him. Hence Paul says he is the propitiation for our sins, "that he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." But as the penalty is only waived, on condition of repentance, it becomes a motive to induce repentance and reformation. In this sense only are divine punishments reformatory. Mr. Austin's view of the reformative influence of punishment, is founded in fundamental error. It contravenes the nature and design of law, and renders the gospel unnecessary. St. Paul tells us that the " knowledge of sin" comes by the law, and that there is no law given that can give life. Mr. Austin makes life and salvation arise out of the law itself, by making it the necessary result of punishment. St. Paul says, " by grace are ye saved through faith;" Mr. Austin says, by the law are ye saved through punishment. "Behold what manner of love the father hath bestowed upon us," in making our salvation the necessary result of punishment!!! Besides, how ridiculously absurd it is, to talk of the total destruction of the antediluvians, the Sodomites, the Korahites, the Egyptians, as a measure adopted to reform them. If they have been reformed by this punishment, when and how were they reformed? Does God punish men with sudden and violent death, in this world, to reform them in another world? Let the gentleman explain this subject, in connection with his views of sin, and its relation to the body as its primary source, and in harmony with his notions of salvation and eternal life. Pshaw ! It is all nonsense. It may do to talk such stuff to those unaccustomed to think for themselves, but sensible men know better. That punishment is not always reformatory, in its design or effect, we have scriptural evidence in Prov. i. 24-28-" Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you: then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." Also, Prov. xxix. 1.-" He that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."

I now pay my respects to Mr. Austin's negative proofs. One of these is, that the doctrine of endless perdition is not taught in the Old Testament. He denies that the idea is found in the Old Testament, and yet, after all, admits it is there, by saying it is contradicted. How could the writers of the Old Testament contradict the doctrine, if they had not the idea. This is very strange reasoning.

It will be recollected, when the other question was under discussion, the gentleman quoted several times from the Old Testament, to prove his doctrine of eternal life for all men. But how

could he do this, without admitting the idea of eternal death? It is a fact as well known to Mr. Austin as to me, that the Jews claimed eternal life for themselves, and regarded all Gentile nations as outcasts from the mercy of God, and the benefits of final salvation. It was not until the Christian dispensation had fully opened, that it was understood, even by believing Jews, that "God is no respecter of persons.' And yet my friend says the idea of endless punishment is not in the Old Testament, and that its promises and threatenings are confined to this world. ises of the Old Testament to prove eternal life, and yet he assures He quotes the promus these very promises, as well as the threatenings of that book, belong only to this life. What a logical freak is here!!!

MR. AUSTIN-I beg to correct my brother. I did not quote from it to prove eternal life.

MR. HOLMES:-Well, if it suits any better-to prove that all men will be finally holy and happy. Just at this point, I wish to call the attention of the audience to two very strange things. First: He makes a distinction between eternal life and final holiness and happiness. How a man can be finally holy and happy, without having eternal life, I leave the gentleman to explain. And for the sake of consistency, I hope he will do it in his next speech. The second point to which I refer is, that my frieud quotes the promises of the Old Testament to prove final holiness and happiness, and yet contends that the promises and threatenings of that book relate wholly to this world. From this it follows, either this world embraces all worlds, and all existence, or the final holiness and happiness for which he contends, is limited to man's earthly state. O consistency, thou art a jewel!!!

I will take up this point again, and, in the proper place, show that the Jews did believe the doctrine of endless punishment, and that Josephus believed and taught the same truth.

I now pass to consider the second negative argument of Mr. Austin, based on the assumption that endless punishment is contrary to reason, and therefore false. I was a little surprised, I confess, that the gentleman should have commenced this argument by laying down the premises of Infidelity; and yet I know not why I should be surprised, since Universalism embraces the essential elements of Infidelity. follows: The language to which I refer, is as "He that cannot reason, is a fool; he that will not reason, is a bigot; he that dare not reason, is a slave." This is the precise language used by Thomas Paine, Robert Dale Owen, and Abner Kneeland, in their career of infidel blasphemy. This language does not state an untruth in itself. It is the perverted use of it to which I object. By what he calls reasoning from this premise, Mr. Austin arrives at the conclusion, that the doctrine of endless punishment is false. By the same process, Thomas Paine convinced himself that the Bible was a tissue of falsehoods, the

Prophets and Apostles knaves and liars, and Christianity a fable; while Abner Kneeland went still further in the same direction, being guided by the same light, until he came to the profound conclusion-that "matter is God, and God is matter, and it is no matter whether there be any God or not." If my friend Mr. Austin could carry out his views of human reason, he would soon reach the same goal. But look at the gentleman's consistency. Endless punishment is a doctrine of heathenism, he has told us, and therefore he cannot believe it; now he tells us it is false, because contrary to reason. And yet the reason of the heathen world has always approved the doctrine. The heathen believed the doctrine, because it agrees with their reason; Mr. Austin rejects it, because it is believed by heathen-that is, he rejects it, because their reason led them to believe it; and he still farther re

jects it, because it is contrary to reason. Let him reconcile these contrarieties, who can. But, to show the unsoundness of Mr. Austin's argument on human reason, we remark. First, there is nothing in the doctrine of endles punishment inconsistent with right reason; the difficulty, if any, is in the weakness of the faculty, not in any incongruity in the subject on which it is exercised. Secondly, reason is a weak and erring faculty, and therefore not to be trusted as a guide in relation to such subjects. To be convinced of this, we have but to look at the various and discordant speculations of men in reference to the human constitution, and our future and final condition. Professing to be guided by pure reason, some have concluded that man is all material, others that he is all immaterial; some would give him reason as an infallible guide, others would make him the slave of passion; some would terminate his existence in the tomb, and yet others will allow him, if he can, to live on beyond the tomb-and thus every variety of place has been assigned to man, between a brute and a God, under the dictates of human reason. There is no safety in depending on reason as a guide, in relation to moral subjects. St. Paul, speaking of certain characters who thought as Mr. Austin does, that human reason was a sufficient light, says respecting them, "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Another difficulty, and one which vitiates the whole argument of my friend, is, that he exalts reason above the Bible, and makes it superior to the voice of God. What is the proper office of reason in matters of religion? This is the only important question in relation to this subject. Mr. Austin makes it the prerogative of reason, to determine what the Bible ought to teach, not what it does teach. This is clearly making reason superior to revelation, and disclaiming the necessity of revelation altogether. Reason has no business to prejudge the character and propriety of the truths revealed, but its office is to determine what those truths are, by a fair and honest interpretation of the language of scripture. And when we have clearly ascertained

474

that a fact is revealed, it is our duty to receive and believe it,
whether our reason fully comprehends it or not. If the subject
be obscure and mysterious, it is not because of any incongruity
in its own nature, but because of the weakness and blindness of
human reason.
a direct and flat denial, that there is in the doctrine of endless
I close my remarks on this point, at present, by
punishment anything contrary to right reason.

My fourth argument is founded on two of Mr. Austin's af-
firmative arguments on the last question discussed, viz.-the "mis-
sion of Christ," and the "antithesis" of certain passages of scrip-
ture. From the mission of Christ to our world, he argues, all
men will be finally holy and happy. By this argument, the
gentleman admits the mission of Christ was necessary to the final
salvation of all men; hence, on his own principles of reasoning,
men were exposed to eternal death, and would have been lost, if
Christ had not interposed. That this conclusion is correct, is
evident from the fact, that he represents Christ as the subject of
derision amongst the angels of Heaven, in case he should fail to
bring all men to glory-"here comes the man that began to build,
but was not able to finish.”
save all men with final holiness and happiness in heaven, and if
That is, he came to our world to
he don't effect his object, the angels will laugh at him. If there
is any force in this, it is only on supposition that all men were
lost in respect to their final state, and but for the mission of Christ,
not merely a part, but the whole human family, would have been
endlessly miserable. If you please, just stick a stake here.

The second argument referred to, is founded on antithesis, as characterising certain passages of scripture, where one thing is placed over against another in the form of opposition, or contrast, as follows: As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the "As by the offence of one, judgment came upon free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." passages Mr. Austin remarked-"what we lost in Adam, we gained in Christ"-from which he concludes, all men will be On these saved. Now if all men are to be saved on the principle of having gained in Christ what they lost in Adam, then it follows, as they gain final holiness and happiness in Christ, they lost it in Alam; and here, again, we have the logical admission of Mr. Austin, that the whole human family were lost, in a sense contrasting with final holiness and happiness, and could never have been saved, if Christ had not interposed: hence, without Christ, men were, and are exposed to eternal death. I wish the audience to look at this, and keep it in mind. give up these two arguments in support of the affirmative of the If Mr. Austin will frankly second question, I must yield the conclusion drawn from them in support of the doctrine of endless perdition; but if he holds on to these, then, though they do not prove the truth of his proposition,

they furnish me with an unanswerable proof in confirmation of mine. This argument may be summed up thus: if, as Mr. Austin admits in the two arguments above named, the world is lost-exposed to endless perdition without Christ and his gospel-it follows, God has a law, the penalty of which is endless death; and those who now reject Christ, and despise the riches of his grace, must perish everlastingly. "He that believeth not, shall be damned." Or, to use the language of St. Paul-"To such, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and of fiery indignation, that shall devour the adversaries."(Heb. x. 27.) Thus the gentleman is taken in the coils of his own net; let him extricate himself, if he can.

I now call your attention to my fifth argument, founded on the doctrine or fact of

HUMAN DEPRAVITY:

The constantly increasing power and influence it exerts over the heart and life. It is not my intention here to introduce for discussion the doctrine of natural, total depravity. Nor is it necessary. This argument is predicated upon facts which I suppose my friend Mr. Austin will not dispute, viz. that men are depraved, and that it is natural for this depravity to increase its power and influence over the heart and life--that is, it becomes more inveterate the longer it is cherished, and exhibits its fruits with greater and greater facility, and in a constantly increasing ratio.

But lest my friend Mr. Austin should lack clearness of conception, and definiteness of view on this point, I will aid his mind, as well as present the subject to the congregation in a convincing light, by the following considerations.

1. It is a fact that all men have gone out of the way-"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." The universal prevalence of wickedness, in all ages and places, is indisputable. No portion of our race is exempt, unless they have become so under the influence of the restoring system of the gospel. Now our Lord tells us, that from the heart proceed evil thoughts, and a long catalogue of crimes which he names: but the heart must be in an evil state, that is, depraved, before it can give birth to evil thoughts; and as this is true of all, therefore all are depraved.

2. The evidence of this depravity is seen in infant minds; it exhibits its fruits in resentment, envy, pride, selfishness, cruelty, revenge, and so on, as soon as a development is made of intelligence: affording abundant promise of the future and more finished work of depravity.

3. It is proved by experience. Every man is conscious of a natural tendency to many evils--a tendency which exists, though he is conscious of the misery entailed by indulgence, and though he wishes to resist and overcome it.

4. The strength of this depravity is seen in the enormity of the