period, does not change its moral character.

Third: he assumes

that God makes the sinner miserable. Let us suppose for the sake of the argument, that this is true. The same logic that would prove it wrong to make the sinner miserable forever, would also prove it wrong to make him miserable, or occasion his unhappiness for a limited period. For we have already seen that the moral character of punishment is not determined by mere duration. But it is not true that God occasions the misery of sinful' men; they cause their own misery by assuming such an attitude to the law and government of God, as to make their own unhappiness a natural and necessary consequence; and continuing this attidude of hostility and rebellion in utter rejection of the terms of reconciliation, they alone are responsible for the consequence to themselves, though it be endless perdition. I will close my reply to the argument from the love of God, by a remark or two on the divine paternity.

Mr. Austin has urged repeatedly, that what a good father would do, he having sufficient wisdom and power, that God will do for the whole family of man. But the common sense of every father here, teaches him, that if he had the power and wisdom requisite to reform his children, and make them virtuous and happy without punishment, he would do it without delay. Does not my friend see the conclusion to which his course of reasoning conducts him? He virtually takes the ground, that God has neither wisdom nor power to bring men to heaven and happiness, without first making them sinful and miserable. Carry out the principle, and where will it lead to? Men must become drunkards before they can become temperate and sober-knaves before they can be honest men-and liars before they can learn to speak the truth. For heaven's sake my friend, renounce your theory, or invent some better way to support it.

I trust I have now given a sufficient answer to the much lauded argument from the love of God. I have shown its defection in no less than six particulars, each of which destroys its validity and vitiates the conclusion sought to be drawn from it. Let Mr Austin overthrow either of my positions if he can. I invite him to the trial. And let him not seek to mistify the subject by flour ishes, but in a fair and manly way, take hold of the naked principle and remove it.

I will now introduce my second negative argument. Universalism makes God the author of all the sin in the universe. This follows as a legitimate, and indeed, unavoidable corollary, from a number of the positions already taken by Mr. Austin in this discussion. Besides, the fundamental principles of the system lead to the same conclusion. We have already seen that it makes sin proceed from the physical constitution or bodily portion of our nature. The leading writers of Universalism would not take ground so offensive to common sense, were it not necessary to support a

theory equally absurd and untenable. Mr. Austin has, indeed, explained this notion, by saying "sin arises from the promptings of the body." But this amounts to the same thing-it makes the bodyt he first, and efficient cause of sin; that is, mere matter, in itself perfectly inert and unintelligent, is the efficient cause of moral acts, and consequently, the subject of moral guilt. With this view the gentleman's own declaration in the Expositor fully agrees. Sin, says he," proceeds from the animal or bodily portion of our nature, as it exists in this life, and not from the mind, spirit or soul." Now as God gave man his physical constitution, it follows, if it prompt to sin, as Mr. Austin teaches-or if sin be the necessary result of physical organization, as Ballou teaches, nothing can be more clear than that God is the intelligent and desinging Author of sin. It is in this sense that we are to understand the gentleman when he says God " subjected the human race to vanity, not willingly:" he imposed on them the necessity of becoming sinners. In his argument with Mr. Parks, Mr. Austin took the ground, that God created man in an imperfect and impure state.

MR. AUSTIN. That was not my ground.

Mr. HOLMES.-Well, he takes that ground here, whether he did there or not, and this is sufficient for my present purpose. He has told us that man's physical constitution prompts to sin : but that which prompts to sin, must itself be impure-hence, as God gave man this constitution originally, he created him in an imperfect and impure state. Mr. Ballou reaches the same conclusion by a process somewhat different. He tells us that to be made subject to vanity, is to be made subject to sin, and to be subject to sin is to have an imperfect constitution, one that leads to sin, and that God gave man such a constitution. He farther says, (on Atonement p. 31,) natural evil is the necessary result of physical organization, and moral evil flows from natural evil. In this chain of reasoning, there are three links instead of two, yet the conclusion is precisely the same-God is the author of sin. Again, to make this more plain and emphatic, he remarks, in his lecture on Rom. viii. 20: "The opinion that man was constituted in flesh and blood, a perfectly holy being, but was made 'subject to vanity by sin,' is contrary to the text, and to the dictates of common sense." Nor is this all; this same writer (on Atonement, page 17, 23, 36,) treats the subject in a metaphysical way. He is not so fearful of deep water as my friend here seems to be. He remarks, “if by real evil, (or sin)he meant something that ought not to be, in respect to all the consequences that attend it, I cannot admit of its existence." He makes everything that takes place, come to pass according to the intention of Deity; hence the following: "If God possesses infinite wisdom, he could never intend anything to take place or be, that will not take place or be, nor that which is, or will be, not to be at the time when it

is." That is, God intended every thing should be just as it is, and when it is.

as.

The same blasphemous doctrine is taught by Mr. A. C. ThomAnd let it be remembered, that Mr. Thomas is one of the most distinguished and popular preachers of Universalism on the continent. In the judgment of Universalists, he remarks, (disc. with Dr. Ely,)" man is a moral agent. Nevertheless, he says, we hold that he who gave, has power to impart to the agency of man, such impulses, and to his will such a direction, as infinite benevolence may prompt." Now the plain import of this is, that man is a moral agent, yet no otherwise a moral agent, than as he acts under divine impulses, imparted to his agency to give to his will a specific direction. Hence, all his acts are according to the will of God. No wonder that Ballou should say, "God had no more occasion to be displeased with Adam after he sinned, than before he made him," since he was but acting in obedience to that impulse imparted to his agency to give direction to his will; and was, Mr. Thomas being judge, carrying out the benevolent intention of his Maker. True, friend Ballou, God had no occasion for displeasure towards Adam, nor for the punishment he threatened, nor for excluding him from paradise when " he drove out the man." No, nor had he any occasion for displeasure towards the Antediluvians, or Sodomites, who all fulfilled the intention of God, by obeying those impulses imparted to their agency to give direction to their will ! ! ! ! ! !

Such, also, is the doctrine of Mr. Rogers, in his work denominated, "Pro and Con. of Universalism." Mr. Pingree, in his discussion with Mr. Rice, took the same ground. I have been thus particular in citing authorities, that I might not be charged with misrepresentation. It is the doctrine of Universalism, according to these writers, that God is the Author of all the sin in the universe-by open avowal and unavoidable consequence from their premises, God intended, and visited the human mind with the impulses necessary to produce everything just as it is and has been. Now look at the absurdities into which this blasphemous idea plunges Universalism.

1. By making God, in intention, purpose and impulse, the efficient author of sin. It robs him of his holiness and contradicts his word, which declares most emphatically, that God hates sin, and is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.

2. Universalism charges folly and inconsistency upon Almighty God. This it does by representing that he has given man a constitution, designedly so imperfect and sinful in its tendencies, as to subject him, necessarily, to the commission of sin; and that, notwithstanding this, he proceeds gravely to enact a law against sin, that is, he places man in circumstances where he must sin, and cannot avoid it, and then, forsooth, forbids sin, and threatens punishment if he is not obeyed.

3. Universalism, according to the views above set forth, represents God as the basest of all hypocrites. He has forbidden all sin, of every kind and degree, at all times, and under every circumstance in life. He has enjoined upon all men, the practice of every virtue; and yet he has purposely so fixed the constitution and relations of men, that they cannot, if they would, do otherwise than sin. He has declared to his intelligent universe that sin is the abominable thing which he hates, and yet he has provided for its introduction, purposes, designs that men shall commit it, and to make this resuit sure, imparts such impulses as are necessary to the end proposed. He declares to his subjects that sin is destroying them, that it is the bane of their felicity-and yet he has created them in a state of subjection to sin and its consequences, out of a pure and benevolent desire to promote their happiness. He declares he has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth :" his benevolent soul is pained, when, in the administration of justice, he is obliged to punish the sinner, and yet he has made him an imperfect being, and visits his mind with sinful impulses, to the end that he may commit sin, and be the subject of punishment. What consummate hypocrisy !

4. On the principles above set forth, God is cruel and unjust, inasmuch as he punishes men for doing his will. He is the author of man, the author of sin, and the author of punishment; he forbids sin, wills sin, and punishes sin-and instead of being the fountain of goodness and justice, he is the fountain of evil, and the highest example of injustice in the universe.

From all which, I present for the consideration of my friend, a dilemma with three horns, one of which he must take, and it is perfectly immaterial to me which he shall select, on which to hang up his theory. 1. God gives a false account of himself in the Bible, and is basely hypocritical in his administration; or, 2. The Bible gives a false view of the character and government of God, and is therefore not a divine revelation; or, 3. Universalism gives a false view of the Bible and its glorious Author, and is, therefore, itself utterly false, and highly blasphemous in its character.

Let me solemnly ask this respectable audience, if they are willing to risk their salvation on such a system? In the name of heaven, make a better selection.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S FIFTH SPEECH.]

Brother Moderators:-Allow me in the first place, to notice Elder Holmes' second Negative Argument, viz. That Universalism makes God the author of all sin in the Universe. The audience will remember that his first Negative Argument was that Universalism denied the existence of sin as a moral evil. I have to suggest that these two objections clash with each other. The first

asserting that Universalism denies there is really any sin at all; and the second charging it with making God the author of all sin !! The one of these objections annihilates the other. This will not do, Elter! It is a poor and unpromising beginning, to overthrow one's own arguments at the first go off. If my friend's remaining batteries are not aimed better than these, he will waste his ammunition for nothing!

I have already shown that Universalism does not deny the existence of sin. The charge that it makes God the author of sin, is equally groundless Our position on this point, is simply this: That the Creator has been pleased for good reasons already explained, to cause the endless existence he has conferred on men, to commence in a world where they are exposed to evil, temptation and sin! He does not compel them to sin; but has given them power to withstand every temptation. When, however, they fail to exercise their self-control, and give way to improper promptings, they sin, ani subject themselves to just punishment. Who so blind as not to see, or so uncandid as not to acknowledge, that this cannot in any proper sense, be construed as attributing the authorship of sin to the Creator! His quotations from the writings of Ballou and Thomas, when received in the light which the authors intended, fall entirely short of sustaining his charge. The views entertained by Universalists in regard to sin, are fully sustained by the scriptures, as already shown. And I would suggest to friend Holmes, that if he wishes to run a tilt against the Bible, he can do But I desire the audience and the public to understand, that allowing all he says on this subject, it does not militate in the least, against the affirmative of the question now before us.

80.

He struggles hard to overthrow my position, that if a state of things exists in this life, AGAINST the desire, and will, and purpose, of Gol, then a similar, or even worse state of things, may exist hereafter and forever, against his desire, will and purpose. He knows this well grounded deduction is fatal to all the objections he has brought or can bring, against my course of reasoning. How does he attempt to parry its force? In a way that is certainly original. He takes the ground that a state of things which exists in accordance with the purpose and will of God here, may exist in in accordance with his purpose and will hereafter and forever. Hence if man's exposure to sin in this life, is in accordance with God's purpose and will, then it may be in accordance with his purpose and will that man should be exposed to sin hereafter and forever!! Is this his logic-his deep water? Is there no difference between a state of things which exists in OPPOSITION to God's will and purpose-in spite of his intention and power-and a state which AGREES with his will and purpose? If an exposure to sin and evil in this life, is in opposition to God's will and purpose, as my opponent and all his school maintain, then it is because he could not help it, and had no ability to prevent it. Hence the sin