times over-though not always in the same phraseology. To these dessertations, I have as often replied, in a manner that has satisfied the candid portion of this assembly: and yet nearly as often as he speaks, he brings forward the same matter again, with as much apparent assurance, as though nothing had been said in reply. The gentleman ought to know, if he does not, that fourfifths, if not seven-eighths of all he has said during the last fifteen minutes is utterly false. I mean, not to charge him with inte ntional falsehood, but that the facts in the case do not justify his conclusions. Of a man of his standing, talent, and means of information, it was reasonable to suppose he would be more candid than to indulge in such misrepresentations. I am sorry he has found it necessary to take such an uncandid course, because such a course imposes upon me the very disagreeable task of entering into details which I hoped to avoid-of giving a comparative view of the morality of Universalism.

I hold in my hand a book written by Matthew Hale Smith, twelve years a Universalist preacher; and were I disposed to act on the principle of retaliation, I could produce from it facts and circumstances which would cause my friend to blush-if he is susceptible of this outward proof of inward shame. I know that after the most strenuous efforts to prevent his renunciation of Universalism, Mr. Smith is now denounced as anything but a decent man but as denunciation is no part of argument, the facts he has collected remain as proof positive of the immoral tendency and fruits of that theory, which through prejudice and false education, he was induced to advocate for twelve years.

The declamatory assertions of my friend respecting the immoral tendency of the doctrine I advocate in this discussion, have not a single fact to support them. Does he mean to institute a comparison in a moral and religious sense, between the Universalists as a people, and the orthodox churches of the day? It were an insult to the good sense of this audience to attempt a formal defence of the Evangelical churches from the conclusion sought to be established by such a comparison. That there are bad men in all communions, may be admitted without reflecting at all upon the moral tendency of the doctrinal peculiarities of those communions. The native corruption of the heart when yielded to, often prompts men to break through all moral restraints, and indulge in vice. In this case they are vicious in spite of the restraining, moral influence of their doctrine. As the doctrine they embrace, condemns their course, and denounces against them punishment in this life, and that to come--their corruption is chargeable to themselves, not to their creed.

This, however, is not true of Universalists and Universalism. The Universalist is quite willing to dare the retributions of God in this world, it does not appear that they exert any restraining influence upon his mind; and as for the future, it is a general

proposition of the system in which he confides, that men are neither better nor worse in the future state, for their conduct in this life. There is really no moral influence in Universalism, which does, or can form, and establish a virtuous character. I have called upon my friend to produce a single clear case of reformation by the influence of the dogma for which he contends in this discussion: bat he has not done so-nor can he. On the contrary, I have in my mind now, many with whom I am personally acquainted, whose names I could announce, were it proper to do so, who, the moment they embraced Universalism, ceased the duty of prayer, ceased regarding the Sabbath with reverence, ceased to fear God or keep his commandments, and gave free and unrestrained indulgence to the passions of their depraved hearts. To be a christian, a man must repent, forsake sin, resist temptation, deny himself and take up his cross, and follow Christ in the regeneration; he must maintain his christian character by constant faith and prayer-but in being a Universalist, he may cast off fear and restrain prayer: he may roll sin as a sweet morsel under his tongue, and float down the stream of natural passion and propensity; and his theory assures him he is perfectly secure from consequences with respect to a future state, and if he is visited for his sinful indulgence in this life, his punishment will be in no sense an evil, but a wholesome medicine to cure his disease. Such is the difference between Universalism and the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. No wonder that so many ungodly men, love the doctrines of Universalism.

The principles for which I contend here have been so repeatedly perverted by my friend, and I have called his attention to the fact so often to no purpose, that I am compelled to believe he does it for the purpose of presenting a false issue to the congregation, and thus diverting their attention from the real merits of the question. I have contended here, as does the Bible, that the world is in a state of death; a state from which they cannot recover themselves; and that it was the object of the atonement to remove the obstacles to human salvation. Not to save men from punishment for voluntary sins, committed by presuming upon divine goodness, and on supposition that God is bound to forgive those sins because Christ has died; but to save them from that condition in which they were lost, and must have continued so, without the atonement. It is true, the gospel makes provision for the forgiveness of personal transgression, when the sinner yields to its claims, and repents; but it affords no promise that those who reject the offers of present salvation, shall ever be savel at all. Hence those who continue in sin, because they love it, after the offer of salvation is made to them, and with the expectation of future repentance and salvation, do so at the peril of their souls. Mr. Austin says, that on my theory, men are not punished in this life. But this is not true. I have repeatedly shown, that my theory embraces all the punishment in this life, which he himself claims as due the sinner. So

that if punishment be a motive to deter from sin, it is as strong in my theory, as his, even in this world; besides, on my principles, the motive is strengthened a hundred fold, by extending God's retributive administration into eternity. I say that this life is a state of retribution; and that God gives the sinner frequently in this life, the first fruits of eternal perdition, and that these first fruits embrace all that my friend contends for, as punishment in full for the sinner's crimes.

In his argument on the subject of pardon and forgiveness, Mr. Austin says, the error in my use of these words, consists in taking their meaning, as it is understood in its application to human governments. But how does it appear that this is an error? Let the gentleman tell us if he can, how we are to form our views of the divine government, if not from the analogy of human governments. Human governments, as authorized by the Deity, in connection with the revelation of his word, furnish all the information within our reach, respecting the nature of the divine government. If my friend has any other source of information let him present it. God reveals himself to us, as Lawgiver, King, Ruler, Governor: he speaks of punishing and rewarding, pardoning and forgiving; and where is the proof that these terms are not to be understood in their common acceptation? The only difference I can conceive of, is in the comparative perfection of the divine and human governments. God and his government are perfect and changeless; man and his government, imperfect and mutable. If Mr. Austin has any farther light on this subject, I hope he will let it shine. Pardon is pardon, and forgiveness is forgiveness, and their nature is the same whether in the divine or human administration. The terms may, or may not be properly applied, but the idea conveyed by pardon and forgiveness, is perfect in itself, and is the same in the government of God, and the governments of men. The meaning of these words is always and everywhere, the same. Let Mr. Austin dis

prove this if he can.

My friend represents punishment in the light of medicine, intended only for the cure of the sinner's disease" in no sense an evil” &c. What a powerful motive this must furnish to deter from sin! A medicine!! And on the principles of Universalism, this medicine is made necessary by the direct act of the Almighty. Mr. Austin in the Universalist Expositor says, " sin proceeds from the bodily constitution, not from the mind or soul." God has made man subject to vanity not willingly, that is, he has given him such a physical constitution, that sin is the necessary consequence; sin is the sickness, punishment the medicine to effect a cure, and both are the result of God's arbitrary act. So my friend teaches, and such is the teaching of his brethren; that God administers punishment to counteract the natural and necessary consequences of the physical constitution. Query: Does the inedicine ever effect a

cure? If it does, does it change the original constitution of man's physical nature?

Now as Christ came to save men from their sins, how does he effect this work, if it is effected by punishment. Besides, what a degrading view this notion obliges us to take of the character and work of Christ! What an exalted personage Christ must be, and how exalted the work, to save men from certain physical obliquities, made necessary by the creating act of God!! Where is the moral influence of his sufferings, the moral effect of the atonement? What has moral means to do with physical laws, and their effects? The legitimate conclusions flowing from the premises of Universalism, leave nothing for a Savior to do: hence it has become quite common with the teachers of that school, to dispense with Christ in all but the name, and build their system of salvation on ground independent of the gospel. For illustration I refer you to a fact. Not long since, at a Convention of Universalists held in one of the Eastern States, a discussion sprung up, and continued several days, on the question-whether it was necessary that a minister of the gospel should believe the Bible account of the character and miracles of Christ. After an excited debate, it was finally resolved, by how much majority we are not told, that to be a minister of the gospel, it is necessary to believe what the Bible says of Christ's character and miracles. Hence it appears, that after fifty years or more of the existence of Universalism in this country, the question referred to, remains unsettled. When we hear a Universalist preach, we don't know whether he believes the Bible account of Christ or not. The discussion referred to above was lengthy and exciting: there must therefore, have been a respectable minority to say the least, who did not then, and do not now, think it necessary to believe the Bible account of Christ and his miracles, in order to be a minister of the gospel. "O tempora! O mores!" Here we see the infidel character and tendency of that theory of which the gentleman seems proud to be an advocate. In this case the cloven foot is uncovered. But after all, those who, in the convention, maintained the negative of the question, were clearly in the right, that is, their conclusion was legitimate from the premises of Universalism. Deny the divinity of Christ-the vicarious nature of his atonement-give every man the power to atone for his own sins by personal suffering, and the cable is slipped, and there is really no stopping place for the mind, until it is launched upon the broad sea of universal scepticism. This fact might be illustrated by dozens and scores of examples, that have occurred in the history of Universalism. As to the moral influence of this theory, as compared with Evangelical truth, it is enough to settle this question, to know that to be a Christian, a man must "crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts," he must engage in, and prosecute a warfare, against the world, the flesh, and the devil, and “purify

himself even as Christ is pure;" but nothing like this is necessary to be a Universalist. If he is a moral man, well and good if he is immoral, all the same. He may believe little or much of the Bible, as best suits his purpose; he may avoid, hate, and abhor, every appearance of a religious life-he may substitute swearing for praying and still, if he disbelieves the doctrine of endless punishment, he is a good Universalist.

I have already admitted that there are some moral Universalists, in the common acceptation of the term, though they are so in spite of the tendencies of their system. But as regards practical religion, self-denial, prayer, the devotion of the heart to God, and other religious duties which have God for their object, and holiness for their fruits, and must be maintained if at all, in spite of the vicious tendency, and natural depravity of the heart: no one expects Universalism to bear such fruit nor is any one disappointed or surprised when he sees Universalists cut loose from all restraints, and live in utter disregard of religious obligation. The vicious influence of Universalism, is one of that class of facts, established by general observation, the plainness and positiveness of which, cannot be increased by argument.

The gentleman talks of the distraction and division of my denomination. Well--" first pure, then peaceable," is the doctrine of scripture. If my denomination has admitted any degree of error, I go for such agitation as will purge out the old leaven, and restore the church to its original purity. Methodists have their religious views and their standard of morality, clearly defined, and published to the world; hence it is an easy matter to detect departures from the old landmarks, and as easy to tell when the defection is cured. I rejoice to know that our activity and zeal for God and truth, has hitherto kept us from religious stagnation, and consequent corrup

tion.

But how is it with the gentleman's fraternity? Is there no distraction there? Will he tell us how many parties there are in his brotherhood, whose distinguishing characteristics consist in the comparative distance at which they are removed from Bible truth? Will he tell us how many stand points these various parties have, between orthodoxy and broad Atheism? No, my friend will not lift the veil and give us a view of that incongruous medley, whose only bond of union consists in a disbelief of the doctrine of endless perdition for the ungodly. And for this state of things I see no possible remedy, without the destruction of the whole superstructure. Universalism is out upon the sea of skepticism without a rudder or compass, and as some of its crafts have already dashed upon the rocks of infidelity, a similar destruction awaits the whole fleet, unless in some way, they shall manage to return to the starting point, and take truth for their pilot, and Christ, the divine and eternal son of God for their captain. But to drop the figure. Universalism has no published or acknowledged standard of moral.