way," by that faith "which works by love and purifies the heart." But the truth is, the system of punishment taught by Universalism, is as near nothing, as you can imagine. The law, as a standard of moral duty, is degraded, the turpitude of sin diminished. and the punishment of sin is a mere ideality, which may furnish a theme of pulpit declamation, but exerts no salutary moral influence upon the mind, the heart, or the life. The atheist, or deist, though denying God, despising Christ, and scorning all moral restraints, may be deterred from drunkenness, and other modes of sinful indulgence, by considerations of health, or the force of public opinion and beyond this, Universalism does not go. In what, then, is Universalism better than Deism, to restrain from crime? Who can tell? We have no facts arising out of the influence of Universalism to authorize the conclusion that it goes beyond Deism, in its power to restrain from vice.

How directly and forcibly the doctrines of the gospel contrast with Universalism. The gospel says, salvation is "by faith"Universalism says, it is by punishment. The gospel says, salvation may be enjoyed now-Universalism says, after we have been punished all we deserve. The gospel says, justification "by faith" Universalism says, by the law. Mr. Austin may do as he pleases, but for my part I shall conform my views to the gospel, and in doing so, I present you a present salvation from sin and punishment, into holiness and joy, by faith in Christ, the world's Redeemer.

Another of Mr. Austin's arguments for the affirmative of the question under discussion, is founded on what he denominates the antithetical character of certain passages of scripture. To this I wish to call the critical attention of the audience, as it involves another artifice, and also a sophism which vitiates the argument, and nullifies the conclusion he seeks to establish. I have said that Universalism is contradictory in its proofs. I also said, my friend would contradict himself and his theory before he finished the question. The truth of this remark has been illustrated a number of times already, and now I give you another example. You doubtless recollect that he has maintained all along, that God created man in an imperfect state, "subject to vanity, not willingly." But now, in direct opposition to this, in order to fix a sort of foundation for this antithetical argument, he maintains that God created man in a pure and holy state.

MR. AUSTIN. I did not say holy state. Holiness is acquired. MR. HOLMES.-Worse and worse. A pure state, but not a holy state. I suppose the gentleman means moral purity of course, as no other would stand related to this subject. And now, will he be so kind as to tell us how a being, intelligent and responsible, can be morally pure, without being holy? This, I confess, is a state of betweenity, that I do not understand. But not to

insist on this, we must take his disclaimer for what it is worth: he distinctly informs us that he does not believe man was origi nally created in a holy state.

Now look at the beautiful consistency of his logic. His object is to make it appear there is sufficient evidence for believing that all men will be finally holy and happy. --" what we lost in Adam we gain in Christ." But he has just To prove this, he argues informed us Adam was not created holy-how then could he lose that which he did not possess, and how could we lose in Adam, what we never had in him? The gentleman does not believe that we ever had holiness by virtue of our creation, or that we ever possesssed it in Adam, and yet he argues, that we lost our holiness in Adam, and that Christ came to restore it: that is, Christ came to restore what we never had and never lost; and from this he concludes the salvation of all men. It will not help my friend to change his ground again, and say Christ came to restore the world to its original state. This would not be holiness and happiness, since, according to his own showing, the original state of the world was a state excluding holiness; to be restored to that state, therefore, would not be to possess holiness and happiness. Moreover, if the above difficulties did not exist, still the argument could have no force, only on the supposition that the world had lost its final holiness and happiness in Adam. But Mr. Austin does not believe this, any more than he believes in endless punishment. To admit that men were lost in Adam, or in any other way, in a sense that contrasts with final salvation, would be to admit God has a law, the penalty of which is endless death and yet, unless he does admit this, his argument does not possess the weight of a feather. In conclusion on this point, I present, for the consideration of my friend, the following dilemma, and it is immaterial to me, which horn of it he shall choose on which to hang up his system and his argument, for the amusement of all logical spectators, viz: either men forfeited their final holiness and happiness in Alam, and would have been finally lost, if Christ had not become their Savior-or the argument, "what e lost in Adam we gain in Christ," founded on, (1. Cor. xv. 22,) "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," and other passages of similar nature found in Rom. 5th, is both logically and theologically false, and scarcely worthy even of the cause of Universalism. If my friend really supposed this argument to be sound and weighty, and presented it in good faith, I can but marvel at the proof of his discernment; but if he intended it as a sophism, I am not less surprised that he should offer so shallow a subterfuge, destitute of even the merit of ingenuity.

To keep his conclusion in countenance, my friend again quotes Dr. Clarke, and as usual, makes a wrong application of his language. Dr. Clarke was there speaking of the resurrection of the body, not the final salvation of the souls of all men or if any of

his remarks refer to the final happiness of men after the general resurrection, they are applicable only to such as " die in the Lord," "fall asleep in Jesus." The Doctor teaches that all men will be raised from the dead-but that those only who are righteous, will rise to happiness and heaven. Mr. Austin takes Clarke's language respecting the righteous dead, and applies it to all mankind indiscriminately; thus perverting Clarke's views, and contradicting the language of Christ, who says, respecting the general resurrection "they that have done good, shall come forth to the resurrection of life-and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation."-(John v. 28, 29th.) Again, still keeping up the distinction between the righteous and wicked in their final states -"whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life." The term perish, here stands in opposition to everlasting life, and the plain implication is, that those who do not believe, shall perish. Here is a plain and forcible argument, founded on scripture antithesis, and it proves the final perdition of those who reject Christ. We shall have occasion to bring out more fully this argument, in its bearing upon the final condition of the sinner, when we come to discuss the last question. There are a number of small points I should like to notice, had I time, but I must take this opportunity to present another and my last negative argument.

Universalism is a new discovery, the like of which was never thought of, before about the commencement of the present century, by any Christian writer or philosopher, of whom we have

any account.

In testing the claims of a system of theology to the character of truth, and the confidence of mankind, one important method of arriving at a correct conclusion, is the examination of its history; not the history of its name, (for names are nothing,) but of its doctrines-its essential elements. How were they regarded by the first Christian writers and Fathers? In what estimation have they been held by the church generally from the commencement of its history? In prosecuting this inquiry, not the slightest evidence can be found that any such system of doctrine as that advocated by Mr. Austin ever existed, until brought into being by certain Universalist Fathers, about the beginning of the 19th century. In reading the history of the church, three or four times over, by as many different authors, I have not been able to find the slightest traces of that system recognized by the ancients.

Indeed, Mr. Ballou, 2d, who has taken special pains to examine the history of the church with reference to this point, acknowledges that the Fathers of the church, during the first ages after the Apostles, did uniformly teach the doctrines of a future general judgment and future punishment; and he confesses that he finds only one man who advocated the restoration of sinners from the punishment of hell. And it is also stated by the same writer,

that the "Sybilline Oracles," (published about the middle of the second century) which contain the earliest explicit information extant, concerning restoration from the torments of hell, were a gross forgery, "brought forth in iniquity." (Pages 43, 44, 57, of his history.

Origen, who lived in the third century, is claimed as a sort of Universalist; but his Universalism was no more like that defended by Mr. Austin, than it was like Mormonism. Origen was a Christian Philosopher, of the Platonic school: and his philosophy got the better of his theology: hence, he believed and taught the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, and adopted principles of interpretation which Universalists themselves allow, are absurd to the last degree. The only point in which he approached Universalism, was in admitting the souls of the wicked to escape from hell; and even in this, he was not a Universalist. His future hell was an endless hell-its fires never burned out. Though he taught that the souls of men, becoming impure in their transmigrations and perigrinations, would be sent to hell, and after being purified by punishment, would ascend to heaven: he at the same time allowed those who had once escaped, to fall from their purity, and return again to hell, to be fitted for another flight to heaven. Thus he kept his hell always full, and its fires ever burning. Amongst the fantastic notions held by Origen, are the following that the souls of men existed before they came into this world, and were "sent into mortal bodies for the punishment of sins committed in a former state of being: that after the resurrection, all bodies will be of a round figure: that the sun, moon and stars are animated beings, endowed with rational souls: that the damned may escape from hell-and that as Christ has been crucified in this world, to save mankind, so he will be crucified in the next, to save the Devils."--(Mosheim's Ecclesiastical His tory, vol. 1, page 427.)

As to the ancient gnostics, if Mr. Austin claims affinity to them, we have a few items of information relative to their character and opinions, we shall read, that Universalism may have the full benefit of the relationship. I quote again from Hosea Ballou, 2d, a standard Universalist writer. He proceeds "from the long venerated but chimerical philosophy of the Persians, they retained the notion, that the material world was formed, not by the SELF EXISTENT, but by the inferior gods, called Æons, whose being was derived, through a long and intricate succession, as most of them thought, from him. This lead them to regard the God of the Jews, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, as but a secondary being, the principal Maker of this world; and they also concluded he had apostatized more or less from the divine allegiance, inasmuch as he had arrogated to himself the honors of worship, and as Christ had been sent to annul his ancient covenant, and overthrow his institutions."-(Page 31.) In another place he describes

those sects of gnostics called Basilideans, Carpocratians, and Valentinians, who were supposed to have held "an eventual restoration, or rather, transmigration of all human souls to a heaven of purity and bliss. But this tenet they appear to have involved in other notions, wild and chimerical enough to warrant the suspicion of lunacy, were it not for the antiquity, prevalence and reputation of that whimsical philosophy, from which they were derived."(Pages 33.) Such is the character of those sects, often quoted as ancient Universalists. If my friend wishes to claim relationship to these absurd fanatics and bold blasphemers, he is welcome to all the aid they can furnish to his cause.

I am not unaware of the manner in which this argument will be attempted to be set aside. It is very probable the gentleman will speak of the condemnation of Universalism by a General Council of the 4th century; will introduce a list of names, distinguished in church and state, and claimed as Universalists; and he may also refer to Gallileo and the Pope, and other facts and circumstances connected with the history of science. But science and religion cannot be viewed as parallel in their nature and circumstances. Science has no infallible text book, containing the ne plus ultra, of its facts and principles, but Christianity has. The Bible is the text book of Christians; and "whatever is not found written therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man to be believed, or thought necessary to salvation."

Moreover, Universalism is entirely another gospel; being as different, in every particular, from the gospel, as embraced by the great body of Christians for 1800 years, as darkness is from light. Were the difference between the two systems like that which prevails on the subject of baptism, or the possibility of falling from grace, the aspect of the case would be entirely changed; the fundamentals of Christianity would be left untouched. But there is a radical difference in every feature. "Universalism has a different God, a different Christ, a different Spirit, a different sinner, a different sin, a different atonement, a different pardon, a different salvation, a different resurrection, a different judgment, a different punishment, a different hell, and a different heaven; in fine, a difference with respect to all the essential doctrines of Christianity." The above is from the pen of a Mr. Royce, a writer against Universalism. Mr. Whittemore, referring to this representation of his system, remarks, "To this we give our assent. Mr. Royce is right. We confirm his words."—[Trumpet and Magazine, Aug. 18, 1838.

Now, the Bible is a plain book, given by a wise and holy Being, for the express purpose of furnishing information to men, of his own character, and the nature and plan of salvation; and yet, if Universalism be the true system, not one individual, during 1700 years after God completed his revelation and gave it to the world, saw a single feature of the true gospel there. They read it