upon us from the will or power of the law-maker." Such is the constitution of man as a creature of God. And as this constitution was given him to adapt him to the law and government of God, hence, the consequences resulting from his conduct, whether for good or evil, happiness or misery, are as ever during as the existence of man under that law or government, which confers its rewards or inflicts its penalties, according to the voluntary conduct of men. Now, this being the constitution of man, and such his liability, if no sinful act had yet been committed, yet no one could prove that such act would not be committed, and the fearful consequences be incurred. But, the fearful act of rebellion has been committed--the whole world is under the malediction of the divine law. And as law of itself knows nothing of mercy, hence, left to work out its own results, it inflicts an endless curse; and the same result must follow where the condemned sinner rejects the benefit of a restoring remedy.

This argument may be summed up thus: Men are moral agents. The legal moral constitution under which they are placed, secures life to the obedient, but dooms offenders to die. It is the office of distributive justice to execute this penalty, as well as to bestow the reward of obedience. In case they are rewarded, they experience the appointed results of their voluntary obedience. In case they are punished with death, they experience the appointed results of their voluntary disobedience, and are bound as well by their own constitution, as by the natural force and effect of moral law and the nature of its penalty, to abide the consequences of their own acts.

Before I yield the floor, I wish to make another call upon Mr. Austin to explain himself upon a point involved in this question. He denies endless punishment in a future world. Does he admit punishment in a future world at all? Will the gentleman please give his attention to the following particulars, and favor us with a specific answer. First: does he believe any part of the human family have been, are, or will be, punished in the future world, or after death? Secondly: if he does, does he believe there is a hell in the future world where they are punished, or, a place of future punishment? Thirdly: if he believes in future punishment, and yet denies the existence of a future hell, or place of future punishment-then I wish him to explain to us, where, and how sinners are punished in a future state. If my friend will give his early attention to these questions, and let us have his candid and deliberate views, he will oblige his opponent, and I have no doubt confer a favor upon the audience.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S FIRST REPLY.]

Gentlemen Molerators :-On the question now before us, Elder Holmes takes the Affirmative, and leads in the debate. In a well regulated discussion, its tone and character depends materially on the course pursued by the Affirmative. If the individual who occupies that position, a lopts a manly, dignified plan of procedureif he a lheres closely to the question, and frames his arguments so that they bear legitimately and directly upon it-then the Negative will be enabled to pursue a similar course, and the way is open for an interesting and profitable investigation. But when the Affirmative unfortunately chooses to lead into another track— resorts to sophistry, trickery, deception-indulges in a strain of fault-finding, vituperation, misrepresentation-in harsh censures hard names, and low epithets-the Negative, although unwarranted in pursuing a similar course, even by such an example, must necessarily modify the nature of his replies to meet so unpleasant an exigency, and the debate can but lose much of its attraction and value. In marking out my plan on the affirmative of the last question, I was governed by the suggestions just offered. It was my object to leave all extraneous considerations aside, and lead off in a train of arguments that should touch at once, the vital point in dispute between the parties, and allow the contest to be urged on the only ground where a decisive victory could be obtained, on either side. I think I may claim to have adhered faithfully to this plan, throughout the entire length of that investigation-notwithstanding I was compelled frequently to turn aside to expose the tortuous course my friend thought proper to pursue on the Negative.

It is a source of much regret to me, that Elder Holmes lost sight of the considerations I have suggested, in opening the Affirmative of the present important question. Instead of proceeding in a dignified and honorable manner, at once to the advocacy of the dark and terrible doctrine he has volunteered to defend, it has been his choice to commence with a long strain of fault-finding, and a numerous catalogue of complaints, interspersed with defamatory assertions, low innuendoes, and groundless charges, which I can but view as alike unworthy a christian and a courteous controversialist. As at the very commencement of his first speech on the second question, so precisely on this question, instead of going forward, he immediately turns back, and begins to haggle, and scold, and declaim, in regard to matters with which we have done, and which should be laid upon the shelf! My poor friend is evidently greatly dissatisfied with the results of our discussion, thus far. If it was not so, he would allow his past labors to remain as they are, to work their legitimate influence on the public mind. But this constant anxiety to go back and re-vamp old arguments, re-assert stale denunciations, and indulge in scurrilous abuse, in assertions, and a general bravado, which had been already repeated until

worn thread-bare, proves as plainly as words could assert it, that he feels conscious of a failure to sustain himself heretofore, as he desired. In all this dissatisfaction with his past labors, he has shown an amount of good sense, truly creditable. I fully believe when the public review the nature of his proceedings in this debate, they will at least give him the credit of great discernment in being wholly unreconciled to the idea of allowing his labors on the second question, to pass without some attempt to patch them up! The Elder may, however, take to himself the consoling reflection, that the failure cannot justly be attributed to him, but to his cause! When men attempt to overthrow TRUTH, or build up ERROR, how can they expect their exertions, after cool and mature examination, can yield satisfaction even to themselves!

I can but esteem myself unfortunate in incurring the disapprobation of my opponent. Every thing on my part, goes wrong in his estimation. I can do nothing that will please him. All my positions, my arguments, evidences, scripture proofs, are exceedingly distasteful to him. The more sound the argument, the clearer the proof, the more direct the conclusion, and glorious the doctrine established, the greater his dissatisfaction!! Whatever I do, he would not have done; and whatever he would have me do, that do I not. The case is a hard one truly, for my friend. If I was but more yielding and accommodating in my disposition, and more willing to conform to his wishes in all cases, how speedy his triumph! How easy his victory!

He complains that I have studiously avoided making known my opinions on many important points-that I have failed to answer his inquiries as to the nature of salvation, or the time, place and manner of the punishment of the wicked. These complaints run through the entire length of the two questions, frequently interspersed with a precious display of low wit and ridicule. He denominated Salvation as held by Universalists, to be a kind of Jack-o-lantern-an abstraction-a mere nothingness! True, I have shown in repeated instances, that the salvation we proclaim, is the salvation revealed in the gospel-a salvation from sin, ignorance, and death-that it is purely the gift of God-and that it is effected through the instrumentality of Christ and his gospel! But what cares he for a salvation which has God for its author, and Christ for its executor and finisher? So long as it stands in the way of his creed, he will cast the most contemptuous epithets upon it, and insist that it is nothing but emptiness? He forgets that the salvation promulgated in his own theory is the most unreal, uncertain and contradictory, contrivance that the wretched wisdom of this world ever coined. No man feels himself safe for a moment under its teachings. To-day, he may be saved-tomorrow, lost!! The moment the poor repentant sinner stretches fo his hand to the Elder's system, to lay hold on a salvation

that shall be real-something that can be depended upon-he finds only that which involves him in inextricable confusion. It is a salvation by works, and NOT by by works-he must do something to merit it, and yet is told he can not do any thing to merit it. He is taught it is a salvation by grace, and yet not by grace but of works--that God will save men, and yet they must save themselves that Christ will save the world, and yet if the world do not secure their own salvation, they will be cast off into utter and endless darkness! And yet one who entertains these views and is continually leading others to wander amid all this confusion, utters loud complaints that the salvation of Universalists is not definite! That these complaints against the definiteness of our views of salvation, are utterly groundless--ludicrously sothere is not a person who has attended this discussion, but will bear me witness. Although I have repeatedly answered all questions in regard to salvation, so far as God has revealed knowledge to mortals on the subject, and made known my opinions on every point involved in the discussion, yet these complaints are again reiterated on the very threshold of this question--at the first go-off of the Elder, with as much coolness, as though he was treating our hearers with the fresh coinage of his fertile brain. It is a fitting beginning in defence of the monstrous doctrine my opponent stands up here to defend and propagate.

The secret of all his trouble and fault finding, in regard to matters connected with the other questions, is easily explained. It is not that I have not answered his inquiries on these topics, nor that I have not made known my opinions, but the difficulty is, I have not answered them to suit him-and my opinions have proved different from what he would have them. If I had but given some absurd reply to his queries-if I had but committed myself to some groundless position, some ridiculous sentiment, some monstrous anomoly, so weak and silly as to conflict with the word of God-then the Elder would have been in high glee! No complaints would have been uttered, and no fault found with my course. But although I am exceedingly anxious to accommodate my friend, in every possible and consistent manner, yet really it is asking too much, that I should sacrifice God's truth to friendship for him, or allow the most consistent, desirable and beautiful doctrine that men or angels have ever known, to be trampled under foot, merely to permit heathen errors to perpetuate their baneful sway over the minds of men!

If I thought proper to pursue a similar strain of fault finding, I might in return, with great justice, utter many complaints against the course pursued by Elder Holmes. His misrepresentations have been numerous and wilful. In his tenth speech he declares that Universalists generally repudiate the ordinances of christianitybaptism and the Lord's supper. Yet he kuows that the Lord's supper is administered throughout our denomination, where circum

stances will admit of the organization of churches. And as to baptism, Universalists very frequently administer it; but they leave their members in the free exercise of their consciences on this subject. I might complain also of his assertions at the commencement of his closing speech on the second question--where he declares that Universalism knows nothing of a renewed heartthat it claims that the heart in its unholy state gives its suffrage for annihilating the enlless sanctions of the divine law, and unconditionally saving all men, without regard to character or conduct--and that I maintain that the wicked heart LOVES Universalism. I declare all these assertions to be sheer, wilful, and wicked misrepresentations, and that Elder Holmes well knew them to be such, when he uttered them. He knows I have repudiated all such views over and over again; but he most dishonorably persists in reiterating these charges. Yet he claims to be in possession of a renewed heart. Moreover, I might complain, that after so much trepidation lest I should introduce new matter in my closing speech on the negative of the first question, where he would have no opportunity to reply, he has himself become guilty of this very act, in his closing speech on the negative of the second question. In several instances he has brought in new arguments, and in one case* in direct violation of one of the rules of this discussion, has introduced a new matter which he calls a "dilemma," and challenges me to reply to it, when he knew I had no opportunity. But I need not dwell farther on the singular characteristics of that closing speech. It was very much as I anticipated. The repetition and patching up of his replies to my argumentsthe reiteration of assertions, positions, and false and sophistical methods of reasoning, which I had already overthrown and scattered, when they were originally introduced-indicates nothing more clearly than his dissatisfaction at the manner in which he has managed his cause, and his fears of the influence of this debate on the public mind.

The gentleman is not a little perplexed by my appeals to those tender sympathies which God has implanted in the human heart. He acknowledges that these appeals place his doctrine at great disadvantage. But he insists that this is in consequence of the wickedness of the hearts of men, and reminds us of the declaration of the Bible, that "the heart is desperately wicked." My friend is evidently in the fog in regard to this matter. If my appeal was to the wicked feelings of men-if the sympathy aroused against the doctrine of endless punishment and in favor of Universal Salvation, was the fruit of the predominance of sinful and depraved passions, as were some of the appeals he mentioned in his last speech-there would then be some ground for the conclusion he has drawn. But the Elder and the world well know

1 406