death for every man." In the benevolence of his heart, he voluntarily undertook to relieve men from the necessity of enduring the consequences of their depravity and rebellion, and thus effect their salvation, on principles which would equally well sustain the authority of law, and secure the ends of a wise and benevolent administration. He redeemed the world, that "God might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." It may be illustrated in this way: Suppose some distinguished person in Great Britain, (having the necessary facilities) should offer to make satisfaction to the government, in behalf of those who have been banished to Botany Bay. His proposals, being such as to sustain the justice and equity of the government at home, and secure it from reproach and imbecility, are accepted, and liberty is granted him to issue a proclamation of pardon to all such as will accept the terms. These are, that the criminal shall acknowledge the justice of the government in their condemnation, shall renounce their criminal deeds and propensities, return to duty, and ever after live just and obedient subjects. This, so far as the nature of the case will allow, represents the work of Christ for a sinful world. But would the government, in this case, be open to the charge of seizing an innocent victim, and glutting vengeance on him, that the guilty might be allowed to go free? So far from this, the government would perform an act of distinguished benevolence, without detracting from its own purity and dignity, while the individual by whose agency the proposal was made, and the arrangement carried into practical effect, would be lauded in the annals of the world, as the greatest of benefactors. I am sure the congregation must see the propriety of this illustration, and how completely it vindicates the doctrine of Atonement from the foul aspersion above referred to. As for Mr. Austin, he has more than once reminded me of the old adage-" none so blind as those who won't see."

The gentleman has introduced Calvinism again, for what purpose I know not, unless to fill up his time, and divert attention from the question at issue. If there be any of that class of Christians denominated Calvinists here, I wish them to understand that my remarks are made with reference to what my friend calls "old naked Calvinism," and do not bear upon that view of it which they may entertain. There is, I am happy to believe, less of "old naked Calvinism" taught in these days than formerly. It was formerly taught, that God, from all eternity, had fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass, (and this is the present doctrine of Universalism, by which they make God the direct and efficient author of sin, as really as ever the old school Calvinists did,) and that he ordained the salvation of a part of mankind, and the damnation of the rest, without regard to their faith or good works, simply for the display of his sovereignty, and the praise of his glorious justice. This is" old naked Calvinism." But as I believe this dog

ma constitutes no part of the Gospel, so it forms no part of my creed; hence, I am in no sense bound to defend it, and have nothing to do with it. My theory embraces the possible and actual salvation through Christ, of all men who improve the light of the dispensation under which they live. They are condemned, if at all, on account of voluntary transgression, and the rejection of the means of recovery; and if finally lost, they will carry with them to their perdition, the reflection, "I knew my duty, but I did it not."

I have charged, and do charge, materialism on Universalism as a system: not on every individual who embraces the theory-there are many who have not yet been initiated into the higher mysteries of the order. In their simplicity, they are led to suppose the system embraces truths, which, those who have graduated, have long since exploded as “heathen chaff,” or ridiculed as “old wives fables." There are, also, a few of the more prudent among the teachers of the system, who, being aware that it would expose them to the charge of open infidelity, hesitate at a frank avowal of the legitimate and unavoidable consequences of their doctrine. Still, Universalism is materialism, and they know it. And as we have already seen, this is not concealed, but openly proclaimed by the most popular writers among them. The gentleman can't beg off here, by saying it is not his sentiment. It is his sentiment, by implication, if not by open avowal. It is an unavoidable conclusion from some of the positions he takes. Besides, it has his sanction in various ways. At Auburn, where my friend resides, the shelves of the Universalist book store are loaded with materialism, and he lends his influence to aid the circulation of these books. Moreover, his Brother Curtis, with his knowledge and approbation, has the doctrine of materialism here on the table, to be sold to those of this audience who are willing to buy. I marvel greatly at the gravity and assurance the gentleman puts on, under these circumstances, in standing up to deny the materialism of his theological system.

But, says my friend, Robert Hall was a materialist. Well, suppose he was, would that make the doctrine other than degrading and infidel? But I deny the correctness of this imputation upon the christian character of the distinguished Robert Hall.

MR. AUSTIN.-I am assured that Robert Hall did not believe in the present immortality of the soul. If that makes a man a materialist, then he was one.

MR. HOLMES.-What the gentleman means by the present immortality of the soul, I am at a loss to know, unless it be that the soul, like the body, is material, is dissolved at death, and does not live again until the resurrection. I have shown this to be the general doctrine of Universalism, and this is what I mean by materialism. From the remark of my friend, I am

more than ever convinced that he is a materialist. But, again I deny that Robert Hall was a materialist. Mr. Austin does not give any proof, except that he is assured it is so. Well, I am assured it is not so, and the ground of my assurance is the testimony of Mr. Hall himself. It is found in one of his published sermons, on the future judgment, in which he argues for the spiritual, immaterial and indissoluble nature of the soul, as distinguished from the material and dissoluble nature of the body. Universalism is materialism. Hundreds and thousands of individual Universalists may repudiate this conclusion, but in doing so, they are inconsistent with their acknowledged principles. On all those whose minds trace out the relations subsisting between cause and effect, premise and inference, the natural and unavoidable tendency of the system is to materialism.

I will here drop this point, and take up the last negative argument where I left it, when I last ceased speaking-that Universalism denies the doctrine of future retribution. Mr. Austin says,

Universalism does not deny this doctrine, neither does it affirm it." Now, suppose I admit that Universalism does not deny future retribution, what has my friend gained by his disclaimer? He admits Universalism does not affirm one of the most prominent doctrines of revelation. I have shown, and shall still farther show, that Christ and his Apostles made the subject of future retribution a marked feature of their practical teaching--a distinguished point of doctrinal truth. And yet, according to the genfleman's own admission, Universalism presumes to improve upon their style of preaching, and hence, takes the responsibility of leaving this most important scriptural truth out of its affirmations. But, why not affirm future retribution? O, because this would be to admit future punishment; and future punishment once admitted, the Herculean task remains to prove that it will end. Besides, the great majority of those who listen to Universalist preaching, will not endure for a moment the idea of retribution in a future state. Hence, come what will, future retribution, must not be admitted!!! But, why not deny it, since they may not admit it? Why should my friend be so careful to say Universalism does not deny it? In this, he gives proof, that he has not yet lost all his sense of propriety in these matters. He knows it will not do for him to utter a direct denial of future retribution in the hearing of this audience, after the long list of plain, positive and unmistakable testimonies that have been adduced in support of the doctrine. It would be so direct, palpable and barefaced a specimen of contempt for God's word, as must shock the moral sense of this intelligent congregation. Hence, the gentleman will not risk his cause in an open denial of future retribution here, as he has often done elsewhere. And yet Universalism denies this plain, scriptural doctrine, Mr. Austin's disclaimer to the contrary notwithstanding. The fact that it is not acknowl

elged and affirmed, is itself a virtual denial. The man who does not, by word or deed, under any circumstances, acknowlelre the existence of God, is to all intents and purposes an atheist; and so, not to acknowledge the truth of Christianity, or the character of Christ as Savior of the world, is to be justly chargeable with Deism. On these principles, the soundness of which cannot be doubted, my friend will not be able to clear himself and his theory, from the charge of setting aside a most obvious an important portion of Gol's truth. Moreover, it is an evidence of great inconsistency, if not of utter recklessness in the gentleman, to stand up here and assert that Universalism does not deny future retribution, after I have shown the fact from the most distinguished writers of the order. Ballou's writings are full of it, and the stars of less magnitude are not less plain in rejecting the idea, that this life does, in any way, affect the condition and happiness of men in a future state. Does my friend intend to repudiate the whole galaxy?

I am here reminded of a remark of the gentleman, concerning analogy, by which he aimed to evade the force of my analogical argument. But this can never be done, until facts become intangible. Hence, analogical proof is the strongest proof possible, except direct and positive revelation. It assures us of the continuel existence of that which now exists under the divine arrangement, unless a proof, higher and more authoritative than this, shall demonstrate its termination. On this ground we ar gue, as the conduct of men now influences their future happiness, it will always be so, unless God interferes to prevent it. If my friend can prove he will do this, I shall be bound to give up the argument from analogy; otherwise, it belongs to me, and establishes the doctrine of future retribution.

I now invite your attention to another catalogue of scripture

proofs.

2 Peter i. 10-11-"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This was not addressed to the Jews of Judea, hence can have no reference to any deliverance to be experienced from the calamities soon to fall upon Jerusalem. It was written to those who had "obtained like precious faith" with Peter, and therefore cannot have referred to an entrance into the kingdom of Christ on earth. It follows, this pac sage must refer to the kingdom of heaven hereafter; therefore, eternal life is conditional, and men are rewarded in another life for their conduct in this. A Universalist of my acquaintance remarked to me, not long since-prove to me that eternal life is conditional, and I will renounce Universalism, and become pray. ing man.

1 Corinthians xv. 19" If in this life only, we have hope in

Christ, we are of all men most miserable." To understand the full force of this passage, we must remember the severe persecutions to which the early christians were subjected, on account of their faith in Christ. They were driven from their homes, suffered the loss of all things earthly, dwelt in dens and caves of the earth, and not unfrequently were put to death with the most cruel tortures. A religion which would subject them to such calamities, without a motive to endure them, would have been unworthy their regard. It is with direct reference to this fact, that the Apostle says, "if in this life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." This is equivalent to a very emphatic declaration, that the rewards of Christianity, are mainly to be looked for in another world. This indeed is the doctrine of this whole chapter, in which Paul discourses of the benefits and glories of the resurrection state, and points to this, as the reward of their fidelity and usefulness. "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." According to Universalism, he ought to have added, nevertheless, it is my duty to inform you for your relief, that if you find yourselves in circumstances of peril, and can avoid persecutions and death, by denying Christ, and renouncing christianity, you need be under no apprehensions as to the results, for you will, besides escaping many evils here, be just as happy and glorious in the resurrection state, in this case, as you would, should you preserve your integrity, and "resist unto blood, striving against

sin."

Philip. iii. 14 "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ." An allusion is here made to the olympic games, in which the victor was crowned with a wreath of flowers. By this he illustrates the christian race. goal at which he was aiming, was a faithful and successful termination of his christian course, at which time, the judge would crown him victor, with the prize of never fading glory.

The

Rev. ii. 10" Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." These are the words of Christ to the church at Smyrna, connecting faithfulness in this world with the crown of glory in the next. To suit Universalism, he ought to have added, nevertheless, you shall have the crown of life, whether you are faithful or not. But we cannot pursue this train of argument any farther. The time would fail me to speak of Moses, who esteemed the reproaches of Christ "greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, because he had respect unto the recompense of the reward" to speak of Abraham, who looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God;" to speak of Christ, our great examplar, who "for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, and despised the shame," and is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; or to speak of the hun