and remorse-not that we have done that which subjects us to punishment (for the man who experiences genuine repentance, will not seek to avoid punishment, but is glad that it is laid upon him) -but that we have violated laws so wise, holy, pure, good and benevolent; so designed for our own best good, as those of God-a bitter sorrow that we have sinned against, and gained the disapprobation of a being so kind, just and benevolent, as our Father in Heaven! Such a sense of shame and regret as leads us to HATE sin and evil forever after!! This alone is genuine repentance. When the soul experiences this true repentance, God will blot out the remembrance of the sins committed. This is proved by the language of Peter: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."-(Acts iii. 19.) Mark, the language is not-Repent and be converted, that you may be saved from the punishment due your sins, but that your sins themselves, may be blotted out?

What induces true repentance? It is pain, anguish, sorrow-or in other words, punishment, mingled with a sense of the goodness of the being whose wise and benevolent laws we have broken. No man can seriously repent of sin without being strongly convinced of the enormity of the crimes he has committed, by a sense of the goodness, beauty, sublimity and value of the principles he has violated, and of the kindness, equity and benevolence of the God against whom he has sinned. This sense of the nature of his deeds, fills his heart with bitter regret, wrings his soul with cutting anguish, and destroys for the time being, all his peace and happiAnd what is this state of the heart, but punishment, and that too, of the most severe character? What pain can compare with the upbraidings and gnawings of a guilty conscience, filled with a sense of the enormity of crime? Thus, it will be seen, repentance is induced by punishment.

ness!

There are two kinds of punishment-outward, or bodily, and inward, or mental. Outward punishment consists in inflicting pains, sufferings, and chastisements of a physical character-subjecting men to deprivations, losses and afflictions of a worldly nature. This, when faithfully and wisely administered, leads to a deep and mature reflection on the nature and heinousness of the crimes committed, resulting in a conviction of guilt, which leads to a sincere repentance. Such a repentance entitles them to the forgiveness, or blotting out the remembrance of their sins, and a restoration to the favor of God. Thus Jonah speaks of the influence of outward punishment inflicted on him: "When my soul fainted within me, [while enduring punishment in the belly of the whale,] I remembered the Lord, [was brought to reflection,] and my prayer [of repentance] came in unto thee, into the holy temple."—(Jonah ii. 7.) Inward or mental punishment, is that sorrow, regret, and anguish, which is very often experienced by the guilty, without the inflic

tion of outward, or bodily punishment. In such cases, bodily punishment is withheld, being, unnecessary. But still the guilty are punished by that internal anguish which wrings their hearts. The wise parent does not inflict bodily chastisement on a disobedient child, when he sees it truly penitent and sorrowful. But the child goes not unpunished. There is a severe punishment experienced in the anguish which preys upon him, under a sense of his blindness and ingratitude in violating the requirements of a kind, watchful, and provident Father. When the child, however, is stubborn and hardened, and manifests no compunctions, then the bodily punishment is inflicted until sorrow for the crime, and repentance of its wickedness, are induced. Punishment then ceases, having brought that regret of sin, which is its great end and aim.

Thus God sometimes withholds outward punishments, which have been conditionally threatened, when he sees that inward punishment has done its work alone, and induced true repentance. The withholding of outward punishment, does not save from the infliction of inward. Neither is the outward withheld as a reward for repentance. But repentance is the fruit of the inward infliction. Thus the Ninevites were threatened with outward punishmentthe destruction of their city-which was not inflicted. Why? Be cause they were brought to repentance, by that inward punishment that sorrow and grief for sin, which pressed upon them in consequence of a deep sense of their guilt.

It is from considerations of this description, that I insist repentance does not take the place of punishment, or save from punishment, but is the legitimnte effect, the direct result of punishment. Neither does forgiveness or pardon, save from punishment, but is the fruit or reward of repentance. Men are not forgiven because they have been punished, but because they have repented. And repentance is that frame of mind into which the sinful are brought through the infliction of punishment. Thus punishment leads to repentance, and repentance entitles to forgiveness.

Το

In view of these facts, how evident it becomes that the doctrine of salvation from punishment, must necessarily be erroneous. save a sinner from punishment, would be to keep him from repentance; and without repentance, there can be no forgiveness.. From the structure of the human mind, no man can truly repent, without passing through a mental chastisement, which is the severest punishment that can be inflicted on intelligent beings.

The position I have taken on this subject is fully sustained by the scriptures. “They shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."-(Jer. xxxi. 34.) This is true forgiveness -the remembering their sins no more. Weigh the evidence of those passages where both the forgiveness and punishment of the

sinner are declared. "Comfort ye my people, saith your God; speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished-that her iniquity is pardoned; FOR she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins."-(Isa. xl. 2.) Here is both punishment and pardon administered in regard to the same offences-the latter foliowing the former. The Prodigal Son [Luke xv. 11.] was forgiven by his father; but not until he had suffered severe punishment, which brought him to repentance.

I will resume this subject in my next speech.-[Time expired.

[MR. HOLMES' SIXTH SPEECH.]

Gentlemen Moderators:-Mr. Austin repeats the fallacy in regard to escape from punishment, in connection with the remark I made on that point. He says he could slay this whole congregation and then escape from punishment by repenting and believing in Christ; that he would have that in view in committing the crime and could avail himself of the means thus provided for salvation from punishment. Who except Mr. Austin could preserve his gravity while attempting to fix a consequence like that described by him upon the doctrine of salvation from punishment. I am suprised he should exhibit so little knowledge of the principles and elements of gospel salvation. The deliberate calculation which he supposes he might make before hand in regard to repentance and escape from punishment, would itself operate a forfeiture of the grace of repentance and salvation. No man who forms a plan in his own mind to go and commit a crime, to which his depravity would lead him, on supposition that he will be able afterwards to repent, and obtain divine pardon, will be able to carry out his plan: he may commit the crime, but the very fact that he had calculated upon this way of escape beforehand, would deprive him of the power of repentance when he most wished to call it to his aid. The power of repentance, and grant of pardon under such circumstances would, and must be withheld.

Can my friend give me any practical illustrations of the feasibility of his plan, provided it were a reality? I can give him one attempted, but not finished.

I remember reading of a man, who having become weary of the world, and wishing to leave it, did enter into a calculation similar to that described by Mr. Austin. His plan was to commit murder, be apprehended, tried, condemmed, and executed. In the mean time he intended to repent of the crime, seek and secure pardon, and leave the world in a state of preparation for heaven. And that he might not send a fellow being into eternity unprepared, he took the life of an infant. Thus far his plan had been formed with deliberation, and executed with care. But the most difficult part

remained yet to be consummated. He must repent or all is lost. But how shall he acquire power to repent? Alas-he called for it, but it came not at his bidding, and in the deepest despair, and utmost horror of mind he died in prison, before the day of execution arrived. Here we have a case in point showing the impracticability of that scheme of escape from punishment of which my friend speaks, and demonstrating the falsity of his view of the doctrine of salvation from punishment.

In the case of the man shooting the sheriff, Mr. Austin attempts to convict me of a perversion of the doctrine of Universalism. I said a man might commit a crime and then to avoid the penalty of the law might shoot the sheriff and take his own life and escape to Heaven. Whether he would go to Heaven and sing with the saints and angels, would depend upon whether there is any future punishment for those who die without repentance. Mr. Austin refuses to tell us whether he believes in punishment in the future state, and as it is known to be the general doctrine of Universalists that there is no future punishment, the only conclusion we can come to is that the sinner goes into an immediate state of happiness, having freed himself from the penalty of the law by killing himself. If the murderer, and all other classes of sinners do not go to heaven when they kill themselves, or otherwise leave the world, Mr. Austin will confer a favor by informing us where they do go. Let him provide some other place for them before he charges me with preverting the doctrine of Universalism, in saying the murderer, on his principles, ends his own life and transfers himself to the Paradise of God.

I have presented the following argument in proof of salvation from punishment. On the principles of Universalism, sinners must be saved, 1. Before they are punished. 2. At the time they are punished. 3. Or, after they are punished all they deserve. But as all these suppositions involve absurbity-hence if saved at all, they must be saved from punishment. Mr. Austin says I obtained this argument from Luther Lee. Well suppose I did? What does he expect to make out of it? I have read many authors on Universalism, though I have copied none. But has the gentleman derived no assistance from others? he has certainly read Mr. I. D. Williamson, or they have both practiced plagiarism, and drawn their materials from the same book.

The only way in which my friend has attempted to answer the argument given above is by asserting that the last proposition contains a fallacy. But has he told us wherein that fallacy consists? has he pointed it out to us? Not at all-nor can he do so. He assumes the very point in dispute and on that assumption calls the last proposition in my argument a sophistry. What is this point? That God does not save men from their sins without saving them from punishment-that the one cannot be effected in any consistent way without the other following as a consequence, and that

men cannot be saved after enduring all the punishment they deserve. I have called Mr. Austin's attention to this point over and over again, and yet he has not shown this audience how there can be such a thing as salvation from sin without that salvation including with it necessarily a deliverance from punishment. Let him show how this may be done if he can.

The case of Galatians has been referred to again by my friend, but nothing that he has said in reply to my argument has at all removed the position which I took. I have never denied, but there might have been Jews at Galatia-possibly there were, but the apostle was writing to the Gentiles and refers to " the blessing of Abraham" as being brought " upon the Gentiles." Showing that he was there writing to the Gentiles. And this blessing was justification by faith, the very opposite of the curse of the law. Hence to have this blessing, is to be delivered from the curse of the law which existed in the days of Abraham, and certainly before the Levitical Law. Nor was the law given 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, the Levitical Law in its seperate and independant character-it was the moral law of God, published from the top of Sinai, embodied in the ten commandments, embraced in the Mosaic code, amplified and adapted to all the relations of life—so far as made known, constituting the rule of moral action to the whole family of man through out all the periods of their existance, and summed up by our Lord in the following words, "thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart-and thy neighbor as thyself."

As my friend has alluded to Dr. Clarke in connection with his remarks on Gal. iii.-13.-I will give the Doctor's comment on that verse" Christ hath redeemed us"-"hath bought us with a price," viz. his blood or life. Being made a curse for us. Being made an atonement for our sins: for whatever was offered as an antonement for sin, was considered as bearing the punishment due to sin: and the person who suffered for transgression was considered as bearing the curse in his body.

This suggests to me the passage where it is said—" he bore our sins in his own body on the tree." My friend says that the Bible never speaks of forgiveness and punishment both together. I am not sure of the correctness of the remark, not having examined the bible with reference to that point, but allowing that it is so, there is a very good reason for it. The fact is they involve each other -and deliverence from punishment is forgiveness. My friend has furnished us with an exposition of his views of forgiveness and pardon. He has not alluded to any standard, or established definition, that I recollect, wherein he is sustained in any position he has taken in reference to the meaning of these terms. Their definition, as furnished by all standard dictionaries, is directly contradictory to the idea that a man can be forgiven or pardoned, or have his sins remitted without being saved from the punishment which