This

Mr. Holmes has finally adopted a new process to get out of his difficulties. Instead of taking up my arguments seriatim, as they were offered, he "lumps" three of them together, and considers them under one head. This is a very convenient method, and one it would be well for controversialists generally to consider-especially those who have but little confidence in their cause. It saves the trouble of examining in detail, many facts of which it might be difficult to dispose. I wonder my brother did not wait until I had offered all my arguments, and then "lumped" the whole. It would have spared him much vexation and labor, and probably would have been quite as fruitful of success as to mince the matter. lumping, of course, is not for want of time, for my friend, in his truely refined and classical style, has told us he should not “ whine” about the want of time. But let the audience note his reply to these three arguments. They will easily discover that he has not weakened, nor even approached the fundamental truths on which they rest. Neither can he, or any other mortal, remove one of them. I speak thus confidently, because they are SELF-EVIDENT truths, and all the arts of sophistry cannot affect them in the slightest degree. In our reflections upon Deity, his purposes, and his works, we must be governed by "first principles" drawn directly from, his attributes and character. These "first principles" decide the character of all considerations that follow them, and depend upon them. Hence when we are right here, and pursue a plain course of deduction, we cannot fail of arriving at truth, in the results to which we attain. But my opponent, instead of removing or weakening the self-evident first principles on which my argumen's rest, spends his chief strength in bringing forth secondary considerations, drawn from man, and his present sinfulness and imperfections. With these, he would fain overthrow the great pillars of Truth which rest directly upon the Attributes of the Most High. To every discriminating mind, this course is entirely unsatisfactory, and shows the utter weakness and fallacy of the reasoning depending on it.

The Elder acknowledges the Atonement of Christ was made for ALL MEN; yet he insists that it is applicable only to those who believe it. He also represents punishment as a debt due from the sinner to Justice. This is the general belief of the partialist sects; and yet what an absurdity it carries on its face. It makes the accuracy of a FACT already transpired, depend on men's belief of it. A certain act has been done-Christ has veritably made an Atonement for the sins of all mankind-he has actually paid the debt due from the sinner to Justice!! Here are certain things that have in reality taken place!! Yet all this is undone, or in fact it has never been done, without certain beings who live hundred of years afterwards, believe it!! I am in prison for debt-a benevolent neighbor discharges my obligation-the creditor receives the money in his pocket, and announces to me that the debt is paid. I demand the

prison door thrown open, that I may go forth to the enjoyment of liberty. But the creditor refuses to allow this, unless I will believe I have a neighbor so good as to do this act in my behalf, and keeps me in prison my whole life, unless I entertain this belief. Who does not see that this proceeding would violate the plainest dictates of honesty and justice! When a debt is paid, it IS paid, whether the debtor believes it or not. Yet this is the highest conception many people entertain of God's dealings with his sinful creatures! My friend says he does not preach damnation through the land! I am glad to hear it-I rejoice he is beginning to learn that the work of the Messenger of the Gospel is to proclaim SALVATION! Let him progress in his more enlarged views. With diligence I have great hope, that in due time, he will arrive at a knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ, and enable me at length to extend to him the Right Hand of Fellowship, as a preacher of the true Gospel of Jesus. If the Elder has changed in this respect, there is great room for similar improvement in most of his brother partialist divines. I would commend them all to consider well the words of the poet:

"Let not this weak, unknowing hand
Presume Thy bolts to throw,

And deal damnation round the land,
On each I judge Thy foe."

Elder Holmes does not approve of my position that man's nature is PROGRESSIVE. He is perfectly aware that this fact well established, overthrows his entire theory of the endless duration of sin and misery. Once allow that human beings possess a capacity to progress, and that God will always grant them the privilege of exercising it, in all states of being-(and why should he not ?)-and it becomes self-evident that all men will eventually arise above the imperfections of this life, and participate in higher and happier scenes! All this is clear to my opponent, and hence he seeks to overthrow the most evident and valuable property God has incorporated in the human organization. He insists man is not a progressive being, and argues to a point which would prove that we are all BLOCKHEADS-that we have no capacity to learn, and that we know no more when we die, than when we were born! This must be the drift of his argument. For the moment it is acknowledged that men CAN learn, can improve morally and intellectually-it is acknowledged they are progressive in their nature. To contend that we do not possess this property, is rather a hazardous position, one would think, for an individual to occupy who claims to be intelligent. Nevertheless it must be done by my opponent or he must abandon the discussion.

How does he attempt to prove that man possesses no capacities for progress? He calls our attention to Enoch, and pious men of antiquity. But we should remember that these eminent individuals were highly favored above all other mortals, in that they held

direct oral intercourse with God. To this they owed their elevation, and not to any prevalence of an extraordinary degree of light and knowledge among the mass of the people of their days. He points also to the Golden Age" of which the poets have sung, as an evidence that the race has retrogaded, rather than progressed. In this however, the only mistake he has made, is in taking a dream of the poet's fancy, which never had existence, for a settled matter of history!! Rather an important oversight! Moreover, he maintains that if man is progressive, the Africans must have commenced existence as baboons!! This may, perhaps, be witty, but it is not convincing. Circumstances of a local nature may keep nations and races for a long season in ignorance, but this furnishes no evidence that their nature is not progressive. Because men in circumstances adverse to improvement, fall into darkness and ignorance, does that show there is no progressive capacity in their organization? Winter despoils the growing tree of its beautiful foliage, and it stands bare and leafless for months, without any progress to maturity. But does this prove that under the influence of a more genial season, it will not put forth renewed signs of life, and hasten on to a production of blossoms and fruit, and the full development of all its properties? Let the most benighted of the sons of Africa be brought to a land of civilization, and placed under the instruction of capable teachers, and how soon will they show the most rapid improvement! What does this indicate, but that the God of heaven has given all of his creatures a capacity for progression!! It can but be a matter of astonishment that my opponent should peril his reputation in contending against a fact so manifest as man's progressive nature. When we compare the condition of the race now with what it was in ancient ages, or even a century ago, the man who cannot behold great progress must be involved in a pitable blindness! Compare the knowledge of an individual at three score, with his information at three years of age, and has there been no progress? This progression, we may believe, on every principle of analogy, will go on in the future world; and through its operation, aided by all the influences which Christ and God will impart, the entire race will finally become elevated to degrees in knowledge, morality and godliness, beyond all our present capacity to comprenend! How sublime! how glorious! this view of man's destiny, in comparison with that of my friend, which teaches that God has so arrainged his creation that millions of his children shall forever progress only in greater depths of sin, blasphemy and ruin! Which is the most reasonable? Which attributes the most of wisdom and goodness to Jehovah? Which confers the highest honor upon him?

My brother opposite objects to my view of punishment, considered as a reformatory process. He says that punishment in this world in some instances, has only made men worse. He also attributes some such idea to Winchester. It may be that punishment, im

perfectly administered by men, may sometimes have such an effect temporarily. So, when a man takes medicine, at first it may make him much worse; but eventually it will result in his entire restoration to health. So with the punishments of God. However obdurate the sinner may be for a season, under the infliction of God's punishment, it will as certainly result in his subjection and amendment, as that Deity has sufficient wisdom to adapt his chastisements to that end.

The Elder after much evident hesitation, has at length summoned courage to attack the passage which I have frequently quoted from Rom. viii. 20, 21-"The creature was made subject to vanity," etc. He singularly charges Universalists with seizing upon this passage because it is obscure. There is a small mistake in this assertion. We place dependence on this passage, not because it is obscure, but because it is remarkably PLAIN!! The explanation my friend gives to Paul's words, is a curiosity. He says the passage refers to the whole human family in contradistinction to believers. It must be confessed it is a singular division, to speak of the whole race in distinction from a part of the same race! If I could understand the somewhat confused expression of his views, he contends that although all men were subjected to vanity, yet but a PART are to be delivered from that subjection. Surely he cannot expect to satisfy any one capable of reading the passage, of the correctness of such an exposition.

It must be evident to the most casual reader, that the same creature-creatures-or CREATION-which were subjected to vanity, will be delivered from that subjection "into the glorious liberty of the children of God." This will be evident to all, when it is understood that the same original word describes both those subjected and those delivered. "For the earnest expectation of the creature [ktiseos] waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature [ktisis] was made subject to vanity, not willingly, [not according to their own will,] but by reason of him [God] who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creature [ktisis] itself, also, SHALL BE DELIVERED from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God." The meaning of ktisis, according to Robinson's Lexicon, is "creation"-" that which is created." As the Apostle is speaking of mankind it is evident kisisin the passage under consideration, signifies every human being created by God. Dr. McKnight insists that the true meaning of ktisis in this place, is "every creature." It will be admitted that the creature-ktisis-which was made subject to vanity, includes "all men." It follows then, as a self-evident fact, that the creature-ktisis-which shall in due time be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God, includes the same "all men!" Thus the passage furnishes an unanswerable proof of the position I have occupied from the beginning of the discusssion, that man's subjection to vanity or imper

fection, was in accordance, and not against, God's will-and that it was a subjection made in express reference to a general and final deliverance of all men from its dominion!!

Elder Holmes says if Universalism is true, there is no Salvation! Well done, my friend! Here is something the originality of which none can doubt. He has learned something new to us all. If every human being is to be SAVED, then there is NO SALVATION !!! Mr. Holmes also asserts that if men are punished all they deserve, then there is no need of mercy! This does not follow. The fact that a sinner receives all the punishment Justice demands, does not entitle him to blessings from the hand of his Creator. He can do nothing to obtain immortality and endless felicity. These are the gifts of God! When he is punished to the extent of his deserts, he is still dependent on God for all things. And it is the office of Mercy to give what no merit can demand-endless good -boundless happiness!*

I now proceed to introduce my Tenth Argument. It is founded on

THE PLEASURE OF GOD.

PROPOSITION-1. It is the pleasure of God that all men shall finally become holy and happy. 2. God's pleasure will eventually become perfectly accomplished.

PROOF. It is the pleasure of God that all men shall finally bebecome holy and happy. In what can a holy and righteous God take pleasure! In perpetual sin? in endless blasphemy? in eternal torments? No! These are direct opposites of his natnre. He may allow sin and pain to exist temporarily. Not that he takes any pleasure in these things, in themselves considered; but because through infinite wisdom, he can cause good to flow even from evil! A pure and righteous God takes pleasure only in the holiness and happiness of his creatures. Nothing could give such a being higher pleasure than to have all his offspring brought to repentence, holiness and happiness. This is self-evident. That it is his pleasure such a state of things shall ultimately take place, is evident from the testimony of the Apostle-"Having made known unto us the Mystery of his Will, according to his Good Pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, (or in the dispensation of the fullness of times, all things might be gathered together in one, even in Christ,) both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in_him.—(Eph. i. 9, 10.) Here the Apostle declares it was in accordance with God's Good Pleasure to Will and to Purpose, in the fullness of times, togather all things or all men, into Christ. Again--" It PLEASED the Father that in him (Christ) should all fullness dwell. And (having made peace through the blood of his cross,) by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in

* See page 107.