them from its solid base, or weakened it in the slightest degree? Julge ye who have intelligence, discrimination and candor!

I beg the audience to remember, Jehovah is infinitely PERFECT in all his Attributes. He will not deny his own nature-he will not contra lict the promptings of his great moral characteristics--he will not violate the dictates of his Love, his Goodness, his Justice, his Mercy-he will not forever perpetuate sin and wretchedness, which are the direct opposites of his own nature-the antipodes of his Holiness and his Benevolence. It is the first prompting of reason, that in a creation formed, governed, and sustained, by an infinitely perfect Deity, however temporary evil may be allowed, for wise reasons to exist for a season, yet nothing can be perpetuated FOREVER, but that which fully agrees with all the characteristics of that Deity. This proposition is so self-evident, that no man will hazard his reputation for common sense, so far as to deny it. In agreement and support of this proposition, all my Arguments have been framed; while every Argument of my opponent, so far as it has had any bearing on the question, has aimed directly to overthrow it. Indeed, he could hope for success only on the destruction of the self-evident statement I have just laid down. He can erect the superstructure of his faith alone on the ruins of God's Moral Government, and the imperfection of his Attributes! The question is his, only as he has succeeded in showing that Deity will forever sustain in existence that which is in eternal OPPOSITION to his Desire, Intention, Will, Purpose, Wisdom, Power, Love, Benevolence, Justice, Mercy, and every attribute and perfection pertaining to the Godhead. If he has been successful in establishing this fact, then he has proved his doctrine. But in that case, how much of God would be left? How much of any quality or power that can inspire the slightest confidence or trust in the human heart, or give the least foundation for rational hope, would remain in Jehovah?

ness.

Throughout the debate on this question, Elder Holmes has acknowledged that it was God's Desire, Intention, Will and Purpose, to bring all mankind ultimately to a state of holiness and happiHis Goodness, his Benevolence, every moral perfection of his nature, prompted to this glorious and heavenly work. I have shown that to accomplish it, two qualities in Jehovah were requisite, viz: Wisdom to arrange a plan, and Power to carry it into execution. Can any believer doubt the existence of these Attributes? All acknowledge his Wisdom is infinite. Hence it CANNOT err in adopting such a plan as shall be perfectly adapted to pro luce this great and desirable result! All admit that his Power, both spiritual, moral and physical, is Omnipotent-overwhelming -irresistible!! It must necessarily be able to carry into complete execution, all the plans that Wisdom originates! The very fact that a plan is formed by Infinite Wisdom, is self-evident proof that it is PRACTICABLE, and CAN be accomplished. And that

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, all 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 elther 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 cloth. ed 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 a 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,

in combatting the great principles which support the doctrine of Universal Salvation-a doctrine which even its most virulent enemies admire and love!! But after all, what has he done? After exhausting all the skill, logic, art, shrewdness, tact and sophistry, with which nature has endowed him, or that experience has taught him, what is the result? Has he succeeded in convincing one individual who was a Universalist, that there is not "sufficient evidence for believing that all men will be finally holy and happy?” He cannot himself believe this. Has he satisfied those who sympathize in sentiment with himself, that he has in fact overthrown, or in any material sense, weakened either of the Nineteen Arguments which have been introduced in support of the Affirmative of this question? Has he satisfied them that those plain and emphatic declarations of the Bible, which assert that God will not cast off forever, and will not contend forever, mean he WILL cast off and contend forever? Or that those passages in which Jehovah says he WILL have mercy on all, and WILL save all, mean he will NOT have mercy on all, and will NOT save all? I doubt whether he will even claim to have yielded this satisfaction to his most sanguine friends.

Elder Holmes has introduced eight propositions, which he denominates Negative Arguments. They are as follows: 1. Universalism denies the existence of sin as a moral evil. 2. It makes God the author of all sin. 3. It is confused and contradictory in its proofs. 4. According to its teachings, there is no such thing as salvation. 5. It teaches that the soul is mortal. 6. It denies future punishment. 7. The scripture passages relied upon by Universalists, do not establish the unconditional and ultimate salvation of all men. 8. It is a new discovery. These are the best things-the ONLY things-the ALL—that a man of the shrewdness and talent of Rev. David Holmes, could possibly obtain in the whole realm of thought, to urge against the doctrine of boundless grace and impartial salvation. I call upon the audience to consider the nature of these Negative Arguments, and their applicability to the subject under consideration. However logical or weighty an argument may be, if it has no bearing on the question in debate, of what avail its introduction? Here is the fatal defect in my opponent's Negative Arguments. With a single exception, there is not one of the whole eight, that has in reality, the slightest connection with the subject under discussion. I have said there is one exception. It is the seventh argument, viz: The scripture passages relied upon by Universalists, do not establish the unconditional and ultimate salvation of all men." Were this position based on correct premises, and sustained by satisfactory proof, it would, of course, seriously weaken the affirmative of the question. But unfortunately for its author, its premises, and its assumptions, are wholly groundless. I have already shown that Universalists do not quote any scripture passages, to prove the "unconditional"

salvation of all men, for the very good reason that we do not believe in unconditional salvation. And all the arguments and propositions he has male to hinge on that supposition, fall to the ground. Our belief is, that salvation is experienced by the soul, only on compliance with the conditions laid down in the gospel. But we believe all will be saved, because all will be brought to a compliance with the conditions of salvation. To bring men into a willingness to comply with these gospel conditions, was the work committed to Christ by his Father. This work he will abundantly and certainly accomplish. In due time "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."-(Phil. ii. 10, 11.) The scripture passages which Universalists rely upon, do establish the ultimate salvation of all men. And every attempt of Elder Holmes to weaken them, has proved wholly abortive, as I have shown in my examination of his criticisms.

As to the remaining seven negative arguments, I showed satisfactorily, I trust, as they were introduced, that they were untrue in fact. Universalism does not deny the existence of sin as a moral evil-nor make God the author of sin-nor are its proofs confused-nor does it teach there is no such thing as salvation-nor assert that the soul is mortal-nor deny future retribution-nor is it a new discovery! All this I have made manifest, under the appropriate heads. But even allowing the most important of these objections to be well founded and well sustained, they have no more actual bearing on the question under discussion, than on Mahomedanism or Catholicism! Suppose it was true (as it is not) that Universalism denied the existence of sin, or made God the author of sin, or asserted that the soul is mortal, or denied future retribution-would it necessarily follow that there is not "sufficient evidence for believing that all men will be finally holy and happy?" The merest tyro in logic would laugh at such a deduction. There is no possible connection between the premises and the conclusion of a proposition of this description. There are thousands of people who believe in the immortality of the soul and in future retribution, and yet are open and ardent advocates of Universal Salvation!! I cannot have so wretched an opinion of Elder Holmes' discernment, as to suppose he really believed the majority of his Negative Arguments, actually bore against the affirmative of this question. It was in the indulgence of a poor and pitiable spite against a large and rapidly increasing denomination, that he introduced them. He imagined this discussion would afford him an admirable opportunity to prejudice the ignorant and unreflecting portion of the community against Universalists, by attributing to them sentiments which do as much violence as possible, to generally received public opinion. But in this attempt he has most signally failed. Upon himself alone, he has brought