After the gospel dispensation had been established, it was considered a curse, that is, an evil, a disadvantage for the Jews to shut their eyes to the light and glory which beamed upon them from the teachings of Christ, and cling to the old forms and ceremonies of the Levitical Law. Hence in this immediate context, (v. 10) St. Paul says: "For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse. For it is written, cursed is every one [while acknowledging the authority of the law,] that continueth not in all things. which are in the book of the law, to do them." The book of what Law? Evidently, the Ceremonial Law. In the fourth chapter of the same Epistle, to be under the old Levitical Law is said to be in bondage-"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai, [the Levitical Law] which gendereth to bondage." From this bondage Christ came to deliver the Jews: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty [the Gospel] wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage"-the Ceremonial Law-(Gala. v. 1.)

Hence in the passage quoted by my friend, we are not to understand St. Paul as teaching that Christ redeemed his followers in that age from the punishments of God's great moral law, but from the curse or bondage of the Levitical Law. How did he redeem them? By adopting their sins, and enduring punishment in their stead? Such an idea does violence to the whole subject on which the A postle was engaged. The Savior redeemed them from the bondage of the ceremonial Law, by the enlightening teachings and influences of his Gospel.

One word in regard to Isaiah liii. 4. 5:—“ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Eld. Holmes quotes this passage to prove that Christ took upon himself the sins and guilt of mankind, and bore in their place the penalties which God's moral law exacts of them. If this is a true construction, then several important deductions must follow. In the first place, to teach such doctrine, the words of the prophet must be received in their most literal and naked sense. This would prove that Christ actually took upon himself the "iniquity" of men, inother words, became sinful and guilty in his own character. Moreover it would prove that he, an innocent being, literally received in his own person, the punishment due all mankind, for all the sins that ever have been, or will be committed on the earth. It follows also, that Jesus literally took upon himself the griefs and sorrows, the physical infirmities an sicknesses (see Matt. viii. 17) of all mankind. There are none who believe this. Is it said his bearing our griefs and sicknesses, &c, must be understood in a figurative

sense? Acknowledged. And by all rules of enlightened criticism, his taking upon himself the iniquities and chastisements of men, must also be understood figuratively. In what sense did the Savior bear the sorrows and sicknesses of men? All agree it was in removing them. Very well. In the same sense of removing them, he bore our iniquities—not in bearing in our place the punishment due our iniquities.

What are we to understand by those passages which speak of Christ as being wounded for our transgressions-giving himself a ransom for us-suffering and dying for men? Simply that he suffered, bled, died, in our service, in laboring for our good, and in accomplishing his great work of reconciling the world to God. The marked distinction between my friend and myself, on this subject, is, that while he maintains Jesus suffered and died as a punishment borne for men, and in their stead, I insist all he experienced was in behalf of mankind, as a noble hearted philanthropist labors and suffers for the good of his needy fellow beings.-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' THIRD SPEECH.]

MR. HOLMES-Messers. Moderators: How many minutes may I speak? I understand Mr. Austin has spoken over his time, somewhat.

MR. AUSTIN-I prefer that the opposite side should take five minutes. They belong to him, and can be taken from me.

Respected Audience:-In opening the debate for this evening, I wish to call your attention to the fact that my friend, Mr. Austin, has not paid the slightest attention to any of the arguments I have presented, except the one drawn from the redemption of Christ, spoken of in Galatians. Mr. Austin has treated us to two or three dissertations on subjects, to say the least, but indirectly connected with the question. To much of what he has said, I have no objection to offer. But the question under discussion is, "Does Gospel Salvation embrace deliverance from just and deserved punishment?" We are not discussing the nature or design of punishment, but simply whether the gospel as a merciful provision, does propose to save men from that punishment which they deserve. Whether God inflicts punishment or saves them from it, in either case, the design is good. But the question does not relate to the design or nature of punishment, but whether God proposes through Jesus Christ to save men from it. I asked Mr. Austin to define his position in regard to future punishment. He declines doing so; says it is not relevant, and yet he introduces a great deal of matter of less relevancy. I am going to show, if I have time, why I asked this of him. There are a number of considerations besides the one that it would have brought us nearer together. There is no neces

sity for widening the difference between us, by refusing to avow our sentiments on points intimately connected with the merits of our respective theories. We are far enough apart, when we come as near together as we can; and an explanation of his views in regard to future punishment, if it did not bring us nearer together, would at least give me a knowledge of his real position. And unless he consents to define his whereabouts on this subject, the inference will be unavoidable, that he is afraid to give a frank and manly expose of his real views.

He states, the Bible says nothing of salvation from punishment: a declaration which must appear most strange and unaccountable to any one who has read his Bible with the slightest attention. I shall have occasion, before the question is finished, to present an argument based on the plain language of scripture, and then it will be seen what this allegation is worth. He also says God would not enact a law, and then proceed to save men from its penalty. Were this all there is about it, I might agree with him; but the gentleman does not seem to comprehend either the nature or design of the Divine law. He seems to suppose the whole design and use of law embraced in the infliction of penalty. But the case stands thus: The law is intended for the good of the universe-its revelation makes known the rule of moral rectitude to the moral world -its penalty has two uses; first, to guard the law from infraction -second, to visit the transgressor with just and deserved punishment. It was never the design of God that man should transgress his law, hence the first use of penalty was to deter from sin; but sin being committed, the law must be vindicated and the government maintained by the punishment of the guilty, unless as already remarked, an expedient be resorted to that will relieve the transgressor, and still maintain the ends of good government. Has this expedient been resorted to? This is the question now being discussed. According to Universalism, God has made it necessary for man to commit sin, and having done that goes on to punish him to the full extent of his deserts. This shows the question in a light wholly irreconcilable with justice. But there is nothing inconsistent in my view of deliverance from punishment. He also says that to save man from just and deserved punishment would be to do wrong. We have already spoken of the atonement of Christ. It was made for the express purpose of making it consistent and righteous for God to exonerate the sinner from the infliction of punishment. Hence St. Paul says in the third chapter of his epistle to the Romans, "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness." That is to show that God may be righteous and good in exonerating the sinner from the infliction of punishment, and in the “remission of sins that are passed, through the forbearance of God." "That he might be just," is the language of the Apostle, "and yet the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." Were there no Redeemer-no atonement

through which men might be saved from punishment, such salvation would conflict with justice. But through Christ the repenting sinner is saved from punishment in perfect harmony with the divine attributes. The passage to which I have just alluded needs no comment; it presents with singular clearness the great central doctrine of christianity. Mr. Austin also gives us to understand that punishment is not an evil in any sense of the word. But if it be not an evil in any sense, it must be a blessing in every sense, and God proposes to punish man with a blessing. If that punishment which the Bible teaches us is the just and deserved consequence of sin, be a blessing, then it follows that those who have the most sin are the most blessed. Where, then, is the motive to desist from sin ? Has a man under such circumstances any motive to repent of his sins and turn to God? Punishment is a blessing, and hence he who sins most, is most punished, and most blessed! A strange view, this, of the government of God and the character of punishment! We admit that God often chastens his children and that this is a good to them. But he must make a difference between the chastening of his people, and the punishment of the incorrigible sinner. The Bible represents the one as chastened, while the other is punished. In the case of the sinner it is punishment-the first fruits of that endless perdition which will be awarded him in the retributions of the last day. In the case of the christian, the visitations of God loose their penal character, and become the corrections of a kind and loving Father. And the corrections administered to the children of God do not necessarily result in good. This result depends upon the disposition with which they are received and improved.

It is scarcely worth my while to reply to the representations of my friend respecting retaliation and revenge. On the principles which I advocate, he knows it has no existence, and is not the doc trine of any of my school, but he must say something, and not be ing able to remove any of my arguments, he proceeds to erect thi man of straw, and then shows himself redoubtable by knocking it over. Against his own theory, however, the charge of retaliation may be made to lie, as every offender must expiate his offences in his own person; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, becomes the ruling principle of action.

friend protests against judging of the nature of the Divine government from human governments, and yet he makes the most of his arguments rest on the administration of a father in his family, thas erecting a human standard as the criterion of the divine administration, and laboring to establish what he strenuously condemns to me. We shall have occasion to show up his paternal arguments before we close, but we pass it by for the present.

I now call your attention to what Mr. Austin says is the curse of the law. I quoted and built an argument on the passage, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." This I said was pun

ishment, the penalty of the law. Christ having redeemed us from that, provides a way to escape from the punishment of sin. Mr. Austin replied that this meant the Levitical law. First, let us say, there is no proof of this whatever, except his ipse dixit. We are to take it on his authority, and to suppose we have the argument answered. My reply is this: In the first place, the Apostle was preaching to the Galatians, who were never under the Levitical law, and had nothing to do with it. How then could the redemption of Christ be intended to free them from the Levitical law? My second point, is that the object of this redemption was that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles by faith. What was that blessing? It was justification by faith; for, says the Apostle, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now this blessing of Abraham existed before the Levitical law, consequently the redemption of Christ, was intended to save them, the Jews and Gentiles, and all the world, from a curse that existed anterior to the Levitical law. And the result of such salvation would be to bring them the blessing of Abraham, which is justification by faith. Is this consistent with Mr. Austin's version of the matter? In the third place, the Levitical law was typical of Christ, and hence in no sense a curse. If it was as Mr. Austin says, then God established the typical representation of Christ, his son, as a curse, and then sends Christ to redeem men from that curse! How does this look? Moreover this law is called the "shadow of good things to come." Is that a curse? The only sense in which Christ removed the Levitical law, was in bringing it to an end. When he came there was no further necessity for it, because it was all fulfilled in him. He therefore was the end of the law, for righteousness to every one who believeth. Moreover, Mr. Austin says, to remain under this law was a curse, but this same chapter says, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." On his method of interpretation, how is he to harmonize with St. Paul ? He says, to continue under the law is to be cursed; but St. Paul says, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things writin the book of the law, to do them." I think this is sufficient to show that his version of the matter was got up on the spur of the moment, as the best theory that could be presented to counteract a fact, in itself unanswerable.

I now present my next argument, founded on the scriptural view of pardon, forgiveness, and remission. These words are of very frequent occurrence in the scriptures as expressive of benefits conferred, or favors shown to those who repent and turn from their evil ways. With respect to such it is said, they shall be "abundantly pardoned," " be forgiven," "obtain remission of sins," and All English dictionaries to which we have been able to gain access, agree that the signification of these terms, is, in substance, to release the guilty from penalty, from the obligation to

so on.