been so profusely bestowed upon me. My pretensions in regard to ancient languages, are humble; and my displays in that department will be confined exclusively to such original words as will necessarily be involved in the discussion before us. Moreover the rank assigned me in the denomination to which I have the honor and happiness to belong, is much above my merit. I am but a humble co-worker with a multitude of devoted and noble hearted brethren, engaged in proclaiming "the great salvation” to a needy world. There are others who tower far above me. There is one person my friend would have preferred to me, as an opponent on this occasion-Rev. D. Skinner. Most heartily should I rejoice, could he have been gratified in this respect. The age, talents and experience, of the eminent individual named, would have enabled him to defend the cause I shall advocate, with far more success than I can hope for. Nevertheless it shall be my aim to fill his place in such a manner, as to give Elder Holmes as little cause of complaint on this score as possible.

I have come to this labour not in my own strenth, nor in reliance upon the possession of any superior ability, tact or shrewdness in conducting an investigation of this description. I realize the want of these qualifications, now at the commencement of my allotted task. My dependence rests on the Cause I shall advocate-believing as I do, that it is the cause of Truth and of God. If he will aid me-if he will condesend to recognize me as his humble instrument-I feel I shall be strong in his strength, and mighty in the power of his truth. Honor, wealth, glory, I neither seek, nor expect to obtain, in this discussion. My great object is to present and defend in such manner as I may be able, great and important topics, intimately connected with the improvement and welfare of man. Did I not believe my labors would result in some degree of good to my fellow beings-in drawing them nearer to God, in obedience and love, my tongue would rest in silence.

I must return the compliments of my friend opposite, in regard to personal endowments and standing. Most happy am I to meet a gentleman whose great talents are well known and appreciated in this community-and who, it is evident from the station he occupies in his denomination, and the honors conferred upon him by its highest Literary Institution, is in possession of the entire confidence of his ministerial bretheren. It is evident they are willing to commit to him, the defence of their cause on this occasion. I am confident he will do all that can be done, in defence of his system. If he fails, it will not be because he lacks talent, expereince, or any of the qualities of an able controversialist; but solely for the want of that indispensable requisite to success- TRUTH!

Before entering upon a direct examination of the question before us, I wish to offer a remark or two, of an introductory character. The proposition now to be discussed, is not one of my own selection. I am frank to acknowledge I objected to it, when proposed

by the Brother on the opposite side, and made an effort to have it passed by. Not, be it understood, from any want of confidence in the position I shall take on the question; but because I believed this topic would in some degree, intercept our approach to questions of greater importance, which I am desirous to have thoroughly investigated before this enlightened community. As the world is, the public can leave their business and their homes but a brief space of time, to attend a public discussion. It is so, I have no doubt with my opposing friend-I know it is with myself. Having many duties to perform, I cannot devote any great length of time to a public investigation of questions, unless they are of the highest consideration. I believed it would be better to go at once to the great fundamental principles which take hold upon man's eternal destiny, and spend what time we have, in their examination rather than in discussing minor issues. It is assuredly not of so much importance to determine whether men be saved from punishment, or through punishment, as whether they are to be suved AT ALL! That was the point at which I wished to arrive directly. Inasmuch, however, as my friend would not consent to discuss the doctrines of Universal Salvation and Endless Misery, without debating the present question, I have consented to the arrangement. Having thus been brought to the investigation of this subject, it affords me an opportunity-of which I shall not be backward to avail myself-of exposing to public view, a class of opinions, which, although hoary with age, and sanctioned for generations by popular favor, and the high regard of the world, are nevertheless, errors that have exerted an influence highly deleterious to the Morality as well as to the Religion of Christendom. I must be permitted to express my deep surprise and regret, that gentlemen of the learning and respectability of my friend opposite, and a majority of the so called Evangelical Clergy, should take the positions they do, on the subject involved in the present question, and on kindred doctrines. I can but be astonished that men of their intelligence should turn away from the light and knowledge on Biblical Criticism and Sacred Literature which have illuminated the world during the three hundred years that have elapsed since the Reformation, and setting their faces rigidly back to the dim shadows of the past, cling with the desperation of a death-struggle, to doctrines originating in the very Midnight of the dark ages, and which bear stamped on their every lineament, the Heathen ignorance from which they emanated. This holding fast to darkness in the midst of light, I can compare with no case in the history of the world, except the perversity with which the Jews clung to their old religion, when the light of the gospel beamed upon them in the days of the Savior. It is a marked illustration of the power of early education, the strength of prejudice, and the seductive influence of popular favor.

The moral position occupied by my opponent and myself, on this question, is very different. If I err in maintaining, in this discus

sion, that there is no possible escape from punishment-that when a man has committed violence against the law of God and Right, he must necessarily, receive a just and deserved chastisement—it will be an error on the right side. Pray what injury can come to the world in making the sinful man believe that a certain punishment will be inflicted upon him for every act of wrong doing? What harm can result from teaching the world, that as certainly as men do wrong, God will punish them? Can it possibly make any individual a worse man? But if my friend errs, I warn him he does it at the expense of the morals of the community. It will be a fatal error, in its practical influences on the public mind. It will be an error which must throw down the bars to sin, and remove that which alone the sinner FEARS-the certainty of punishment! When that certainty is removed, it opens a way for the votaries of sin; and depend upon it, they will pursue it. Better, far better, to err, if we err at all, in teaching and believing that punishment is CERTAIN, than in proclaiming that men may violate God's law, and yet escape the just penalty due their wickedness. An error of the latter description is much more fatal and deleterious in its moral and practical effects in community, than to insist on the great truth, every where laid down in the Bible, that whosoever sins must make up their mind that God will visit upon them a certain and adequate punishment.

To arrive at a just understanding of the merits of this question, it will be necessary to allude to first principles in regard to Law, and its Punishments. The simple possession of power, gives no being a true, moral right, to exercise authority, or inflict punishment. Might cannot be of itself a source of right. Did I possess more physical power than my brother on the opposite side, it would confer no moral right on me, to exercise authority over him. Such an exercise would be an usurpation-a tyranny. Indeed Might is the only Right possessed by despotic governments. This is the distinguishing characteristic of despotism. Moreover it is the only principle which prevails in the brute creation. Might is deemed to be right there, because they can comprehend no higher source of authority. But it is a principle unworthy of man, and in fact, entirely inapplicable, in any just sense, to moral and intellectual beings. What, then, is the true and legitimate source of authority? In a single word, it is-GOODNESS. The right to exercise authority, to enac laws, to command obedience, and to administer rewards and pu ishments, can arise solely from an intention to make such use these powers, as shall advance the interest, promote the good, a secure the happiness, of those over whom authority and law a exercised-Not only the good of all, collectively, but of each, in vidually. The authority of a government organized and admini. tered for these purposes, is legitimate, and can rightfully command obedience. But if authority is exercised for any other purpose, it is an usurpation,-it cannot be legitimate. These are deductions,

I conceive, from the plainest principles of moral philosophy, and are susceptible of universal application.

The authority of God emanates not from his power, but alone from his infinite goodness. It is because he is "good unto all," that he legitimately extends his government over all, and commands them to obey. If he was not good unto every being, he could not rightfully call upon all to render obedience. His government was organized for the one great purpose of conferring benefit-goodhappiness-on all created beings. This principle is fully recog nized in the Scriptures. The Psalmist exclaims, "Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.

Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise be thankful unto him and bless his name "-[Why? Because he has the power to command us to do so, and to inflict punishment if we disobey? No.]-"For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting, and his truth endureth to all generations." (Ps. c. 2-5.) Here Goodness is clearly recognized as the source of God's authority. The Apostle John says, "We love him," [and should obey and serve him, not because he has power to require and enforce obedience,] but because he first loved us." (1 John iv. 19.) Was the government of God organized for the purpose of destroying the happiness of a part of his creatures, or was it designedly administered in such a manner as to produce that result, then it would be a despotism of the most cruel description, and they would be under no moral obligation to obey him. There can be no moral rong in disobeying a government administered for the benefit of part, at the expense of the remainder. Hence, the position that Tod's government is designed to promote the greatest good of the reatest number; as that phrase is usually understood-(that is. he greatest good of a part, wrought out through the greatest evil of the others,)-is asserting a principle, which can in no way pertain to the government of a perfect God. To those who would be sacrificed for the good of the remainder, such a government would be a tyranny. No man can be placed in a condition for any cause -in consequence of any crime he may have committed,-where it would be right to sacrifice him, simply for the benefit of others. To punish him justly, would be right. But to sacrifice him to promote good in another quarter, would be a wrong and unjust exercise of authority. However guilty an individual may be, still he retains some inherent rights which cannot be alienated. And among the most important of these rights is this-That however much he may be punished as an example for the benefit of others, his own improvement and restoration to virtue is not to be lost sight of. Officers of justice are authorized to inflict a certain amount of punishment on convicts committed to their charge-and no more! Why? Because even the guilty have rights which must not be trampled upon. True justice, in no case, violates the dictates of humanity, and requires no punishment that calls upon men to forget the guilty

are fellow beings, having some claims upon their sympathy. Hence, I repeat, the principle that a part of mankind may be sacrificed for the good of the remainder, is one that cannot pertain to the govern ment of a God who is holy, just and good. Every moral being being in the universe, is under obligations to obey God, because his government is organized and administered to secure the happiness of each and all. It is a perfect government-perfect in its organization, in its laws, and in its administration, and accomplishing all its objects, according to the prompting of his infinite goodness and wisdom.

Upon this great truth-as beautiful as it is salutary-that God's government is perfect, and is administered for the good of all,-I place myself in this discussion. From this truth, I shall draw my chief weapons to meet my friend on the opposite side; and in its light, shall endeavor to show that the affirmative of this question, composes one of the most marked, prominent and delusive errors of the age. If God's government is organized and administered for the good of all who are called upon to obey, then its laws, commandments, precepts, rewards and punishments are designed for the same end-indeed, they are but steps adapted expressly to secure that end. Hence punishment, being one of the processes adapted in God's government to promote the welfare of the guilty, to save them from just and deserved punishment, would be vastly more to their injury than their benefit.-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' SECOND SPEECH.]

My friends:-Mr. Austin says he appears here not as a professed controversialist. In this I join with him, and it is often what I have expressed to him and others. I am not a controversialist, nor do I wish to gain any reputation of that kind. I am here under a sense of duty, to defend what I consider truth, for conscience sake. He remarks, also, that this question is not one of his own selection. And he carries the idea in his remarks that this is not a very important question, and that its discussion at this time would keep us back from questions of more importance and of higher claim. And yet before he gets through, he tells us it embraces one of the most marked and delusive errors that exists, and demands the reprobation of every intelligent mind. Of course if this be the character of the question, it is a highly important one. If such be the deleteri: ous influence, a belief in the affirmative of the question produces o the human mind and the morals of society, it strikes me we hat commenced at the right end of the controversy, that this is the ve question that ought to be first discussed. I wish to have it unde stood also, as Mr Austin has alluded to my position in the denom nation with which I am connected, that I alone am responsibi for the results of this debate, so far as I participate in it. see I have very few of my ministerial bretheren here to-day. I

You