moral and religious knowledge! Does any man in his senses doubt this? Then all men have power to reform and improve!

My friend declares the reformation of the guilty, is not the whole object of punishment. I have not pretended it is. There is another object, viz: its influence as an example. These two purposes compose the entire design of punishment. Any infliction of pain which aims not at both of these objects, cannot claim to be considered punishment. It is nothing less than retaliation and cruelty. And this is precisely the character of the doctrine of Endless Punishment. Its advocates do not pretend it is designed to induce reformation. It inflicts its pangs simply to torment its wretched victims. As to example, it can furnish nothing of this description. It is not inflicted except in another world, when the condition of those who witness it, according to partialism, is irrevocably fixed either for endless joy or endless woe!! Example there, cannot be of the slightest avail.

In support of his position, that God's punishments are without remedy-i. e. are endless, brother Holmes quotes two passages from Proverbs. The first is from Prov. xxix. 1—“ He that, being often reproved, hardneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Can it be believed by persons of good sense, that in writing this sentence, Solomon designed to convey the idea, that men who do not repent in this life, shall in the next world, be tormented forever! This must have been his meaning, if he used the phrase "without remedy," as my opponent contends he did. To destroy, literally signifies to annihilate. The passage therefore, if considered in a sense strictly literal, would prove, not endless misery, but the total annihilation of the wicked. As it cannot be supposed the word destroy can have this extreme sense, when used by scripture writers, in reference to intelligent and moral beings, it is to be understood as indicating severe punishment. In construing this passage my opponent assumes that the phrase "without remedy," applies to the nature and duration of the punishment. But this cannot be admitted. I insist it applies to the certainty and not the length of the punishment. As though the wise man had said He that, being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be punished, and that without failure!" It was his object to warn the sinful, that when they violate the law of God-when they give way to wicked temptations-they cannot escape the just consequences of their demerit. There is no remedy they can apply to save from punishment-no cunningly devised scheme to allow men to riot in sin, and shift the consequences of their guilt upon an innocent substitute. But on their own heads, will come the just penalty of God's violated law.

The other passage quoted by the Elder, was Prov. i. 28-" Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer. They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." He would have the audience understand, that the scriptures describe this as the lan

guage of Gol. I am painel to say, that a large proportion of that class of clergymen who call themselves evangelical, practice a deception in quoting this passage of scripture and its connection, which is totally beneath the character of a christian minister. The verses immediately preceeding that just given, they usually quote as follows: God says, because I have called and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. Then shall they call upon me, but I will

not answer.

They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." If these clergymen do not always say, in so many words, that God utters this language, they quote it in such a manner as to convey this idea to their hearers. How abhorrent the calumny they thus cast upon the character of the holy God of love, in striving to have the people believe that he will laugh at the torments of his own children, when writhing in endless agony, and MOCK their piteous wailings, and cries of anguish !!! I have said they did this to deceive the people. Is it not so? Can it be possible there is a clergyman in existence, so ignorant as not to know that Solomon represents Wisdom as uttering this language, and not God? It cannot with propriety be contended that Wisdom and God are synonomous in this passage. Wisdom personified, may be considered in a figurative sense, as laughing at the calamities of those who have slighted her counsels, and thereby fallen into sin. Wisdom may well declare that they will call upon her, and seek her in vain, to find any aid to save them from the punishment due their crimes. But to represent the Father of Spirits, as manifesting this deadness, this want of all sympathy for his blinded offspring, is to violate every enlightened conception of his nature and degrade him beneath the most brutal of men!

Mr. Holmes attempts to do something with my first Negative Argument, that Endless Punishment is not found in the Old Testament. But he can find little to urge against it. He inquires how the Old Testament could contradict that doctrine, unless the writers had some idea of it? The doctrine might be contradicted without having any knowledge of its existence, by attributing to God such qualities and characteristics, as would utterly forbid it. But I have no doubt the Jews in Old Testament times, had heard something of such a sentiment. It was believed and proclaimed by the heathen nations all around them, and they had unquestionably heard it advanced and defended by their benighted neighbors. This fact that the heathen who had received no revelation from heaven, believed in Endless Misery, and that the Jews who had been expressly and directly taught by God, wholly rejected it, is full of significence-furnishing as it does, strong corroborative evidence of its falsity! While the Jews did not believe in rewards and punishments in a future world, for the deeds of this

life, they did believe in a state of immortality and endless happiness beyond the grave. This is the opinion of many learned commentators. It is also evident from passages in the Old Testament, which allude in plain terms to existence in another world!

My friend endeavors to show that the Jews believed in future punishment. It should be remembered that there is a vast distinction between future and endless punishment. Many who believe the former, totally reject the latter. But there is not the slightest proof that the Jews had any belief even in future punishment, down to the close of the canonical books of the Old Testament. That they afterwards fell into the grossest errors of heathenism, is admitted. The probability is, they imbibed the Pagan notion of literal torment in another world, in connection with other corruptions by which they became contaminated.

Elder Holmes says he has no confidedce in Dr. Paley, as a theologian, although he thinks he was something of a philosopher. He has no contidence in Dr. Paley, I suppose, because he has strong suspicions Dr. Paley had no confidence in the doctrine of endless punishment. There is the best evidence for believing that this great English philosopher and moralist, was a believer in the salvation of all men. The articles on the Will of God, and the Divine Benevolence, in his Moral Philosophy, are based on the fundamental principles of Universalism. Several incidents in his history, and in his commendation of works advocating the salvation of all men, strengthen the belief that he was a Universalist.

Mr. Holmes engaged in a protracted effort to overthrow my second Negative Argument drawn from the dictates of Reason. This is downrignt desperation. A man who feels himself driven to reason against the exercise of Reason-who is compelled in open day, in the presence of this enlightened audience, to cast disparagement and distrust, upon the highest and noblest capacity infinite Wisdom has bestowed upon human beings-who urges his fellowcreatures to disrobe themselves of the chiefest faculty which distinguishes them from the brute, and trample it in the dust beneath their feet-must be reduced to an extremity pitiable to contemplate! Yet there is a consistency in this wretched attempt, coming as it does, from my opponent. Pledged before this congregation and the world, to advocate a doctrine which violates every dictate of reason, heigth and depth, length and breadth, what can he do, but seek to overthrow that God-like capacity. It is not a matter of choice but of necessity with my poor brother. He must get the people to distrust their reason, or an overwhelming defeat awaits him. This road so low, so dreary, so unpromising, is nevertheless the

The bias of his mind is clearly manifested in the circumstance related by Bishop Watson, that while at College, Paley proposed, and was anxious to discuss and defend the proposition, that Eternal Punishment contradicts the Divine Attributes.

only one in which he can hope to be prospered in this discussion. And I notify my friend, and the public, that success can attend his labors, only in the same ratio that he can induce those who listen and those who will read our debate, to unhinge their reason, lay it aside, and blindly receive all his doctrines, his sophistries, his assertions, unscanned, unquestioned, and undoubted. He of course would not have men reason on thesubject of Religion! For reason is fatal to false systems. It overthrows every theory resting on tradition, superstition, or ignorance. It is exceedingly troublesome in detecting the artful movements of sophistry, in its covet attempts to establish groundless conclusions, or to reach sound deductions from false premises.

The Elder assures us that instead of depending on reason, he shall draw his authority from the Bible. That we should draw our authority from the Scriptures, in regard to all religious matters is unquestionably correct. But of what avail that the Scriptures speak to us, unless we exercise our reason in understanding its language? The Methodist insists the Bible teaches free gra ce and general redemption. The Calvinist contends that it plainly inculcates the doctrine of election and reprobation. One class go to the Bible to prove the endless continuence of sin and misery, and another to establish the doctrine of Universal Salvation. How can men distinguish between these conflicting claims-how detect the true from the false-how determine what the Scriptures do actually teach on these various topics, or on any subject-except through an enlightened exercise of Reason? Reason is not to be placed above the Bible. But it is to be used to enable us to ascertain what doctrines, principles, precepts, duties, are inculcated in the holy word of God.

The gentleman attempts to bring reason into general disrepute, because it is sometimes used in an erroneous manner. He says that Paine, and other sceptics and errorists, claim to draw their theories directly from the dictates of reason. I suppose he is aware there is a broad distinction between enlightened and unenlightened reason. Because the child errs in his attempts to reason, are we to infer there is no dependence to be placed on that noble capacity. True, the sceptic professes to follow reason in establishing his vagaries. But when we come to test his notions, we see this to be a false assumption. Reason does not yield them its sanction in the least. When its true voice is heard, it decides directly against skepticism, and every species of error. Reason is the friend of truth-the foe alone of falsehood. When an individual decries its exercise, as uncertain and unsafe, it is prima facie evidence, that he is seeking to establish false doctrines.

My friend says the heathen have nothing to guide them but reason, yet they believe in Endless Punishment. I am aware that sentiment exists in the midst of the heathen. But so far from obtaining it through the exercise of reason, they have fallen into its

believe from a want of reason. Does not the Elder know that it is one of the cardinal points at which the heathen priest aims, (in which he is innitated by too many professedly christian priests,) to make his dupes believe it is dangerous to reason on the subject of Religion? Does he not know, moreover, that it is only by preventing his followers from exercising their reason on religion, that the promulgators of Paganism succeed in perpetuating their foolish dogma, from age to age. A few rays of the pure light of reason would scatter heathen errors-their plurality of gods-their bloody sacrifices to propitiate the favor of their deities-and their eternal torments-to the winds of heaven !!

Elder Holmes' fourth argument in defence of endless punishment is of a singular compound. It is framed on the Mission of Christ, together with something of an antithetical nature. He attempted a little shrewdness in framing this argument, but unfortunately failed for want of material. It is built, he pretends, on my argument on the Mission of Christ. But I am convinced its real origin is this-that having failed to satisfy himself in his Reply to my argument from the Mission of Christ, and from Antithetical passages of Scripture, he takes this method to improve his answers under the guise of a new argument on the affirmative of this question. He might as well however, allowed the matter to rest as it was. For my life, I cannot see any force in his present effort. The drift of it is, that if Christ had not come to save all men, they would have inevitably have been lost. Suppose I allow this, it would be very far from proving the position which my friend affirns in this debate, viz: that some part of mankind would suffer endless misery. But I do not allow it. The idea that there was but one possible way for God to save his creatures from sin and death, is preposterous, as I have repeatedly shown. Those who thus attempt to cramp the mighty goings forth of the Eternal in the accomplishment of his purposes towards man, to a single path -who insist that there was but one solitary chance to snatch his creatures from the jaws of endless perdition, and that failing, he must be forever robbed of his children, of their obedience, their love, their gratitude, because Omnipotence could do nothing more for them-display a grasp of intellect and perception, of marvellous dimensions!! If there was but one way to save the world, it would be as good as a million to a pefect Deity. In whatever way Infinite Wisdom decides to perform a work, we may be assured it is a sure and perfect way, and that it cannot fail of accomplishment. But there were innumerable ways in which God could have brought his creatures to salvation, had he chosen not to adopt that revealed by Christ,or even had that failed of execution. While there is Goodness in the Divine Nature-Wisdom in the Councils of Heaven-Omnipotence in the Arm of Jehovah-there cannot a reasonable fear exist that he will suffer himself to be defeated in his