MR. AUSTIN. If the brother is going back to the first question, I must claim the privilege of replying.

Ma. HOLMES.-I am not going back to the first question, being quite satisfied with the discussion as it stands: I am simply ex plaining the bearing of remarks made in my opening speech, and which refer to the whole discussion.

My friends, if Universalism be an error, it is one of no ordinary character. It is one of the most heaven daring and fatal heresies to be found in the religious world. It is directly antagonistic to every fundamental doctrine of the Bible, and every principle of Gol's moral administration. There are differences of opinion existing on some points amongst those of the evangelical school, but they do not unsettle the foundations of religion and morality, nor disrupt the bonds of christian fellowship. If the system of salvation I advocate be erroneous, it detracts nothing from public or private morality, or from the interest and happiness of man in this life, nor does it hazard their souls in the world to come. Not so Universalism. If it be false, it is fatally false: it cuts men loose from all saving influence-it wrecks the spiritual interests and hopes of men for both worlds, and wo to the man who makes it his religious trust; such being the character of the gentleman's theory, it becomes us to proceed with caution in the discussion of this question, on the support of which the whole fabric of Universalism depends.

Mr. Austin has told us that his doctrine has a direct moral influence on the minds of men-especially in preserving them from scepticism. How does this appear? If to be confirmed in a notion directly subversive of christianity, is to be saved from skepticism, I will not dispute the claim. Most men wish to observe at least, a show of respect for religion, for worldly and selfish ends, though they may at the same time despise it in their hearts. How are such men saved from scepticism? They may be saved from an open avowal of the infidelity of their hearts: but they maintain an inward hostility to every thing like true religion, in both principle and practice. If they can get some form, or profession of religion, that will allow them to retain their enmity of heart to divine truth, they are ready to put it on and wear it. Universalism saves men from scepticism, if at all, by furnishing them with a few scriptural epithets, and evangelical phrases, as a sort of fig-leaf covering for the baldness of their infidelity. But such are the worst of infidels. A pretended friend, is more dangerous than an open enemy. I can honor the independence, though I may pity the delusion of the man who rejects christianity entirely; he gives some evidence of hon esty, however mistaken; but he who pretends friendship for the Bible, and yet, robs it of its truths-he who professes love for the Savior, and yet Judas like, betrays him into the hands of sinners, is entitled to no credit, either for his independence or religion. All honest minds are disgusted with such trickery and double dealing.

And is not this a characteristic of Universalism? A gentleman, a resident of this place, met me on the sidewalk yesterday, and reinarked that he had learned something new since the commencement of this discussion: he had lived in the midst of Universalisma for many years, but was not aware until now, that Universalists rejected the atonement. Here is proof that the teachers of this system do sometimes talk like christians, though they believe like sceptics. And yet my friend says his theory saves men from scepticism !!!

The question now under discussion reads as follows:-Is

THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR BELIEVING THAT ALL MEN WILL

BE FINALLY HOLY AND HAPPY? The affirmative of this question is defended by my friend, and to sustain it, is essential to the existence of his system. If this proposition be not sustained to a certainty: if there be any, even the least defect, in any one link of that chain of argument which the gentleman shall present: that very defect, which of course creates a possibility that the system may not be true-is a sufficient reason why every man who values his religious interests, should repudiate the whole theory as unworthy of his confidence. A mere probability that the proposition affirmed by Mr. Austin, is true, will not answer the purpose. It must be established with the force of a demonstration, of so clear a character, that the human mind can rest upon it with certainty. The truth of this proposition is certain-or it is uncertain. If uncertain-then all who hang their hopes of heaven upon it, are in the same proportion uncertain, whether they will ever be saved at all, since, by depending on this system, they repudiate every saving gospel truth. And now I take it upon me to say, here in my place, that the gentleman, so far from demonstrating the truth of his doctrine, cannot establish a reasonable probability that it is true. Indeed, Universalists themselves are doubtful of the soundness of their arguments. To show this, it is only necessary to advert to the fact, that they employ different and discordant processes to arrive at the same conclusion. One says, the doctrine is made out in this way. No, says another, I do not like that course of argumentation, it is better and more conclusively made out in this way: and often the same advocate blows hot and cold with the same breath, and pulls down with one hand what he builds up with another. The gentleman has now started upon his course of argument, and if I do not show him contradictory in his proofs, before we finish the question, I will frankly acknowledge, that in one respect I have been mistaken. I am here reminded of a remark of the gentleman, respecting my own denomination-"that it is much divided on vital points." I deny this, there is not one word of truth in it.

MR. AUSTIN.-Not his denomination-I said his class of evangelical theologians.

MR. HOLMES.-He referred to my denomination in particular, and thus far my remark applies. I will leave others to defend themselves from this allegation, if any defence be necessary: but so far as relates to my own communion, the assertion is not true. There is scarcely division enough on “vital points" to create a single ripple on the surface of that sea of peace and unity, which mirrors forth the doctrinal fellowship of the denomination. There has been some contention and division on the subject of slavery and abolition, and I hope it will continue until the last vestige of this abomination is swept from the land. (MR. AUSTIN: Amen!) I showed, in a former speech, what sort of fellowship and unity may be found in the brotherhood of Universalism, on vital points: and I now ask if there is any division or contention in that community on the question of slavery? I believe not-at least I have heard of none-and we may account for it in two ways:-that there are no Universalists at the south-or, if there are, the question of ethics has not received sufficient attention to produce a conflict on the moral bearings of slavery.

As on the question already discussed, I was left in full possession of all my arguments-so on this question, I intend to take from Mr. Austin every argument he shall bring forward. If I omit any one, it will be through inadvertence. I shall not tell you at the close of the discussion on this question, that I have not had time to devote to the subject.

If my friend's arguments are too strong for me, and I find I cannot remove them, I will not make a lame attempt to excuse myself, by whining about the want of time. I have no idea that the gentleman will present any thing new on this question: he will pursue the old beaten path-present the same stereotyped arguments, brought forward a thousand times, and as often refuted: and I intend, on this occasion, to fully and entirely refute them, or at least weaken them, to an extent that will suffice to overturn the proposition they are brought to support.

As the gentleman maintains the inevitable final salvation of all men, I wish him to tell us what he means by salvation, when it is effected, where and how it is effected. Especially is he bound to tell us what salvation is. Of what use is all his declamation, all his rhetorical flourishes respecting salvation, the attributes, intention, desire and will of God, and all that catalogue of phrases used by him to indicate the track of his argument?-this is of no sort of value, until we know what salvation is. Let him first define the terms of the question, with the same frankness that I did, when I opened the debate on the other proposition. Let him tell us what men are saved from, how they are to be saved, and when, whether in this life, or the future world. These are questions which I now put to Mr. Austin; they lie at the very foundation of this question, nor can it be properly discussed unless they are answered. I wish also to know whether the final holiness and happiness for which

he contends, is effected by Christ and his gospel, or by some other agency. Is Christ and his gospel, necessary to that final condition of the human race which my friend affirms to be enevitable, or not? If not, I wish him to say so-to commence with such a declaration, and not talk of Christ as the Savior of men in their final state, when in fact he has no part nor lot in the matter.

If Mr. Austin does not answer these questions, I beg the audience to note it, and to remember that his non-committalism arises from the indefensible nature of his cause. The subject is beset with difficulties and absurdities, which he does not wish exhibited before this congregation. I say, the gentleman is afraid to explain himself on these points. I will now attend to my friend's arguments; commencing with the first, which is, that all men will be finally holy and happy, because "God desires it." God desires the salvation of all men. Well, so far as the terms of this argument are concerned, I have no objection to offer. I perfectly accord with him in the simple fact that God desires the happiness of all his creatures. And this desire has no exclusive reference to their final state; it applies to man's present state, and is as strong with respect to men in this world, as any other world, or state of being where they may exist. There are as many elements in the desire of God now, as there ever will be, and these elements are as efficient now, as they ever will be; they are as powerful and controlling in their influence now, as they ever will be. God's desire is therefore as absolute now, as it ever will be, and nothing can be unconditionally predicated of the desire of God in the future state, beyond what is effected by it in this life.

And now I ask, is the desire of God absolute in regard to hu man salvation in this life? If so, why are not all men holy and happy now? God gives the clearest proof that he desires the salvation of men here, by the revelation of his word, the gift of his son, and the means he employs to restore them to himself; and yet all men are not saved-thousands reject and despise the offers of salvation, and "wax worse and worse," the longer they live. How will the gentleman explain this, if salvation depends on the desire of God? Does he say these characters are not saved now, because they reject the gospel? This is giving up his argument, which makes salvation depend on the absolute desire of God; besides, the very same reason may prevent their salvation hereafter. The gentleman has absolutely no escape from this difficulty, except by proving that God's desire will be stronger, and more irresistible hereafter, than it is now, and will be more absolute with regard to one class of men than another. If he can do this show that the desire of God has moral power when applied to the future world, which it does not possess in its application to this life-then there will be some foundation for his argument, and not before. This he will not be able to do; we challenge him to the trial. To effect it, he must disprove the immutability of God,

and overturn the argument from the analogy of the divine government. And even then, the work will be but half done. "He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned," is the general proposition of christianity. This is God's plan of salvation; it must therefore explain the nature of his desire. If God desires the salvation of all men, it is in consistency with this plan, which involves conditions to be performed by sinners. To desire the salvation of men in any other way, would be to subvert the gospel which provides salvation. Again, God's government is moral, and his intelligent creatures are moral agents; and as the principles of his government, and the constitution of his subjects are changeless, the moral results which men experience under the divine government, do not flow from the desire of God in itself considered, but from the harmony of the divine administration, considered with respect to moral and responsible agents. Hence, God's desire that the human race may be saved, must equadrate with the constitution of man, and the constitution of his own gov

ernment.

We conclude, therefore, that though God desires the salvation of all men in heaven, that desire does not, in itself, create any degree of certainty that all men will be finally holy and happy.

Moreover, this conclusion is still farther strengthened by the existence of vice of every degree and form; and the thousand occurrences, which God neither desires nor approves. How often has God said to the children of men, "do not that abominable thing which I hate," and yet they did it. But if they did what he hates, then he neither willed nor desired it. If the desire of God controls, absolutely, the results of men's actions in regard to themselves, it controls the actions also: but this would remove responsibility from man-make God the direct author of all sin in the universe, and contradict his own published declarations.

My reply to the gentleman's argument on the desire of God, may be summed up thus:

1. God's desire is not absolute, but contingent-hence does not exert any absolute control over the final destinies of men.

2. The government of God is moral-and men are moral agents, and must be condemned or justified, saved or lost, on the principles of moral law, considered with respect to moral agency.

3. If men are considered as not under the law, but under grace, the question is not changed, since the gospel of grace affords relief to the sinner only on condition of repentance.

4. The desire of God does not subvert, but must move in har mony with his government-his gospel-and the constitution of

man.

5. If the desire of God should be regarded as absolute and unconditional, in its moral and controlling power, it would not assure us of the final holiness and happiness of all men, inasmuch as it does not produce the holiness and happiness of all men in this