the subject of divine justice. Justice is not an attribute, but a form of the divine holiness, and its office is, (under a system of restoring mercy,) to vindicate the character and government of God against those who reject the overtures of mercy, and willfully retain the character of offenders. Such are held under the inflictions of justice. Mr. Austin mistakes the nature and designs of divine justice, and then proceeds to draw his wholesale conclusions. The argument is defective in all its parts; but if it were sound in other respects, the conclusion arrived at would be erroneous, since the operations of divine justice no more prove that all men will be holy and happy, than the operations of human justice prove that all men will experience the happiness arising from conformity to the salutary laws under which they live.

The gentleman has given us an argument on the will of God, on which he has insisted much. He takes it for granted that God wills the salvation of all men, absolutely, and without respect to contingencies of any kind: that it is the positive and determinate will of God, that all men shall be holy and happy. The folly and absurdity of such a proposition, I have shown in various ways. I have shown, that so far as men are concerned, it would contravene moral government-rob man of his moral character, and consequently of the power of moral happiness: that if the will of God respecting final destiny be unconditional and absolute, it must be so in regard to the several steps by which that destiny is reached; and hence men are neither praise nor blameworthy, and God alone responsible, not merely for the existence of all events, but for heir moral character. Thus the conclusion is legitimately cached, if the premise be sound, that God is the direct and absoate author of all sin in the universe. God cannot be the direct and absolute author of man's moral destiny, without being the direct and absolute author of his moral character.

It has been further shown, that the Bible presents many clear instances in which the will of God is not done, and in which the word translated will, cannot, without the greatest folly and absurdity, be understood in an absolute sense. I give the gentleman this dilemma for consideration, and it is perfectly immaterial which of its horns he shall employ, to pierce the vitals of his system. If God's will be not absolute, in a sense which controls the existence and character of all events, the argument is good for nothing. If it be, then instead of proving the salvation of all men, it proves nothing so definitely, as that sin and misery may always exist, since it now exists, and has existed for many thousand years, not by the mere permission, but by the absolute will of God.

The "presence of God in all men," is another proof of universal salvation, often referred to by the Universalists, and which Mr. Austin has given quite a prominent place in his declamations. But I have never been able to see any point or force in this sup

posed argument. It rests on an entire misapprehension of the design and meaning of the passage or passages on which it is founded, as I have elsewhere abundantly shown in my answer to the gentleman's remarks on this point. That God may be all in all." refers to nothing more than the unity and universality of his administration, after the mediatorial kingdom, as it stands related to a preached gospel, shall have terminated.

Still another argument urged by my opponent, is based on the commands of God. On this point, the very strange assumption is made, that God's commands have the force of positive promises: hence, that all he commands will come to pass-must be effected. And to make out his case, the gentleman has attempted to press Mr. Wesley into his service. But the whole is a direct perversion, both of the nature of the divine commands, and the views of that great and good man, John Wesley. This I have made sufficiently plain in my speech on this subject, in which I have shown that the commands of God have the force of promises, no otherwise than as they imply the grant of ability to obey, whenever we honestly and earnestly endeavor to do so.

The thirteenth argument, (if I have numbered correctly,) is based on the mission of Christ. I have shown, I am confident, to the satisfaction of every candid and intelligent mind in this audience, that the mission of Christ to this world has no connection with, or bearing upon, the final holiness and happiness of men, if the system of Universalism be true. My friend does not admit men were ever lost, as to their final state. How, then, can he argue that they will be saved in their final state, because of the mission of Christ to this world? The argument is not only absurd in itself, but in urging it, the gentleman comes in contact with Ballou, Rogers, and other leading writers in the denomination, who expressly limit the effect of Christ's mission to this life. I have also proved from their own writings, that Universalists care no more for the sufferings and death of Christ for the human race, than for the sufferings and death of Peter or Paul, and hence have fixed upon their system the black and indellible mark of INFIDELITY. There is another argument in the catalogue, denominated antithetical, founded on the antithesis embraced in certain passages of scripture, such as the following: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." "For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous." On these passages, my friend argues, "what we lost in Adam, we gained in Christ"-therefore all men will be finally holy and happy. But Mr. Austin does not believe any man ever lost final holiness and happiness in Adam, therefore, he does not believe they gain it in Christ. He does not believe his own argument. He does not believe men ever were made sinners, or died in Adam, in a sense that endangers or forfeits their final salvation; hence, on his own principles of rea

soning, he cannot believe any man gains final holiness and happiness in Christ. He knows, therefore, just as well as I do, that this argument possesses not the weight of a feather.

The scriptural argument for the truth of Universalism was answered before it was offered. I have taken up in detail most of the proof texts of that theory, in connection with what preceded and followed; and have proved, not merely that they admit a different construction, but that they require an explanation contradictory to the dogma for which my friend contends. I hesitate not to say, that there is no part of the Bible that requires the Universalist construction, to make it consistent with itself, or with the general tenor of scripture. It is only by disjointing and perverting the Bible, that Universalists can press any part of it into their service. But to trifle with God's word, is dangerous business. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

I have now finished my recapitulation of my friend's regular arguments, and the manner in which I have met and refuted them. Perhaps I have not named them all in the order in which they occur in his speeches, but that is not material. It is enough to know that I have found them of a yielding and vulnerable character. Besides the direct reply I have given these Universalist proofs, I have answered most of them in two other ways. First, by a dissertation on the attributes of God, in which I show that nothing can be certainly inferred from his attributes respecting the final destiies of men. Our knowledge of the divine attributes must ever be nperfect, and conclusions drawn from what we know of them, must be as uncertain as our knowledge of the premises is defective. The attributes do not assure us of endless existence, much less of endless happiness. Moreover, we can only know what is, or is not consistent with the divine attributes, by God's revelations in nature and the Bible. But a thousand facts prove that the existence of sin and misery is consistent with the divine attributes, because sin and misery do exist; and the same palpable fact is taught by revelation. The argument from the attributes, therefore, is rather against, than for the final holiness and happiness of all men; and the gentleman's deductions from this source are clearly fallacious.

The other method by which I have replied to, and refuted many of Mr. Austin's affirmative proofs, is found in my speech on the government of God, where I have shown how inconsistent Universalism is, with the principles and plan of the divine administration. To get rid of hell, my friend adopts a system of government which annihilates heaven, and leaves man without a moral character adapted to either. The gentleman has made no formal reply to either of these arguments, and so far as I recollect, has scarcely alluded to what I have presented on the divine government. And thus he tacitly admits the incontrovertible soundness of these views.

Over and above all this, I have adduced a number of negative arguments, which alone, are sufficient to overthrow the position for which Mr. Austin contends here, setting everything else aside. My first negative proof is, that Universalism makes sin the unavoidable result of the physical constitution of man, and thus denies the existence of sin as a moral evil, by making it flow from a physical cause. To sustain this, I have quoted the leading authorities of Universalism, and the language of the gentleman himself. The manner in which the gentleman attempts to extricate himself from this difficulty, only involves him the more deeply. The language quoted from Mr. Austin, is-that sin "proceeds from our bodily or animal nature, which exists in this life." In reply, he explains by saying, "all sin is the effect of the clamoring of some animal propensity or passion for improper gratification." What is this but bringing one absurdity to explain and support another; or the same absurdity in different language, to explain and support itself? All sin is resolved into the effect of animal promptings: hence, all sin is the effect of a physical cause. From this it would follow, without the body, we should be incapable of sin, and possess no moral character. Such is Universalism. My next negative argument is, that the gentleman's theory makes God the author of all sin. I have sustained this, by quotations from Ballou, Thomas, Rogers and others, who say in so many words, that man acts under divine impulses, and moves by necessity." Besides this, nearly every position Mr. Austin has taken on this question, connects with it, unavoidably, the same conclusion. There is no one feature of my friend's theory, as he has explained it in this debate, more prominent than this-it makes God the only responsible agent in the universe. The gentleman has, here and there, entered a disclaimer, but it is of no use, so long as he clings to premises which necessarily draw after them such consequents. But to renounce these premises, would be to renounce Universalism.

Another opposing proposition laid down, is, that there is no salvation in Universalism. This follows from the declarations of leading Universalists-from the definitions given of salvation by Mr. Austin-from the fundamental principles of the system to which I stand opposed. The gentleman's boasting on the subject of Universal salvation, is mere cant-there is really not a particle of salvation in his theory. This is perfectly understood by all intelligent Universalists.

I have also sustained, against Mr. Austin's system, the charge of materialism. This I have not done by far-fetched inferences, from obscure declarations--but from positive testimony, drawn from leading writers on Universalism, and from the positions taken by my friend and others, in sustaining their favorite deductions. I declare to you, I do not understand how a man can be a consistent Universalist, without being a materialist. All sin

originates with the body-all sin dies with the body-and there is no future life and immortality, except what rises from the dead at the general resurrection-together with positive declarations that man has no immortal soul, are among the proofs I have given on this subject, from the writings of Universalists. My friend has exhibited great sensitiveness whenever I have shown the affinity between Universalism and Infidelity. But it is of no use, he may as well keep cool. The relationship is so intimate, that any fluttering on the part of the gentleman, will only prove he is aware of the fact, and feels the awkwardness of his position. Universalism is materialism-that is, it is a species of Infidelity.

I have also shown, that Universalism denies the doctrine of future retribution. There is nothing in the books written in support of Universalism more clearly taught than this. Mr. Ballou says, "the scriptures begin and end the history of sin, in flesh and blood; and that beyond this mortal existence, the Bible teaches no other sentient state, but that which is called by the blessed name of life and immortality."-[Mod. Hist. pp. 437, 438.] Mr. Austin's position in this debate, on this point, is, that Universalism neither denies nor affirms future retribution. He has not as yet pronounced a single sentence in this discussion, which authorizes the supposition that he believes the doctrine of future retribution. And if any such sentence shall be found in his speeches, when this debate appears in the printed form, I wish it to be remembered that such sentence, or admission, will have been interpolated-foisted into the debate after its termination, (when I can have no opportunity to reply,) to avoid difficulties in the view of the public, which he has not dared to meet here, and in violation of one of the rules of agreement, for the government of this discussion. Still, it is true, as I have abundantly proved, Universalism denies the doctrine of future retribution; and in this respect, is even worse than some forms of Infidelity.

I have also introduced, as a negative argument, the fact that Universalism is confused and contradictory in its proofs. I gave many instances in which this confusion and contradiction is most palpable in their writings. I also advertised you that Mr. Austin would give practical illustrations of the fact set forth. I must confess that in this respect, my expectations have been more than realized. Such absurdities and contradictions I never expected to hear from any living man, setting himself up as a teacher, and claiming a reasonable share of common sense. He has taught us-punishment is a penal retribution, and yet a means of salvation that man was made subject to vanity not willingly, yet not against his will-that God punishes all, to the full extent of their deserts, and yet does just as a good earthly father would, had he infinite wisdom and power-that punishment is in no sense an evil, yet a strong motive to deter from sin-that the human will is free, and yet a particular result must be arrived at in every case