be conformed to the image of his Son :" and by consequence, whom he foreknew, (as rejecting the truth) them he predestinated to the consequences of their sin and unbelief. Hence the language of the great commission, "He that believeth not, shall be damned." Matt. v. 44." Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate," &c. From this, Universalists argue, that God will save all men in heaven, whether they become reconciled to him or not. The passage teaches our duty to be kind and forgiving in our intercourse with one another, but gives us no assurance of inevitable, universal salvation. Our Lord explains this latter point, as well as the application of divine love to the subject of human salvation, when he says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Philip. iii. 21."Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself." On this we remark, 1. This passage refers to the second coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the human body-here denominated "our vile body." Universalism denies the resurrection of the body as here taught—and maintains, that it is not "our vile body," (the same we have here) but some other body, which is to be possessed at the resurrection. 2. The 18th, 19th verses make a clear distinction of character and destiny, by describing certain characters, denominated “enemies of the cross of Christ, and “ whose end is destruction." 3. Being "able to subdue all things to himself," is no proof of universal salvation. Though taken in connection with his promises and threatenings, it is proof that he will fulfill the former in the final felicity of his people, and execute the latter upon his enemies, in the literal realization of the words of the context, "whose end is destruction."

Philip. ii. 9-12.- —“Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." There are three things set forth in this paragraph. 1. The reason why God has highly exalted Christ: "he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." 2. The obligation to confess Christ, growing out of his character and exaltation: "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." This obligation rests upon all intelligent creatures. 3. The nature of the confession: "confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is not an assurance of unconditional, universal salvation, but it is a pledge of his final coming to judge the world, when he will be seen and acknowledged in his true character, even by those who have rejected him. Men may "disallow" Christ here, but then he will vindicate his

character, to the utter confusion of his enemies, "whose end is destruction. Yes, my respected audience,

"We shall see the day supreme,

When none his Godhead will deny;
His sovereign majesty blaspheme,

Or count him less than the MOST HIGH."

John xii. 32.-"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." The explanation of this passage is found in John iii. 14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." No Universalism here.

At this point I will suspend my scripture references, and take up another course of argumentation. You recollect my friend adduced an argument in support of his position, founded on the Mission of Christ. In my simplicity, I supposed he meant the death of Christ, and spoke of it in that light, when he corrected me, assuring me that the death of Christ was not embraced in his argument. Well, I am glad to have my error corrected; and now I beg leave to ask two or three questions.

First. What is the mission of Christ good for, without his death? The scriptures everywhere connect salvation with the sufferings, death, and blood of Christ; but nowhere with his mission, as distinguished from these. Christ is said to have "died for us"-to have" redeemed us with his precious blood;" he "gave himself a ransom for us;" he bore "our sins in his own body on the tree;" he was "set forth crucified among us." We are said to be justified and saved "by his blood,”-through faith in his blood,"— "reconciled to God, by the death of his Son," &c. And yet the gentleman, of set purpose, or " malice afore-thought," excludes all these views, and builds his argument on the mission of Christ, though the scriptures attach no importance to Christ's mission, only as associated with his suffering and death.

Another question is, what has either the death or mission of Christ to do with the final states of men? Does Mr. Austin intend to admit that men are lost in respect to final holiness and happiness, unless saved by Christ? Does he admit that any man ever did, or can forfeit his heavenly felicity? Does he believe that the salvation of any one man is, or will be, any more sure, on account of the mission of Christ to our world, than it would have been if Christ had never existed? Does he believe that the salvation of men, as to their final state, was, in any sense, embraced in the design of Christ's mission? No; the gentleman neither admits nor believes any of these things; and yet, unless he distinctly admits and believes the affirmative of these questions, his argument can have no more weight, than a feather thrown into this assembly-indeed, it is an insult to common sense. The argument

is utterly baseless, except on the supposition, that the theology of Universalism is as false as the Koran. What does Mr. Austin intend by giving us such specimens of reasoning? He certainly cannot intend to be candid; to suppose he does, would be to impeach his intelligence. He probably supposed his opponent and the audience would overlook the inconsistency and absurdity of his deduction. Away with such : what shall I call it? •

MR. AUSTIN.-What you please.

is

MR. HOLMES.-I do not wish to call it dishonesty, and yet it is. an artifice-a species of double dealing, or slight of hand, entirely unworthy the place my friend occupies, and only worthy the cause he supports. But, let us see if we can ascertain why the gentleman chooses to leave the death of Christ out of his argument. If I mistake not, the subject may be explained by reference to a few Universalist authors. Ballou says, (On Atonement, page 122.) "Christians have for a long time believed, that the temporal death of Christ made an atonement for sin, and that the literal blood of the man who was crucified, has efficacy to cleanse from guilt; but surely this is carnality and carnal mindedness.” (Page. 123,)To believe in any other atonement than the putting off the old man, and the putting on of the new man carnal mindedness and is death." Again, he says (Expositor I, p. 170.)—" We really do not comprehend how it is, that our heavenly Father cannot forgive the sins of his own children, without doing it in pursuance of such a sacrifice as the execution of an Infinite Being on a gallows, erected in the centre of the universe." Mr. Ballou, Jun. says, (Expositor II. pps. 106, 107)-" The suíferings of Christ were not regarded as peculiar to himself, but as shared, in all their detail, by his persecuted followers." Mr. Lefever (in the Gospel Anchor, II. 5,) maintains that the sufferings of Christ for the world, were of the same kind with the sufferings of our revolutionary heroes, who "shed their blood in the cause of freedom-so that it may be said, almost without a metaphor, by their stripes we are healed." Still farther on the same subject. Mr. O. A. Skinner (Univ. Illus. and Defended, pp. 128, 129, 130,) says, Christ" suffered as the Apostles and Christian Fathers suffered." Jesus gave himself for the redemption of the world, just as the revolutionary fathers gave themselves to effect the freedom of our country. When Abner Kneeland was in his glory as a Universalist preacher, he published a volume of lectures, in which he holds the following language:-"For aught I can see, God could just as consistently forgive sin before (the death of Christ) as since; neither does he now forgive sin on account of, or with the least reference to, the sufferings of Christ; any more than he does on account of the sufferings of the Apostles, or any one else who has suffered in the same cause." How exactly this corresponds with what we have already taken from Ballou's writings, can be seen at a single glance; and these are Mr. Austin's views;

he has himself used language quite similar in this discussion, discarding the connection between the death of Christ and the justification and salvation of the sinner. Moreover, he has recommended Mr. Ballou's writings to this assembly, from whom some of the most offensive of the above quotations are taken. And such is the uniform teaching of Universalist writers. Mr. Williamson, in the Exposition of Universalism,” makes the only difference between the death of Christ and that of the martyr, consist in the fact that he died voluntarily, without constraint. But on the principles of Universalism, the death of Christ cannot claim even this poor distinction, since many of his ancient disciples had their election between renouncing Christianity, and martyrdom, but voluntarily chose the latter, and met and endured their sufferings, too, with much more patience and firmness than Christ did; they rejoicedtriumphed in their sufferings and death, but Christ discovered trepidation--cried out, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!!!"

No wonder that Universalists generally, repudiate the ordinances of Christianity-Baptism and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. To be baptized in the name of Christ, or to observe the Sacrament in commemoration of the death of Christ, would be "carrying the joke too far." They could just as consistently observe these ordinances in honor of Paul, or any other Apostle. And yet these gentlemen wish to be acknowledged as Christian ministers, and have their followers acknowledged as a Christian denomination !!! But this question is settled by Paul, (2 Cor. vi. 15,) "What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ?"

I confess I am shocked at these impious and blasphemous sentiments. I can scarcely restrain my feelings while reading them. Has it come to this? the death and blood of Christ degraded as a common thing!! Has it come to this, blessed Jesus, that men whom thou has redeemed with thy most "precious blood," whose sins thou has borne "in thy own body on the tree," should, like Herod and his men of war, set thee at naught and mock thee? If this be not treading under foot the blood of the Son of God, I am at a loss to know what is. "O my soul, come not thou into their secret, and to their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united." We have now brought out with sufficient plainness, the gentleman's motive, in repudiating the death of Christ, and building his argument only on his mission.

Mr. Austin argues the final holiness and happiness of all men from the "presence of God in all men." It is based on (1 Cor. xv. 24-28.)—Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father: when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. And when all things

shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." My friend's dependence is mainly on this last clause, "that God may be all in all." The argument is-if God is in all, all must be finally holy and happy. An analysis of this text, will show at once the futility of the Universalist conclusion. Taken as a whole, it sets forth the mediatorial reign of Christ—its object and its termination. Its several parts may be explained thus:

1. The end here spoken of is the termination of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, when he shall vacate the throne of Mediator, and assume the office of Judge. Acts xvii. 31.-" God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained," &c.

2. To put down all rule, and authority, and power, is to assert and maintain his spiritual reign in opposition to all his foes-defeat the purposes of his enemies, and overcome and destroy those who will not submit to his spiritual control. (Ps. cx. 1.)—" The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." This is farther explained by (Heb. i, 13, and x. 13.)—" From henceforth expecting, till his enemies be made his footstool." This mode of expression is taken from the practice of warlike kings, who placed their feet upon the neck of conquered foes rather a singular way to represent the holiness and happiness of all men.

3. The destruction of death is effected by the physical power of God in the resurrection of the body.

4. By the Son being in subjection, and God being all in all, we understand, that there shall be no longer a separate or distinct government for the Son, but his authority as king and ruler, shall be absorbed in the general administration of Jehovah. To explain the last words, "God shall be all in all," we refer to Colossians iii. 11, where it is said, "Christ is all in all." But all were not saved by Christ, though he was all in all. The language simply means, that he is the only Savior, the spiritual Ruler of all men ; and those who believe in him, whether Jew or Gentile, are one in Christ. So in the text under consideration, "God shall be all in all"-means he is the Creator, and sole Governor, and Judge of all men, to whom he will render finally, "acording to their works." "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, and honor, and immortality: eternal life. But to them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness: indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile."—(Rom. ii. 7.) When will this righteous retribution be awarded? The 16th verse informs us-" In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." Does this look like the enevitable, unconditional salvation of all men?

Mr. Austin has given us an argument drawn from the commands