Please attend to another point, viz: the disadvantage under which I appear before you on this question, especially on account of the state of the human heart. My friend has frequently appealed to your sympathies, and assured you that your hearts are in favor of his doctrine. Unless your hearts have been touched by grace, and you have been made to feel the exceeding sinfulness of sin, I have reason to fear there is much truth in bis assurance. I have no doubt, Mr. Austin, and those associated with him, and thousands who are not known as Universalists, do, as he says, hate and abhor the principles for which I contend, and specially the doctrine now under consideration. How can I doubt it? since St Paul says the carnal mind is enmity against God-is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. And another scripture declares The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." Now, it is that same law referred to by St. Paul as being opposed by the carnal mind, for which I am contending here. He says the carnal mind (the natural, unregenerate heart,) is opposed to it. My friend, Mr Astin, says the same; and the desperate effort he has made,

is discussion, thus far, is a sufficient ge. And this is, by no means, a t, that the gentleman might collect ities, or populous towns, and delival lecture, and then appeal to them answered with thundering applause, avor of my doctrine.

us coadjutors beheaded the Priests ce of God, declared death an eternal f religion, converted the temples of el blasphemy, set up a woman of ill their Goddess-Reason; and then itude, and say, with no danger of behearts are in favor of our doctrine. infidelity paid us a visit in petticoats, ht. She was associated with Robert the presence of Mr. Ballou, and othShe collected large assemblies in Boses, and handed out to them her abomles; and the clapping of hands, and their hearts were in favor of her doc

Imighty God, respecting the antediluon of the thoughts of their heart, "was nd he sent Noah to preach to them, but or of his doctrine. I must suppose, if been there as a preacher, he would t with old Noah. Had he been there, d-this notion of the general and final a from the face of the earth, must be

worn thread-bare, proves as plainly as words could assert it, that he feels conscious of a failure to sustain himself heretofore, as he desired. In all this dissatisfaction with his past labors, he has shown an amount of gool sense, truly creditable. I fully believe when the public review the nature of his proceedings in this debate, they will at least give him the credit of great discernment in being wholly unreconciled to the idea of allowing his labors on the second question, to pass without some attempt to patch them up! The Elder may, however, take to himself the consoling reflection, that the failure cannot justly be attributed to him, but to his cruse! When men attempt to overthrow TRUTH, or build up ERROR, how can they expect their exertions, after cool and mature examination, can yield satisfaction even to themselves!

I can but esteem myself unfortunate in incurring the disapprobation of my opponent. Every thing on my part, goes wrong in his estimation. I can do nothing that will please him. Aŭ my positions, my arguments, evidences, scripture proofs, are exceedingly distasteful to him. The more sound the argument, the clearer the proof, the more direct the conclusion, and glorious the doctrine established, the greater his dissatisfaction!! Whatever I do, he would not have done; and whatever he would have me do, that do I not. The case is a hard one truly, for my friend. If I was but more yielding and accommolating in my disposition, and more willing to conform to his wishes in all cases, how speedy his triumph! How easy his victory!

He complains that I have studiously avoided making known my opinions on many important points-that I have failed to answer his inquiries as to the nature of salvation, or the time, place and manner of the punishment of the wicked. These complaints run through the entire length of the two questions, frequently interspersed with a precious display of low wit and ridicule. He denominated Salvation as held by Universalists, to be a kind of Jack-o-lantern-an abstraction-a mere nothingness! True, I have shown in repeated instances, that the salvation we proclaim, is the salvation revealed in the gospel-a salvation from sin, ignorance, and death-that it is purely the gift of God-and that it is effected through the instrumentality of Christ and his gospel! But what cares he for a salvation which has God for its author, and Christ for its executor and finisher? So long as it stands in the way of his creed, he will cast the most contemptuous epithets upon it, and insist that it is nothing but emptiness? He forgets that the salvation promulgated in his own theory is the most unreal, uncertain and contradictory, contrivance that the wretched wisdom of this world ever coined. No man feels himself safe for a moment under its teachings. To-day, he may be saved-tomorrow, lost!! The moment the poor repentant sinner stretches forth his hand to the Elder's system, to lay hold on a salvation

that shall be real-something that can be depended upon-he finds only that which involves him in inextricable confusion. It is a salvation by works, and NOT by works-he must do something to merit it, and yet is told he can not do any thing to merit it. He is taught it is a salvation by grace, and yet not by grace but of works--that God will save men, and yet they must save themselves-that Christ will save the world, and yet if the world do not secure their own salvation, they will be cast off into utter and endless darkness! And yet one who entertains these views and is continually leading others to wander amid all this confu sion, utters loud complaints that the salvation of Universalists is not definite! That these complaints against the definiteness of our views of salvation, are utterly groundless--ludicrously sothere is not a person who has attended this discussion, but will bear me witness. Although I have repeatedly answered all questions in regard to salvation, so far as God has revealed knowledge to mortals on the subject, and made known my opinions on every point involved. in the discussion, yet these complaints are again reiterated on the very threshold of this question-at the first go-off of the Elder, with as much coolness, as though he was treating our hearers with the fresh coinage of his fertile brain. It is a fitting beginning in defence of the monstrous doctrine my opponent stands up here to defend and propagate.

The secret of all his trouble and fault finding, in regard to matters connected with the other questions, is easily explained. It is not that I have not answered his inquiries on these topics, nor that I have not made known my opinions, but the difficulty is, I have not answered them to suit him-and my opinions have proved different from what he would have them. If I had but given some absurd reply to his queries-if I had but committed myself to some groundless position, some ridiculous sentiment, some monstrous anomoly, so weak and silly as to conflict with the word of God-then the Elder would have been in high glee! No complaints would have been uttered, and no fault found with my course. But although I am exceedingly anxious to accommodate my friend, in every possible and consistent manner, yet really it is asking too much, that I should sacrifice God's truth to friendship for him, or allow the most consistent, desirable and beautiful doctrine that men or angels have ever known, to be trampled under foot, merely to permit heathen errors to perpetuate their baneful sway over the minds of men!

If I thought proper to pursue a similar strain of fault finding, I might in return, with great justice, utter many complaints against the course pursued by Elder Holmes. His misrepresentations have been numerous and wilful. In his tenth speech he declares that Universalists generally repudiate the ordinances of christianitybaptism and the Lord's supper. Yet he knows that the Lord's supper is administered throughout our denomination, where circum

stances will admit of the organization of churches. And as to baptism, Universalists very frequently administer it; but they leave their members in the free exercise of their consciences on this subject. I might complain also of his assertions at the commencement of his closing speech on the second question-where he declares that Universalism knows nothing of a renewed heartthat it claims that the heart in its unholy state gives its suffrage for annihilating the en lless sanctions of the divine law, and unconditionally saving all men, without regard to character or conduct-and that I maintain that the wicked heart LOVES Universalism. I declare all these assertions to be sheer, wilful, and wickel misrepresentations, and that Elder Holmes well knew them to be such, when he uttered them. He knows I have repudiated all such views over and over again; but he most dishonorably persists in reiterating these charges. Yet he claims to be in possession of a renewed heart. Moreover, I might complain, that after so much trepidation lest I should introduce new matter in my closing speech on the negative of the first question, where he would have no opportunity to reply, he has himself become guilty of this very act, in his closing speech on the negative of the second question. In several instances he has brought in new arguments,

and in one case* in direct violation of one of the rules of this discussion, has introduced a new matter which he calls a “dilemma,” and challenges me to reply to it, when he knew I had no opportunity. But I need not dwell farther on the singular characteristics of that closing speech. It was very much as I anticipated. The repetition and patching up of his replies to my argumentsthe reiteration of assertions, positions, and false and sophistical methods of reasoning, which I had already overthrown and scattered, when they were originally introduced-indicates nothing more clearly than his dissatisfaction at the manner in which he has managed his cause, and his fears of the influence of this debate on the public mind.

The gentleman is not a little perplexed by my appeals to those tender sympathies which God has implanted in the human heart. He acknowledges that these appeals place his doctrine at great disadvantage. But he insists that this is in consequence of the wickedness of the hearts of men, and reminds us of the declaration of the Bible, that "the heart is desperately wicked." My friend is evidently in the fog in regard to this matter. If my appeal was to the wicked feelings of men-if the sympathy aroused against the doctrine of endless punishment and in favor of Universal Salvation, was the fruit of the predominance of sinful and depraved passions, as were some of the appeals he mentioned in his last speech-there would then be some ground for the conclusion he has drawn. But the Elder and the world well know

*See p. 406