are neither of them necessary to prove the doctrines to which they stand related. Expunge them both from the Bible, and end:ess happiness for the righteous, and endless perdition for the ungodly, would still stand upon a foundation as firm as God's eternal truth. 3. The apostles' creed. On this we remark, first, it was not written or formed by the apostles. Lord King says, "all learned persons are agreed that it was not composed by them." Secondly. The doctrine of endless perdition is clearly taught by implication, from the form of the creed as given by Mr. Austin. That creed you see contains the doctrine of a future and general judgment, and by consequence, the punishment of the wicked subsequent to the general judgment, which is itself equivalent to endJess punishment. But there are other forms of this creed. There is one given by Lord King (Primitive Church, page 207,) which dates back to the second century, in which endless punishment is clearly and emphatically expressed. It commences with the usual form. Credo in unum Deum-"I believe in one God," &e-and ends with these words, respecting Christ's coming to judge the world" in gloria venturus Salvator earum qui sa vanlur, et Judex earum qui Judicantur, et mittens in ignem æternum transfiguratores veritatis, et contempitares Patris sui et adventus ejus" -"about to come in glory, the Savior of those who shall be saved, and the judge of those who shall be judged, and sending away into eternal fire, the perverters of truth, and the despisers of his Father and of his coming." The points here considered are mere cavils, unworthy of notice, only as they show the perfect weakness of my friend's cause. I have now only a few general remarks to make, and I close this speech and this discussion together.

1. I call attention to the gentleman's scripture quotations. These you will find by examination, to have, as to the great body of them, very little relation to the subject he has been endeavoring to support. They seem to have been quoted for the most part, to make a show, and cause those not familiar with the subject to stare and wonder, and conclude his doctrine must be true, since he repeats so much scripture. Yet Mr. Austin very well knows, that only a small portion of his quotations have even an indirect bearing as proofs of Universal salvation. I have yet to see the first passage which, without manifest perversion, makes anything for unconditional Universal salvation. While Mr. Austin is asserting the direct, positive, and emphatic proof of his doctrine, by the plain and unequivocal declarations of scripture, some of the most intelligent of his brethren are giving up the scriptural argument. In a debate between E. Ray and I. Kidwell, Mr. Kidwell, the Universalist, holds the following language: "I then discovered, for the first time, that by far the greater part of Bible is a perfect neutrality on the question (of salvation;) the body of the book being simply historical, while a considerable portion was

written either enigmaticaily, allegorically, poetically, preceptively, or epistolatory-the book itself not being a system of any doctrine. Hence I discovered, to collect the system of salvation out of the Bible, was like collecting jewels from a heap of rubbish." Mr. H. Ballou, writing on analogy, says "We have said even they who disclaim analogical deductions concerning a future state, do, nevertheless, use them. Do not they contend that man will be happy hereafter? Whence do they so confidently derive this conclusion? Not from any express assertion in the scriptures that I recollect." "We may be told it is the necessary inference, however, from what they do assert, namely, that men will be equal to the angels, be the children of God, incorruptible, in a spiritual body, that all will be subdued to God, &c. But how do we know that these conditions will hereafter produce happiness? How confidently it is said, that if men be sinners hereafter, they must be miserable; if righteous, happy. Such is indeed the case here; but we infer it of the future, only by analogy, not from any direct testimony of the scripture."-(Universalist Quarterly.) Ballou abandons the scriptural argument for Universal salvation, Here Mr. and repudiates the whole field of Bible argument, over which Mr. Austin has passed in this discussion, as affording direct proof of future happiness. Which of these Universalist gentlemen are entitled to most confidence, Mr. Austin or Mr. Ballou ?

2. Look again at the gentleman's course of argument. On the first and second questions you had some rare specimens of consistency. The gentleman has been a little more wary, still he has committed himself most palpably on the present proposition. He has at different times abandoned nearly every position he has taken. This will be perfectly evident to every intelligent mind. He wishes to be understood as admitting moral agency, and yet will not allow moral agency to modify, or in any way affect the final moral destiny of man. it-for the conditionality of salvation, and against the idea that He argues for analogy and against men can by possibility forfeit salvation-for human probation, and yet all men must come out at the same point-for the power of moral choice, yet all men must necessarily choose the very same thing-and much more of a similar character. Another department of his argument runs in a circle. God subjects man to vanity, (sin,) vanity subjects him to punishment, and punishment in turn subjects him to God. Head him on one side of this circle, and he runs round the other way; head him on the other side, and he runs back again; and thus he has run round and round, until his track is smooth as an "otter slide," illustrating the story of two snakes, which in a fit of madnes seized each other by the tail, and continued the contest by the process of suction, until nothing was left of either. I have already called attention sufficiently, to the careless, apparently reckless assertions of the gentleman,

in quoting me as saying what I never thought of saying, and in claiming many things, without the slightest foundation.

3. I intended to have given a somewhat extended review of the gentleman's criticisms of the Greek text, but I find my time and limits will not allow. The great majority of his criticisms are so trifling as to be unworthy of notice, but there are others involving points of some importance, where the gentleman has fallen into blunders so palpable and gross, as almost induces a suspicion of his competency in these matters. To this point, I call the attention of that portion of the public who understand the subject, particularly to what he says of the "original of the word Justification"-his definition of krinein from krino, and also of apoleta, and several others which I need not mention.

4. My friend's system of doctrine. Who can tell what the gentleman believes? I confess, after all that has passed between us, I am unable to say with much confidence what he believes, except as I infer it from what he disbelieves. Almost the only thing he has constantly affirmed, is, that all men will be finally holy and happy. And in his attempt to sustain this, he has seemed to think himself bound to deny almost every thing else. True, he has affirmed other things, but as often reasoned inconsistent with such affirmations. And what havoc he has made of the main truths of revelation! The supreme divinity of Christ, his vicarious atonement for sinners, have been ridicuded in the most shocking manner that reverence for Christ, and sole dependence on the merit of his atonement for salvation, which is enjoined in the scriptures and exhibited by all true Christians, in connection with feelings of personal unworthiness and self-abasement, have been spoken of in the most contemptuous and sneering manner. He has denied the native depravity of the human heart-maintained the possession by man of a recuperative energy, which, "by the sure exercise of its own energies, would, in process of time, enable its possessor to work his way out of the deepest moral darkness and death," thus repudiating the idea that any gracious moral influence is indispensable to the final salvation of man. And yet he has sometimes talked of regeneration, and the gracious influence of the Spirit. All this, and much more of a like nature have we had, over and over again. And after all, what is Universalism? Were I called upon to furnish a synopsis of this system, from the data furnished by this discussion, I could not describe it more appropriately than by adopting Eschenmayer's description of Hegel's Philosophy: "A Holy Ghost without illumination-a gospel without faith-an apostacy without sin-wickedness without conscious guilt-an atonement

Mr. Austin's notes respecting Watts, Doddridge, and Rush, prove nothing so elearly, as the slight and uncertain authority, on which he makes his assertions. + Page 508.

without remission of sin-a death without an offering a release without imputation-justice without a judge-grace without pardon-a this side without a that side-a Christian religion without Christianity and in general, a religion without a religion."— (German Philosophy.)

5. Conclusion. I forbear to remark upon the spirit in which my friend has conducted his part of this discussion, especially on the last question; though it has appeared to me, as we approached the end, that he was becoming desperate-resolved to "rule or ruin"--that is, to have the argument, or so mar the discussion with offensive personalities, that men of refined feelings and correct taste would not endure to read it. It is true, I have been severe upon Universalism, as also upon the gentleman's arguments and general course of reasoning. But I believe I have for the most part, maintained that respectful bearing toward my opponent personally, which was called for by the proprieties of the occasion. But if I have, in the heat of discussion, transgressed this rule, I now make the amende honorable, and ask the gentleman's pardon. But mark-it must be a pardon on my own principles; a Universalist pardon, or a pardon on the principles of Universalism, would, in any case, be wholly worthless, and even an insult. In closing this discussion, I shall not in the spirit of vanity claim that I have done all, and the gentleman has done nothing. He has done much, very much--he has exhibited a tact and perseverance rarely seen in the management of a bad cause. And I doubt not, many Universalists will regard him as having fully sustained his cause, yet others will not fail to see his essential deficiencies. However, the gentleman himself seems very confident that he has gained the argument, and in this he has more than once reminded me of what Gen. Taylor remarked of certain Western regiments at the battle of Buena Vista-that they were "overcome three times without knowing it." The discussion, however, is to be passed upon by a discerning public, and to their decision I cheerfully submit it.

The audience will please accept my thanks for their marked and candid attention. To that portion of the assembly professing confidence in Universalism, I would say, though I have spoken in severe terms of your theory, I beg you to believe I have the kindest feelings towards you personally, and would do any thing in my power to promote your welfare. The best proof I can given you at this time of this disposition of my heart, is to admonish you, kindly, yet most solemly, of the false and dangerous character of your theory, and offer you, through faith in a Redeemer, a better system, and a better hope, established upon better promises."

To those gentlemen present known as preachers of Universalism, I would tender my acknowledgments for the respectful manner in which they have treated me during this discussion. This may be the only occasion I shall ever have to speak to you per

sonally. I hope, therefore, I shall not be deemed impertinent if I say I regard yours as a fearful responsibility: a responsibility I would not bear, for the wealth of the world. I hope you may be induced to review your ground, and that you will detect what I conceive to be, the anti-Christian character. and dangerous influence of your theory. I beg that these remarks may be received in as kind a spirit as they are uttered.

My opponent has the closing speech. In this respect he certainly posseses an advantage which he well knows how to use, though in so lengthy a debate as this, the advantage is not so great as it would be other under circumstances. Though I have not the slighest confidence in his system, nor in the arguments by which he supports it, yet to him personally I have no feelings other than those of friendship and good will.

With thanks to the Moderators for their patience, and for the dignified and impartial manner in which they have presided, I take my leave of the subject and of the audience.

[MR. AUSTIN'S TWELFTH REPLY.]

Gent. Moderators:-I would express my acknowledgments for the compliment Elder Holmes has bestowed upon my ministering brethren present, in regard to the courteous and gentlemanly manner in which they have treated him during the eight days we have been engaged in this discussion. I trust they richly deserve it, and that on all future occasions of like character, they will ever manifest that friendly deportment and fraternal spirit towards those differing from them in opinion, which constitute the first mark of a gentleman and a christian. On my own part, I feel grateful for the friendly treatment I have received from most of those clergymen present who sympathise with my opponent.— With one or two exceptions, their demeanor has been respectful and polite, and will ever be held in remembrance, while the recollection of these labors shall be retained in my mind."

For the interest which Mr. Holmes manifests in the welfare of Universalist ministers, I would express my own obligation, and in their behalf, return thanks for his good wishes. I certainly trust we shall receive with due respect, the suggestions he has thrown out for our consideration, and bestow upon them the deliberation to which they are entitled. He considers ours as a fearful responsibility, and calls upon us to review the ground on which we stand! I beg to suggest to my friend, that the ground we occupy was thoroughly surveyed, well studied and well understood, before

In the exceptions above named, I allude to one or two Methodist preachers, who several times showed their cowardice and ill-breeding, by rushing from the church followed by a number of old ladies, as I commenced replying to Elder Holmes.See p. 623.