not fully agree. Every sensible person will acknowledge that vastly more reliance is to be placed on literal and unequivocal assertions, than on figurative forms of speech. It is a sound and safe rule that the figurative parts of the Bible should be so explained as to accord with those passages which are literal. When therefore, it is distinctly and literally declared in the scriptures that God will by no means, clear the guilty, there is positively no room left for doubt as to the meaning. It should forever settle the question that when sin is once committed, there is no way or means provided whereby the guilty can escape a just punishment.--[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' FIFTH SPEECH.]

Respected Auditors:-The last speech of my opponent affords so fruitful a theme of remark, that I will present some of my affirmative arguments, before I proceed to its consideration, lest, getting engaged in its discussion, I should speak too long, and thus exclude my own proofs.

My ninth argument in support of the doctrine that God proposes by the Gospel to save men from just and deserved punishment, is founded on the intercession of Christ for sinners. St. Paul tells us that Christ is a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedeck. It was the business of the high priest to go into the holy of holies once a year, having shed much blood for himself, and the people, and to make intercession for them. While this Jewish priesthood continued, it represented the priesthood and atonement of Christ, which was finally to take its place. Christ having made his advent, the Jewish priesthood terminates in him. He is the end and perfection of this law for righteousness-as first he made atonement by shedding his own blood once for all in behalf of the whole world. The "holy of holies" into which he entered is Heaven, where he "abideth continually." Now as he still retains the character of priest, he still performs the work of intercession for sinners. Hence Isaiah says: "He bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." So also, St. Paul, (Heb. v. 25): "He is able to save, to the uttermost, them that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us." How can sinners be saved at all, unless they be saved from punishment? Also, ix. 24: "Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are but the figures of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Again, Rom. viii. 34, we are told-"Christ is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." St. John says "If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Now our argument is this: As Christ intercedes for sinners, the object of his intercession must be their salvation from their sins; and as punishment follows sin in the order of time, to be saved

from sin committed, is to be saved from punishment. Hence the language, "If any man sin we have an advocate with the father." The object of the advocacy with the father, is salvation from sins committed, and consequently from the punishment of sins. If this is not so, Mr. Austin can tell us what it does mean, by explaining the object of Christ's intercession.

I now present my tenth argument, founded on the fact that the Gospel proposes to save sinners now, which cannot be the case if sinners must first be punished all they deserve. The scriptures tell us that God now "commandeth all men everywhere to repent." "Now is the accepted time, behold, now is the day of salvation;" "to-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." All the invitations of the Gospel have reference to the present time. "Repent and be converted"- -"Look unto me and be ye saved""Come unto me all ye that labor." Now, every sinner deserves to be punished, and hence if he is not saved from punishment, he cannot be saved at all, until he has endured all the punishment he deserves. This requires some time after sin is committed. If it requires no time, then salvation and damnation must meet at the same time, in the same individual. Hence they must be both eternal or result in the destruction of each other. As this will not be contended for, it follows that some time to say the least, must elapse after the sin is committed, before the sinner can receive all the punishment he deserves. This time may be long or short according to the turpitude of the sinner's crimes. The several schools of Universalism are not agreed among themselves in regard to the length of time necessary to punish sinners to the full extent of their deserts. Some think it may all be effected in a short time, others, that it may be done in this life at most, while others still, make it run over into eternity. Mr. Winchester taught that some sinners could not be saved until they had suffered 144,000 years. Such was their moral turpitude, their stubborn perverseness, it would require that length of time to subdue them, and bring them in harmony with the divine will. Mr. Skinner, when pressed on this point, admits future punishment, but does not tell us how long it must continue, in order to secure the desired results. All agree, it must take time. Very well, be that time more or less, it would be both improper and dishonest to offer salvation to the sinner now, when he cannot be saved until his punishment has terminated, no matter how long or short the period of his suffering may be. He cannot

X be saved until all his punishment has been experienced, and hence

it must be dishonest and cruel trifling to offer him salvation now. Yet the gospel does this, and every minister of the gospel is authorized to do the same. Here we see, the notion against which we contend is contradictory to, and subversive of the gospel, and hence must be false. For, as the gospel offers salvation to sinners now, it follows, they may be saved from deserved punishment now. I will now proceed to consider some points in my friend's last

speech. You are aware that a powerful sympathetic effort was made last evening: and from the fact that he has practised this artifice in considerable degree in every speech he has made, I am led to suppose it is his peculiar fort, when his arguments fail to satisfy himself, or convince the audience, he forthwith appeals to their sympathies. You may understand after this, when he indulges in this peculiarity that he is conscious of some defect in his argument, and wishes to fill your eyes with dust, lest you should detect it. An appeal to the sympathetic feelings of an audience is well enough when it has a proper foundation; but in this case the gentleman's great zeal was so perfectly baseless, as to be rather amusing than otherwise. It might serve to remind one of

"Ocean into tempest tossed,

To waft a feather or to drown a fly."

But I doubt whether any discerning mind discovered any relation between his declamatory flourish, and the merits of the question under discussion. And you recollect his addresses and appeals baseless as they were, were made to a particular class of individuals— to young men. Why was this? He knew there were many of of that class of persons here last evening, who would not be here to-day to have the false impressions made upon their minds corrected: hence his zeal in that direction.

I have presented a number of arguments, which my friend denominates metaphysical, but which he has made no effort to answer. He gives them the go-by, it is probable for the same reason that he refuses to define his views of future punishment. He knows that any attempt to answer the one, or explain the other, will involve him in inextricable difficulty. There is deep water in that region; there are winds and storms there: my friend does not wish to risk his cause on that sea! And here we have an indication of the real character of Universalism. It is a characteristic of error to be non-committal-to deal in generalities, and avoid if possible, every issue where its claims may be tested by established principles, by analogy or fact. I do not blame Mr. Austin for his non-committalism, nor for eschewing metaphysical proofs: the safety of the cause he advocates requires this course. Were I set for the defence of Universalism, I would as soon risk my personal safety in a leap over the falls of Niagara, as allow my theological system to go into the crucible of philosophical investigation and analysis. I wish, however, that the audience may have clear proof that Mr. Austin does studiously avoid the issues referred to. I therefore call on him again, to tell me whether he believes in future punishment, and if so, where and how it will be inflicted.

The gentleman charges me with teaching that sin may be committed with impunity. I have already noticed this charge sufficiently in another speech; but if any doubt of this remains, I will endeavor to remove it by a few additional remarks. He says, ac

cording to my doctrine of salvation from punishment, he might slay this whole congregation with impunity. Let us first see what would be the state of the case according to his doctrine. He teaches that punishment is in no sense an evil to the sinner. If not, then it must be a blessing-a blessing which corresponds in magnitude with the turpitude of the crime; hence punishment on his principles, furnishes no motive either to avoid the crime or escape the punishment; or, if we suppose, according to another declaration of his, that God punishes only to reform, and that the amount of punishment it takes to produce repentance, is just the amount the sinner deserves for his crimes. From this it would follow, as the least amount of punishment might lead to repentance, so the least possible quantity would suffice to atone for the crime of slaying the whole audience. How would the case stand according to the views which I advocate? Suppose the crime referred to, to be committed; I say to the murderer: "Sir, you have committed a crime of dreadful turpitude! you have not merely violated your relations to man; you have broken the great, infinite moral law of Jehovah you cannot escape the penalty of the law in this life, the law of man-much less can you escape the penalty of the divine law, which says, thou shalt not kill, without repentance. You are now under the condemnation of law, both human and divine. The penalty of human law, which is the death of the body, you must suffer. The penalty of the divine law, which is death, both of body and soul, you can only escape by repentance so genuine and thorough, that God, who knows the heart, shall be pleased to grant you a pardon through Jesus Christ."

:

But according to Universalism, the murderer would have no motive to avoid the crime or the punishment, because the punishment is a blessing. Or if he should wish to escape the punishment after the criminal deed is done, he can effect his purpose by repentance, and so far as relates to the divine law, the crime is expiated. There is however, one penalty, that of human law, which cannot be averted in this way: and should the criminal doubt whether this punishment would be a blessing, he may escape it by murdering the sheriff, and putting an end to his own life, and thus transfer himself from the hands of the executioner, to the Paradise of God.

Here you see the difference between my friend's doctrine and mine on this point: and to make that difference still plainer, as also, to prove that the idea of salvation from punishment does not remove a sense of moral obligation from the minds of men, please attend to the following statements: 1. Every man is under a state of punishment in this life, (though connected with offers of mercy,) up to the time he repents and believes in Christ, and this embraces all that Mr. Austin contends for as punishment to the full extent of his deserts. 2. If he never repents he will never be saved, and never cease to be punished. 3. His repentance and faith in Christ will not save him from punishment, unless it produces a thorough re

formation of life. 4. And this reformation of life supposes a restitution to the full extent of his ability. 5. If he abides not in Christ he forfeits the benefit of the pardon he has already received. Yet he told the young men last evening, that they must not believe this doctrine; that it was an awful thing to have faith in Christ to such an extent as to believe that they may be saved by him from sin in this life: or to allow their minds to be impressed with the belief that they might by repentance, faith in Christ, and thorough reformation, escape the moral consequences of sin. An awful thing indeed!! Let me ask the young men of this assembly-would it be deleterious to your happiness to believe that you can by faith in Christ now have full pardon for all your past sins, on condition that your faith produces thorough reformation of life. Having sinned against God and your own best interests, and feeling a conviction of your wretchedness so keenly as to extort the cry-"O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death;" would it detract from your happiness to believe that "Christ is able to save you to the uttermost"-to deliver you from inward and outward sin-to give you an abiding sense of pardon from God-to enable you to walk in communion with him, and have grace to perform good works, and lead a holy life until your earthly pilgrimage should terminate? This is what Mr. Austin calls an awful thing!!!

My friend charges a demoralizing tendency on my doctrine, a point at which his own theory, is so vulnerable, that I regret his introducing it. I deprecate the necessity of going into personalities, and for the present I will only say, show me one clear case of reformation by the belief that the sinner may experience in his own person the full penalty of his sins in this life, and does so experience it as he goes along, for his sabbath-breaking, swearing, drunkenness, or any vice that may be named, and I will show you ten clear cases where this doctrine has had the contrary tendency. I do not doubt that there are some Universalists who are good citizens, and moral men, but they are so in spite of the tendencies of their doctrine. It is because they are restrained by other influences, that their hearts are better than their theology. But I can point you to scores of examples that have come under my own observation, of men who believing that they were now sinners and might now be forgiven, have forsaken their sins, believed in Christ, obtained pardon, and ever after led pious and devout lives, in the fear of God, and with an eye single to his glory. According to the tendency of Mr. Austin's remarks last evening, we should suppose all Universalists to be perfect pinks of purity. I do not wish to institute a comparison between the moral condition of Universalists and others, but if Mr. Austin wishes to pursue the subject in that direction, I can give him chapter and verse to his heart's content.

The disposition Mr. Austin makes of my quotations to sustain