3. Once more, the assertion that man is not a probationer for another life, is a contradiction of the voice of revelation,

* *

*
*

*

1. Tim. iv. 8—“Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." Rev. ii. 10-" Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." Rom. ii. 6-16-"Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." These are a few of the many passages which establish the doctrine of human probation. This argument commends itself to the common sense of every man who is willing to be governed by common sense. And I am gratified, that after appealing to passions, prejudices and sympathies, until the audience has become sensible of a painful nausea, the gentleman has for once appealed to common sense. I hope now he will stick to the text in a common sense way, and when I speak again, I will give him a few additional thoughts on the same subject.

I have now presented ten of the affirmative proofs which I depend on to sustain my position. The most of these are founded on established facts and fundamental principles. Mr. Austin has talked around and around them, without really getting hold of them. Occasionally he has approached one of these facts or principles, as though he intended to grapple it, but ere he reached it, he has darted off in another direction, and left the threatened fortress in all its strength and beauty. Let the gentleman understand, and the audience remember, that no arts of sophistry, rhetorical flourish, or felicity of expression, can supply the place of correct logic and sound argument. He must take hold of these fundamental principles, shake their firmness, and tear away their fastenings, or his labor is wholly lost. To this work I invite him.

Mr. Austin says death will be destroyed. Granted, though the only proof he has of it, is by the signification of the same words which declare the future destruction of the sinner. However, the death referred to by the Apostle in this case, is, as Mr. Austin very well knows, the death of the body, which is to be destroyed by the general resurrection: but the death to which I allude in my argument, is moral death, on which a physical resurrection can exert no influence. My friend must try again, therefore, before he hits the point; meantime, let him prove what he has yet failed to do that there is life in death. Is a man dead while there is yet life in him? Is he alive after life has become extinct? If he is, there is a possibility that the life

which exists in death, may re-act upon death and destroy it. Let Mr. Austin prove this in regard to moral death, and he shall have credit for more success than attended the reasoning of Plato, who argued that all things spring from their contraries.[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S SIXTH REPLY.]

Messrs. Moderators:-My friend on the affirmative, not content with having the closing speech on the second question, in which he uttered many things of an erroneous, unjust and reprehensible character, when he knew I had no time to reply, but even now, he seeks every opportunity to go back and take up points on that question, which we have once considered and passed. He says he has no confidence in the list of eminent theologians, scholars and philosophers, which I gave in my last speech on the second question, as believers and defenders of the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Feeling that he must cast some disparagement upon that catalogue, he declares it was "a string of names got up for effect!!" By whom were these men "got up?" By me? No: They were men raised up" by the Almighty himself, to preserve and perpetuate the glorious gospel of his impartial grace and love through long and dark ages-when the doctrine of Endless Misery, and every heathen dogma that man's darkened wisdom could "invent," reigned and rioted in their native blackness-and to keep its vestal flame from total extinction, until a more favorable era should allow its light to break forth anew, and fill the world with the glory and beauty of its presence. The Elder seeks to shake your confidence in the Universalism of these great and good men. How does he effect this end? By showing evidence that they are not believers in the salvation of the world? No, he simply asserts that there is doubt in regard to that fact. But his ipse dixit is good for nothing, without accompanying proof. These men were not simply believers that the atonement was made for all men. They were believers in the actual and complete salvation of every human being. Not a name is mentioned in that list, in regard to whom there is not good evidence to show that they were believers in that doctrine. Had I my books at hand, I could give extracts from the writings of many of them, where they plainly advocate the ultimate salvation of the entire race of man.

He refers to the answer returned to language the poet Young puts into the mouth of the supposed lost sinner. But the critical reader will see that the answer does not meet, nor do away with the force of the appeal the lost one makes to his Father. It would seem that the poet purposely made the answer defective. There can be little doubt that Young indulged in his extravagant descriptions of eternal agony, for the purpose of showing the absurd ity of that sentiment. That he was at heart a believer in the final

salvation of all men, at least towards the close of his life, is evident from the fact, that he speaks in high terms of "Hartley on Man," a work in which the salvation of all mankind is ably advocated. In recommending the work to a friend he declared he had read it with "great satisfaction." He also spoke in favor of several works of Rev. Richard Clarke in which the same doctrine is defended. That Dr. Doddridge did not believe in Endless Punishment, however warmly he may have preached it at one time, is evident from a variety of circumstances. I will mention one. During a severe illness, he received a letter from a highly esteemed friend, in which the important fact that all men shall be made alive in Christ, and that the Redeemer shall eventually succeed in making an 'entire and eternal destruction of sin and death," was much dwelt upon. This letter so deeply effected Doddridge that his biographer declares that it was apprehensive his weakened frame would sink under the emotions of his gratitude and joy.*

There cannot be a doubt that Dr. Watts rejected the doctrine of endless woe, and believed in the salvation of the world-notwithstanding my friend opposite, declared in language exceedingly decorous, that such an assertion is "false and slanderous." It is true, like Young, he said much that favors the common notion of eternal woe. Some of his psalms and hymns, written to suit the prevailing views on this subject, are surcharged with the blackness and venom of this doctrine. But occasionally a stanza in his poems, or a sentence in his prose writings, reveals the true state of his mind upon this subject, and fully coroborates the assertion I have made as to his Universalism. What sentiment but this is contained in the following stanza :—

"His own soft hand shall wipe the tears

From every weeping eye;

And pains, and groans, and griefs, and fears,
And DEATH itself shall DIE!!"

If tears shall be wiped from every weeping eye-if pains, and groans, and griefs, and fears, and death, are to die, to be annihilated, how can there be a state of eternal death, and pain, and woe!! In one of his prose works, Watts declares that if a sinner in the future world shall sincerely repent, he cannot think a God of perfect equity and mercy, will still keep him in torment: but will release him from his punishment.†

To the list of eminent believers of the final salvation of all man

In one of his works Dr. Doddridge says-"We cannot pretend to decide a priori, or previous to the event, so far as to say, that the punishment of hell must and will certainly be eternal."

In a work entitled "World to Come," Watts uses the following language-"I grant that the eternity of God himself, before this world began, or after its consummation, has something in it so immense and incomprehensible, that in my most mature thoughts I do not choose to enter into those infinite abysses. Nor do I think we ought, usually, when we speak concerning creatures, to affirm positively, that

kind, I might add that of Rev. Wm. Law, author of "Law's Serious Call." That he advocated that sentiment near the close of his days, is a matter of no doubt. From much that I might quote, I give the following, as proof-"It is my capital doctrine that God is all love, and merely a will to all goodness: that he must eternally will that to the creature, which he willed at his creation." Can any logic be more sound than this? Elder Holmes acknowledges God willed the salvation of all men, at their creation. Hence, this must always be his will. And all men must finally be saved, or the will of Jehovah will be forever frustrated. Again Law says "As to the purification or ALL HUMAN NATURE, I fully believe it, either in this world, or some after ages! And as to that of angels, if it is possible, I am glad of it, and also sure enough, that it will then come to pass."-Law's Collection of Letters-Letter xii.

Elder Holmes in speaking of Calvin and Murray, asserts that since the days of these great men, Calvinism has been improving and Universalism retrogading. How my friend's Calvinistic brethren will relish this thrust at their distinctive doctrines, and at the soundness of their noted leader, I know not. But the Elder is correct, Calvinism has become much improved. How? By enlarging its views of salvation, and getting a little of the leaven of Universalism into its narrow confines. It is a significant fact, that every change, every improvement, in the views of the partialist sects, consists simply in an advance towards the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Their faces are all set in that direction, and when they move at all, it is unavoidably thitherward!! In due time, I have not the least doubt, they will all arrive at the truth.

My opponent is confident that Universalism has grown worse. He asserts there is not a single element in it now, that there was anciently. But what is this talk about ancient Universalism? He has ridiculed the idea that there was any Universalism anciently, and insisted that the author of that system, is yet alive!! Now he is comparing Universalism of the present day, with that doctrine in ancient times. In this, however, he succeeds admirably in showing one thing, viz: his consummate ignorance of the whole subject. What is Universalism now? It is this one great central truth of Christianity, that in the fullness of times God will bring all mankind to holiness and happiness! What was Universalism anciently? What was it when preached by all God's holy prophets," by the Savior-the Apostles-the early Christian Fathers-the eminent men in the church since the Reformation-and by Murray in our land? It was that God would in the fullness of times bring all men to holiness and happiness!! Universalism possesses now, every element it ever did. It is the same now that

their existence shall be equal to that of the blessed God-especially with regard to the duration of punishment!"

it ever has been. It has never changed heretofore-it will never alter hereafter. It is the same now it will be, when all the ransomed sons and daughters of Adam surround the throne of Infinite Love, to worship God forever!!

Yesterday Elder Holmes said he believed in total depravity. Today, he seems disposed to deny the doctrine.

MR. HOLMES.-Let me explain: Take man as he is now, and divest him of all the benefits he enjoys through the vicarious atonement of Christ and the efficacy of the Gospel light, and he is totally depraved.

MR. AUSTIN. If this explanation throws any light upon ou minds, it is that Elder Holmes does not believe men are now totaliy depraved. What are we to understand then, by his vociferous declaration yesterday, that he did believe in Total Depravity!! But his explanation only makes "confusion worse confounded." What are the benefits men enjoy from the vicarious atonement of of Christ, according to my opponent's doctrine? They are salvation from punishment and an entrance into the abodes of endless blessedness, through faith in the merits of Jesus. But do all men exercise this faith? Have any in this life experienced this salvation, and entered the abodes of felicity? These questions must be answered in the negative. Then, they have not enjoyed the benefits of the atonement, and according to his own showing, are now totally depraved. Hence, after all, the Elder does in fact,

believe in total depravity!!

Mr. Holmes says, that infants would never have existed, had it not been for the atonement of Christ!! I frankly confess this is a point which reaches beyond my depth. What connection the atonement has with the propagation of our species--whether my friend believes nobody would have inhabited the earth but Adam and Eve, had it not been for the atonement--or that there were no infants before the atonement was made--are enigmas beyond my solution. It is probable the partialist clergy have some peculiar views on this subject, to which we heretics are strangers. But it seems to me the Elder's declaration has reference to matters which it would not be proper to discuss before this audience.

He maintains that infants born since the death of Christ, are justified; and that if they die, they are saved. It gives me pleasure to hear him admit as much as this. But what is the condition of infants who died before the death of Christ? Does he say the atonement worked backwards?

MR. HOLMES.-I did say so.

MR. AUTSIN. Then if the atonement operated both for the past and the future, and justified all infants that have been born, there has never been any depravity in the human heart at birth. What becomes of Mr. Holmes' declaration that he did believe in total de