cellor KENT, the eminent jurist, the learned lawyer and judge, who has recently departed from life, utters the following language: "If there is in the universe, an administration of justice, that is free from infirmity-if there were an administration so perfect, as in every instance to maintain a just proportion between crime and the penalty—and were the rules of testimony, and the mode of trial so perfect, as to prevent every possibility of mistake or injustice then this administration would need no pardoning power."

This is plain common sense. Is there not such an administration of justice in the universe? Is not God's administration precisely of this description ?-a perfect administration, capable of inflicting the right kind and amount of punishment in every case? Answer "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." (Ps. xix. 7.) Therefore the Supreme Ruler of the universe can neither exercise nor need a power to remit or pardon punishment. I submit to the decision of the intelligent, which opinion is deserving of more weight on this subject, that of BECCARIA and Chancellor KENT, or that of Elder Holmes! I have already shown there can be but two purposes, so far as the guilty are personally concerned, for which punishment is inflicted upon them, viz: either for their injury or their benefit. If it is inflicted for their injury, then it becomes purely revenge, retaliation. But the penalties of a holy and benevolent Deity cannot be administered on a principle so low and wicked. Hence his punishments must be designed for the benefit of the sinful-to restore them to obedience and holiness. Why, then, should he screen them from its infliction? Who can fail to discover that the affirmative of this question is attempted to be sustained in direct violation of all enlightened views of the perfect government of a perfect God!

I hasten to notice an argument which Elder Holmes draws from justification. What is meant by justification? Clearly not what it is claimed to be a work wrought for the sinner, by Christ giving himself a sacrifice to the justice of an offended Deity. The the only mistake which my friend, and his Evangelical brethren, have made on this subject, is, that they have unfortunately adopted an old Pagan sentiment, instead of the New Testament doctrine. From remote antiquity the practice of offering sacrifices to their gods to appease their anger and obtain their favor, has prevailed in Pagan lands. It is susceptible of the clearest proof, that the whole modern theory of Atonement-of a substitute, for the sinner, is a heathen doctrine. It is one of those corruptions which crept into the churches during the dark ages, when it was overwhelmed by a mountain mass of Pagan errors. Among the Trojans, Greeks, Romans, and other heathen nations, human victims were frequently slaughtered as expiatory, vicarious sacrifices, or atonements to their imaginary deities. Among the many gross notions, which the multitudes who were converted from heathenism to christian

ity, at the era to which I refer, brought with them into the church of Christ, was the belief that the gods, when offended by man's conduct, could be propitiated by sacrifices-especially by the offering of human beings. This notion they incorporated into their christianity, and believed that Christ turned away the anger of the true God from man, by offering himself a substitute, or sacrifice in their behalf. My friend is not ignorant of the fact, and will not deny it, that the doctrines of Christianity at that time, became greatly, almost totally, corrupted by the flood of heathen errors which poured in upon it.

That this doctrine of justification, or atonement, is of heathen origin, is further evident from the fact, that it was not known in the Christian church for two hundred years after the death of Christ. Why was this? Why were those men who immediately followed the Apostles, in ignorance of this doctrine? If it is a true one, they must have heard Peter, and John, and Paul, and others of the Apostles, proclaim it, as do our Evangelical brethren of the present day. But the early fathers-the successors of the Apostles were silent on the subject; they knew nothing of it. My friend cannot find any thing in relation to it in their writings. This shows that it was not an Apostolic doctrine, and should now be rejected as a heathen dogma.

The Bible meaning of justification, when stripped of the heathen notions which have been incorporated with it, is that condition of heart in which man is approved of God. Approbation and forgiveness, are of similar import with justification. This is a condition into which the guilty cannot be brought, without having experienced a just punishment. The guilty can never hate sin-regret its commission and repent of its enormity-without having experienced the bitterness of its nature, in the suffering it entails. This suffering, both bodily and mental, is its punishment. I have said, approbation and forgiveness are the same as justification. The original of this word justification, is the Greek dikaiosin-from dikaios, i. e., just, blameless, innocent, good, upright-" spoken of one who is approved of God, who enjoys the divine favor, and has received forgiveness of sins."—[Robinson's Lexicon.

It is not a Bible doctrine, that justification flows from the death of Christ, as an absolute necessity-nor can it properly be viewed in any such sense, as that if Christ had not died, men could never have been justified. The death of Christ is the medium of justification, in that it is the evidence and seal of that gospel, and of that display of God's love, through the instrumentality of which, connected with divine punishments, men are brought from the dominion of sin into a state of heart and affections wherein they are justified, or approved of God.

In no passage of scripture, is it intimated that justification takes the place of punishment due the sinner, or that it saves him from

just and deserved punishment. From its nature, justification fol lows punishment, and is not a substitute for it!

Here allow me to notice a singular assertion of my opponent, in reference to my views of Gala. iii. 13. He says that "the Law, which was 430 years" after the covenant with Abraham, (Gal. iii. 17.) was not the Levitical Law, but the TEN COMMANDMENTS! There is assuredly originality in this thought; but I marvel my friend should hazard his reputation by expressing it. Dr. Adam Clarke shall answer this assertion-"The Messiah did not come till 1911 years after the making of this covenant; [the Abrahamic;] and the Law was given 430 years after the covenant with Abraham; therefore the Law * * * could not possibly annul the Abrahamic covenant."-(Dr. C. on Gal. iii. 17.) "It is worthy of remark that the Law is used by St. Paul, [in this chapter,] to signify not only the Law, properly so called, but the WHOLE of the Mosaic economy —(Dr. C. on Gal. iii. 25.)

*

Brother Holmes has frequently quoted, as of great weight in sustaining his views, Rom. iii. 25, 26: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Does this passage teach the doctrine that men can be saved from just and deserved punishment, through faith in Christ, or in any other manner? It is only by a most strained sense, that any such construction can be put upon it. Men first adopt a theory taken from heathenism, and then construe scripture to match! Would a person who had never heard of the modern doctrine of atonement, have drawn any thing like it from this passage? Not at all. The Apostle does not even refer to the subject of punishment in any sense. It is evident from the context, that St. Paul was speaking of the Jews—their exclusive claims and their objections to the validity of the gospel dispensation. They insisted it was impossible for man to obtain Justification with God-i. e. his forgiveness of sin, and his approbation and favor-in any way except through the deeds of the Ceremonial Law. It was against this pretension, that St. Paul utters the passage under consideration. He would defend the legality of the Gospel dispensation, as a means of securing God's forgiveness and approbation. Through the riches of his grace, our Creator has opened a way, by "the redemption there is in Christ”—i. e. the scheme of redemption revealed through Jesus— whereby men can become justified in the sight of God. He has set forth Christ to be the medium-the mercy-seat-the "ilasterion"-through which this justification, approbation, remission of sins, can be secured. It is by "faith in his blood"--by a belief in his integrity, his truthfulness, the genuineness of his gospel, all which are manifested by his willingness to shed his blood

that mankind can be brought into that state of heart-that genuine repentance, wherein they are fitted to receive remission of sin, through the forbearance of God. Thus the Apostle contends that under the gospel dispensation, God can be just, and the justifier of a'i those who at any time, and in any world, become practical believers in Jesus.

In a similar manner we should understand those passages which declare that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and the sins of the whole world. They are figurative allusions to Jesus, as the ilasterion, [mercy-seat] or medium, through which God holds intercourse with man, and opens a way for the remission of sin, (not of punishment) under the gospel dispensation, without reference to the ceremonies of the old Levitical Law.

My friend's eighth argument is built on those passages which he says, clearly imply salvation from punishment. In support of his position he introduces the parable of the barren fig-tree-(Luke xiii. 6-9.) This is very strange proof for such a doctrine. What does the parable mean? Certainly it involves nothing, even by implication, of the doctrine that men can be saved from the just punishment of sin. This parable has express reference to God's dealings with the Jews as a nation. The dresser of the vineyard requested the cutting down might be delayed until another trial might be made to cause it to produce fruit; and if it did not then bear, he would give his consent that it should be cut down. In this figure the Savior strikingly represents the condition of the Israelites at that time, and the fate which awaited them. At his advent, they richly deserved that temporal destruction which ultimately came upon them. But that punishment was delayed for a season that the gospel might be preached to them, to lead them from sin to repentance and righteousness. Suppose the gospel had produced this effect, would it not have saved them from their national overthrow? It would; but although they would escape that form of punishment, yet in the repentance which would have prevented their temporal destruction as a people, they would have experienced a punishment of the most afflictive nature. For all genuine repentance is the fruit of that mental anguish-that heart crushing regret for sin, which forms the severest punishment the human soul can experience.

In support of his position, he quotes Ezek. xviii. 21.-"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins, that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." I can discover nothing here to strengthen the affirmative of this question. The passage simply teaches, that if the sinner will turn from the error of his ways and do right, he shall be released from that state of moral death, with all its painful inflictions, in which the wicked are continually plunged. Thereafter he will enjoy spiritual life and all its blessings as the reward of his obedience. But this does not screen

him from the punishment which is inflicted upon him while he is in a state of rebellion against God. From that there is no escape -it must be endured.

He has also introduced the language of the Savior" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."-(Mark xvi. 16.) In this, as in numerous other instances, my friend assumes what he should prove. He gives no evidence that this salvation is from punishment. This cannot be taken for granted. Indeed it is far from being sanctioned by the voice of inspiration. From what are those to be saved, who believe? The angel answers the inquiry. “He shall save his people from their sins."—(Matt. i. 21.) It is not from punishment, but from sin, that Jesus saves those who are believers. What is it to be saved from sin? It is not to be saved from punishment due past sins, but to be so strengthened by the influences of gospel truth, that we can resist temptation to sin, and thus avoid wickedness, and all its wretched consequences.

Brother Holmes has asked whether it was ever known that a man was brought to repentance and reformation of life, under the belief of the doctrine of a just and certain punishment for sin? I trust he has no idea of convincing this audience, that sinners cannot reform under the influence of such a doctrine. I cast back any such imputation upon himself, and his own system. If the certainty of punishment will not exert an influence to bring the sinner to repentance, pray what effect must it have upon him, to instruct him that punishment for the most heinous crimes, can easily be escaped? There are multitudes of cases-the community is full of them-where men, (and in many instances, those addicted to the worst of habits,) have been turned away from iniquity, and brought to a faithful obedience to God, by the sentiments I advocate.

My friend has several times rather timidly alluded to my charge that his doctrine of salvation from punishment, is delusive and demoralizing, and in a somewhat threatening tone, objects to my pursuing this course. But I give him fair warning I shall continue to urge this charge in a manner still more forcible, when I have an opportunity to speak again.-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' SEVENTH SPEECH.]

Gentlemen Moderators and respected Audience:-It will be perceived by those who have attended to this debate thus far, that I have presented a number of propositions and arguments, and defined my positions with the utmost frankness, in order that Mr. Austin might take hold of them one by one, and refute them if able. Whether he has been equally frank, according to the terms of our agreement, I leave to the audience to judge, or to those who shall read this discussion after it shall have terminated.