false notions smuggled into the Christian system amid the ignor ance and corruption of succeeding ages!-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' TWELFTH SPEECH.]

Gentlemen Moderators and respected Auditors:-This is the last opportunity I shall have to address you on this occasion. I thank the moderators for extending the time for the last speech, and will endeavor to improve it to the best advantage, by making such selections from the abundant materials I have on hand, as may best serve the cause of truth.

Did time permit, I should present my nineteenth argument, founded on the parables of Christ, in which the doctrine of the final perdition of the ungodly is most plainly and emphatically taught. The parables of the tares of the field-of the net-and the distribution of talents, are amongst those which furnish a very strong and unanswerable argument in refutation of the dogmas of Universalism. For the present, however, I must forego the pleasure of presenting this argument, and attend at once to the work of closing this discussion. The question reads, "is there sufficient evidence for believing that any part of the human family will suffer endless misery in the future state." I have explained my understanding of endless misery to be, that it is both negative and positive. 1. A loss of the favor of God and the kingdom of heaven; and 2, positive unhappiness arising from personal and positive sinfulness. Mr. Austin, aware that it would be up hill business to contend against a proposition so plain and scriptural as this, has sought, from the beginning, to change the issue. His effort has been to separate it from its relations to God's government and the results of moral conduct, and make it a malignant and revengeful proceeding on the part of God, having no other object in view, and sustained by no other reason, than the gratification of a fiend-like disposition to inflict torture on his unfortunate creatures. He has also employed the most extravagant and loathsome expressions he could select from his peculiar vocabulary, to give the whole subject a hideous aspect, and prevent a sober and impartial consideration of the grounds upon which the doctrine rests. The terms in which he has stated the question are as follows: "Millions of souls falling headlong into ceaseless tortures without the slightest forewarning, or the least intimation that such a doom awaited them." Again he says: "Crush a sentient being down to endless agonies, for failing to do what he had no power to do." Such is the view of the affirmative of this question which Mr. Austin has everywhere connected with his negative arguments, and labored to keep prominently before the audience. But if the gentleman has wasted his ammunition upon a creature of his own imagination-if he has been beating the air, while pretending to discuss the proposi

tion with which we started, it is no fault of mine. I have endeavored to keep to the subject, as expressed in the terms of the question. Mr. Austin's statement and explanation of the question is a direct and gross perversion of the doctrine involved. To demolish the monster which he has conjured up, is one thing, but to refute or disprove the affirmative of this question, is quite another. He has my full consent to the demolition of his own man of straw, as soon as he chooses to effect the work; but as to the doctrine of the final perdition of the willful and incorrigible enemies of God, it stands upon a foundation which mocks the feeble efforts and futile objections of Universalism.

Let us briefly review the ground over which we have passed. In sustaining the proposition that men may, and that there is sufficient evidence for believing some will, forfeit their final happiness, and be finally and forever miserable. my first step was to show that the human constitution harmonizes with the idea.Hence, my first argument was drawn from the moral agency of man. This I prove by the moral government of God; the common consent of mankind as seen in the laws and judicial proceedings of a'l nations; the evidence of personal consciousness; the scriptures; and the fact that without moral liberty we are not morally responsible, and are incapable of moral happiness. The moral agency of man being established, it follows, there is, and must be, a liability to forfeit final happiness. Postpone the final state as far as you please, and still the liability to final unhappiness remains. This liability can only be removed by taking from man his moral agency-that is, his power of moral happiness. Whatever man's final condition may be, if it is a moral condition at all, it will be, it must be, modified by his moral agency.

Mr. Austin, more cautious than Ballou and some other Universalist authors, does not venture to deny directly the moral liberty of men, but effects the same object in another way. He seems to admit human agency: but forthwith, as though alarmed at the consequences of his admission, proceeds to neutralize it by denying the power of moral liberty to modify the final condition of men. This language is-" I deny that his (man's) final destiny is within the sphere of his agency, or in any manner depending directly upon it." To this the reply is brief and plain. If man's final destiny is not within the sphere of his agency, it is not within the sphere of his moral character, but out of, and beyond the sphere of both. It follows, therefore, that in his final condition, he has no moral character at all: and as there can be no moral happiness without moral character, his final condition excludes moral happiness.Thus, Mr. Austin in his zeal to annihilate hell, robs man of his moral character, and leaves him without the power of acquiring and enjoying endless bliss.

My second argument was drawn from the moral attributes of God-holiness, goodness and wisdom. These give character to

the Divine government. As there is an infinite opposition to sin in the nature of God, so must there be in the nature of his government. We may rest assured that sin would have been prevented, if it could have been, without subverting the nature of man and that constitution of the divine government best adapted to promote the happiness of the obedient and holy. The obedient and holy must not be robbed of the means of bliss, to accommodate the disobedient with "incapacity of pain." What may be looked for under these circumstances is, that God would make the strongest possible display of his opposition to sin, which the nature of the case would admit. His moral attributes would lead to the enactment of a penalty against sin which would involve eternal loss-the forfeiture of those positive blessings which are made sure to the holy and obedient. Anything short of this would fail to meet the demands of the case, as much as the difference between finite and infinite. In presenting this argument, I showed that the moral attributes concur in opposing and visiting sin by capital punishment-they give their united and decided suffrage to the doctrine of the irretrievable perdition of the ungodly.

My third proof is drawn from the analogy of nature. The laws of the moral world are uniform. We see the same results flowing from the same causes, during all the stages of our earthly existence. We have every reason to suppose this would be the case, were man to live on earth a thousand years, or were he allowed this world as his eternal residence. The great principles of God's moral government are the same in their nature, operations, and effects, at all times and in all places. In this world, the sinner often ruins his hopes and happiness beyond the power of remedy-is often punished by divine inflictions beyond the power of redemption. Unless there shall be an abrupt change in the administration of God after this life, the same result to the sinner in the future state is not merely possible, it is highly probable. But we have no intimation in nature or in revelation that any such change will take place; hence the doctrine of endless punishment is rendered credible by the analogy of nature.

My next argument was based on human depravity. On this point I showed: 1. Men are depraved, and that their depravity is so strong as to break through all barriers, both human and divine, which have been raised to stay its progress. 2. The fact that moral evil exists under God's government, is proof that it always will exist, unless there be positive evidence that it will be controlled and subdued by power external to itself. 3. Depravity shuts out moral light and love of virtue from the mind, and produces a state of heart and mind which constitutes a pledge of its perpetuity. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." 4. Punishment cannot destroy depravity, because an effect cannot destroy its cause, and, also, because to the guilty

there is no grace in law. No sinner can obtain justification by the deeds of the law. 5. Depravity is increased by indulgence. "Evil men and seducers wax worse and worse;" they often break through every moral restraint, outrage every virtuous principle, and increase to the last in the inveteracy of their hatred of God, and contempt of all that is sacred. I insist that in all such cases, the presumption is decidedly against the idea of their final restoration. Nothing can assure us that such characters will ever be saved, short of a positive-" thus saith the Lord, every depraved man who does not repent in this life, shall, without fail, be restored to holiness and happiness in the future state."

The next affirmative proof was based on the nature of the divine law. The law is perfect, and the penalty is perfect as the law, and exists in eternal union with it. Whatever favor the law confers on the obedient, it confers forever, unless there be a forfeiture by transgression. So, also, whatever disfavor the divine law visits upon sinners is endless, unless a reprieve from just and deserved punishment be obtained. This, however, can only be obtained through the gospel, the benefits of which are made over to the sinner, on conditions which he may or may not comply with. From this it follows, that in itself considered, the penalty is endless. This also follows from the nature of the penalty, which is death. The only way in which Mr. Austin attempts to avoid the force of this consideration, is by denying that death is death.He is not willing that thanatos should have its usual signification, but contends for a principle of life in moral death-that those who are dead can, by their own energies, bring themselves into a state of life. Such attempts to get out of a difficulty show the false and desperate character of Universalism, more forcibly than any thing that I can say.

My 7th argument was based on the nature and design of the atonement by Christ. Under this head I showed that the atonement is vicarious in its nature-and that its design was to propitiate, and so satisfy the claims of justice, that the penalty with which the sinner was threatened might be waived, and a dispensation of grace and pardon be granted to a guilty world. This I proved 1. From the sufferings of Christ. As he was innocent, and holy, not involved necessarily in any of the penal consequences of sin with which our race has been visited, we can only account for his sufferings on supposition that they were voluntary, and vicarious. 2. From express scripture language, in which it is said, "he is the propitiation for our sins"-" he tasted death for every man"--Christ hath loved us, and given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor"—" He was made sin (a sin offering) for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." To these, add all those passages in which he is said to bear the sins of guilty 3. It has also appeared from scripture, that the sufferings

men.

33

of Christ do operate to deliver men from sin and death. "He was wounded for our transgressions"-the "Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"-" by his stripes we are healed." Christ came to save us from perishing-that is, from total and irretrievable ruin. The terms redeem, redemption, ransom, reconcilation, as employed in connection with the blood and death of Christ, and with reference to the moral condition of the human race, show that Christ is the procuring cause of human salvation. Moreover, the scriptures represent the condition of the world, apart from the provisions of the gospel, to be hopeless, and that Christ's advent and atonement were necessary to the redemption of the world, and the salvation of sinners.

My eighth argument is drawn from the moral turpitude of sin. I have shown, in a number of instances, how Mr. Austin and his brethren, explain away the sinfulness of sin, and make it a very small matter. Indeed, on the principles of Universalism, it is perfect nonsense to talk of moral guilt: no such thing can exist; the law loses its high moral character as the embodiment of the moral perfection of God, and man loses his accountability. On the contrary, I have proved sin to be an infinite evil, or offence; not from the character of the sinner, but from other and higher considerations. It is the violation of an infinite law, and of infinite obligations, and is an infinite evil, in the same sense that holiness is an infinite good. The endless loss of holiness and happiness would be to man an infinite evil. Hence, as sin displaces holiness and happiness, and never restores them, it is, in its nature and tendency, an infinite evil. Sin aims at defeating the highest purpose and design of the moral government of God, and as that purpose is one of infinite good to moral beings, sin is an infinite evil, because it stands opposed to the highest moral good contemplated by the divine government. Such being he moral turpitude of sin, those who love it, and voluntarily and understandingly promote it, are justly obnoxious to a punishment which would be infinite in the same sense that holiness and happiness will be an infinite good to the obedient. Such a punishment would correspond with the nature of the offence.

We have also seen that the moral attributes of God approve the inflictions of justice. The holiness, goodness, wisdom and love of God, have given their suffrage to the most marked and ter rible inflictions of God upou offenders. vindicating his judicial and penal administration from the charge of injustice, even in those cases in which the sinner is destroyed without remedy, or utterly perishes in his own corruptions."

We have also heard the voice of human prolation proclaiming the liability and danger of failing to secure the highest end of our being. The doctrine of probation nece-sarily embraces in itself the idea of danger. Where there is more than one possible issue from a state or place, (as must be true of a probationary condi.