union, there is, and ever has been, the utmost harmony in our ranks. But how is it in the school to which my friend belongs? Are there not radical divisions on fundamental and vital principles, prevailing between different sects of evangelicals, and even rending individual denominations asunder? Have they not been engaged for years in the most hot and angry disputes on these matters of difference? Let the history of the past answer!

Elder Holmes refers to dissentions, which he asserts, now exist among Universalists in the Eastern States. In this he seeks to make a mountain of a mole-hill. Some three or four young and uninfluential men had become tinctured with what is termed Parkerism, at the east-a species of German rationalism—which the denomination at large repudiates. A position was taken by one of our Associations to meet this exigency. A hearing was granted these Rationalistic individuals. But very few indeed were found to sympathize in sentiment with them. The great mass of the denomination-the experienced fathers-all the learned, the wise, the eminent, in our midst-took sides strongly against their views, and they are now left to themselves. What capital can my friend expect to make of this matter?

He speaks also of a skeptical tendency in the Universalist denomination. I throw back the imputation. Nothing will so effectually save a man from skepticism and general infidelity, as the consistent principles of Universalism. I believe the doctrines of my friend, and the partialist school, have driven tens of thousands into skepticism. Indeed, I am satisfied they have made the great mass of infidels that now exist in the world. Their representation of God and his government-of the Bible and its teachings, is the great stumbling-block over which men plunge into the gloomy depths of infidelity! I can name to my brother, many who have been saved from skepticism, by the power of Universalism-by the power of gospel truth, as we preach it, and as we feel it-who were made infidels by the monstrous absurdities of modern orthodoxy !

He says that according to Universalism, when men get to heaven, they will shout, "Glory to punishment, for our salvation!" I do not wish to believe my friend is disposed to misrepresent. Such, however, is the character of his assertion. He knows, or should know, that we believe no such sentiment-and that no conclusion of this nature, can be drawn from our doctrines. Punishment gives

a man no title to the infinite bliss of Heaven! Because a criminal has served out his time in the State Prison, it gives him no claim to be admitted into the family of the Judge who sentenced him, to participate in his wealth and his enjoyments. God rewards all men for their good deeds, and punishes them for their sins. But neither reward nor punishment authorize them to demand immortal and endless felicity. The happiness of heaven is purely the gift of God, through infinite grace." By grace are ye saved."-(Eph. ii. 8.) My friend has said also, that christians who have embraced Uni

⚫versalism, have forsaken prayer, and that such is the tendency of the doctrine. He declares he can mention names, where men have lost their good character, and fallen into immorality, on becoming Universalists. I regret to be compelled to declare that in these statements Elder Holmes wholly misrepresents the influence of the sentiments I defend-and that too, on a point where his own doctrines are the most defective. That christians on leaving some other denominations and uniting with the Universalists, may become convinced of the impropriety-nay, absurdity-of loud and boisterous prayers, as though the being they addressed was asleep, or absent on a journey, (1 Kings xviii. 27,) I have no doubt. They may moreover, have believed that prayers at the corners of the streets, and on the house tops, were uncalled for, and no reliable mark of true piety. But that an individual ever gave up prayer, as enjoined in the New Testament, in consequence of joining the denomination to which I belong, I do not believe. My experience affords no such instance. As to immorality, I have no disposition to deny there may be found some men calling themselves Universalists, whose conduct is far from what it should be. But where is there a sect of which the same cannot be said? The conduct of even one of the most prominent of the disciples of our Lord, was once such that the Master said to him-" Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me.”—(Matt. xvi. 23.) While my friend is bringing this charge against some Universalists, in heaven's name let him view his own denomination. How many multitudes of Methodist church members, class-leaders, and even preachers, have proved corrupt to the very heart's core !

Elder Holmes insists that Universalism is a down-hill path, and that Religion, (Evangelical Religion, so called,) "is up-hill work." Ah, yes! this is the old representation. It is a hard and grievous thing to be religious! How many have such views kept back from attempting to lead religious lives. I deny that Christ's religion is up-hill work.". His 'yoke is easy"-his "burthen is light." That the Elder's religion is "up-hill work," I have not a doubt. And this is simply because it is a false religion! Turn, my brother! turn your footsteps into the true path! Seek and adopt the religion of the Savior, and you will no more complain of “up-hill work! You will find by sweet experience, that "its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace.".

I will now reply, before leaving the question, to the inquiry which my brother opposite, has so frequently made-Where does the sinner go, when he dies? He has charged Universalists with believing that he goes immediately to heaven! This I deny.

MR. HOLMES. I have given the brother an opportunity in every speech he has made, to answer this question. My object was to present an argument which I must necessarily withhold unless he answered this question. I object, therefore to his entering upon the question now, as I have no opportunity to reply.

MR. AUSTIN. This is singular indeed. I am refused the priviledge of answering an inquiry which has been pressed upon me so often. Of what is my friend afraid? The only reason why I have not attended to it before, is that from the multiplicity of points pressing on my mind, I have not seen a convenient opportunity. I could not forsee-and indeed, cared but little-what use he wanted to make of my answer. There have been many things uttered by my opponent that I was anxious to notice; but time would not permit. The inquiry under consideration I have designed from the beginning to answer at some stage of the debate on this question. But now, finding myself on my last speech, with the question unattended to, I was determined to find a place for it. But lo! my friend objects-objects that his own inquiry should be answered. I desire the Reporter to note this fact.

MR. HOLMES.—The rules require that in the closing speech no new argument shall be presented.

MR. AUSTIN.-Brother Moderators, I ask if this is a new argument? I am not about to make an argument of any description. I am simply desirous of replying to an inquiry which I have not been able to notice before. I ask the Moderators to decide whether I can go on.

MR. HOLMES.-I would like to speak before the decision is made. I introduced this subject in my very first speech, by asking him this question. My object was to draw an argument from his answer, showing that this world was not a state of perfect retribution, and that the Bible represents the condition of the righteous during life, as in many instances more unhappy than that of the sinner; and drawing other arguments that would naturally arise out of his admission, or definition of his position. He has designedly avoided defining his position. Some three or four times I distinctly put the question to him; and now he says he has not had time to answer it. How does it happen that he has time now. I shall submit to the decision of the Moderators, of course, and if they decide against me, do it without grumbling.

MR. AUSTIN. I have already explained to the satisfaction of every candid mind, why I have not before noticed the inquiry. I wish to lose no more time in this digression. If Elder Holmes persists in his objection, I will pass the matter by.

[The MODERATORS decided that it was not proper for Mr. Austin to answer the question, as Mr. Holmes would have no opportunity to reply to his remarks.]

MR. AUSTIN. The same objection can as reasonably be made to my taking notice in this speech, of any thing Elder Holmes has offered, even during his last half-hour. But I pass the subject.

My friend complains that I misrepresent him in regard to his views of present punishment. If I have misrepresented him, I have done it unconsciously, and regret it.

He made a declaration on that point which I was both surprised and rejoiced to hear. It is the one redeeming feature in his positions on this question-the light that happily shines out for a moment, amid all the darkness which enshrouds his views. It is, that he believes this world is a state of retribution! Here then, is one partialist clergyman who believes in a state of retribution on the earth. I fellowship him on this subject. For once you are right, my brother. At last you have taken a position which is TRULY orthodox, and one too, in which you will find ample support from the scriptures. But what becomes of the doctrine of probation, which the Evangelical School have talked so much about? The old theory was that this world is a state of probation for the next -that men are neither rewarded nor punished in this life, but are placed here to form characters for eternity, and that rewards and punishments are only administered in the immortal state. I am gratified that my friend has left this ancient dogma, and adopted the Bible doctrine, that there is a present punishment for sin. I hope he will continue to advance in his knowledge of the truth. But if this world is a state of retribution-if the wicked are punished here, as Elder Holmes allows, on what principle does he contend that they will be tormented forever in a future existence? Does he believe in double punishment?

The Elder has a book over there, of which he seems very choice. He has not ventured to read a word from it, but merely holds it up as a rod, which he shakes in terrorem over me. It is the work of Matthew Hale Smith, which I pronounce a book of FALSEHOODS! I know the author thoroughly. His entire history is perfectly familiar to me. He was my nearest ministerial neighbor-(his church being not quite two miles from mine, in Massachusetts)— when he went through the farce of two pretended conversions to partialism. Three times has he renounced Universalism, and twice begged his way back to our midst, under the plea that he was insane when he left us. Once he was allowed to return, as it was thought by many, he might possibly have been beside himself. After the second renunciation had taken place, amid a deafening "flourish of trumpets and beat of drums" from the rejoicing orthodox, but a few weeks elapsed before he "came to his senses" again-re-renounced partialism, and made an attempt to raise up a new Universalist Society. But the Universalist denomination utterly refused to receive him, or have any thing to do with him. Greatly chagrined at this rebuff, and with his heart deeply embittered in consequence of it, he once more, for the third time, joined the pie-bald ranks of the Evangelical, where he remains to this day the most deadly foe to the Universalists who rejected him. His book, which is but the outpouring of his gall against his old friends,

because they would not open their doors to receive a man in whom they had lost every particle of confidence-is from end to end, one tissue of misrepresentation and falsehood. No more dependence can be placed upon its assertions, than on the declarations of the Alkoran.* If my friend dares read a line from that work, I shall be compelled to do that which will be a painful duty, viz: cover him with "confusion of face," by pointing to the corruption which festers in the bosom of his own denomination, not among the laity alone, but among the clergy! But I will not dictate. If he chooses to introduce Matthew Smith into the discussion, I am ready for him.

The Elder has quoted a passage which I must notice: "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world."-(John i. 29.) By taking away the sin of the world, the Elder insists is meant taking away the punishment due the sin of the world! If this is the true sense of the passage-if Christ has already taken away the punishment due the sins of mankind-then I would inquire why the world is not exempted from punishment? According to the theory of my opposer, all the punishment God's justice demands of the sinful, the Savior has already received. Allowing this to be so, on what principle of right and equity, could God punish me or any other human being, when my punishment has already been received by another? This would be violating the first principles of common uprightness. In this case justice would receive a two-fold satisfaction. First through Christ, who has fulfilled and discharged all its claims on a world of sinners-and then through sinners themselves, who are to be tormented for ever and ever!! Would that be called justice even among men? Such a view of justice in human transactions, would be spurned by all the world. If a friend has paid a debt for me, it is discharged, and the creditor cannot in equity turn and ask me to pay it again! God's justice has received the whole of its demands. Yet it is contended by my friend that if sinners do not believe this, then God will allow justice to have its demands all fulfilled again on those in whose behalf Christ endured the penalty of the law. This makes the death of Christ in vain! And yet this is the theory which Elder Holmes and learned Doctors of Divinity spend their time to propagate in the world, and to sustain by metaphysical, hair-splitting arguments.

Elder Holmes has presented a large number of arguments-some fifteen in all, I believe. A goodly number truly, if there had been strength in them. But there is this singular feature in his coursebefore entirely unheard of, I venture to say, in any public discussion. Nine of his affirmative arguments are based, not on any affirmative propositions at all, but on negative propositions-on what he dencminates the errors of Universalism. Thus Universalism errone

An able and thorough reply to this book, has been published from the pen of Rev. L. C. Brown. It can be procured at any of the Universalist Book Deposi

tories.