cording to my doctrine of salvation from punishment, he might slay this whole congregation with impunity. Let us first see what would be the state of the case according to his doctrine. He teaches that punishment is in no sense an evil to the sinner. If not, then it must be a blessing-a blessing which corresponds in magnitude with the turpitude of the crime; hence punishment on his principles, furnishes no motive either to avoid the crime or escape the punishment; or, if we suppose, according to another declaration of his, that God punishes only to reform, and that the amount of punishment it takes to produce repentance, is just the amount the sinner deserves for his crimes. From this it would follow, as the least amount of punishment might lead to repentance, so the least possible quantity would suffice to atone for the crime of slaying the whole audience. How would the case stand according to the views which I advocate? Suppose the crime referred to, to be committed; I say to the murderer: "Sir, you have committed a crime of dreadful turpitude! you have not merely violated your relations to man; you have broken the great, infinite moral law of Jehovah you cannot escape the penalty of the law in this life, the law of man-much less can you escape the penalty of the divine law, which says, thou shalt not kill, without repentance. You are now under the condemnation of law, both human and divine. The penalty of human law, which is the death of the body, you must suffer. The penalty of the divine law, which is death, both of body and soul, you can only escape by repentance so genuine and thorough, that God, who knows the heart, shall be pleased to grant you a pardon through Jesus Christ."

But according to Universalism, the murderer would have no motive to avoid the crime or the punishment, because the punishment is a blessing. Or if he should wish to escape the punishment after the criminal deed is done, he can effect his purpose by repentance, and so far as relates to the divine law, the crime is expiated. There is however, one penalty, that of human law, which cannot be averted in this way: and should the criminal doubt whether this punishment would be a blessing, he may escape it by murdering the sheriff, and putting an end to his own life, and thus transfer himself from the hands of the executioner, to the Paradise of God.

Here you see the difference between my friend's doctrine and mine on this point: and to make that difference still plainer, as also, to prove that the idea of salvation from punishment does not remove a sense of moral obligation from the minds of men, please attend to the following statements: 1. Every man is under a state of punishment in this life, (though connected with offers of mercy,) up to the time he repents and believes in Christ, and this embraces all that Mr. Austin contends for as punishment to the full extent of his deserts. 2. If he never repents he will never be saved, and never cease to be punished. 3. His repentance and faith in Christ will not save him from punishment, unless it produces a thorough re

formation of life. 4. And this reformation of life supposes a restitution to the full extent of his ability. 5. If he abides not in Christ he forfeits the benefit of the pardon he has already received. Yet he told the young men last evening, that they must not believe this doctrine; that it was an awful thing to have faith in Christ to such an extent as to believe that they may be saved by him from sin in this life: or to allow their minds to be impressed with the belief that they might by repentance, faith in Christ, and thorough reformation, escape the moral consequences of sin. An awful thing indeed!! Let me ask the young men of this assembly-would it be deleterious to your happiness to believe that you can by faith in Christ now have full pardon for all your past sins, on condition that your faith produces thorough reformation of life. Having sinned against God and your own best interests, and feeling a conviction of your wretchedness so keenly as to extort the cry-“0 · wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death;" would it detract from your happiness to believe that "Christ is able to save you to the uttermost"-to deliver you from inward and outward sin-to give you an abiding sense of pardon from God-to enable you to walk in communion with him, and have grace to perform good works, and lead a holy life until your earthly pilgrimage should terminate? This is what Mr. Austin calls an awful thing!!!

My friend charges a demoralizing tendency on my doctrine, a point at which his own theory, is so vulnerable, that I regret his introducing it. I deprecate the necessity of going into personalities, and for the present I will only say, show me one clear case of reformation by the belief that the sinner may experience in his own person the full penalty of his sins in this life, and does so experience it as he goes along, for his sabbath-breaking, swearing, drunkenness, or any vice that may be named, and I will show you ten clear cases where this doctrine has had the contrary tendency. I do not doubt that there are some Universalists who are good citizens, and moral men, but they are so in spite of the tendencies of their doctrine. It is because they are restrained by other influences, that their hearts are better than their theology. But I can point you to scores of examples that have come under my own observation, of men who believing that they were now sinners and might now be forgiven, have forsaken their sins, believed in Christ, obtained pardon, and ever after led pious and devout lives, in the fear of God, and with an eye single to his glory. According to the tendency of Mr. Austin's remarks last evening, we should sup pose all Universalists to be perfect pinks of purity. I do not wish to institute a comparison between the moral condition of Universalists and others, but if Mr. Austin wishes to pursue the subject in that direction, I can give him chapter and verse to his heart's content.

The disposition Mr. Austin makes of my quotations to sustain

the position that gospel salvation embraces deliverance from just and deserved punishment, is singular enough. All will recollect that those passages were most positive-that there were no ifs, or ands, about them-that they declared in so many words, that God did in certain cases, punish less than the iniquities of sinners deserved. His explanation of these passages was preceded by such a flourish of trumpets, that my curiosity was not a little excited! I began to think perhaps my friend has discovered some new and unlooked for method of evading the force of those plain and positive declarations. Well, after securing the attention of all, and creating great anxiety to hear, he brings out the denoument; and what was it? Why, those persons were smarting under the inflictions of divine punishment, and really supposed they had been punished less than they deserved! O wonderful discovery!! But for the fact that it is the old stereotyped exposition of Universalism, I should certainly recommend my friend to obtain a copy-right. What miserable quibbles the advocates of Universalism are obliged to resort to, to give their theory, even the semblance of truth! Who but a Universalist would have invented such an interpretation of these passages; and what system but Universalism, requires such a species of theological jugglery? How absurd—“ smarting under the inflictions of divine justice, they conclude they have been punished less than they deserve." The gentleman is fond of reasoning from the family circle to the government of God, when it suits his purpose. Does he find anything in the paternal government to confirm this chimerical notion? Does the disobedient and perverse child, smarting under the inflictions of the rod, deduce from his punishment, the conclusion that he has not been punished half enough?

I will next notice the gentleman's scripture proofs for the doctrine that God never forgives punishment. He presented a list of passages which go to say, that "God will render to every man according to his deeds," and that "there is no respect of persons with God." All this I cordially admit. So far from denying this, I laid it down at the commencement of this debate, as one of the five principles which govern the administration of law, and divine punishment, that when the law is violated, there is no power in the sinner to escape the punishment, nor does the law itself provide a remedy. Mr. Austin has not taken the slightest notice of these principles, and yet undertakes to prove from scripture what I not only admit, but took considerable pains to state in a clear and concise manner that God "will render to every man according to his works." Here we have another of my friend's controversial tricks. In the same connection, I stated that the penalty of the law would be inflicted upon the sinner to the full extent of his deserts, unless the law-giver, or governmental power should resort to some expedi ent that would satisfy justice, and support good government, while the sinner becomes the subject of clemency. I further stated that

this expedient is found in the gospel, and doctrine of atonement. The sinner can only escape through Christ, who is the propitiation for sins, "to declare the righteousness of God in the remission of sins that are past-that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." My friend attempts to sustain his argument against me, and to prove that God never forgives in the sense of remitting punishment, by those passages of scripture which declare that every man shall receive "according to his ways," and that God will by no means clear the guilty." The fallacy of this argument lies in supposing these declarations absolute, and unconditional, whereas they are all associated with conditions, expressed or implied. To be convinced of this, it will only be necessary to consider two or three of them, as examples of the rest. Take the passage from Proverbs-"though hand join in hand the wicked shall not be unpunished:" the same verse adds-" but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered:" Delivered from what? Why, from the punishment inflicted on the stubborn and wilful, who join hands in their course of iniquity. Equally easy is it to dispose of the passage taken from Exodus 34th chapter. "The Lord God, merciful and gracions, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." The plain meaning of this passage is, that those who repent and turn to God by reformation and submission to his will, shall obtain his pardoning mercy, while those who persevere in their guilty course, will be held responsible and punished accordingly. So Moses understood it at the time, for he immediately bowed before God and said

“O Lord, pardon our iniquity, and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance." Jeremiah says "God will give every man according to his ways:" but the same prophet also declares, God will pardon the iniquity of his people, when they return to him. Isaiah encourages the "wicked man to forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts," from the consideration, that if he does so, "God will abundantly pardon" him. The guilty are those who are not only sinful, but persist in their course, rejecting the offers of reconciliation: and the above passages prove that for such there is no escape: but they prove with equal clearness, that those who repent and forsake sin, shall find a free and full pardon. Thus you see, the whole strength of my friend's scriptural argument rests on a perversion of certain texts of scripture, concerning whose meaning he assumes everything and proves nothing.

One point more. Mr. Austin attempts to involve me in difficulty on the ground that I teach the justification of the ungodly; and he quotes against me a passage which declares: "He that justifies the ungodly is an abomination to the Lord." The doctrine of this passage is, that he who justifies, or encourages the ungodly to continue ungodly, or persevere in his rebellion, "is an abomination to the Lord." But this is a very different thing from the justification

of the repenting sinner by the faith of Christ, and he knows it: and yet it afforded him an opportunity to exhibit that peculiar artifice for which he is so distinguished, and as usual, he improved it. As to justifying the ungodly, I wish it to be distinctly understood by this audience, that I teach that he who is now ungodly, may if he will repent, and by faith receive Christ as his present Savior, be justified, or acquitted from guilt and condemnation, and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." If Mr. Austin is disposed to dispute this, he must settle the question with Luke and Paul. Acts xiii. 38.: “And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses." To suit Universalism, this passage ought to read by him we are punished for all things for which we could not be punished by the Law of Moses. Here is the doctrine of justification for the ungodly. The same doctrine is found most clearly in Rom. iii. 25 -26. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; That he might

:

be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." The plain meaning of this passage is, that it was the purpose of Christ in his advent to our world, to open the way through which the sinner might return to God-and by his atonement make it possible for God to justify, pardon, and save the sinner, in harmony with the principles of justice. Besides, I should be glad to know who are to be justified if the ungodly are not. Not the godly, certainly, for they need no justification. The ungodly alone are proper subjects of justification. Christ "came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." If you wish proof still more directly in point, you may find it in Rom. iv. 4-5.: “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."-[Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S FIFTH REPLY.]

Brother Moderators :-The audience, and the public generally, will of course understand that it is impossible, in a debate of this description, during the limited time allotted to the speaker, to notice all the assertions that may be made by an opponent. As for inyself, I shall endeavor in the best exercise of my judgment to take up such arguments and declarations of my friend opposite as I deem the most important. In regard to those I do not notice, I beg to be understood as omitting them, simply because they are least worthy of attention; and because, moreover, I can safely trust the good sense of an enlightened public to detect their fallacy. If my brother on the other side, can do better than this-if he can find an opportunity to notice all I shall say against his system, during this discussion he assuredly shall have the advantage of it.