out its punishments to man in this life, is established by God himself, and in its bearings and final issues, has the sanction of his authority.

But it is a fact, that under this moral constitution, the happiness of man is contingent. It is a matter of every day experience and observation. Every man knows that his temporal, as well as his moral happiness, depends upon the course he takes; that his happiness to-morrow, depends in a great measure upon his conduct today-and his happiness next year, depends upon his conduct this year. This principle governs the whole of man's earthly existence. To squander the morning of life in idleness and vice, which should be employed in cultivating the mind and heart, and acquiring a useful education, is to lay the sure foundation for misery and wretchedness in manhood and old age. Education, respectability, wealth, and happiness, are so suspended upon our own conduct, that without design, effort, and perseverance, we forfeit the whole.

Here, then, the doctrine of human probation, as a preparation for happiness, governs the destinies of man in this life. Our youthful years are our probation for happiness and prosperity in the advanced periods of human life, and if this be squandered, or misimproved, the happiness which would otherwise follow is forfeited. Nor would the case be altered, were human life continued now, as long as it was in the days of Methuselah or even were this world to be our eternal state, still, happiness would depend on these contingencies, and human destiny be governed by the doctrine of probation. To suppose otherwise, would be to suppose, at some future time, a subversion of the moral government of God as it now exists, and an abrupt change in the divine administration.

And can we suppose, with any consistency whatever, that the laws and principles which govern man's happiness and destiny, become changed, simply because man has changed his place of residence? Whether we live in the State of New York, or Michigan, we are under the government of the United States, and amenable to its laws. And have we escaped the government of God, and the operation of his laws, simply because we have passed out of this world, into some other part of his dominions? No one will pretend this, and if not, then it follows that the same fundamental, changeless principles of moral law, which preside over the happiness and destinies of men in this world, will also preside there, and deal out there, as they have here, their results, with an exact and impartial hand. As man's present happiness is contingent, so also is his future happiness. As his happiness in this life depends on the improvement of a probation, so the whole of this life is a probation for eternity.

Moreover, it often happens under the government of God in this life, that men are punished without remedy. The consequences of their sins follow them to the last moment of their lives, resulting in the forfeiture of life itself, or cutting them off from the most desi

rable blessings while life continues. Sometimes this is done by the actual infliction of penalty for crime, by which life is forfeited, or liberty during life. But sometimes it is effected in the way of natural consequence. Men stain their characters by crime, or destroy their health by sinful indulgence, or waste their property and reduce themselves to poverty and want by prodigality. These consequences of their evil deeds continue during life: against them is no remedy. Here, then, so far as this life is concerned, God's laws and government create and authorize endless punishment.

Thus we see the voice of nature, and the analogy of God's gov ernment in this world, con firm the doctrine for which we contend, showing that future punishment, and even the eternity of that punishment, is but the legitimate result of the sinner's voluntary conduct, under the operation of laws now incorporated into the gov ernment of God, and yielding their certain fruits in this present life. For if it now accords with the attributes and government of God, that man should be punished without remedy, it is fair to presume, even had we no revelation to confirm it, that if we reject the gospel, spend our lives in sin, and die unrepentant and unforgivenGod may and will, without any departure from the principles of his changeless government, cut us off from the hope of salvation, and deliver us over to eternal punishment.-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S SECOND REPLY.]

Gentlemen Moderators:-In commencing this reply, I will proceed at once to the consideration of the arguments Elder Holmes has introduced in his last speech, and then attend to several incidental matters which require notice. His second argument in support of the doctrine of endless misery, he attempts to build on the nature and immutability of God's moral attributes, If he could prove by a legitimate course of reasoning, that the Deity possesses any Attribute which would lead him to create countless numbers of beings, expressly to inflict endless torture upon them, or voluntarily to expose them to a doom so infinitely awful-or that it would be necessary to inflict such an evil, as a punishment, to satisfy the well grounded claims of an Attribute of the Creator-then he would, indeed, lay down a foundation stone, on which he could begin to sustain the affirmative of this question. In regard to the first of these suggestions, my opponent will not even pretend God has any attribute which would urge him to create men expressly to torment them forever, or to expose them to such a fate. Hence it must be upon the other supposition, that he can attempt to advance any thing that looks like an argument, in support of his theory, from the Attributes of God. The only attribute which it is pretended can put forth a claim of the nature referred to, is Justice. Does the Justice of the Creator claim the wretchedness of a human being as its rightful due? If his argument aimed at any thing, it

was designed to prove the affirmative of this position. How has he succeeded in this attempt? Let his far-fetched argument be reviewed, and it will be seen he has not made the slightest actual approach towards establishing such a claim for Justice. In my argument from the Justice of God, on the preceding question, I showed that the views of Justice entertained by orthodox theologians, are of the most unreasonable and abhorrent nature. I know the Elder complained that I misrepresented his positions on the subject. But I am not conscious of having done so. My ground was that the orthodox view of Justice made it virtually a principle of Revenge! I appeal to the descriptions of God's justice which have been made by partialist theologians, for ages past, for the correctness of my position. Hear the definition which the orthodox Cruden gives of that Attribute, in his Concordance. He says God's "Revenging Justice" will be manifest in punishing the bodies of the wicked with eternal torments. Moreover, it was made clear in my argument, that the claims of infinite Justice, when rightly understood, required that an existence upon which sentient beings have entered, without any knowledge, volition, or choice on their part, should not be allowed to result in an endless evil to them! My friend has not overturned this conclusion, nor even attempted, with any serious effort to weaken it. Until he does that, his present argument from the moral Attributes of God, is without the slightest weight.

In framing this argument, he has made some declarations in which I perfectly agree with him. But there are other assertions singularly illogical and sophistical. He says the holiness of God would not allow him to bring sin into existence. This is selfevident. It is so clearly self-evident, that I cannot conceive why the declaration was made, except to reiterate his old charge, that according to Universalism God is the author of sin. I have already repudiated this allegation in terms sufficiently clear to satisfy the the candid portion of the audience. Sin is but an incidental effect-temporary in its nature, its influence and duration from which men can be saved by light and truth. In bestowing that moral agency, or freedom on man, which my friend unites with me in believing he possesses, it was impossible he should be empowered to exercise it, without involving a liability to sin. Man is the sole author of his own sinfulness, in the misuse of the highest and noblest power his Creator bestowed upon him. My opponent also charges me with maintaining that sin makes men better hereafter than they would have been without it. I have taken no position of this description. The ground I occupy is this, that the gift of that Moral Freedom which involves a liability, (not a necessity) to sin, is one of the highest blessings bestowed on man-elevating him to degrees of holiness and happiness, to which he could not otherwise attain. Notwithstanding in the exercise of his moral freedom, he falls into temporary sin,

yet the general and final benefits arising from this great gift, will infinitely transcend any evil which may for a season, attend the use to which he may devote it. Hence it was bestowed upon him, although he might misuse it for a time, for the greater good which would ultimately flow from its possession.

Elder Holmes assures us that God could not prevent the introduction of sin without coercing his creatures into obedience. This implies that he could have prevented the introduction of sin, if he had been pleased to coerce man to obedience. This matter, then, was subject to the decision of Deity. He could prevent the introduction of sin, or not, as he pleased. It cannot be doubted that the consequences of sin, were clearly known to him. An inquiry here arises, which appeals at once to our common sense. If Jehovah foresaw that in case he allowed sin to exist, it would make innumerable myriads of his offspring its endless captives, and bring eternal wretchedness upon them-would he not have prevented its existence, even though he had been compelled to resort to coercion? In the supposed condition of things, the choice of two ways was before the Creator-either to coerce men from the influence of sin, and thus save them from its power, and bring them all to holiness and happiness, or to refrain from all coercion, and allow millions to fall into endless perdition, whom he could have saved by the slightest exercise of his power!! In such an alternative, can any man in his senses, doubt which course would be adopted by a wise and good Deity? Which is of the most importance to man himself, to exist free from all coercion and fall into ceaseless misery, or to be placed under compulsion and be made infinitely holy and happy. Is there a human being who would hesitate an instant, as to the choice he would make in regard to this matter? There can be nothing more absurd than the views which have long been inculcated on this subject, by the limitarian clergy. The idea that God gave his creatures a freedom which he knew they would exercise to their certain and endless destruction-and then is so wonderfully opposed to putting the least restraint upon them, or to the exercise of the slightest coercion, that he would rather see them sink to a condition where they will blaspheme his name, and curse their existence forever, is one which violates all enlightened conceptions of our heavenly Father. If an earthly parent saw his child, under the influence of a blinding fascination, wandering to the brink of a terrific cataract, heedless of his warnings and exhortations, would he not be justified in seizing hold of him and compelling him to turn back? Yea, would he not be considered a monster violating every duty of a parent and a man, if he neglected to exercise such compulsion to save his child! My opponent and all his class of theologians, cast the deepest disparagement on the Father of all men, in representing that he will deliberately behold his own children in vast crowds, under the delusive influence of sin, fall into the gulf of

endless agony, without reaching forth his Almighty Arm, to arrest their course, lest he should use coercion upon them! ful thing indeed, to coerce men away from their endless destrucA dreadtion! What an evil-what a misfortune it would prove!! But if God will not coerce men one way, why should he another? If he will not coerce men to heaven, why should he coerce them to hell? If he will not coerce them to a state of endless holiness, why should he coerce them to a condition of endless sin? And be assured they will not enter such a state, unless they are compelled by the omnipotent power of Jehovah! That God could have prevented the existence of sin by withholding man's moral agency, there can be no doubt. But the fact that he gave his creatures such an agency, should convince us that he clearly foresaw he could save them from the temporary sin into which they would fall, in its exercise. It should satisfy us also, that he well knew, he could through this very agency, finally bring them all into that state of free and voluntary obedience to his government, which is alone pleasant or acceptable unto him. This redemption from sin, the Creator can accomplish, without resort to physical compulsion, or force of any description. The light, truth, instruction, and moral suasion, which our Father brings to bear on his creatures, through the instrumentality of Christ and his gospel, will be amply sufficient to effect this great and good work in due time, without any violation of man's agency, and will bring every intelligent being around his Throne, freely, voluntarily, gladly, to worship and obey him forever!!

My brother on the other side says that God's opposition to sin is infinite. He also says it is the office of Justice to make an infinite display of his opposition to sin. To these positions I yield my entire assent. And I will add, that the Creator will manifest his opposition to sin in a consistent and reasonable manner. method he takes to this end, according to Elder Holmes, is most The remarkable. To show his infinite opposition to sin, Jehovah takes a course which PERPETUATES it forever. Is it not a marvellous way to manifest repugnance of a certain thing, by perpetuating its being? God is so opposed to sin in this world, that he will take means to introduce it into the next, and continue it through eternity! He is so opposed to the wickedness of men for seventy years, that he will place them where they will be compelled to be wicked forever!! This is the profound logic of modern popular theology!! I sincerely believe the Almighty is infinitely opposed to sin. But so far from perpetuating it through the instrumentality of his Justice, or in any other manner, he will prove the sincerity of his opposition to it, by saving all his creatures from its power, and thus ultimately annihilate it from his universe!!

Mr. Holmes maintains that God brings the strongest motives to prevent men from falling into sin-that the severest penalty which