and gracions, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." The plain meaning of this passage is, that those who repent and turn to God by reformation and submission to his will, shall obtain his pardoning mercy, while those who persevere in their guilty course, will be held responsible and punished accordingly. So Moses understood it at the time, for he immediately bowed before God and said -"O Lord, pardon our iniquity, and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance." Jeremiah says "God will give every man according to his ways:" but the same prophet also declares, God will pardon the iniquity of his people, when they return to him. Isaiah encourages the "wicked man to forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts," from the consideration, that if he does so, "God will abundantly pardon" him. The guilty are those who are not only sinful, but persist in their course, rejecting the offers of reconciliation: and the above passages prove that for such there is no escape: but they prove with equal clearness, that those who repent and forsake sin, shall find a free and full pardon. Thus you see, the whole strength of my friend's scriptural argument rests on a perversion of certain texts of scripture, concerning whose meaning he assumes everything and proves nothing.

One point more. Mr. Austin attempts to involve me in difficulty on the ground that I teach the justification of the ungodly; and he quotes against me a passage which declares: "He that justifies the ungodly is an abomination to the Lord." The doctrine of this passage is, that he who justifies, or encourages the ungodly to continue ungodly, or persevere in his rebellion, "is an abomination to the Lord." But this is a very different thing from the justification

of the repenting sinner by the faith of Christ, and he knows it: and yet it afforded him an opportunity to exhibit that peculiar artifice for which he is so distinguished, and as usual, he improved it. As to justifying the ungodly, I wish it to be distinctly understood by this audience, that I teach that he who is now ungodly, may if he will repent, and by faith receive Christ as his present Savior, be justified, or acquitted from guilt and condemnation, and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." If Mr. Austin is disposed to dispute this, he must settle the question with Luke and Paul. Acts xiii, 38.: "And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses." To suit Universalism, this passage ought to read by him we are punished for all things for which we could not be punished by the Law of Moses. Here is the doctrine of justification for the ungodly. The same doctrine is found most clearly in Rom. iii. 25 -26. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; That he might

be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." The plain meaning of this passage is, that it was the purpose of Christ in his advent to our world, to open the way through which the sinner might return to God-and by his atonement make it possible for God to justify, pardon, and save the sinner, in harmony with the principles of justice. Besides, I should be glad to know who are to be justified if the ungodly are not. Not the godly, certainly, for they need no justification. The ungodly alone are proper subjects of justification. Christ "came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." If you wish proof still more directly in point, you may find it in Rom. iv. 4-5.: " Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S FIFTH REPLY.]

Brother Moderators:-The audience, and the public generally, will of course understand that it is impossible, in a debate of this description, during the limited time allotted to the speaker, to notice all the assertions that may be made by an opponent. As for myself, I shall endeavor in the best exercise of my judgment to take up such arguments and declarations of my friend opposite as I deem the most important. In regard to those I do not notice, I beg to be understood as omitting them, simply because they are least worthy of attention; and because, moreover, I can safely trust the good sense of an enlightened public to detect their fallacy. If my brother on the other side, can do better than this-if he can find an opportunity to notice all I shall say against his system, during this discussion-he assuredly shall have the advantage of it.

Elder Holmes has referred to my remarks last evening to the young. He calls them baseless arguments, and indeed is disposed to make merry over them-insisting that upon the whole, they were quite laughable. It was a matter of glee to him that young men should be taught of the certainty of the chastisement of guiltshould be instructed that the government of God is so organized, that the man who sins, cannot by any possibility escape from just and deserved punishment. While I was engaged in reading God's solemn admonitions to men, of the certainty of punishment-that "though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished," he, it would seem, was inclined to laugh in utter incredulity. Of course, he would have the young imitate him in this respect, and laugh too, when the voice of God is sounding in their ears-" [ will by no means, clear the GUILTY." Well, every man to his taste. To me, this is no laughing matter. The declarations of Heaven, on any subject, especially one so vitally connected with human good, as the doctrine of the indissoluble connection between sin and its punishment, are too sacred, too important, to excite merriment in my heart. If there is any doctrine which can make the sinful laugh and rejoice, it is that for which my opponent is now contending; that they can sin through life without punishment-repent at death-and enter at once upon the endless joys of saints and angels in Heaven!!

He refers to my assertion, that according to his doctrine, I could with impunity, destroy the lives of this entire audience, and escape all punishment. Well, is it not so? Suppose I should slay this congregation-does not his system assure me that by repenting of the crime, I can avoid its punishment? I therefore repeat that there is a way opened by his doctrine for me to commit such a crime with impunity, and yet escape every particle of penalty, and be as happy as the best saint that has ever lived on earth.

He insists that his doctrine tells the young that if they do not repent, there is a severe and awful punishment in store for them. Ah, yes! "IF" they do not repent! That if, opens a wide door. The young will readily comprehend this, and take full advantage of it! They mean to repent, when they can sin no longer, and when repentance becomes necessary for their safety! They are looking to this very provision for escape when they see peril approaching. Will such a doctrine have any permanent restraint upon them? It cannot.

On the other hand, I come to them, and in the language of the Bible, impress upon them the certainty of penalty. I preach to them God's holy word of truth, that as surely as they sin, they will receive a just punishment for it, and that there is no escape, no salvation from that punishment. Who can fail to see that such a doctrine must have a far more restraining effect on the youthful and inexperienced, than that which assures them that they can sin and avoid punishment.

The Elder brings up the old case of the prisoner shooting the sheriff and going to heaven immediately. I am disappointed that a gentleman of the candor and intelligence of my opponent, should allow himself to fall into so marked a misrepresentation of Universalism as he must have known this to be. The denomination of Universalists do not entertain any views of this description. They do not believe any man will enter Heaven until he is fully prepared for that high abode, by an instructive, purifying, reconciling process. The very object of the advent of Christ, and the establishment of his Mediatorial reign, was to prepare men for heaven-not to send sinners there with all their iniquitics on their shoulders. All representations of the kind alluded to, are utter perversions of our views, and show either great ignorance, or a wicked disposition to falsify the truth, in those who make them!!

He says I told young men it was an awful thing to believe in repentance! or that they should repent. I made no such assertion. I believe as strongly in the necessity of repentance as my brother opposite. But I insist it is an awful thing for young men to be taught from the pulpit, and made to believe that by repentance they can escape all the punishment due their crimes. This is both an awful and demoralizing thing. Nothing more surely leads them to wickedness!

The gentleman has also said something of my being afraid of deep water, in touching his argument. I am glad to be informed by my friend himself that there is deep water there, for assuredly I should not have been able to detect that fact in any other manner. He also insists I am afraid of distinct propositions and close reasoning. I would suggest it is rather an early stage of our discussion to indulge in a fling of this description. It will become abundantly apparent during our progress, how well grounded the charge is. Let me call the attention of the audience to what he denominates close reasoning, and the deep water in which his craft sails. He gives it to us in the form of one of Luther Lee's syllogisms, borrowed without credit:

Sinners cannot be saved from sin and then punished.

Sinners cannot be saved and punished at the same time.

Sinners cannot be saved after they have been punished all they deserve.

The construction of a syllogism is a favorite way to conceal sophistry. In this case, the sophistry is too evident to deceive even a child. It consists in taking for granted the exact thing in dispute, and which should be proved, viz: that gospel salvation is from punishment. This I deny. The whole tenor of the gospel shows that salvation is from sin, and not from punishment. Hence, the syllogism is stripped of all force, and becomes simply ridiculous! Sinners can be saved from sin after they have been punished all they deserve. Indeed they cannot be saved until they are punished