Still farther-Universalists generally maintain that sin arises wholly from our bodily, or physical nature, and when the body is dead, sin is dead; hence, after the general resurrection, all will be saved, because they will no longer have a sinful body. But this contradicts all that has been said before; for, if men are to be saved by the resurrection, then they will not be saved by anything else. They will not be saved because sin does not deserve eternal perdition-nor by the death of Christ-nor by his lifenor by his gospel-nor by the corrective influence of punishment -nor by the mercy of God; but by the resurrection of the body. Moreover, as the resurrection is a physical change, effected by the physical power of God, it follows we have only a physical salvation, effected by physical means. Here, then, is another pile of ab

surdities.

Then there is another case. Mr. A. contends, and so Universalists generally do, that God made man in an imperfect state, and that it is the object of his dispensations to improve him to carry him forward in mental and moral improvement to perfection, and thus finally secure his eternal happiness. But before they get through with the argument, they introduce Jesus Christ, who is to effect the restitution of all things-that is, he is to restore man to his original state of imperfection, and thus defeat his eternal salvation.

We give but one example more, viz: the contradictory application they make of terms. The term aion, when it suits the peculiar views of Universalism, means eternal-when it would contradict Universalism, it means only a limited duration. So, also, the word destroy: when Paul says the works of the devil shall be destroyed, and death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed, of course the word means destruction without end-but when the same Paul says, the wicked shall be punished with everlasting destruction, the term has a different meaning-it is limited.

Such is the confusion, contradiction, and palpable inconsistency, which characterize the proofs of Universalism. And we have other examples of a similar nature, in the arguments of my friend on the subject of punishment and repentance. He sometimes makes punishment a cure for sickness or sin, and sometimes the necessary result of sickness or sin. He has also taught, that punishment produces, and is designed to produce repentance, and that repentance is punishment; that is, the end and means are identical-the effect produced by the cause, is the cause itself. He has transposed these terms many times during this debate, giving them first one meaning, then another, as best suited the purpose he had in hand.

I will now proceed to my fourth argument. And I here wish to have it understood, that I have repeatedly called on Mr. Austin to explain what he means by salvation, and it is apparent from his answer, that Universalism means a very different thing by salvation from what I mean, and this shows the propriety of my de

mand. Why does he not more clearly define his position? Suppose one of the moderators, (and I am glad to know they are temperance men,) should find a drunkard in the street, and get him to sign the pledge, does that remove the guilt of his past course of life? If I understand Mr. Austin's definition of salvation, he teaches that it is not from the consequences due the former commission of sin, but from a state of sinning, and nothing more. Upon this principle, though the drunkard may many times have abused his family, and committed crimes of dreadful turpitude, yet, when he takes the pledge, he is exonerated from all consequences for past guilt. For it is taught here, that when a man repents, punishment ceases; hence, the drunkard repenting, his punishment will cease, and all the old score be wiped away. On this principle, also, when the murderer ceases to murder, he is absolved from his crime; so, when the thief ceases to steal, he is no longer guilty of the crime of stealing. On the same principle, too, if a man had contracted a debt, by simply acknowledging that he owed the debt, and ceasing to increase it, the debt would be paid. You know that the scriptures represent men as debtors, and their sins as debts, and if debts contracted become void by ceasing to increase, then we have discovered a principle in finance hitherto unknown. These are the reasons which induce me to call on Mr. Austin for a more explicit definition of his view of salvation.

My fourth negative argument relates to Salvation. On the principles of Universalism, there is no such thing. The proper idea of salvation, is deliverance. In this, all definitions of salvation centre. Gospel salvation is, therefore, deliverance from sin and its consequences. But the doctrine that my friend contends for, is not deliverance in any sense, but merely prevention. It is not deliverance, in the sense that medicine delivers from sickness. The whole object of medicine, on his principle, ought to be to prevent sickness, and not to cure present sickness.

Soteria, the Greek word for salvation, is rendered by Donnegan, delivery from danger, safety, restoration to health, recovery. Taken in a theological sense, it would be deliverance from sin, protection against the danger and ruin of a sinful life, and restoration from moral death to spiritual life and health. This is consistent with the Bible, though directly contradicted by Universalism. As to the place where this salvation is to be effected, I have asked Mr. Austin to give information on this point, but he does not see fit to do so. But in the absence of an answer from him, we will consult the oracles or Universalism.

Mr. Thomas, (page 25, Discussion with Ely,) in giving what he declares to be the views of a great majority of Universalists in this country, as well as his own views, confines salvation to this life, and says the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment after this life. Mr. Whittemore, in his "Plain Guide," (p.

256,) says, "the evils from which Christ came to save men, are in this world; therefore, he came into this world to save them." A writer in the Universalist Expositor, (vol iii. p. 65,) says, all those passages of scripture which define the nature of salvation, agree that Jesus Christ saves man from evils which attach to him in this world. Mr. Pingree, in debate with Mr. Rice, denied that man is exposed to anything in another life from which he need be saved. So also Mr. Ballou (Lectures, p. 17,)—" The reason why Christ came into this world to save sinners, was, because the sinners he came to save, were in this world. The common doctrine which teaches that Christ came into this world, to save us in another world, is contrary to all the representations found in the scriptures." The same sentiment is expressed in similar language on page 72. Here we have it announced that the salvation which Christ confers, is confined wholly to this life-that it exerts no influence whatever upon man's condition in another life. Hence, they interpret those passages which speak of everlasting life, eternal life, eternal salvation, and so on, so as to confine their signification wholly to this world. Now, it is proper to ask, what, on the principles of Universalism, is salvation? Universalists say a great deal about Christ being the Savior of all men; but reduce what they say to its lowest terms, and you find nothing of it; it vanishes into thin air.

Does Christ save men in another world? No-for they are exposed to nothing in another world from which they need be saved. Does he save them from eternal death? No-for they never were exposed to eternal death. Does he save them from punishment? No-for it is the doctrine of Universalism, that every sinner must be punished to the full extent of his deserts. Does he save them from sin, or sinning? No-for Universalism maintains, that sin comes from our bodily organization; that man was created with an imperfect constitution, and that sin is a necessary concomitant of our earthly state. Does he save them from inward defilement? No-unless they are saved from defilement while yet they continue to sin. Does he save them from guilt and condemnation? No-unless they cease to be guilty and condemned, before they cease to be punished. To be saved from condemnation, is to be saved from punishment, the possibility of which, Universalism denies. Does Christ save sinners in the resurrection? No-for Universalism maintains that the resurrection, as a fact under the government of God, was just as true before Christ came, as after that event-just as true without him, as with him. All that can be predicated of Christ in respect to the resurrection, is, that he announced the fact to the world. But in this, he acted only a subordinate part, for the fact of the resurrection was announced long before he came. It was believed by the Jews, and preached by the prophets, and subsequently by the Apostles. Besides, the resurrection of the body is a physical, not

a moral change; hence cannot effect salvation in a moral sense. What, then, on Universalist principles, is salvation? Who can tell? After all the flourish about Universal Salvation, when we come to scan it down, it vanishes into thin air. Were I ever so much disposed to be a Universalist, on other grounds, I could never be one, because there is no salvation in the system. I have never yet found an intelligent Universalist who could tell me what it is.

The gentleman who opposes me in this discussion, may, perhaps, claim to understand the system he advocates, as well as any man in the country; and yet it appears he himself can give us no intelligent view of the nature of salvation, as taught by him. I him ask what salvation is, and he replies, we are to be saved from sin. I ask him again what he means by salvation from sin, and he evades the point-dodges the question, as often as the demand is made. From the foregoing facts it follows, 1. Universalism annihilates salvation, and thus robs the gospel of his design, and man of his spiritual hopes. 2. It robs Christ of his work, and of his title, as SAVIOR of the world. Hence, the Bible gives a false view, both of Christ and salvation; or Universalism, as taught and believed in the nineteenth century, is a great theological humbug.

My friend says that my first and second negative arguments contradict each other. Now this is not so, unless the contradiction arises out of the nature of Universalism. I have already said that it is confused and contradictory in its proofs, and those negative arguments are founded on its declarations, as given by the authors of this system themselves. Hence, if there be any contradiction between them, it arises out of the elements of which Universalism is composed, and these are given by the most accomplished advocates of the system. If, therefore, there be a contradiction, it is chargeable to Universalism. And he wants to know what this, after all, has to do with the subject. I answer, that if sin be a moral evil, only as it results from our physical nature, then there is no such thing as moral salvation, and this I have sufficiently explained already. I answer still farther, that if God be the author of all sin, (which I deny,) man needs not to be redeemed from any thing for which he is blameworthy, and is not properly a subject of salvation at all. He should be treated, just as a physical object is treated, and is no more worthy of being rewarded than he deserves to be punished. And this view also directly charges the greatest injustice on God, by teaching that he has given such a constitution to man, as to render it necessary that we should sin, and then punishes men for acting in accordance with that constitution. On this subject, I do not care what may be the views of Mr. Austin. Mr. Austin may deny or affirm any thing necessary to help him along in this discussion. I am not combating his views, as such, but the dogmas of Universalism:

A

and I intend to follow this crooked and contradictory theory into its darkest hiding places-seize it with the tongs of truth, and bring it out to public gaze stripped of its shining, frippery dress, though serpent-like, it darts its forked and hissing tongue. word now in regard to Origen. When I get along a little further, I shall show what kind of Universalism Origen taught; but for the present I wish to say, Origen's view of the atonement, I allow, with my friend, was a modification of heathenism, and so was his Universalism. It was derived directly from the Platonic school, and did not properly represent the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. I do not believe his view of the atonement at all; and I wish here to say, that the quotation given by the gentleman, was taken from my article on atonement, and he ought to have given credit for it.

MR. AUSTIN.-It was not taken from his article. I acknowledge it is there, but I had seen it before I read that article.

MR. HOLMES. I am satisfied-I saw my friend had the Quarterly on his table, and that lead to the supposition that he had quoted from it. I do not believe Origen's view of the atonement. It was a modification of heathenism, and so was his Universalism, as I shall show you when I come to that point. He asks me to show how God, as a God of love, punishes the sinner; this I have already done in my reply to his argument from the love of God. And now I ask him, if he pleases, to give the whole of Dr. Payson's views on this subject, and he will have a much better explanation than I have given or can give. Let the gentleman turn over a few pages from the paragraph quoted with so much eclat, and read the following language: God is angry with the wicked every day. Do you ask why he is angry? I answer, he is angry to see rational, immortal and accountable beings, spending twenty, forty, or sixty years in trifling and sin, serving divers idols, lusts, and vanities, and living as if death were one eternal sleep. He is angry to see you forgetting your Maker, in childhood, in youth, in manhood, making no returns for all his benefits, casting off his fear, and restraining prayer, and rebelling against him who has brought you up as children. He is angry to see you laying up treasures on earth, seeking every thing in preference to the one thing needful, loving the praise of men more than the praise of God; and fearing those who can kill the body, more than him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. He is angry to see that you disregard alike his threatenings and promises, his judgments and mercies: that you reject his word, his spirit, his law, and perish in impenitency and unbelief, notwithstanding all the means employed for your salvation. These are sins of which every person, in an unconverted state, is guilty and for these things God is angry, daily angry, greatly and justly angry; and