great and worthy purpose to bring all his creatures to himself in holiness and bliss.

As to the antithetical portion of this argument, all I was able to understand of it was, that what we gain in Christ, we lost in Adam --by which I suppose he would have us believe the account stands about balanced. Let us look at this for a moment. What do men loose in Adam? or in their Adamic nature? for in such sense should we understand the word "Adam," as used by the Apostle in his antithetical declarations. While existing in their Adamic nature, men to a greater or less degree, lose truth, purity, goodness, and happiness. Of this there can be no doubt. Hence, if all they lose in Adam is gained in Christ, then in due season, they will be restored through the mediation of the Redeemer, to the possession or those qualities which they had previously lost.

I now pass to the consideration of his fifth argument in the Affirmative, drawn from Human Depravity. He says he does not purpose to discuss the doctrine of total depravity. Why not? It would be as appropriate as many points he has labored to drag into this debate, from my side of the house. He stands here as the champion of the Evangelical school, of every hue and shade. Total depravity is a tenet which has prevailed for centuries in that school, and still exists in its midst. My friend may say he does not believe it. What then? Did I not declare my disbelief in several points, which he charged as prevailing among Universalists? Yet he has thrust them forward repeatedly, and strove with a pertinacity worthy a better cause, to hold me responsible for them. Upon his own principle, I can make him responsible for total depravity, infant damnation, election and reprobation, and every abomination which has found congenial soil and rich sustenance in self-styled orthodoxy for ages past.

Mr. HOLMES:-I do believe in total depravity.

Mr. AUSTIN-He does believe in total depravity!! I hope that will be set down and remembered!!! In the name of Heaven, has it come to this!! Is it possible that in this enlightened day—in the Nineteenth Century-a professed Christian minister can be found who will boldly and unhesitatingly announce his belief in this abhorrent sentiment!!-a sentiment which was a disgrace even to the dark and ignorant age which gave it birth!! However disagreeable to my opponent, I must again appeal to the feelings of parents. I must ask fathers and mothers what they think of this avowal! What their estimation is, of the creed that inculcates, and the heart which utters such a sentiment. If the doctrine which has just been sanctioned by Elder Holmes, has one particle of truth connected with it, then mothers! the babe which smiles at your breast-in whose sparkling eyes, and dimpled cheek, and expressive countenance, you fain believed you beheld the purest picture

487 of innocence that earth could afford-is an INCARNATE FIEND! given up wholly, soul, body, mind, heart, strength, to evil and evil only, without possessing the slightest particle of goodness, or a single quality that you can love. Can you believe this? If you can, you should cast your infant from you, as you would spurn the loathsome reptile, whose touch fills you with shuddering and disgust!!!

ever.

Mr. Holmes, then, according to his own voluntary declaration, believes in total depravity. There are some contradictions involved in this declaration, which I will notice for a moment. In the first place it contradicts his assertions heretofore on this subject. In his ninth reply on the second question, he distinctly repudiates the doctrine of total depravity. Now he adopts it. He has told us repeatedly, and indeed, made the declaration in his last speech, that men frequently grow worse and worse-become more and more depravel-aul will continue to sink deeper in corruption forNow I would be pleased to inquire, when creatures begin existence TOTALLY DEPRAVED, and continue to grow more and more sinful, what kind of beings they will get to be when three hundred billions of years have passed away? While my friend is answering this question, I would like him to inform me also, what propriety there is in the exhortations he sometimes makes to sinners, to induce them to repent and reform! Exhort a being totally depravel-wholly incapable of entertaining a good thought, speaking a good word, or doing a good deed-to become obedient and righteous!!! Oh, consistency!

The sum of his argument on human depravity is, that as men are now depraved, and grow worse and worse through this life, the conclusion is established that they will continue in this downward career forever! This deduction is far from being warranted from the premises. While it is true that some men grow more depraved apparantly through life, it is equally true that in millions of cases, the worst of men have repented and reformed in this world. The indisputable fact that the most depraved of sinners are frequently brought to virtue and golliness here, affords as strong ground for believing, on the principles of analogy, that all bad men will eventually reform hereafter, as my friend's reasoning affords presumption to the contrary. Yea, the presumption is much stronger in favor of the ultimate repentence of the wicked, than of their endless continuance in sin. However depraved men may be they must pass through the process of death. None can doubt that this will produce a marked change in their condition, and in all that pertains to them. It removes them from the associations and influences in which they were led into sin, and kept there in this world. It cannot be disputed that this change of circumstances must be vastly favorable to their improvement. How often has severe illness alone, worked a total renovation in the habits of wicked men. It brought them to themselves-gave them an op

portunity to reflect maturely on the course they had pursued, and the wretched effects it had produced upon them-and finally resulted in their complete restoration to virtue and godliness. If such has been the effect of passing through sickness, it is a fair principle to presume, and without any violence to reason, analogy, or nature, that similar influences will be wrought upon all who pass through that greatest of all changes, death! Not that any physical necessity in death will compel a change of moral character; but in experiencing an event so solemn-in all the circumstances which accompany it-in the new scenes and associations into which it will usher them-there is a reasonable certainty that thoughts, reflections, a mature considering of the past, its errors, and its sufferings, will possess the minds of the most sinful, and induce a sincere and genuine repentence. If the existence on which the children of men enter at death, is only as favorable to human improvement as the present world, we may believe, that as the most guilty frequently reform here, they will reform hereafter, and eventually all will become pure and good. And why should not the next world be as favorable to promote righteousness in the sinful, as the present? I urge this question on the mature deliberation of the hearer. The idea, that because a creature has been so blinded to his own good, as to fall into wickedness in this world, therefore God will deprive him of the privilege and the opportunity to repent and reform hereafter, is so utterly in violation of all enlightened conceptions of Deity, as a wise and just Ruler, and a judicious and affectionate Father, that it is not possible an enlightened and reflecting mind can harbor it for a moment. The analogy of all God's works teaches, that each department through which any creature passes in its progress, is more and more favorable to a developement of all its better powers and capacities. Is not the youth in possession of more advantages to improve, than the infant? Does not manhood present more favorable opportunities for improvement in everything connected with our welfare, than childhood? Is not Experience continually accumulating its testimony, and throwing it into the scales of ripening judgment, to influence man from the dark ways of sin, into the bright and pleasant paths of uprightness? Now when man enters into a new, and still higher state of existence in another world, is this great and wise law of increased advantage for reformation and improvement, to be abrogated forever? Is he to be taken from its operation, and placed under a new rule never before heard of, which will require, that because the creature in his darkness has stumbled into sin, he shall be deprived even of the privilege of reformation? I demand evidence that God will effect so important a change for the worse, in the laws of man's being. My opponent has shown no proof of such change he has not attempted it. Until he exhibits some reasonable probability of so momentuous

an alteration in God's dealings, I insist the balance of evidence is infinitely more weighty in support of my conclusions.

The evidence that those who may have continued sinful, and even grown worse during life, will, through a combination of instrumentalities connected with death, and flowing from other sources, be brought to reflection, and repentance in another stage of their existence, is greatly strengthened by the representation which the Scriptures make of the resurrection state. that in the next life, the children of men shall be clothed with St. Paul instructs us, bodies that shall be incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and spiritual. -(1 Cor, xv. 42-44.) The idea that beings clothed in such bodies, shall persevere in sin, and plunge deeper into corruption than even in this life, is in violation of every dictate of reason, and strangely absurd. The description which the Apostle gives of the bodies which mankind will possess in the next existence, fully corroborates the position I have taken, that in each stage of man's progressive being, increased facilities are granted for improvement, Here our bodies are composed of flesh and blood-they are filled with animal propensities, with tumultuous passions, through the disorderly operations of which we are prompted to sin. But in the next stage of our existence, we shall be clothed upon with bodies pure and glorious, and more perfectly adapted to the high mental and moral endowments which God has implanted in the soul. The pretence, that while man's progress hereafter in bodily respects, shall be upward toward perfection, his progress in moral qualities, will be downward, seeking infinite depths of polution, is another marked violation of analogy, good sense, and the laws of human exis

tence!!

In taking his position that men will forever persevere in wrong, the Elder overlooks God-his Holy Spirit-Christ and his Gospel! He forgets that they all aim at the reformation of the sinful. He does not seem to understand that Christ established his mediatorial kingdom, expressly to prevent the state of things he insists will take place; and that if the Redeemer is competent to the task he has taken in hand, he will bring all at last to holiness and heaven. He strangely loses sight of the important fact that God's spirit is irresistible in its operations that whenever Jehovah thinks proper to exercise it, the hardest heart of man is melted like wax before its vivifying beams. He forgets that the Bible is full of instances where the most sinful have been converted, by a single word, as it were, from the Almighty, and that in the case of any sinner, before he would be allowed to fall into irremediable ruin, that word would again be spoken, to arrest his mad career!! Let these, and a thousand like considerations, have due weight, and it can but be seen, that the argument my friend attempts to build on man's present depravity, is destitute of support from analogy, reason or the Scriptures.

Mr. Holmes declares that the burthen rests on me to prove that 21*

man's depravity will be destroyed. I take the liberty to inform him, that in this, he again attempts to change the posture of the parties in this debate, and shrink back from the responsibility which rests upon his own shoulders. It is not for me to prove a negative. He affirms that man's depravity will be endless. Let him prove it. This is his plain duty. The simple fact that a man is now sinful, is no more evidence that he will forever continue sinful, than that because a man is sick to-day, it is proof that he will remain sick forever! I have cut off all approach to such conclusions, by one important circumstance, viz: that the most depraved of men do often reform, even in this world. This fact peremptorily forbids all assumption, that because men are now depraved, they must remain so through eternity. And when to this is added all the considerations offered from other sources, the position stands in utter nakedness, without the slightest support!

He insists that punishment cannot destroy sin, because an effect cannot destroy its cause. I have not contended that punishment of itself destroys sin. Punishment arrests the career of the sinner -brings him to his senses-gives him an opportunity for mature reflection-and thus opens the way through which those higher influences that emanate from Christ and his Gospel, can flow upon his heart, and lead him to repentance and to life.

The Elder declares there is no grace in punishment, because there is no grace in law. I am astonished at the ignorance of the fundamental principles of God's government, manifested in this declaration. No grace in law!! From what did the Creator's law emanate? From anger, revenge, hatred? No; but from his goodness, his wisdom, his holiness! Law is the very child of grace! Its whole object is to promote man's interest and happiness. It was because God was full of 'grace, of favor, of goodness, of compassion, that he enacted his law, to restrain men from sin, their worst and only enemy, and bring them to the practice of righteousness, in which alone they can find happiness. The entire law of God, in its whole spirit and intention is, but an embodyment of his infinite grace. It follows that the punishments which his law inflicts, are full of grace. This is evident, not only from the considerations just named, but from the fact, so frequently made known in the Scriptures, that punishment is designed for the amendment and reformation of the guilty.

Before proceeding to my next Negative Argument I desire to notice briefly, an assertion or two, made by Elder Holmes either in his first or second speech on this question. He asks whether a parent would not separate a rebellious son from the rest of the family? I can see no force in this inquiry, except such as bears directly against the sentiment it was designed to support. If a parent could not reform his son, or keep him within bounds in the family, he would undoubtedly remove him to some place more favorable to his amendment. But I ask in return, would a wise and