ginning of the argument. But again: "It is sown in weakness: it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body-it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.” And so it is written: "the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”—[Time expired. I will resume the subject, at this point, in my next speech.

[MR. RICE'S FIRST REPLY.]

I hope, my friends, we shall have the silent and solemn attention of this very large audience; for unless there be entire stillness, it will be impossible that the speakers can be heard.

This discussion, as many of you are aware, did not originate with me, but was entered upon in consequence of a challenge from my zealous friend, Mr. Pingree, whose delight it seems to be to propagate, as extensively as possible, his modern faith. I am happy, however, in having the opportunity to meet the gentleman, because the public have been certified by a prominent clergyman of the Universalist church, that he enjoys the entire confidence of his denomination, both laity and clergy—that they regard him not only as my equal, but as decidedly my superior. I have the right, therefore, to conclude, that, should he prove unable to sustain the principles of Universalism in this discussion, his failure must be attributed not to the weakness of the man, but to the indefensibleness of his cause.

The question about to be discussed, has been stated. Mr. Pingree undertakes to prove, that the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. I agree with him in regarding the subject as one of incalculable importance-a subject, consequently, which claims from every one a candid and prayerful investigation: for surely it is not the true interest of any human being to be deceived on a subject involving his eternal happiness.

There are two or three points in which the gentleman and myself agree, viz: 1. That the question before us is to be determined by an appeal simply to the Scriptures.

The question is-"Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men?" 2. That holiness is an essential pre-requisite to happiness; and consequently, none can be saved unless they become holy. 3. That all who are converted to God and sanctified in the present life, will be saved. On these three points we agree; but on the following, we differ, viz: Mr Pingree maintains, that all those who die in their sins, will be ultimately holy and happy. He does not, indeed, contend that they will be made happy in their sins; for, as already remarked, we agree that holiness is essential to happiness. But he does affirm, that all who die in their sins, unreconciled and unsanctified, will be made ultimately both holy and happy. This I deny: and here we join issue.

Let it be distinctly understood, then, that what the Scriptures say of the salvation of those who are reconciled and sanctified, in this life, proves nothing for Universalism. Since we both agree that all such will be saved, it will be necessary for Mr. Pingree to prove that those who die in sin will, after death, be reconciled and sanctified. Strictly speaking, I have nothing to prove; I have only to show the fallacy of his reasoning, and that he does not prove his proposition-that the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men. Still, however, I expect to establish two important truths, viz: 1. That the Scriptures teach the doctrine of future punishment— a punishment after death. 2. That that punishment will be eternal. The reason why I discuss the subject thus, will probably appear hereafter.

Since Mr. Pingree denies all future punishment, I hope he will rely simply on his own principles, and not attempt to sustain himself by resorting to those of the Restorationists, who admit the doctrine of future punishment, but deny that it will be eternal.

But before entering upon the argument, I must protest against the attempt of my friend, Mr. Pingree, to dictate to me concerning the course I am to pursue in this discussion. He tells you, it will not do for me to overturn his doctrine by proving the truth of the opposite doctrine, but that I

must follow him, step by step; and, after having answered each of his arguments, I may present such as I have to offer; and, if he has time, he will attend to them. Do not mathematicians often disprove a proposition by proving the opposite to be true? I may prove a doctrine false, either by directly assailing the argument on which it depends, or by establishing the truth of the opposite doctrine. Both modes are legitimate. Mr. Pingree undertakes to establish the doctrine that all men will be saved. May I not disprove this, by proving that some will be lost? And if I establish the truth, that some will be lost, have I not refuted his doctrine, whether I follow him or not? If I prove the truth of the opposite doctrine, the question is settled forever, according to admitted principles of reasoning. I intend, however, to follow the gentleman, and to answer all the arguments he may offer.

The Gospel, he informs us, teaches Universalism; and he has given us some information concerning the history of this doctrine. I am glad that he has touched on this subject. The great design of the Gospel, it seems, was to teach the doctrine of Universalism-the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men; and yet this most momentous truth, he informs us, was very soon lost sight of, and for many long centuries the Christian church was enveloped in gross darkness. Only here and there a solitary individual, it would seem, caught even a distant glimpse of the most prominent and most important doctrine of the word of God! It is indeed remarkable, that, from the earliest period of the Christian era to which history can take us back, till the memorable year A. D. 1818, not a Universalist of the modern school appeared on earth! And, strange as it may appear, the father of modern Universalism now lives in Boston! We cannot help wondering, that, during eighteen centuries, the most important as well as the most prominent doctrine of the Gospel, should have been lost sight of by the whole Christian church!

Luther and Calvin, the gentleman says, did not renounce all error. No; for if Universalism be true, they failed

to discover any portion of the truth; and all Christendom is in a similar predicament. For, until very recently, they have held not one doctrine in common with it, except the doctrine of the resurrection; and even in regard to this, the Universalists differ materially from almost all others. We are, then, forced to the conclusion, that if Universalism be true, the whole Christian world have been, for eighteen centuries, ignorant of the fundamental principles of the Gospel! On this subject I may have something more to say presently.

I was gratified to hear from the gentleman an outline of the faith of Universalists; but I regret that his statement was so perfectly indefinite. Universalists, he says, believe in one God, the Father of all. Very well. They also believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. But who is the Lord Jesus Christ? What is his character? On this most important point, Universalists differ infinitely from almost the whole Christian world. They believe him to be a created, dependent being—a MERE MAN; whilst the overwhelming mass of the readers of the Scriptures have believed him to be truly God, as well as man. Again: Universalists, he says, believe in the Holy Spirit of grace. But who or what is meant by the Holy Spirit? Here again Universalists differ infinitely from the faith of the Christian church in all ages; for they deny his personality and divinity. Universalists also believe in rewards and punishments; but they believe that every man suffers all that his sins deserve in the present life, and that none are to expect rewards of righteousness hereafter. Thus we discover, that although the Universalist creed, as given by Mr. Pingree, would seem to differ but little from the views of Christians generally, there is in truth infinite difference.

"The question to be discussed, was stated clearly by the gentleman. I do not object to his explanation of the word "ultimate." I am not so clear, however, about the word "salvation." He told us he did not believe in a salvation of men in sin. Nor does he believe in a salvation from exposedness to endless misery; for he denies that

men are exposed to such misery. Nor does he believe in salvation from merited punishment; for he maintains, that all are in fact punished precisely as they deserve. I desire, then, to know from what this salvation delivers men, since it does not deliver them from merited punishment here or hereafter. We know that the word salvation signifies deliverance from evils to which men are justly exposed. Mr. Pingree says, it is deliverance from sin. But, I ask, are men exposed to sinning eternally? I hope the gentleman will inform us whether he believes that men are exposed to sinning forever. If they are not, the salvation in which he believes is not an eternal salvation. If he says they are, I shall be prepared to consider his salvation.

He further informs us, that this salvation is from suffering. What suffering, I ask? Not the suffering to which men are exposed in this life; for he expressly told us, that they suffer as much as their sins deserve. Nor is it salvation from suffering hereafter; for the gentleman denies that men are exposed to suffering after death. From what suffering, then, does this salvation deliver men?

But this is a salvation from death, he informs us. From what death, I ask? From natural death? No; for all do actually suffer this. Is it, then, salvation from eternal death? No; for he says, men are not exposed to death hereafter. How, then, are men saved from death in eternity, to which they are not exposed? From what death, I emphatically ask, does this salvation deliver them? will the gentleman enlighten us on this subject? The fact is if Universalism is true, there is no such thing as salvation. Men endure all the suffering to which they are exposed, and, consequently, are saved from nothing, either in this world or in the world to come! I am truly glad that Mr. Pingree attempted to define the important word salvation. It throws light upon his system of doctrine!

He informs us, that it is his purpose to offer a few, and only a few arguments, clear and strong, which he most earnestly invites me to answer; and most cheerfully will I do it.

The doctrine he undertakes to maintain, is that in