mit the punishment, we are to pursue him to the very last degree, until we have exacted the very last mite of punishment, which their ill conduct towards us deserves, and then graciously and kindly give them a full and free pardon. Now it is an old adage-" show me the Gods, and I will show you the people." If the God whom the Universalist worships, exacts the last mite of punishment, never forgives, then it is certainly not to be expected that they should be more perfect than the God they worship. It should not excite surprise, therefore, if Universalists should adopt "lex talionis" as their rule of action, and "render to every man according to their deeds," that is, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," according to the example of the God they adore.

I know, Universalists do not generally practice upon this principle in their intercourse with others, though by their theology they are bound to do so. And this fact is in proof that the theory of my friend is not only contradictory to the Bible, but to the common sense of Universalists themselves.

I will now notice a passage quoted by Mr. Austin, to prove that men are punished all they deserve, and then saved. Isaiah xl. 2: "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received at the Lord's hand double for all her sins"

Mr. I. D. Williamson says the term double, is uniformly employed in scripture to indicate an exact amount. This is certainly a new discovery. But for this high authority, I never should have supposed the term double meant an exact amount of anything. But this is an age of improvement! What does this passage mean? I answer:

1. It is an obscure passage, and it is on this account that it is selected as a proof text of Universalism.

2. Whatever may be its real meaning it certainly does not aid my friend's argument. For if we suppose "double" to refer to punishment, to the quantity, it proves too much for Universalism, for I suppose Mr. Austin himself will not contend that God punishes the sinner twice the amount he deserves. It is a rule in logic-that which proves too much proves nothing.

3. This passage does not teach that Jerusalem had been punished all she deserved, because it speaks of her "iniquity being pardoned," which could not be the case if she had been punished all her sins deserve. My own opinion is, that the term double refers to her two captivities, into which she was led on account of sin. While in captivity her people humbled themselves-repented of their violations of the divine law-God forgave them in the sense of remitting their punishment-hence commissioned the prophet to "comfort" them with the promise of salvation.

Mr. Austin says if the sinner is saved from punishment he cannot repent. Here again he is at fault. Repentance always precedes salvation from sin and punishment. The gentleman has

been led into this error by the subverting influence of his system. The Bible says repent "that your sins may be blotted out." Universalism says when your sins are expiated by punishment, then, and not till then, will you repent. All know what is meant by blotting out. It is to cancel a debt, or release from an obligation. A merchant blots out an account, that has been forgiven, and thus exonerates the debtor from all obligation for the debt so the sinner who repents, is released from the obligation to endure the penalty of sin. Forgiveness of punishment, so far from standing in the way of repentance, is one of its results, and must always be preceded by repentance, otherwise, there is no deliverance from sin in any sense.

I will now proceed to present my thirteenth argument; that it makes perfect nonsense of the scriptures. We have seen the meaning of pardon and forgiveness, and the remission of sins. Ephesians iv. 32: "Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake, has forgiven you." How shall we interpret this passage on the principle that men are not and cannot be forgiven any part of their punishment? How can we be tender-hearted to those who have sinned against us if we exact from them the very last mite of punishment? The doctrine set up by my friend is wholly inconsistent with this passage of scripture, and would require it to be turned into perfect nonsense to read at all in consistency with his doctrine. Matt. vi. 14, 15: "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses." How would this passage be interpreted on the principles of Universalism? To harmonize with Universalism, it should read, "If you punish not en for their trespasses against you, that they may repent and e forgiven neither will your heavenly Father punish you for Your trespasses, that you may repent and be forgiven!" Supose a man meets me in the street and abuses me: what is requied of me that I may forgive his trespasses? I ought to say, Sir, though I might go with you to the seat of justice, and make you smart for this insult, yet my Christian principles teach me to forgive those who despitefully use me and persecute me." That would be forgiving his trespasses, but on the principles of Universalism, I ought in the first place to seek satisfaction-first by giving him a severe drubbing, and then by prosecuting him through the law-and then I might say, sir, I am now ready to give you a free and full pardon, and extend you the right hand of fellowship!! "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses." If this would be the effect of not forgiving, what would be the effect of a contrary course? The application can be made by the congregation themselves. Luke vi. 36: "Be ye therefore merciful, as your father also is merciful." How is our father Merciful?[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S SIXTH REPLY.1

Gentlemen Moderators:-Perhaps I cannot pursue a better course than by commencing this speech with a notice of the last remarks of my Brother Holmes. He says that my views of forgiveness make perfect nonsense of the scriptures. All careful readers of the Bible, are as capable of judging on this point as Elder Holmes. To their decision I willingly submit the correctness of such an assertion. He insists moreover, that according to the Universalist doctrine, we must first punish one another, and then forgive one another. No sir! Universalism teaches that individuals have no legal or moral right to take the punishment of offenders into their own hands. We believe that whoever inflicts iasult or injury upon another, will receive a just punishment from the hand of God, through the operation of human laws, and the workings of his own conscience. As individuals, it is our duty, not to retaliate, not to punish, but to FORGIVE the offence; leaving legal and moral consequences to higher tribunals. Hence all the display of wisdom and wit on this subject, from the other side, amounts to nothing. It shows more cunning to cover up an argument, than intelligence to fathom it, or candor and ability to meet it. Let me ask my friend what would be the course of action in the supposed case according to his doctrine, which teaches that God punishes an innocent being-Jesus Christ-in place of the offender, and then forgives the latter and allows him to go "unwhipped of justice?" On this principle, if we are insulted or injured, our first duty is to seek out some innocent person-the more pure and godlike, the better-flog him within an inch of his life, and then turn and forgive the guilty and hardened wretch. No doubt he would approve of this doctrine, as the depraved invariably do. He gladly clutches at this very convenient and easy mode of escape, and is prepared by such facilities, to go on and repeat his crimes on others!

The Elder has given you the reading of Eph. iv. 32, according to Universalism, as he declares, although in doing it, he totally perverts that system. Allow me to present the reading of that passage on the principles of modern orthodoxy: "Be kind one toanother, tender hearted, forgiving one another, [after each one has punished some innocent neighbor, in place of those who injured them, and allowed the guilty to go free of all punishment,] even as Gol for Christ's sake hath forgiven you," [after punishing his holy Son-yea, himself-in your place, thus giving you an assurance that you can sin to any extent and be screened from all retribution.] The same reading will apply to the passage-" Be ye merciful as your Father also is merciful."-(Luke vi. 36.)

My friend on the affirmative, insists the Universalist view of forgiveness-that God does not forgive until he punishes-amounts to no forgiveness whatever. If this objection is well founded, it

is as fatal to his system as to mine. His doctrine teaches that Deity would not, and could not forgive men, until all the PUNISHMENT due for all the sins of all men, had been fully inflicted on Jesus Christ, as a substitute for the world, and all the claims of justice for penalty on man, had become completely satisfied. Then Gol could forgive! Here is precisely the same principle which is urged as an objection against Universalism. Jehovah does not forgive until he punishes somebody-either the guilty or a substitute, and his justice is satisfied. The only difference between his system and mine, is this-that while his represents God as not willing to forgive until the innocent are PUNISHED, and the guilty GO FREE, mine insists he does not forgive until the guilty are themselves punished! I submit to all candid minds, which of the two is the the most consistent, and which must exert the best moral influence?

Elder Holmes inquires, who ever heard of a man calculating, when he commits sin, to avoid the punishment? In reply, I ask who ever heard of one, (except in some exceedingly rare cases,) who did not calculate to escape? It is this calculation, authorized by the popular doctrines of the day, and the expectation of succeeding in it, and avoiding all punishment, that lures millions into wickedness. He mentions a singular case of a cripple, who was tired of life, and wanted to go to heaven, and who thought the best way to get there would be to commit a murder, when he could repent, be executed, and go to glory! Brother Molerators! that case illustrates, in my estimation, the method in which most, if not all murderers reason. They believe if they take the life of a fellow being and are detected, there will be sufficient time allowed them to REPENT, and get to heaven. And they are encouraged in this expectation by the numerous instances of murderers who repent, or profess to, on the gallows, and who, we are told by Evangelical Clergymen, swing from the scaffold into heaven, without the slightest infliction of Divine punishment!! This illustration is an unfortunate one for my brother; for he unhappily belongs to that very class of preachers, whose teachings tend to foster and encourage this most seductive view of the facility of escaping the punishments of God. True, in this case, the poor cripple did not find that repentance on which he had been taught to place so much dependence. But this makes the case none the less a perfect illustration of the moral tendency of my friend's system. According to his own showing, it was this corrupting doctrine of the power of repentance to save from all punishment, that led the poor wretch to the commission of the murder. Had he been taught the Bible doctrine that repentance does not save from punishment, but is the effect of punishment, and that there is no escaping the just penalty of God's law-his hands would never have been stained with the blood of his brother man!

I desire now to finish my argument on the subject of forgive

mess and pardon. It is objected by those on the other side, that the views I entertain violate the usual meaning attached to those words by the dictionaries. Suppose they do; that cannot invalidate their correctness. It should be borne in mind, the definitions of the dictionaries are taken from the nature of pardon as exercised in human governments, and under judicial laws, which from the nature of man, must be exceedingly imperfect. These afford no criterion for judging of the office of pardon or forgiveness in the Divine government. Human governments are administered in respect to criminals, too generally on the principle of retaliation. This principle has no existence in God's government. He has strictly forbidden his creatures to inflict pain in a spirit of retaliation. He cannot violate his own precepts. Human governments pardon, or remit punishment, I acknowledge. But they do it from a necessity, arising from the imperfection of all earthly tribunals. Human legislators are incapable of enacting laws that shall operate perfectly in regard to the detection and chastisement of wickedness. Courts, judges, jurors, are utterly unable to adapt punishment so that it shall, in all cases, be in exact proportion to crime and guilt. Sometimes they condemn an innocent man, or sentence one to a punishment too severe for his crime. At other times extenuating circumstances are brought to light during punishishment, which show that it ought to be mitigated, or wholly remitted. In all such cases the judicial authority must have the power to change or shorten the punishment, or cause it entirely to cease. But it must be clearly seen that this pardoning power in human governments, grows out of their imperfection, and is indeed, necessary for the correction of their mistakes. Were they liable to make no error-could they adapt just the right kind and amount of punishment in every case-there would be no need of the pardoning power in human governments, as there could not possibly be an opportunity for its exercise. Let it be remembered that God is liable to no mistakes in the administration of his government. It is a perfect government, with perfect laws, rendering to every man exactly according to his deeds. He is able to adapt his punishments in accordance to the heinousness of the sin, without liability or possibility of error. He makes no mistakes in punishing the innocent, or allowing the guilty to escape under the impression that they are innocent, as do human courts. God never sentences to too much or too little punishment. Hence there is no place, no opportunity for the divine government to change or remit punishment. It is all right, in the first place!

The views of pardon I have adduced are sustained by some of the wisest and most eminent Law Commentators in the world. BECCARIA, an eminent Italian Law Commentator, says "The power of pardon, [i. e. remitting punishment,] does not exist under a perfect administration of law. The admission of this power is a tacit acknowledgment of the infirmity of the course of justice." Chan