and obedience, without beholding continually millions of fellowbeings writhing in agonies before their eyes-among whom, too, they may see their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters? What kind of saints are those who cannot chant the praises of God, except their songs are accompanied by a vast chorus of screams, imprecations and blasphemies from countless multitudes of wretched spirits? Oh God! what views to entertain of Heaven, and of those who dwell there!! Yet this is pure EVANGELICAL doctrine!! It is the doctrine that was advocated by Edwards, the father of American Revivalists! It is a state of things legitimately drawn from the teachings of partialist creeds as now existing, notwithstanding their advocates are exceedingly anxious to conceal it!!

I contend that such a state cannot be necessary as an example. God would prefer that his erring children should fall into annihilation, rather than live forever only to writhe in anguish and sin! What harm could it do, to allow those cast away in a future world to fall at length into the sleep of non-entity, where all their sins, and blasphemies, and woes would cease? Yea, still better, what harm would it do, to allow them to repent, return to God, and become obedient and loving children! Would it injure God, or Christ, or angels, or saints, or any beings in the universe? Why not allow it then? Archbishop Whately says, "If we are to measure the dealings of God by the standard of our own reason, we shall find ourselves at a loss to explain any future punishment at all; for it is certain that the object proposed by human punishments, is the prevention of future crimes, by holding out a terror to transgressors. We punish a man, not because he has offended, but that others may be deterred from offending by his example. Now how any such purpose can be answered by the future punishment of the wicked, whether for a time or forever, we can by no means conceive!" This single sentence shows that the Archbishop must have had doubts of the endless perpetuity of punishment. In conclusion, I ask, must not that doctrine be false, which thus represents a holy, good and merciful God, as voluntarily and needlessly perpetuating that which is in direct opposition to his own nature, and which would forever be a blot on the face of his fair creation [Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' SEVENTH SPEECH.]

I confess, Messrs. Moderators, I have never known a man as successful as Mr. Austin, in keeping up an incessant stream of words, without seeming to have a distinct object, or arriving at any fixed or definite conclusions. Thus far, though my friend says much about hating, detesting, abhorring the doctrine for which I contend, and, with "great swelling words," expatiates upon the glories of Universalism; yet, neither in the objections

to the former, nor the proofs which support the latter, does he pursue a consecutive and harmonious course of argument, or commit himself to any facts or principles from which he does not feel at perfect liberty to quibble and fly, as often as it serves his purpose.

The audience know very well, that I have at different times during this discussion, pressed upon his attention certain questions vitally connected with the subjects at issue between us. He has sometimes evaded the point, by calling it irrelevant matter, and sometimes, when pressed too closely, has partly admitted and partly denied, and passed off the subject in an ambiguous and hypothetical way. When I argue on supposition that he denies all future punishment, he seeks to avoid my conclusions by seeming to admit it, and when I proceed to take advantage of that seeming admission, he wheels about and talks as though he regarded the idea of punishment in the future world a perfect absurdity. Thus, he flies about and shifts his ground, as often as the necessities of his case require. It would certainly be more pleasant to debate with a man who knew his whereabouts, and would stand his ground; yet I do not mention these things by way of complaint-my object is to bring out the character of Universalism, and the nature of its defence.

Though the gentleman's sole instrumental dependence for the final salvation of all men, is on the reformative virtue and influence of punishment, yet, to this hour, he has given us no clear, well defined facts or principles in regard to it. He talks as though it were the greatest absurdity imaginable not to believe it, but has failed to inform us of the time, place, and means which are to mark and define the achievement of this object. So loose and general has he been in his harangues upon this subject, that he has not told us even, whether Gol's punishments are all inflicted in this life, or partly inflicted after the death of the body; nor whether there is in the future state a place of punishment. Now, if I am to believe this doctrine of universal salvation by punishment, I must know, I have a right to know, something that is satisfactory of the time, the place, and the whole "modus operandi." If I can know nothing of this, then I can have no real ground for believing the theory, and I cast it from me as unworthy of my confidence.

Moreover, as the gentleman has denominated his way to heaven a Macademized road, I have a right to know something of its nature, in what direction it runs, and where it terminates. Does it connect the death-bed immediately with the joys of Paradise? or does it disappoint the hopes of the traveller by leading off into the bogs and swamps of eternity? If so, does it pass safely the great gulf which separates heaven from hell? I wish this information, also, that I may institute a comparison between this Macademized road, and that "new and living way" opened by

the blood of the cross," through which we are invited to approach the Father of spirits, and receive everlasting life.

I have defined endless punishment, or misery, as embracing two elements. 1, a loss of the positive blessings of heaven; 2, a consciousness of positive unhappiness, arising from the operation of depraved passion, and the relation sustained to the divine law and government. Mr. Austin's descriptions for effect are all based upon an extreme view, and what I would call an abuse of the doctrine.

I stated to you when I commenced the discussion of this question, that there were two extremes into which men had run in reference to the doctrine involved. One, the result of depravitythe infidelity of the heart; the other, of fanatical extravagance, arising from meditations on a fearful Bible truth. One class rejecting the whole subject as groundiess and unworthy of credence, with as much self-complacency as Voltaire or Paine rejected the Bible the other, laying aside discrimination, and giv ing a loose rein to the imagination, arraying the subject in the most revolting dress, by employing figures the most frightful and horrid, and indulging in descriptions conceivable only by a vivid and eccentric imagination. Into the first of these extremes, Universalists have plunged, and others not known by that name— the last has been reached by some good men, though not very safe or consistent theologians. The truth undoubtedly lies between these two extremes. The doctrine in question is true and important, but rational and consistent; and sustains a relation to the character of God-the principles of his government-and the constitution of man, which cannot be disregarded without impiety, and should not be trifled with by a wild and inventive imagination.

Mr. Austin, as was anticipated, has attempted to make capital of the extravagant descriptions indulged in by some, on the subject at issue between us. As every man of sense must know, if he will reflect a moment, that all this verbiage possesses not the weight of a feather, in determining the real merits of the question, Mr. Austin must have some object in view, aside from the purposes of honorable controversy. The object seems to be, to excite prejudice, divert attention, and mystify the mind. Hence, you have seen the gentleman has closed up nearly every speech he has made, with some flourish of this kind, embracing the most wild and extravagant bombast.

I am not here as an apologist for any vagaries of the imagination, on this or any other subject. I believe they are always out of place. It is enough to present the subject of present, future, and endless punishment as the Bible presents it-to preach to the people that they are lost, and must remain so, unless they fly to Christ as the only hope of the guilty-that unless they repent and turn to God in faith and holy obedience,

they can have no rational hope of ever entering or enjoying the kingdom of heaven. This is my course, and so far as I know, it is the general course of orthodox ministers, and it is a rational and scriptural course.

I do not wonder that Mr. Austin should display so much anxiety to harrow up the feelings, and work upon the sympathies of this assembly, when I reflect upon the weakness of his arguments--the perfect ease with which I have met and refuted every objection. He knows his cause must suffer materially in the view of the congregation, unless he can, in some way, impair the discriminating power of common sense.

My friend's ninth negative argument is, that it (endless punishment) destroys the Paternal character of God.

The audience doubtless remember, that the gentleman depended largely on the support to be derived from the paternal character of God, when discussing the question of the final holiness and happiness of all men. I then met the argument fairly, discussed it fully, and refuted it entirely, in a number of different ways. He now brings up the same thing again, only he puts it in a negative form, so as to adapt it to the present question. I am not bound by any rule of controversy, to bestow any farther attention upon this point, but, lest my silence should be construed into inability to meet this objection, I will notice a few things in this connection.

1. Mr. Austin represents the paternity of God as an attribute. He has a wonderful facility in multiplying the attributes of Deity. He fixes upon some affection of the divine mind, or relative term, expressive of some idea which he supposes favorable to Universalism, and forth with exalts it to the character of an attribute. In this way he makes the paternal relation an attribute.*

I am restrained from saying what I might on this strange and unheard of notion, lest I should be thought to impeach the common sense of this audience. Look at it-the paternal relation and character of Deity an attribute!! As well might we suppose his judicial or governmental character and relation an attribute. And if this view is to be taken, then it would follow, that God has more attributes now, than he had at some previous period in past eternity. There was a time when God was not a Father by creation when he was not a governor and judge of the huma family. Hence, there was a time when these attributes did n exist, and when he was not the same that he now is. Or, if y make the paternal, judicial, and governmental relations eterna in order to establish the eternity of these supposed attributes, then by consequence, you make a created and governed universe eternal, you maintain the eternity of organized matter, and deprive God of another of his attributes, viz, sole and independent eter

nity. The gentleman has distinguished himself by wild and untenable positions, all along the line of this discussion, but this exceeds them all.

2. Mr. Austin would have us believe that the paternity of God towers above every other feature of his character. Here, again, I can but marvel at the wonderful obtuseness and inconsistency displayed. To suppose a mere relation established between the Divine Being and a race of finite creatures, should tower above and over-ride all the infinite perfections of his eternal and unchangeable character, calls for a greater stretch of credulity than I am willing to attribute to any man in this audience. God's character is an assemblage of all possible moral perfections; and no one of his attributes is more infinite or perfect than another. There is a perfection in the harmony, and a harmony in the perfection. God was as infinitely and absolutely perfect before the word of his power spoke systems and worlds into being, as he has been at any time since the rising glories of creation caused the "morning stars to sing together, and the sons of God to shout for joy." Had the paternal character never existed, God would not have been less perfect than he is, and should he now strike from existence all created entity, he would still retain his perfection, still remain the same unchangeable being. We lose sight of the harmony and perfection of God, and the force of his moral attributes, by taking such subordinate and groveling views of his character. 3. Moreover, in my formal reply previously given to the paternal argument, as urged by Mr. Austin, I have shown, that nothing can be predicated of it beyond what it achieves for the benefit of men in the present state. The argument from God's paternity, is just as strong for present salvation as for salvation in the future. But it does not absolutely and unconditionally produce present salvation-hence it cannot, without a violation of all consistency, be the ground of confidence, irrespective of contingency and moral agency, that all men will be saved in the future world. The doctrine of endless punishment, therefore, no more destroys the paternal character of God, than the doctrine of limited punishment. The punishment of the sinner does not flow from the paternal character of God, but from his judicial and governmental character, and it no more destroys the one than it destroys the other.

Still farther-if it could be proved that endless punishment did, or would destroy the paternal character of God, it would be no argument against it. The paternal relation is finite, and established for the good of men, and if they break away from the moral restraints of their Heavenly Father, the relation may be dissolved without any injustice to them. For such reasons, similar relations once established have been dissolved. The relation once subsisting with the human race, was destroyed at the time of the apostacy, and as the result of it, Adam was driven out of