grace, of the drowning of the antediluvians, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah! He asks exultingly, if this was the fruit of the Creator's Fatherly love? This is a favorite argument with our friends of the opposite faith. Indeed, it seems to be viewed by them as the highest effort of the combined learning, talent, skill, shrewdness, and wit of all their theological warriors! When other efforts have proved abortive, they seize upon this, as the sword of Goliah, which shall assuredly slay the adversary, and deliver the field of controversy into their hands. Failing to repeat it with sufficient unction in plain prose, they weave it into doggerel rhyme, with other matters expressed in language equally chaste, dignified, and witty, and circulate it through the land for the special edification of the faithful! If friend Holmes thinks this stale objection has not been harped upon long enough—if he imagines the public have not sufficient common sense to detect its shallowness-if he dreams he can increase his capital by bringing it into this discussion-[ cannot object. It only subjects me to the labor of meeting his assertions, which even a child in the principles of Universalism, can overthrow, and which indeed, have again and again been shown to be but the merest fallacy. I suppose he will allow the antediluvians and the dwellers in Sodom and Gomorrah, were human beings! If they were, then God sustained towards them the same relationship of Father, that he does to all his intelligent offspring. His dealings with them, therefore, were the dealings of a wise and good Parent with disobedient offspring. Should an earthly father while chastising his erring children in one apartment of his residence, suddenly remove them to another apartment, would it furnish any rational indication that he had laid aside all parental affection, and was torturing them with a revengeful cruelty, such as the most malignant enemy alone could inflict? The supposition would be extremely absurd. Yet what were God's dealings with the antediluvians, and inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, but removing them while in the act of inflicting just correction, from one apartment of his Great Edifice to another? What evidence do these acts afford, that the Creator will torment them forever? The destruction of these ancient transgressors, furnishes no proof that God cherished any less love for them than for the rest of the sinful world. It only shows divine wisdom preferred that method of punishment in these instances, to any other at his command. Universalists are continually charged with believing that the Antediluvians, Sodomites, etc., when swept from the earth, ascended immediately to Heaven. There never was a charge more totally groundless. No opinion of this description ever prevailed, or existed in our midst. Our belief is that the Heavenly Father dealt with them on the same principles that he deals with all other sinners-that he punished them justly for their sins, and that whenever their hearts are softened, and they turn to him in repentance and love, he pardons and accepts of them. Their removal to an

other world did not place them beyond the limits of that great and universal Invitation, which forms one of the fundamental principles of the Divine Government in all states of existence :-" Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”—(Isa. lv. 7.) We believe the Antediluvians and Sodomites, and all the wicked of every age and nation, are allowed to accept of this invitation. And we have no doubt that in yielding to its merciful proposals, they all in due time, are brought to reconciliation and peace with their Creator. What was the worst to which God could subject them in the future world? It would have been to place them where they would have sunk forever deeper and deeper in sin, blasphemy and wretchedness!! What would have been the best treatment? To remove them to some fitting place in the dominions of the Most High, where they could be subjected to such purifying and enlightening influences, as should bring them all at length to become obedient children of the common Parent of the world, and fitted to enter his immediate presence, to love, adore, and glorify him forever!! Universalists simply honor God sufficiently to believe he will pursue the best course, in preference to the worst, in regard to any and all his offspring!

My friend opposite inquires, what father would punish his children, if he had power to reform them without? In reply, I ask, what wise parent would not punish his children, if he saw it was the most certain and effectual way of reforming them? God could have selected other processes, if he had thought best. But he saw that punishment administered in wisdom and mercy, was of all methods, the best calculated to bring to repentance and amendment. Hence he adopted that as one of the measures of his government. Elder Holmes has great objection to my appealing to the sympathies of the audience. I have seen throughout the debate, that these appeals trouble him. He shrinks before them, and wants as little of them as possible. He says if I despise his appeals to men's fears, he despises my appeals to their sympathies! I have no doubt he despises the touchstone of human sympathy! And why?Because it crushes to the earth his monstrous dogma of endless wretchedness! There is no sympathy for that doctrire in the hearts of men-while their hearts are full of approbation for the glorious sentiment of universal holiness and happiness!! All this he knows, and hence his dread of sympathy. Yet why should I not appeal to human sympathy? It is one of the highest and holiest characteristics of man. It is that, which more than all things else, distinguishes him from the brute creation below; it is the brightest link that unites him with angelic beings above. There is no trait in which human beings show more of the spirit which characterizes the dwellers around God's throne in heaven, than in the sympathy they manifest in each other's welfare. Strike this principle from

the human heart, and earth would speedily become an Aceldama. Would to God there was more of it in our world. But Elder Holmes despises my appeals to your sympathies; and places them on the same level with his appeals to your FEARS! The only difference between us, in this respect, is, that while he appeals to the most low and base feeling in man and brute, my appeal is to the most beautiful and God-like emotion of men and angels!! If he can discover no distinction, I am satisfied all who hear me, can see and feel it.

But the Elder contends that human nature is perverted, and hence human sympathy must be perverted also-and that it is therefore wrong to allow our sympathies to influence us. This is strange doctrine! Very well-let us carry it into practice! On this principle it would be wrong for me to spmpathize with my friend--as I cannot avoid doing, on account of the dark and forbidding doctrine he is laboring to maintain! Nay, if he falls into trouble in his family, or his own person, I must not sympathize with him--I must not fly to him, and strive to soothe and console him in his misfortunes! This would be wrong-it would be but an exhibition of a perverted and corrupt nature!! We must not sympathize with the poor and needy! Our prompting to this is but an evidence of the perversion of our hearts! Monstrous! How many does Br. Holmes expect will sympathize with him in such an absurd perversion of man's best characteristic? Will he be sustained by the Bible in this position? Far from it. God's word commands us to sympathize with one another. It calls upon us to "rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.”—(Rom. xii. 15.) Notwithstanding my friend's objection, I shall still continue to appeal to human sympathy in corroboration of my sentiments, whenever occasion renders it proper.

Elder Holmes makes another attempt as on the last question, to show a distinction between chastisement and punishment. He insists chastisement is for the good man, and punishment for the wicked! That is, God chastizes the righteous on one principle, and punishes the wicked on another. He chastizes the righteous for their benefit, and punishes the wicked only to injure and torment them! There can be no more fatal error in relation to God's government than this. The idea that he inflicts the penalty of his violated law upon one portion of the violaters, (and that portion the most guilty, because they sinned against the most light,) for their benefit, and on another portion for their injury, indicates views of the principles on which the Almighty deals with his creatures, of a nature so dark and low, that those who entertain them, must be led far astray into error. I have already shown in discussing the first question, that the only distinction which can possibly exist between chastisement and punishment-the only distinction which reason or the scriptures will admit, is a distinction, not of nature but of quantity! The most that can be claimed for chastisement in contradis

tinction to punishment, is that it is a lighter infliction of pain rendered for sins of a less heinous character, while punishment is a more severe application of suffering, for crimes of a darker grade! But both are of the same nature--administered on a similar principle, and for a like purpose, viz. to lead the wayward and straying children of men back to repentance and salvation. Any other view of the subject, involves contradictions and absurdities respecting God and his government, of the most abhorrent description.

Here let me briefly notice the "summing" up of Mr. Holmes on my arguments from the Desire and the Intention of God. He represents God's desire and his intention, as not absolute but contingent, and that hence they do not exert any absolute control over the final destinies of men. I ask the audience to notice the remarkable fallacy of this position. How absurd to represent the Desire and Intention of an INFINITE GOD, as not absolute-i. e. not fixed and certain, but as indefinite and uncertain. He "rather" DESIRES, and "rather" intends, but really upon the whole, does not absolutely desire nor intend!! If God's desire and intention are contingent, upon what contingency do they depend? According to my friend's theory, they depend on the proceedings of feeble, blind, erring creatures, whom God has clothed with only such powers as he has pleased. If man is willing to be saved, and will accept of certain terms of salvation, (and God knew when he imposed these terms, whether his creatures would accept or reject them)-why then Jehovah Desires and Intends to save him. But if man in his blindness will not comply with the terms, then God neither Desires nor Intends to save him! This wholly reverses the relative position of the two parties, and makes the Creator dependent on the creature, rather than the latter dependent on the former. Here is sound reasoning!! Moreover, he insists that man's salvation cannot depend on the Desire and Intention of God, because this would destroy the moral character of the divine government-exclude the influence of the moral law- overthrow man's agency, and place aside the conditionality of salvation. How short sighted these objections! Who, with the slightest reflection, does not see, that the Creator's Desire and Intention respecting man's final destiny, were formed in express reference to the character of his government-to his moral law-to man's agency-and any and all conditionality in salvation! It was in sight of all these, and in harmony with them, that he formed his Desire and Intention, eventually to bring all his creatures to holiness and happiness. His own government, man's moral agency, and the conditions of salvation, are not so many obstacles, but so many instruments to the fulfilment of the Desire and Intention of Jehovah respecting the final salvation of the world!

Elder Holmes has at length brought forth his first Negative Argument, viz:-That Universalism denies the existence of sin as a moral evil. In the name of logic and sound reasoning, I trust this

is not a specimen of what his Negative Arguments are to be. I am anxious that this discussion should be interesting and instructive on both sides, and confidently anticipated my opponent would introduce arguments against the impartial grace of God, possessing some weight, in appearance at least, and some relevancy to the questions before us. of those to follow, I despair of getting up a readable debate. What But if this negative argument is a sample relation has this argument to the proposition in discussion? Suppose Universalism does deny the existence of sin as a moral evil, does it prove there is not "sufficient evidence for believing that all men will be finally holy and happy?" Does it approach within sight of the question in controversy? I am surprised at the Elder's want of tact, and hope, hereafter, when he introduces a negative argument, he will enlighten us by showing what bearing it has upon the point at issue.

I deny most unequivocally, that Universalism fails to recognize sin as a moral evil, or that it robs God of the character and station of a Moral Governor. It looks upon sin in no other light than as a moral act, and hence a moral evil. Whatever investigations Universalist writers may have made in relation to the origin or causes of sin, do not militate against the fact which they all acknowledge, that wherever it exists, sin is a moral evil. His quotations from Ballou, Rogers, Guild and Hyatt, and Austin, fall far short of sustaining his charge. It will not be necessary for me to enter upon an examination and defence of these quotations for two reasons. 1. Every intelligent hearer and reader must perceive, that the language introduced, when construed and understood according to the evident intent of the authors, does not involve a denial that sin is a moral evil. 2. But even allowing that it did, it can in no possible way, affect the merits of the question now under consideration. Pray what have the opinions of Ballou, Rogers, etc., in regard to the origin or nature of sin, to do with the question-"Is there sufficient reason for believing that all men will become finally holy and happy?" The Elder informs us he has many more of the same kind of quotations to present hereafter. Very well, he can go on in this direction to any extent he pleases. I shall follow him no farther than to show that all matters of this description are wholly extraneous to this discussion, and that their introduction only shows on his part a distressing and pitiable want of something of weight to urge against the gospel of a world's salvation.

Inasmuch, however, as allusion has been made to my individual views in relation to "the origin of sin," perhaps I shall be justified, in so far digressing, as to make a brief explanation of my position. Let me premise, by the way, that I am alone responsible for my opinions on this subject-my brethren agreeing or disagreeing with me, as their own judgments dictate.

I hold that man's organization is a compound of animal propensities, and moral and intellectual capacities. The latter are supe