ously teaches so and so, therefore, "gospel salvation embraces deliverance from just and deserved punishinent!" This is a new and remarkable method of argumentation. Its entire strength consists in an assumed fact, so self-evident, viz-that one thing is true BECAUSE another is false!! I humbly submit my friend has made a most egregious blunder in this matter. Allowing that all the doctrines he attributes to Universalism are false, it does not by any means follow that the affirmative of the question in discussion is true. A thousand errors cannot make one truth! He has in fact introduced but six arguments, that can legitimately support the affirmative. These I have noticed and answered, as I hope, to the satisfaction of the audience. As to the nine negative arguments, I have shown their fallacy, even allowing their legitimacy. But in every discriminating and logical mind, the fact that all their strength rests on the assumed erroneousness of opposite opinions, of itself, entirely nullifies them.

I wish here to take a brief view of a doctrine advocated by my friend, which will tend to show its fallacy.

MR. HOLMES. If the gentleman is taking new ground-one not taken by either of us before, I wish to object to it.

MR. AUSTIN.-My object, Brother Moderators, is to take a view, which will place in its true light the doctrine of the Atonement, which Elder Holmes has introduced into this discussion. He has laid down the principle that God has punished an innocent substitute in the place of the sinner. To that I wish to speak.

MR. HOLMES.--That is taking directly new ground. It is assuming what has not been said during this discussion, and raising objections to a principle that I have not advocated at all, and in which I do not believe.

MR. AUSTIN.--I am truly pained that my friend is reduced to the deep perplexity in which he is evidently involved. It is pitiful to see him striving to hedge up my way, when I would lay bare the absurdities of his theory. I freely grant him my sympathy, but I cannot help him. My duty is plain before me and I cannot neglect it to spare the humiliation of my brother. It is my legitimate work to expose the nakedness of the position deliberately assumed by him, that God inflicts the punishment due the guilty on an innocent substitute!

MR. HOLMES.-I wish the reporter to note my denial of bringing forward such an argument, and my disbelief in the principle.

MR. AUSTIN.--I hear with pleasure that the brother does not believe God inflicts punishment on an innocent substitute.

MR. HOLMES.--That was not my language.

MR. AUSTIN.-Mr. Holmes denies that such was his language;

but says his declaration was that Jesus Christ satisfied infinite justice in his own person. How, but by himself receiving the punishment which God's justice demanded of the sinful? There is no other way of satisfying justice on my friend's theory. The Elder is descending to a system of mere pettifogging, instead of manly argumentation. He insists the justice of God demands a certain amount of punishment of the guilty, and that Christ became their substitute, and fulfilled all the claims which justice held against them. How could he do this without receiving the punishment himself? This is the real ground the Elder has taken through the entire discussion of this question. How many passages has he introduced to prove that Christ suffered in the place of the sinner! Does he now throw them all aside? The truth is, he is ashamed or afraid of the old system of the Atonement, which has so long prevailed, and still generally prevails among the partialist sects; and seeks for new grounds. But where he would take his new position, I doubt whether he knows himself. Well, I will be as careful of my brother as possible, and will not crowd him up in his new wanderings and turnings, any harder than faithfulness to my cause demands. But if Christ has not been punished in place of the sinner, then he has not been punished at all. Where then is the evangelical refuge of the Atonement? There has no Atonement been made, of the description for which he contends; and hence all men must suffer forever for their own sins. But if he repudiates the position that an innocent substitute endured the punishment due the guilty, I will pass the matter! I pause for direction.

[The Moderators decided that Mr. Austin could proceed.]

MR. AUSTIN.-I wish to show that the modern popular doctrine of the Atonement, is characterized by three prominent, fatal, defects, viz:-Impossibility—immorality-cruelty! 1. It attempts to satisfy the claims of God's infinite justice upon a world of guilty sinners, by the sufferings and death of Jesus, an innocent being. This is a moral impossibility! 2. It leads men to sin with utter impunity, by teaching them that God's infinite wisdom has expressly prepared an easy and convenient expedient whereby the most vile can escape all punishment. This opens the broad highway of immorality!! 3. It teaches that Justice will forever prevent Mercy from exercising its affectionate office towards any on whom the punishments of eternity have commenced their inflictions, however sincerely they may repent, however anxious they may be to turn to God, and become obedient and loving children! This would be the distilled essence of Infinite Cruelty!

In his recapitulation, Elder Holmes has done me great injustice. He charges me with taking positions which I did not take-with making assertions which I have not made--and in a variety of ways has distorted my arguments and general course of procedure about as thoroughly as his ingenuity could well enable him. I have n

an opportunity in the limited time remaining to me on this speech, to enter into a detail in regard to this matter. I must trust to the candor and intelligence of my audience for the remedy in rectifying the misrepresentations of my opponent.

It remains now, Gentlemen Moderators, for me to draw the discussion of this question to a close. It has been of a character somewhat novel. Indeed I do not know that I have ever heard of an oral debate on the doctrines involved in this investigation. I trust those who have listened, have been both interested and profited. I had great confidence in the soundness of the principles I have advocated before this discussion commenced. If possible, that confidence has been strengthened by this interchange of opinion. My friend has brought to his aid all that learning, skill, and scholar-ship could afford him, and yet has signally failed, as I think he must himself see, in establishing the fundamental principles of his theory. I have been enabled I trust, to offer abundant testimony to satisfy the intelligent portion of the audience that "gospel salvation does not embrace deliverence from just and deserved punishment." I have shown that the doctrine of salvation from punishment, by means of a substitute for the guilty, is of heathen origin, introduced into the christian church in dark and ignorant ages, and perpetuated only by the power of prejudice and an ignorance of the scriptures-That the affirmative directly and flatly contradicts a class of the most plain and positive passages found in the scriptures-That the tendency of the doctrine of salvation from punishment is demoralizing to the highest degree-That it is but a contrivance of man to indulge in sin and avoid its consequencesThat it is precisely such a doctrine as the depraved and licentious approbate, because it flatters them with the lying deception of the serpent in the garden, that they can sin and not surely be punished-That it is a dark fountain of error, which has been open in christendom for ages, and sent its streams of corruption to the very vitals of society!! No wonder such numbers of clergymen who have taught this doctrine have been led to gross sin by its deceptions! Public morals can never become corrected so long as it continues to be proclaimed from the sacred desk!

I have shown that the affirmative of this question has grown from erroneous views of God's government, overlooking the great fact that it is parental, protective, and restoring in its character-from erroneous conceptions of the nature of divine punishments; viewing them as vindictive and retaliatory, rather than as corrective and reformatory.

To conclude, let me ask the audience and the public at large to look at the practical operation and final results of these systems, in reference to the eventual condition into which they bring the great race of man. The one representing God as ordering the affairs of his universe so imperfectly, that countless millions of immortal souls become plunged into a condition of infinite agony,

where they will be compelled to live, only to sin and blaspheme the name of their heavenly Father through countless ages! The other system teaching that the Creator has made the world on principies so wise, and exercises over men a government so holy, just and perfect, that in the "fulness of times" all rational beings will be brought to repentance, purification and happiness, and shall surround the throne of infinite love, and cause the courts of the heavenly Jerusalem to resound with the triumphant song, "Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord, God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints! Who shall not fear thee O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy. For all nations shall come and worship before thee.'-(Rev. xv. 3, 4.)

I call upon all to examine critically, candidly and prayerfully, both systems, and determine which is the most in accordance with what may consistently be expected from a God of infinite power, wisdom and love-which is the most honorable to the Creator, which the most desirable to God, to Christ, to Angels, and which most accords with the dictates of your reason, the teachings of the scriptures, and the best and purest feelings of your own hearts-[Time expired.