While Partialists show a way to hell
Without a single traveller.

It is likely the gentleman did not know he was trifling with almost the literal words of Jesus Christ. Doddridge is also claimed as a Universalist, at which I am astonished beyond measure-not that there should be a desire to connect the influence of such men with universalist dogmas, but that any intelligent man should have the effrontery to make such a declaration in public. Since the gentleman delivered himself on this point, I have taken some pains to look in to the writings of Doddridge, and if ever a man shook the sinner over the fires of an endless hell, that man was Dr. Doddridge. As a moderate specimen of the language he holds on this subject, take the following. Addressing himself to the impenitent, he says "Thousands are no doubt, already in hell, whose guilt never equalled thine; and it is astonishing that God hath spared thee to read this representation of thy case, or to make any pause upon it. O waste not so precious a moment, but enter attentively, and as humbly as thou canst, into those reflections which suit a case so lamentable and so terrible as thine." Again, in another place- Thine, sinner, is everlasting fire.' It is that which our Lord hath in such awful terms described as prevailing there, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched;' and ́again, in wonderful compassion, a third time-'when their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched'-(Mark ix. 44-46-48.) Nor was it originally prepared, or principally introduced for you: it was prepared for the devil and his angels.' For those first grand rebels who were, immediately on their fall, doomed to it and since you have taken part with them in their apostacy, you must sink with them into that flaming ruin, and sink so much the deeper, as you have despised the Savior, who was never offered to them. These must be your companions and your tormentors, with whom you must dwell forever."-(Doddridge's Rise and Progress.) Is this the language of a Universalist ?

Mr. Austin also alledges, that Dr. Rush was a Universalist, of which there is not a particle of proof; and though I have no published documents at hand, from which to draw evidence to the contrary, yet, from his general reputation as an orthodox man, and from the fact that he was a great admirer of the theological writings of the celebrated John De La Fletcher, a sound and able Methodist divine, I have no hesitation in pronouncing the allegation wholly gratuitous.

The gentleman's catalogue also embraces the name of Sir Isaac Newton. And on what does this claim rest? Why, all the proof we can get is, that somebody said that Cromwell's Secretary said, that Sir Isaac was not orthodox on the subject of future punishment. The probability is, that this vague story, which has been seized with so much avidity by Universalists, arose from the fact that he was once, during his life time, by some envious

persons, and for sinister ends, charged with being unsound on the doctrine of the Trinity. Dr. Brewster vindicates him from the charge of heterodoxy; and M. Biot has remarked, that "there is absolutely nothing in the writings of Newton to justify, or even to authorize the idea that he was an anti-trinitarian." Newton repelled the insinuation with indignation. He was so offended with Mr. Whiston for having represented him as an Arian, that he would not permit him to be elected a Fellow of the Royal Society while he was President. I assert this on the authority of Dr. Brewster, who wrote the life of Newton. There is a gentleman here who is somewhat acquainted with the writings of Newton -has read his life, and gives it as his opinion, that he was a Calvinist, of moderate views. But whether Calvinist or Arminian in his theological views, it is quite certain he was not a Universalist.

I find also the name of Dr. Thomas Dick set down amongst those claimed as believers in the dogmas of Universalism, but not only without authority, but directly in the face of his repeated and published declarations. In his "Philosophy of Religion,” after many and various illustrations of the influence of depraved passion on the happiness of men, he remarks as follows: "We cannot form a more dreadful picture of future punishment, than by conceiving the principles of falsehood, deceit, and malignity, and the passions of pride, hatred, malice, and revenge, raging with uncontrolled and perpetual violence. The effects produced by the uncontrolled operation of such principles and passions, would be such as may be fitly represented by the emblems of the 'worm that never dies,' of devouring fire,' and of their necessary concomitants, weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.' What other ingredients of misery, arising either from local circumstances, from recollections of the past, or the anticipation of the future, may be mingled with the cup of future woe, it becomes not us particularly to determine." And as "such a punishment” produces no virtuous results or tendencies, he concludes, "that the misery of wicked intelligences, will continue as long as they remain in existence." In his Future State, he remarks as follows: "As the peace and serenity of virtuous minds are preludes of nobler enjoyments in a future life, so those terrors which now assail the wicked, may be considered as the beginnings of that misery and anguish which will be consummated in the world to come, in the case of those who add final impenitence to all their other crimes." On another page, speaking of careless and sensual worldlings, he describes them as "entirely regardless whether they shall sink into the gulf of annihilation, or into the regions of endless perdition." We will give one specimen more. He quotes with approbation the language of Hieronymus-"whether I eat or drink, or in whatever other action or employment I am engaged, that solemn voice always seems to sound in my ears, awake ye dead

and come to judgment.' As often as I think of the day of judgment, my heart quakes and my whole frame trembles. If I am to indulge in any of the pleasures of the present life, I am resolved to do it in such a way that the solemn realities of the future judgment may never be banished from my recollection."(Sec. 7 and 11.) Mr. Austin also embraces Dr. Franklin in his list of Universalists, and all the proof adduced is, that he believed no form of Christianity worthy the name, which does not embrace the reconciliation of a lapsed world in its provisions," or something to this amount. If there be any thing peculiar in the signification of this remark, it was doubtless intended to distinguish his views from the rigid Calvinism generally preached in his day. The language is such as would be used by any intelligent Arminian for such a purpose. If Franklin should be regarded as properly a believer in Christianity at all, (a question not yet fully settled,) he unquestionably received it on the basis of a general atonement. But if he were a Deist, (as some suppose,) his Deism was superior to the present form of Universalism, inasmuch as it embraced the doctrine of retribution in a more consistent and higher sense. Whatever else he may have been, we have no evidence that he was a Universalist.

Did time permit, I might go on in this way to the end of Mr. Austin's chapter on illustrious Universalists, adding fresh evidence at every step, of the reckless manner in which he makes assertions. I trust, however, I have given sufficient proof that the long string of names read to us, was got up merely for effect, and is entitled to no sort of confidence. Why the gentleman should think it for his interest to pursue such a course, more tell, than I can tell why it has been asserted that my moderator, Dr. White, has become a Universalist since the commencement of this discussion.

MR. AUSTIN.-By whom?

can no

MR. HOLMES.-I know not, nor do I care by whom; the fact is before us, and affords a practical illustration of the manner in which Universalists multiply their converts. In this way we shall all be Universalists soon.

MR. AUSTIN.-I hope so.

MR. HOLMES. And I suppose the gentleman not only hopes so, but would feel at perfect liberty to say so, when he could serve his purpose by it, without the fear of contradiction. The candor and integrity of such proceedings, however, will be duly appreciated by the audience and public.*

Since this debate was held, it has come to me in different ways, that Universalists who were not present, have confidently asserted that I renounced my views during the discussion, and had embraced Universalism. Where did they get this intelligence?

Intent upon making capital in some way out of John Calvin, Mr. Austin introduces his peculiar views again. I remarked, a day or two since, if John Murray could return to this world, he would find his professed successors publishing a very different doctrine from that which he taught. Mr. Austin thinks the same would be true of Calvin. That the system taught by Calvin has been slightly modified since his day, is very true, but there is a marked difference in the two cases. The first error, the starting point of Universalism, was the rejection of the plain teachings of the Bible on the subject of future punishment. But from the beginning it has gone on "waxing worse and worse." The loose and rationalistic method of interpretation adopted in the rejection of endless punishment, has served as an entering wedge to still farther encroachments upon Bible truth. One doctrine after another has been surrendered, until not a single element of Evangelism remains, and the system stands before the world stamped with the prominent features of skepticism. Calvin's error related to the universality of the Atonement, and the provision made for lost men, arising out of his peculiar views of predestination. This was his starting point. But, has this error exerted the same deleterious influence upon the evangelical part of his theory, which we have seen to be true in the case of Universalism? By no means. The Infidelity of Murray's theory has leavened the whole lump, but Calvin's error has submitted to modification under the evangelical influence of his general system. Instead of growing worse, it has become better, Mr. Austin himself being judge. Here is the important difference in the two cases.

Mr. Austin has attempted to excite prejudice in the minds of the mothers of this audience, on supposition that I have taught the total depravity of infants. Need I say that I have neither taught, nor believe this? I have said, and now repeat, that if men had been allowed to exist after the Adamic apostacy without redemption, or any of the gracious influences arising therefrom, they would have been in a condition of total depravity. But as this is not the case-as Christ has died for all the morally dead, all are raised above a state of total depravity, in just so far as they are the subjects of gracious influence arising from redemption. As to the moral condition of infants, it is clearly a Bible doctrine, that they are born in a state of justification. Hence, Paul-Rom. v. 18--" As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." It was on this broad and general ground of the atonement, that Christ when on earth, took infants in his arms and blessed them, saying, "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Mothers, what do you think of this prominent feature of my theological system? Does this look like total depravity? As an unconditional benefit

of the Atonement, your infants are in a state of personal justification, and have the benediction of the Savior. Nor will they ever lose this, except by personal, voluntary transgression, after having passed to maturer years. Mr. Austin asks, "what was the condition of those who died before Christ came into the world?" I am astonished at the gentleman's limited knowledge of theology, if such remarks indicate the real measure of his attainments in this sublime science. Does he not know that Christ is announced in the Bible as "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world?" That in the purpose of God, the Atonement was as really made before the tragic scenes of Calvary occurred, as it has been since the actual crucifixion of the Son of God? and that the unconditional blessings of the Atonement were as ample and general, in the days of the patriarchs, as in those of the apostles? If he does not understand these things, I greatly marvel; but if he does, why ask such questions?

Let us now take another advance step in the main argument. My eighth argument is based on

THE MORAL TURPITUDE OF SIN.

And besides directly supporting the affirmative of the question under debate, it will serve also as a reply to Mr. Austin's seventh negative proof.

We have already seen how Universalism rids itself of the moral turpitude of sin; it is, first, by making it the result of physical organization; and secondly, by lowering the standard of divine requirement, making the law of God not the embodiment of moral perfection, but simply the rule of physical, intellectual and moral action, founded in, and arising out of the human constitution. If the law violated be in man only, as is asserted by standard works on Universalism, the turpitude of sin must be graduated accor dingly. If we take such groveling views of the law, and of sin, we ought, in order to be consistent, to dispense at once with all positive punishments. The law that man violates is in himself, and let that law see to it that the punishment is inflicted. But this is wrong, all wrong. It commences wrong, hence must be wrong in the conclusion. The turpitude of sin arises from other and higher considerations.

I. Sin must take its moral turpitude from the nature of the obligations violated. These obligations are infinite. They are comprised in the following particulars.

First. What God has done for us. He has given us existence under circumstances which stamp the character of man with great dignity and nobleness. He has given him powers which he may improve until carried forward to the heights of heaven-he may pass the point now occupied by the highest arch-angel who basks in the sunlight of divine glory. God has also given us the means and motives for maintaining our state of purity, and completing our preparation for heaven. And when in neglect, violation and