a plan is practicable, is enough to show that Power Omnipotent can execute it. The direct and irresistible deduction from these premises, is, that in the final consummation of God's purposes and plans, all intelligent beings will be brought into a condition of holiness and happiness!!! All this, I have shown on the affirmative of the question. And what has my opponent done in reply? Has he succeeded in advancing an argument that has touched either my premises or my conclusions? Search, investigate, ali he has said on this question, and see if you can find an argument, proposition, or suggestion, that, when stripped of its verbiage, and duly weighed, can militate against the soundness of the reasoning on which I have depended. Your search will be in vain! I was as well aware of his failure to meet this proposition, when we commenced the discussion, as I am now that it is manifest to all. He cannot achieve an impossibility! To strike one link from this argument, is to blot out an Attribute from Jehovah's nature! To say that the Creator did not Desire to save all men—or that Desiring, he did not originate a Perfect Plan to accomplish that Desire or that Desiring and adopting a Perfect Plan to this end, he had not Power sufficient to execute it—(one of which propositions Mr. Holmes must adopt,)—is but to insist that Jehovah is deficient ether in the Attributes of Goodness, Wisdom or Power!! All his attempts to overthrow this chain of reasoning, have been but arguments which in fact bear not against Universal Salvation, but against the Christian Religion, and against the existence of a Perfect God!! Every argument against the perfections of God, is in reality an argument that if successful, would disprove his being !

I would solicit the audience, also to take into consideration the nature of the Scripture Testimony I have offered in support of the affirmative of this question. In reviewing my quotations from the Bible, they will perceive this marked characteristic, that the passages are all plain, LITERAL, POSITIVE declarations, couched in the most simple, yet most forcible forms of speech in which truth can be asserted, or thought uttered. Allow me to give you a specimen of the positiveness of these quotations from God's word: "All nations whom thou hast made, SHALL come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name."—(Ps. lxxxvi. 9.) "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee SHALL bow, and every tongue SHALL swear, SURELY shall say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength.”—(Isa. xlv. 23, 24.) "I WILL NOT contend forever!"-(Isa. lvii. 16.) "The Lord WILL NOT cast off forever!”—(Lam. iii. 31.) "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was LOST." -(Luke xix. 10.) "We have seen and do TESTIFY, that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."—(1 John iv. 14.) "He hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, that he might have Mercy upon ALL.”—(Rom. xi. 32.) God" WILL HAVE

all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." -(1 Tim. ii. 4.) These assertions are all rigidly literal. There is no figure, no metaphor, no parabolic dress, to encumber them, or to throw doubt around their true meaning. Human language will admit of nothing plainer, nothing more positive. If these passages do not prove the final salvation of all men, what language could the scripture writers have used to express that sentiment? I call upon my hearers, to take their pens and endevor to write in the most forcible manner, a declaration which shall assert the salvation of the world, and see on comparison, if it will be more positive than I have quoted from God's penmen! Not only are these passages easily understood, but I insist they CANNOT be misunderstood! There is not an individual acquainted with the plainest terms of language, and in possession of an ordinary amount of sound understanding, who can obtain any other possible signification from the passages above quoted, than the doctrine of Universal Salvation! It is only when men adopt a creed, and become wedded, blindly wedded to it, and allow it to obtain an ascendency in their minds above God's word, that they will even make an attempt to extort a different meaning from these scripture declarations than that resting upon their very face.

In regard to those portions of the Divine Word, which are clothed in metaphorical or figurative language, or comprised in parables, there cannot be that assurance, that certainty of a correct understanding. They may admit of different interpretations, and variety of meanings may be, in some instances, drawn from them, with much plausibility! And this, be it remembered, is the class of scripture passages, on which my opponent depends to prove the doctrine of endless punishment. Let the audience notice, on the next question, and they will readily see that he will quote parables, and metaphors, and other passages of scripture, of a highly figurative character, in support of that sentiment. The world should understand this marked distinction, in which there is the utmost significance, that the passages of scripture on which Universalism chiefly depends, are all LITERAL-while those on which the most confidence is placed in support of endless woe, are all FIGURATIVE!! This single fact speaks volumes!

While requesting the audience to give the arguments and suggestions I have offered on the affirmative of this question, whatever weight they may justly claim, I would at the same time, invite them to treat respectfully, and weigh maturely, the Replies which have been offered on the negative, by Elder Holmes. That he has done the best he could, there can be no doubt, at least among those who have witnessed his labors here. The assiduity with which he has plied himself to his work, the care, anxiety and perplexity which have been depicted upon his countenance from the beginning, all indicate that he was sensible he had engaged in a Herculean task! Few men could probably have done more than he has,

every affirmative argument presented, and show the fallacy in the gentleman's premises, and the unsoundness of his whole course of argumentation. He has multiplied his arguments without precedent, and beyond what was required by the nature of the question. By this course, though my friend has weakened his main position rather than otherwise, by spreading his proofs over so large a surface, yet he has rendered the discussion more complex, and imposed a more difficult task on me, inasmuch as I have found it necessary to to reply again and again, to the same arguments, presented with a slight change in phraseology and the mode of illustration. Whether I have redeemed my pledge, I most cheerfully submit to the decision of the public, after I shall have briefly reviewed the ground over which we have passed.

The first argument brought forward by Mr. Austin to sustain the affirmative of this question, was drawn from the desire of God. God desires the happiness of all his creatures, therefore all will become holy and happy. In reply to this, I have shown that it involves a number of assumptions and sophisms, which render it wholly nugatory. The argument is worthless, unless the desire of God controls, in an absolute and resistless manner, the final destinies of men, irrespective of moral agency or moral desert. But this is a mere assumption, not only without proof, but directly in the face of the most stern and decisive evidence to the contrary. God's moral attributes, his moral government, the plain declarations of his own word, the moral agency and responsibility of man, together with the facts existing in the moral universe, unite in asserting the unsoundness of the process by which the gentleman has reached his erroneous conclusion. God will never desire the holiness and happiness of men, more strongly and ardently than he does at present. Hence, nothing can be predicated of this desire in the future, beyond what we see effected by it now; but this desire does not, by its own resistless control, nor by the means employed to secure its object, remove the sinfulness and misery of moral beings, without regard to their agency and conduct. It therefore contradicts analogy and fact, as well as the nature of the gospel, and the plainest dictates of his word, to assume, from the desire of God, the unconditional, inevitable salvation of the whole human family.

The same remarks will apply, with all their force, to the intention of God, from which my friend, by a strong physical, not to say intellectual effort, leaps to the conclusion he seeks to establish. The gentleman cannot claim to have any other knowledge of the divine intention, than that communicated through his government and his directly revealed will; but neither of these authorize the deduction of Universalism. What may be expected from the operations of the divine government, is constantly being developed around us. Beyond this, we are authorized to expect nothing, only on the positive assurance of direct revelation. And what is this assurance? Can the gentleman refer me to a single

text, in which the assurance of future salvation is stronger, or made to us on terms differing from those connected with salvation in the present life? Mr. Austin has said, it is a standing rule, applicable to all worlds, he that repents shall be forgiven, and restored to holiness and happiness. For the sake of the argument, allow this to be a correct view of the divine intention, and what does it prove for Universalism? It is a standing rule for this world- he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins, shall find mercy." But, do all therefore confess and forsake their sins? No; but thousands despise the gracious overture, and wax worse and worse, to the latest period of their lives. Now apply the rule to another world; make it the standing rule of eternity, and what have we gained? The rule itself does not secure the end, but only prescribes the method by which it may be attained. The operation of the rule for many thousand years, furnishes data from which to judge of its operation for all coming time, or for eternity; and the nature of the rule implies, that those for whose benefit it was given, may hereafter, as they have in this world, forfeit the blessings it was designed to confer. Thus, we see, in jumping to his ultimatum, the gentleman has utterly disregarded the rightful claims of those well established principles of moral government, analogy and revelation, to which all correct theologians and sound reasoners are accustomed to pay tribute.

The next argument brought forward by Mr. Austin, is founded on the government of God, or the Divine Sovereignty. That Jehovah is a Sovereign-that he is perfect-that he has established a government over all men-that his government has a specific object in view, and is perfect, are predicates I have not disputed, and shall not. I have argued for all these positions, but my opponent has conflicted with them, more or less, in every speech he has made; and the general train of reasoning pursued by him, has directly tended to undermine and overthrow them, thus giving a practical illustration of the remark in my first speech -that the advocates of Universalism blow hot and cold with the same breath, and pull down with one hand what they build up with the other. Would a perfect sovereign establish a moral government, and then deal with his subjects as machines, and thus conflict with the principles of his own government? Would he enact laws, and leave them to execute themselves, as I have shown to be the doctrine of Universalism? Would he establish faith as a condition of salvation, and then save men without faith, or, which amounts to the same thing, compel them to believe that they might be saved? Would he proclaim himself to the universe a moral Governor, his rule moral law and moral justice, according to the moral desert of his subjects, and then change the moral for a government strictly and entirely paternal, and resolve his whole administration into sympathy? Would he give his subjects a moral constitution, advertise them that their character and condition

would depend upon their own conduct, for which they would be held strictly responsible-and then proceed to bring out a given result in violation of their constitution, and without regard to their conduct? Would a perfect sovereign, with a perfect government, subject his people to vanity against their will, or lead them, directly or indirectly, into rebellion against his laws and authority, that he might have opportunity to show his sovereignty and power in pushing their disobedience? Finally, would a gool, wise, perfect sovereign, with a good, wise, perfect government, find it necessary to lead his subjects through a course of rebellion, crime and punishment, in order to make them loyal, and elevate them to virtue, holiness, and happiness? Such are a few, and but a few, of the incongruities of Universalism, in regard to God's government and sovereignty; and all these various, absurd and contradictory notions, have been advocated by Mr. Austin, in the course of this debate. It is most strange that my friend should talk of God's perfect moral government, in connection with the proposition he is laboring to sustain, since, if Universalism be true, moral government 'does not exist; and as a sovereign, instead of being good, wise and perfect, God proclaims himself, by his course of administration, as weak, cruel, tyrannical and hypocritical.

The fourth argument of Mr. Austin is denominated the fulfillment of the law of love. He argues that this law will be fulfilled in every individual, and all will be consequently holy and happy. We adinit all are, and will be saved, who obey this law, but we do not admit that the command, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,' proves that all will love God, any more than the command, “thou shalt not steal," proves all will be honest. The latter command is adapted to this world only, and by many is never obeyed in spirit or practice. Suppose it applicable to another world, as well as this, have we any proof that it would not be disregarded there, as it has been here? If so, I would like to know from what source it is drawn. The command, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," is adapted to both worlds— to all worlds, and as it is utterly disregarded in this life by thousands who have all the knowledge necessary, and all the motives to induce love to God ever made known to any human mind, we have the argument from analogy, to say nothing of the government of God, the moral agency of man, and the teachings of holy writ, to support the conclusion that it may and will be disregarded in the future state. Bat Mr. Austin has attempted to strengthen his conclusion, by referring to the declaration of Christ, that he "came to fulfill the law." To this we reply, Christ came to fulfill the law in this life, yet all men do not love God. Indeed, Messrs. Ballou, Williamson, and others, confine the agency of Christ in the salvation of men, to this world. But the law he came to fulfill is not obeyed by all here; where, then, is the proof, that it will be hereafter? We may assume, imagine, and conjecture; but