and hissing serpents spit their poison at every step. Overhead hang black and threatening clouds, and on all sides desolation and dreariness prevail. This is the path of SIN, as Universalism describes it. Those who travel therein, find it a “hard way”— an "up-hill work!" They pitch and flounder from side to side. Now they sink to the very eyes in noisome mire-now they are entangled in thorny brambles-and now they stumble down a rough precipice into the craggy gulf below. Thus, bruised, bleeding, covered with itching and painful sores, and with the stench of all conceivable filth, they drag their weary limbs along! To an individual who stands contemplating these two roads, and who perfectly understands the nature of each, can it induce him to enter the path of sin, to inform him that at some future time during his painful journeying, he may hope that a benevolent hand will be stretched forth, to rescue him from his weary and painful way? Would he not have the strongest possible inducement to avoid it entirely? The good sense of each hearer will answer these questions. So, because Universalism teaches that God has prepared a plan to bring back those of his creatures who stray into sin, it can be no conceivable inducement to a rational mind, which has been properly instructed of the nature and consequences of sin, to plunge into its practice, and experience all its ills and woes!

My friend says I do not believe men would have been lost had Christ not come, and yet I build an argument in proof of the salvation of all men, on the Mission of Christ. This he conceives to be a great contradiction. It is certain the Elder's perception must be exceedingly obtuse, or he imagines those of our hearers are so. How shallow this objection! Why do I believe all men would have been saved, even if Christ had not come? Because the Father of man, who watches over the interests of all his children with unwearied faithfulness, would have adopted some other equally successful method to accomplish a work so great and good. Why do I build an argument on the Mission of Christ? Because the fact that God sent his Son to save all men, is proof, that it is his purpose to save all; and because, moreover, it places the affirmative of this question infinitely beyond the reach of my opposer. This objection is as intelligent as another he virtually urged a day or two since, that if it is true that all men are to be saved, then there is no salvation !!!

Mr. Holmes insists I leave out the death of Christ from my argument. He then quotes from Ballou and Williamson on the Atonement-declares that the death of Jesus cannot be accounted for except on his views of the Atonement-reads from Hatfield, and cries out in dolorous tones-" What, has it come to this!! The blood of Jesus trampled under foot," etc., etc. I trust the brother will be sustained in the midst of his horror! His fright was occasioned by his own "man of straw!" Because we do not believe the blood of Christ was poured out to slake the thirst of a principle

of Infinite Revenge, which the partialist doctrine places in the Councils of Heaven under the name of Justice, because we do not believe it was shed to placate the WRATH of "the God of Love and Peace" (2 Cor. xiii. 16)-we are charged with trampling the blood of Christ under our feet! I humbly beg to reply, that the charge would lie much nearer my neighbor's door than my own. Were I to insist that the blood of the Son of God was spilled to open a way, whereby men can with bold impunity, sin to their heart's content, and escape every particle of punishment, I should indeed feel myself open to the charge of trampling the blood of Christ under my feet!! We believe Christ's death was essential, as a manifestation of God's love to the world, and as a seal of the truth of his gospel. And we believe, moreover, that it is one of the links in that wise chain of causes which will finally result in the reconciliation of all men to their Father in heaven. We cannot attribute to Christ's blood an office for which we find no warrant in the Bible.

The gentleman has noticed my argument on "The Presence of God in all men." He says the subjection spoken of by the Apostle in 1 Cor. xv. 28, is not a subjection of love, but of retribution! This was a hazardous remark, evidently made without any reflection. If it is true, then it proves universal retribution. For the Apostle declares "all things shall be subdued unto Christ.” No; the subjection evidently will be a willing and glad one, on the part of mankind. All shall cheerfully bow in heartfelt love before the Prince of Peace, and yield him the honor which rightfully belongs to him. This is the only view that can ascribe any moral glory to Jesus for his success in the great work of subduing all souls to his gentle reign.

He says that the declaration that Christ "must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet," (1 Cor. xv. 25.) signifies that he will destroy all his enemies. I allow this. But who are his enemies? My opponent takes it for granted, they are those who were sinful in this life. This cannot be allowed. Christ is at enmity with no human being. The enemies to which the Apostle referred in this passage, are sin, evil, pain, ignorance, death. These are the only enemies that obstruct the reign of Jesus over all men. And these he will subdue and destroy. The nature of the enemies alluded to, may be known by the nature of the last enemy, which St. Paul says is DEATH!!! In declaring that this enemy shall be destroyed, he shows that all enemies shall be destroyed, and Christ shall establish his kingdom over every human soul!

My friend has entirely mistaken my views in regard to the subjection of Christ to Gol. I did not say it would be brought about by the same means that brings man into subjection to Christ.

This was Elder Holmes' position in the oral debate. But it is omitted in his written speech.

My position was that Christ's subjection to the Father, would be of the same nature-(i. e. one of obedience and love,)—as man's subjection to him. The same original Greek word used to denote Christ's subjection to God, is also used to describe the subjection of all men to Christ!!

Elder Holmes declares that Christ will at some future time vacate the seat of Mediator, and assume that of a Judge. And to support this doctrine, we have just his naked assertion! Why does not the Bible give us some such information? The passage he quoted-(Acts xvii. 31)—affords not the most distant proof of such a sentiment. This will be seen by a true understanding of the phraseology which St. Paul used: "He [God] hath appointed a day [Gr. emeran—an era, a time, a dispensation] in the which he will judge [krinein—rule, govern, reign over] the world in righteousness, by that man [Jesus Christ] whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." The simple meaning of this passage is, that Christ in his Mediatorial reign, shall exercise authority and dominion over the world until he completely accomplishes the object of his mission, and brings the hearts of all men into such a condition, that they shall be a fitting habitation for the spirit of God.-[See Matt. xxviii. 18.-1 Cor. xv. 28.]

Mr. Holmes inquires whether, if Abraham had never obeyed God, the promises through his seed would have been fulfilled? This question exposes the weakness and folly that lies at the very foundation of the entire Methodist theory, viz: that the fulfillment of the Creator's purposes, depends wholly upon the disposition of man. This theory robs God of his Sovereignty, and of his Will, and makes him a weak, dependent being, following in man's path, and accomplishing or not accomplishing his designs, as the will or the whim of a worm of the dust, chooses to permit him. How preposterous the supposition that Jehovah would clothe his creatures with power to thwart his own gracious purposes. We are to understand from his question, that my opponent believes if Abraham had not chosen to prove faithful, the great and gracious purpose which God designed to accomplish through Christ, would have met with an utter prostration, and all the race of man would have fallen into interminable agony!! And this is a system which reasonable people are called upon to believe! In reply to the question proposed, I would say, that if Abraham had not proved faithful, God would have raised up some other instrument, or chosen some other method, to bestow the blessings which he had determined to give the world through Christ. The brother declares I cannot produce a passage of scripture which says that salvation can be experienced, without complying with the terms of the gospel. I do not wish to find such a passage. It is my decided belief that salvation cannot be experienced except by compliance with the terms enjoined by Christ.

But I believe ALL will comply with the terms laid down, and that in this way, they will be saved. It is the object of Christ's reign to bring all men into a compliance with gospel terms. And the most inveterate sinner cannot always withstand him. His heart, in due time, will be melted. Did he not, at the very moment he chose, bring Saul of Tarsus, to yield up his opposition, and comply with the terms of salvation-and that too, without doing any violence to his moral freedom? And can he not, also, make all his creatures " willing in the day of his power?" In return, I challenge Elder Holmes to bring one passage of scripture, which asserts, that if the terms of salvation are not complied with in this life, men shall have no right or opportunity to comply with them in the future state of being.—[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' ELEVENTH REPLY.]

Gent. Moderators:-It seems proper that I should at this time, reply to remarks of my friend, repeated a number of times, respecting the pleasures of sin. He says, I teach that sin is a pleasant way, as distinguished from the way of piety and Christian duty. I have said nothing like this, either directly or indirectly. All I have intended to say on this point, is, that there is such a thing as "the pleasures of sin," and that these have more influence upon minds unacquainted with the happiness of true piety and virtue, than the common motives to a religious life. That there is such a thing "as the pleasures of sin," or worldly pleasure, as distinguished from the pleasure of serving God, is a fact established by scripture, as well as fact and observation. Moses chose "to suffer affliction with the people of God, rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season." St. Paul speaks of some who "rolled sin as a sweet morsel under their tongue"—and of others, who were "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." On the other hand, there is an important sense, in which Christians have less ease, peace and happiness, more toil, anxiety and affliction than other men. Christ says, “in the world you have tribulation”—and Paul declares "they that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Take away from the Christian, his inward peace, his spiritual joy, his communion with God, his prospect of endless reward, and you leave him to contend with the reproach and scorn of the world, without motives, drawn from present reward or future prospects. By robbing religion of its vitality, and the Christian of his future reward, Universalism gives sinful and worldly pleasure a controlling influence over the the human mind, so powerful, that the motives of religion, as presented in that system, are not sufficient to counteract it. It is on this account mainly, that Universalists generally make no effort to resist the tile of corruption and sinful pleasure, but yield themselves with

out restraint to the tendency of depravity, and the clamor of sinful passion.

And it is in this way that Mr. Austin builds his smooth Macadamized road. His road to heaven is the way described by our Lord as broad, connected with the wide gate. He proclaims to the world-not, "he that believeth shall be saved"—but, you are all in the way to heaven: only believe it, and be happy in the reflection that you are sure of final holiness and happiness, do what you may. His Macadamized road to heaven is so broad that it requires no self-denial as necessary to discipleship, and embraces facilities for indulging every propensity, and gratifying every passion. Is it not so? If any one doubts it, let him ask Mr. Austin, or any other intelligent Universalist-sir, I see thousands who cut loose from all religious restraints, and seem to aim at nothing but sinful indulgence to the extent of their physical and intellectual powers: they never for one hour of their lives yield to God the affections of their hearts; thus they live, and thus they die; what is their condition after death? I know the gentleman would not like to answer such a question; he has given sufficient proof of this already; but if he says anything, he must renounce his system, or say, why, their heavenly Father has removed them to his own embrace in heaven!!! Here is Mr. Austin's Macadamized road. It excludes self-denial as an essential element of Christian character, makes the road so broad as to annihilate the "strait gate and narrow way," and include the whole race, with all their by-paths of vice and sinful indulgence-and then forsooth, it is a pleasant way-O, it is a happy way-pleasant indeed for those who "roll sin as a sweet morsel under their tongue"-or are "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God."

What then? do I teach, there are no pleasures in religion? By no means: but with St. Paul-" yea, doubtless, I count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found of him, (when I shall appear before him in another world) not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, (the righteousness of Universalism) but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." "But God forbid that

I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."--(Phil. iii. 8.-Gal. vi. 14.)

Mr. Austin cannot vindicate his system on the ground that it teaches punishment for all offences, unless he means to say that it is a pleasant thing to be punished, and an unpleasant, disagreeable thing at the same time. If it be a pleasant thing, it exerts no restraining influence upon the sinner. If it be unpleasant, then this Macadamized road is not so pleasurable after all: it would be much more direct and peaceful, to take Christ as "the