sinner are declared. "Comfort ye my people, saith your God ; speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished-that her iniquity is pardoned; FOR she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins."-(Isa. xl. 2.) Here is both punishment and pardon administered in regard to the same offences-the latter following the former. The Prodigal Son [Luke xv. 11.] was forgiven by his father; but not until he had suffered severe punishment, which brought him to repentance.

I will resume this subject in my next speech.-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' SIXTH SPEECH.]

Gentlemen Moderators:- Mr. Austin repeats the fallacy in regard to escape from punishment, in connection with the remark I made on that point. He says he could slay this whole congregation and then escape from punishment by repenting and believing in Christ; that he would have that in view in committing the crime and could avail himself of the means thus provided for salvation from punishment. Who except Mr. Austin could preserve his gravity while attempting to fix a consequence like that described by him upon the doctrine of salvation from punishment. I am suprised he should exhibit so little knowledge of the principles and elements of gospel salvation. The deliberate calculation which he supposes he might make before hand in regard to repentance and escape from punishment, would itself operate a forfeiture of the grace of repentance and salvation. No man who forms a plan in his own mind to go and commit a crime, to which his depravity would lead him, on supposition that he will be able afterwards to repent, and obtain divine pardon, will be able to carry out his plan: he may commit the crime, but the very fact that he had calculated upon this way of escape beforehand, would deprive him of the power of repentance when he most wished to call it to his aid. The power of repentance, and grant of pardon under such circumstances would, and must be withheld.

Can my friend give me any practical illustrations of the feasibility of his plan, provided it were a reality? I can give him one attempted, but not finished.

I remember reading of a man, who having become weary of the world, and wishing to leave it, did enter into a calculation similar to that described by Mr. Austin. His plan was to commit murder, be apprehended, tried, condemmed, and executed. In the mean time he intended to repent of the crime, seek and secure pardon, and leave the world in a state of preparation for heaven. And that he might not send a fellow being into eternity unprepared, he took the life of an infant. Thus far his plan had been formed with deliberation, and executed with care. But the most difficult part

remained yet to be consummated. He must repent or all is lost. But how shall he acquire power to repent? Alas-he called for it, but it came not at his bidding, and in the deepest despair, and utmost horror of mind he died in prison, before the day of execution arrived. Here we have a case in point showing the impracticability of that scheme of escape from punishment of which my friend speaks, and demonstrating the falsity of his view of the doctrine of salvation from punishment.

In the case of the man shooting the sheriff, Mr. Austin attempts to convict me of a perversion of the doctrine of Universalism. I said a man might commit a crime and then to avoid the penalty of the law might shoot the sheriff and take his own life and escape to Heaven. Whether he would go to Heaven and sing with the saints and angels, would depend upon whether there is any future punishment for those who die without repentance. Mr. Austin refuses to tell us whether he believes in punishment in the future state, and as it is known to be the general doctrine of Universalists that there is no future punishment, the only conclusion we can come to is that the sinner goes into an immediate state of happiness, having freed himself from the penalty of the law by killing himself. If the murderer, and all other classes of sinners do not go to heaven when they kill themselves, or otherwise leave the world, Mr. Austin will confer a favor by informing us where they do go. Let him provide some other place for them before he charges me with preverting the doctrine of Universalism, in saying the murderer, on his principles, ends his own life and transfers himself to the Paradise of God.

I have presented the following argument in proof of salvation from punishment. On the principles of Universalism, sinners must be saved, 1. Before they are punished. 2. At the time they are punished. 3. Or, after they are punished all they deserve. But as all these suppositions involve absurbity-hence if saved at all, they must be saved from punishment. Mr. Austin says I obtained this argument from Luther Lee. Well suppose I did? What does he expect to make out of it? I have read many authors on Universalism, though I have copied none. But has the gentleman derived no assistance from others? he has certainly read Mr. I. D. Williamson, or they have both practiced plagiarism, and drawn their materials from the same book.

The only way in which my friend has attempted to answer the argument given above is by asserting that the last proposition contains a fallacy. But has he told us wherein that fallacy consists? has he pointed it out to us? Not at all-nor can he do so. He assumes the very point in dispute and on that assumption calls the last proposition in my argument a sophistry. What is this point? That God does not save men from their sins without saving them from punishment that the one cannot be effected in any consistent way without the other following as a consequence, and that

men cannot be saved after enduring all the punishment they deserve. I have called Mr. Austin's attention to this point over and over again, and yet he has not shown this audience how there can be such a thing as salvation from sin without that salvation including with it necessarily a deliverance from punishment. Let him show how this may be done if he can.

The case of Galatians has been referred to again by my friend, but nothing that he has said in reply to my argument has at all removed the position which I took. I have never denied, but there might have been Jews at Galatia-possibly there were, but the apostle was writing to the Gentiles and refers to " the blessing of Abraham" as being brought "upon the Gentiles." Showing that he was there writing to the Gentiles. And this blessing was justification by faith, the very opposite of the curse of the law. Hence to have this blessing, is to be delivered from the curse of the law which existed in the days of Abraham, and certainly before the Levitical Law. Nor was the law given 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, the Levitical Law in its seperate and independant character-it was the moral law of God, published from the top of Sinai, embodied in the ten commandments, embraced in the Mosaic code, amplified and adapted to all the relations of life-so far as made known, constituting the rule of moral action to the whole family of man through out all the periods of their existance, and summed up by our Lord in the following words, "thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart-and thy neighbor as thyself."

As my friend has alluded to Dr. Clarke in connection with his remarks on Gal. iii.-13.—I will give the Doctor's comment on that verse" Christ hath redeemed us"-"hath bought us with a price," viz. his blood or life. Being made a curse for us. Being made an atonement for our sins: for whatever was offered as an antonement for sin, was considered as bearing the punishment due to sin and the person who suffered for transgression was considered as bearing the curse in his body.

This suggests to me the passage where it is said-" he bore our sins in his own body on the tree." My friend says that the Bible never speaks of forgiveness and punishment both together. I am not sure of the correctness of the remark, not having examined the bible with reference to that point, but allowing that it is so, there is a very good reason for it. The fact is they involve each other -and deliverence from punishment is forgiveness. My friend has furnished us with an exposition of his views of forgiveness and pardon. He has not alluded to any standard, or established definition, that I recollect, wherein he is sustained in any position he has taken in reference to the meaning of these terms. Their definition, as furnished by all standard dictionaries, is directly contradictory to the idea that a man can be forgiven or pardoned, or have his sins remitted without being saved from the punishment which

46

his transgressions deserve. To restore men to the favor of God which they have lost by their transgression," Mr Austin says is forgiveness. I should like to know if this is not a contradiction of all he has said on this question. Men lose the favor of God by their transgression; and is not that loss one of the consequences of sin, and a part of its punishment? Is it no punishment for a man to lose the favor of God? And yet he tells us that forgiveness, is to be restored to the favor of God which has been lost by transgression. The loss of divine favor is one of the consequences of sin, and a part of its punishment: that which restores divine favor to the sinner removes the punishment of sin. Mr. Austin says forgiveness restores what transgression lost: therefore the gentleman himself being judge, forgiveness delivers from deserved punishment. Verily I did not expect my friend would thus easily yield the point for which he has contended so stoutly.

On the nature of repentance much of what Mr. Austin has said is well enough, it would harmonize very well with my own views. Let me say however, it never existed in the sinners mind as a fruit of Universalism. I venture to assert, that no individual in the full belief of the doctrine that men do, and must expiate their sins by personal suffering, was ever known to exercise the feelings described by Mr. Austin. Let a man be exercised in this way, and he can no more be a Universalist than an Infidel. He possesses an element of saving faith, and if he yields to its moral influence, he will be led to Christ, and through the channel of mercy, experience the fruits of his forgiving power. In connecting evangelical repentance with Universalism, my friend has given another specimen of his peculiar artifice. But we might as well expect to "gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles," as that such repentance should flow from such principles.

Lest I should not have time to refer to my other arguments, I will do it now. My eleventh argument is founded on the fact, that if the sinner is, and must be punished to the full extent of his deserts, his punishment is so indefinite as to time, place and means, that it is unworthy of the government of God, and exerts no moral influence on his subjects. If the sinner is punished for his sins, he does not know the time when, the place where, nor the means by which this punishment has been effected. In many cases he not only remains in entire ignorance of these important facts, but entirely incredulous as to the whole operation. Such is the case with the Atheist, the Infidel, and the great mass of the ungodly, who die in a state of impenitency. Ask them if they do not know that they have been tried, judged and punished, for all their sins against God; and they will answer, "no, I know nothing of it. When, how, and where, was this done and I not know it? I do not so much as believe there is a God, how then can I know of his judgment and punishment?" Now supposing he has been punished for his sins, what good has it done? Where is the moral influence

upon his mind? Is such an administration worthy of God? But take the case of a living, active sinner, and many such there are, who neither fear God nor regard man. Suppose he has been a profane swearer and sabbath breaker, right straight along for twenty years, without interruption; we would suppose that if God punished the sinner according to his sins in this world, this man would know something about it by this time, but what is the fact? Ask him, "Sir don't you know that God holds you responsible?" He will laugh you in the face and tell you, "I am not afraid of God; besides if he is displeased with me, why don't he show it?" Ask him again, "don't you know that you are now a subject of punishment, that you have been tried, judged and punished? He will tell you, "If this be the case I don't know it, besides, if what I have experienced the last twenty years be punishment, I would like a little more of it. Look at my poor neighbor here if there are any Christians in the world, I suppose he would be called one. His crops have failed, he has been afflicted with ill health, his children are crippled, and he is scarcely able to procure bread for his family: and yet he is a christian. I make no pretensions of that kind, I do not believe in God even, and yet have prospered in every way; and if this be punishment, the more I have, the better I shall like it." Now what has the government of God done towards producing a salutary effect on the mind of such a man. Where in the thousands of such cases is the honor of God's government, and the moral influence of his administration? What would be thought of that human government, which would allow the thief, robber and murderer to commit their depredations upon the lives and rights of others, and then punish them in such a way, that they would not know the time, place or means by which they had been brought to justice, and even would not acknowledge the authority or existence of any government? Would such a government be worth the name? And yet such, and even worse. does Universalism in this case, make the government of God. Such the divine administration must be, if Mr. Austin's doctrine be true; and this fact itself is enough to stamp it with the mark of falsehood.

My twelfth argument is founded on the fact that it removes the highest example in the universe for the forgiveness of insults and injuries. We are commanded in the Bible to be "followers of God, as dear children," "to forgive one another as he forgives us." --see Luke vi. 36. Now, on the principle of Universalism, God never forgives sinners in the sense of remitting punishment, hence we are not required to forgive one another, in the sense of forgiving any punishment, we may suppose due for the injuries done us. God exacts the last mite, and never forgives until the debt is fully paid. We therefore, as God is our highest example, are to follow him in this, and if our neighbor has injured us and done us palpable wrong, instead of exercising that forgiveness which would re