pravity? Moreover, what becomes of the article in the Methodist creed, that men are naturally depraved? They both vanish into thin air! Thus, after denying and ridiculing my position, that men are born pure and innocent, he now virtually allows it by asserting that all infants are justified. If they are justified, they are not depraved. Who ever heard of a depraved justified being? If they are not depraved, they must be pure and innocent. But how is it, on his system that infants are justified at birth? He has contended throughout our protracted discussion, that faith was all-essential to justification. Many times he has reiterated this position. Can infants exercise faith? He will not claim this ability for them. Then they cannot be justified, but must be depraved, and when they die, they necessarily fall into endless perdition, according to the admitted rules of orthodoxy. But if infants can be justified without faith, then all men can be justified without faith. The Bible gives us no knowledge of two kinds of justification, or justification on two different principles. The truth is, my friend's views in regard to depravity, are involved in inextricable chaos.

He acknowledges that infants are saved. If on growing to adult years, men become exposed to eternal misery, would it not be much better for all to die in infancy!-and should not parents pray that their children may be removed by death before they cross the dangerous line, that exposes them to an evil so terrible? In this view of the case, the poor crazed mother-crazed by the very doctrines Elder Holmes is advocating in this debate—who a few years since, killed three of her little children, to make sure of their happiness hereafter, acted on principles not so unreasonable as might appear at first sight. And as she undoubtedly believed she could repent, and meet them in heaven, there was at least, on orthodox principles, not a little" method in her madness."

My opponent's eighth argument in the affirmative, is drawn from the moral turpitude of sin. His position is that the heinousness of crime is increased in proportion to the station and dignity of the being against whom it is committed; and the result of his argument is, that as God is infinite, therefore sin is an infinite evil, and deserves an infinite punishment. This is not a strictly safe nor correct rule of judging. If it was, then to steal a pin from a monarch, would be far more heinous than to rob a widow and her orphan children of all their little possessions, and leave them to starve!! But allowing, that to a certain degree, the magnitude of crime is increased by the dignity of the being sinned against-allowing as I do, that sin against a God of infinite goodness, is more heinous than against a fellow-being-this would fall far short of establishing the conclusion that sin is an infinite evil! An offence cannot derive any quality from the natural properties of the being against whom it is committed. An offence against a strong man, does not make it a strong offence, nor against an old man an old offence. It is as absurd to insist that sin is an infinite evil, because

enacted against an infinite God, as it would be to contend that sin is omnipotent, because Deity is omnipotent! The magnitude of acts must be measured by the power and capabilities of their authors. An effect cannot exceed its cause. Man is finite, and all his acts must necessarily be finite. If his sinful deeds are infinite because committed against an infinite God, his good deeds must also be infinite, because enacted in favor of an infinite God. To contend that sin is an infinite evil, is to confound all degrees in crime. The man who defrauds to the amount of one farthing, commits an infinite sin, and of course is as guilty, and deserving of as much punishment, as one who has led a life of rapine and murder. For any number of sins of the blackest hue, cannot amount to anything more than one sin that is infinite. This notion casts disparagement on the Scriptures. What nonsense to insist that every man shall be punished according to his deeds, if they have all alike committed infinite sins!! Thus the position that sin is an infinite evil, and the conclusions drawn from it, are in utter violence of the plainest dictates of moral philosophy and the teachings of the Bible.

The passage quoted from Heb. x. 26, 27, has not the slightest relation to the doctrine in support of which Elder Holmes introduced it. The Apostle was speaking in reference to the rejection of Christ by the Jews. The Creator had sent his only son to become the Mediator between God and man, and the Savior of the world. Jesus had attested to the Jews the divine authenticity of his mission" by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him," in their midst. In the passage under consideration, St. Paul tells them that if they reject the Messiah, under these circumstances, they will subject themselves to the severest punishments of heaven, and that their Levitical rights and sacrifices will avail them nothing by way of escape. The validity of these sacrifices had been done away with. The judgment and fiery indignation of which they were forewarned, consisted in the overthrow and destruction of their temple, city and nation. This is evident from the preceding verse-" And so much the more as YE see the day approaching Dr. Adam Clark says this day" is the time when God would come and pour out his judgments on the Jewish nation." Dr. Clark also says in reference to the "fiery indignation," mentioned by the Apostle-" Probably the Apostle here refers to the case of the unbelieving Jews in general, as in chap. vi. to the dreadful judgment that was coming upon them; and the burning up of their city and temple by fire. To that na

tion therefore, there remained no other sacrifice for sin; therefore the dreadful judgment came; the fiery indignation was poured out, and they, as adversaries were devoured by it." This is the opinion also of Hammond, Lightfoot, Cappe, and the most learned commentators. Yet Rev. David Holmes in the face of these facts, endeavors to make the audience believe the passage has reference

to mankind in general, and to the final condition of men hereafter! Most profound critic!

Elder Holmes' ninth Argument in defence of Endless Punishment, is that it is not opposed to the Moral Attributes of God. It is rather a singular way to frame an affirmative argument in a negative form. But such was its shape as he uttered it in his speech. He is rather famous for this backward way of going forward,'as our hearers will recollect, when reminded that nine of his affirma tive arguments on the first question, were based on negutive principles. In regard to the present argument he thinks facts are all in his favor. It is astonishing how men's perceptive powers become blinded, and their intellect fettered, by man-made creeds! Can it be possible my friend is in earnest, when he declares "facts are all in favor" of this argument!! What facts! I insist that every fact in existence tells with infinite force against it. So far from God's moral attributes granting their sanction in favor of eternal woe, I maintain every attribute pertaining to the Godhead, is arrayed in eternal contradiction to that unholy sentiment. The ground assumed in this argument is wholly unsupported. I challenge Elder Holmes, or any believer in infinite wrath, to show that that sentiment receives the sanction of even one of the attributes of the Most High! Which one will he select? Will any man in his senses maintain that God's Love, Goodness, Benevolence, or Mercy, can approbate the plunging of sentient beings into ENDLESS AGONY, because during the brief years of this life, they became so blinded and deceived as to fall into unbelief and sin? Can the Holiness of the Creator sanction a course of treatment which would result in imortalizing and perpetuating throughout eternity, its opposite, sin and blasphemy? Can God's Justice decide that the deeds of three score years and ten, equitably deserve a punishment that shall endure forever? Can it assent to the position that it is right that beings created without their own consent, should be forced to stand upon a dizzy precipice, where the Creator saw clearly that millions would fall into endless burnings? Can infinite Wisdom yield its sanction to a plan of procedure which will result in fixing in eternal rebellion and woe, vast throngs of beings, each one of whom, under adequate instructions, and influences faithfully and patiently administered, could be made to ascend to light and glory, to holiness and happiness? Not one of these attributes-not one of God's moral characteristics—can be tortured into the approbation of a doctrine so every way awful, and malignant, as the infinite torture of a human being! It violates the first principles of our common sense, to imagine that a perfect Deity would introduce a race of beings into existence, and allow them to run into a condition which would compel him to perpetuate through eternity, every thing in opposition to his holiness, goodness and wisdom!!

The Elder enlightens us in regard to the love of God by the in

formation that it is not a love having neither eyes nor ears!! This is an important annunciation for which we are all bound to feel deeply grateful. Pray, who ever imagined such to be the nature of God's love? The Elder seeks to sunder the love of Omnipotence into two divisions, which he denominates the love of Compassion, and the love of Complacency! Nonsense! To what ridiculous extremes the defenders of a cruel dogma are driven, in their phrenzied attempts to dilute the mighty principle of Infinite Love, and reduce it to-nothing! Do the Scriptures use these senseless phrases when they speak of the love of the Father? Do they divide and sub-divide God's love, and teach that with one kind he blesses men, and with another kind torments them forever? When St. John declared "God is Love," why did he not condescend to inform us whether he is the love of Complacency or the love of Compassion? There is but one moral quality which can be denominated Love. Rest assured Deity does not dole out love of one description to this man, and of another to that man!! He loves all with the same love-and that is a GREAT Love! (see Eph. ii. 4.) True, God approbates the good conduct, and disapprobates the evil conduct of those he loves, and rewards or punishes them as they deserve. But the fact that he punishes the disobedient, does not indicate an absence of love towards them, any more than the chastisement of a parent proves he has no love for his wayward son.

As to the childish remark that God's love drowned the old world, it can hardly merit notice. The Elder believes it was in hate and anger that God removed the Antediluvians, and destroyed the lives of the disobedient in other instances. I insist that in these events he was moved by the most pure and benevolent considerations-that these severe chastisements were designed for the good of the frail, blind and erring creatures, who had fallen into sin! I submit it to the world to decide which view most accords with the character of God as a wise, holy and compassionate being, whom the Scriptures declare to be the "God of Love."

Mr. Holmes has no doubt that at the last day, there will be a general burst of almiration from holy beings, at the wisdom and goodness of God's ways!! Let us see what there will be to admire, according to his doctrine. The Deity created a vast race of intelligent offspring, for no other purpose, but to cause them to become holy and happy. This was his Desire, his Design, his Will, his Plan!! But when he attempts to carry an object so worthy into execution, he meets with an almost TOTAL DEFEAT!! His Desire is unsatisfied-his Design is thwartedhis Will is unfulfilled-and innumerable throngs whom he expected would rise up to rival Gabriel in holiness and love, sink down to the eternal companionship of devils, to howl out imprecations and blasphemies at their Creator in endless wretchedness!! And this, my friend thinks, will cause a general burst

of ADMIRATION!! In whose heart can such an issue inspire admiration? It may in the hearts of demons! It can in none other!! But in the last great day, when Jesus shall have accomplished his mediatorial mission-when he shall have brought all mankind to repentance, holiness, reconciliation to God-when, victorious over sin and death, the Restorer and Savior of the entire family of man, he shall deliver up the kingdom into the hands of the Father, and God shall become ALL in ALL!!—then indeed will there be such a burst of ADMIRATION—such rejoicing such triumphant exultation-from all intelligencies, as was never before heard even in heaven!! There will then be something worthy to excite the highest admiration-the most extatic joy!! Surely the salvation of all men must excite more admiration and joy, than the salvation of a part, with the endless wretchedness of the remainder!!!

My friend's tenth Argument in the affirmative, is based on Human Probation. The sum of the argument is, that mankind in this life, are on probation for another existence; and that their condition hereafter and forever, will depend on their proceedings here. I think my friend does not give a full view of his theory on this subject. When clearly understood, his doctrine teaches that man is not on probation through his life, but only at the hour of his death. Any course of conduct he pursues through life, can have no effect on his future condition, unless the last hour is of the same description. If he lives a righteous life, and sins in the last hour, he is lost forever! If he lives a wicked life, and repents the last hour, he is happy forever! The conduct throughout life has nothing to do with the condition after death, according to ortho loxy. The hour preceding death is all the probation which has effect upon the future. Can any man in his senses, believe an infinitely wise God would peril the infinite welfare of his children, upon the state of things during the running out of the last sands of human life?

I am a decided believer both in probation and retribution. But I insist they go much nearer together, than my friend does. Man to-day, is on probation, to a certain degree, for to-morrow. When he does wrong retribution is at hand, to give him his just due. I do not believe man is on probation in such a sense, as that his eternal destiny depends upon his doings at any given period of time. My friend can bring no evidence from the scriptures in support of such a theory. Every attempt has involved him only in the predicament of wresting the word of God from its plain import. And surely moral philosophy, reason, analogy, give no support to such a theory. While administering a just punishment for all sin, wherever committed, whether in this world or the next, the wise and benevolent Ruler of the Universe, has never put it beyond the power of the beings he has formed, while in any state of existence, to recover from past faults and imperfections, and