a Father, than that of King or Judge. This is presumptive evidence of the strongest description, that the writers of the Gospel viewed God's parental character as far superior to any other relation he holds to man?

My friend declares my views of God's fatherly nature, are of a grovelling description. Who can but admire the elevation of the standard by which he judges. To insist that Deity is precisely what he is represented to be, throughout the Divine Record, the affectionate Father of the race of humanity-to contend that he watches over the affairs of men with the most tender solicitude for the good of all-that even in his punishments of the disobedient, he is moved by a desire to benefit them, by bringing them back to the ways of truth and happiness-this is all very grovelling in the sight of my opponent. It follows of course, that he views the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, which are of the same description, as also exceedingly grovelling! But to deny the teachings of the Bible, that God is the Father of all men to maintain that he is not interested in the welfare of all-that he does not seek to promote the good of all, in his chastisements, and all his dealings with them-is, in the estimation of Elder Holmes, taking an elevated, dignified and attractive view of God!!

He insists that Jehovah was as perfect before man's creation, as he is now. Granted. But is this any reason why he should create man perfect at once, rather than to form him with a design of bringing him to perfection by a well regulated system of progression? God is as perfect when the seed is deposited in the earth, as he is afterwards. Is it proper to reason from this fact, that the wheat shall spring instantly from the ground, ready for the sickle, instead of slowly advancing to maturity? To behold the perfections of Deity manifested in the creation of the human race, we should not confine our observation exclusively to man's condition in this life. Our vision should be enlarged to take in the whole scope of his purpose, by which we shall see that it included the entire perfection of the family of man, at which he designed they should arrive by a wisely adopted career, from a condition of crude immaturity.

My friend attempts to be very severe on my views of the Paternity of God. He ridicules the idea that Paternity is an Attribute of the Deity. It would be a sufficient reply to this, to state that I have not said, anywhere in this debate, that Paternity was an attribute. I have laid no stress on the fact that Paternity is one of the attributes of the Most High. My argument was that God is the Father of all men. Instead of carping on expressions I have never used, why does not the Elder attend to the positions I have taken in regard to the paternal relationship existing between the Creator and his creatures. There are considerations advanced there worthy of his serious attention. But he passes them by in total silence; thus, virtually acknowledging that they cannot be over

turned. He talks of my making the Paternity of God override all the other attributes. What folly to indulge in such expressions, when every hearer knows they are wholly groundless. I have taken no such view of God's paternity. I have simply said that high above all the glorious characteristics which distinguish Jehovah, stands his Paternity. The New Testament itself gives it this prominence. He who cannot acknowledge this, has either never read his Bible, or is deliberately seeking to mislead the public mind. Although I have not claimed Paternity as an attribute of God, yet I am surprised that Elder Holmes should deny it. Let him ask the next school-boy he meets, and he will be taught by the urchin, that the word "Attribute," signifies any quality, property, characteristic, or power possessed or attributed to a being. Paternity is as much an attribute as wisdom. I regret my opponent is continually exposing his ignorance, even of the most common rules of philology. While putting on pompous airs of scholarship, he seems actually in need of instruction in the rudiments of common knowledge. I really trust he will not expose himself so rashly hereafter. It destroys the dignity of our debate, and I am apprehensive will lead the public to imagine I have consented to measure swords with a mere tyro, instead of a Methodist " Mas ter of Arts."

The Elder maintains that if God is the Father or all men, he ought to save them now. He insists moreover, that that which fails of saving mankind in this world, may fail of saving them hereafter. How original and refreshing is this argument which has been introduced and answered in this debate time and again. On what principle does he attempt to assert that God ought to save men now, if he is their Parent? Is not Deity a better judge on this point, than a Presiding Elder? A wealthy man is as much the father of his son at ten years of age, as he ever will be. Is this a sufficient reason that he should put into the possession of the child at that age, all the property he designs ever to bestow upon him? The Father of all is best prepared to judge of the times and seasons for bestowing his gifts on his creatures. As to the assertion that because God's grace does not save men now, it may never be able to do so, the position is as fatal to my opponent as any other being on earth. The grace of God does not save him now, hence, according to his own showing, it may never save him. The Elder's terms are exceedingly sophistical. The fact that men are not saved now, is not to be attributed to any failure in God to save them. He has made no attempt to save them here-i. e. to elevate them to the pinnacle of perfection and happiness while in this world! They are not thus saved now, because this is not the life in which Jehovah designs to accomplish such a work!!

Mr. Holmes returns again to the subject of moral death. He inquires, as if the topic had for the first time, just gained his attention, how it is that there can he moral life in the midst of moral

death? This is tantamount to asking, how a man that has fallen into sin can possibly reform. Moral death is not an extinction of being, neither is it annihilation of the moral powers. These powers are in a dormant state, while the animal passions are in the ascendency. But under proper influences, the moral powers are quickened into activity-gain that influence, and that controlling power, for which they were designed-and lo! he that was dead in trespasses and sins, is alive in virtue and righteousness. As I have already noticed this subject in a somewhat extended form, in my fourth and sixth replies, it cannot be necessary for me to go over the ground again.*

In reference to the case of the insane woman who drowned her children to secure their salvation, my opponent says if I intend to represent that his views lead to insanity and suicide, he wants me to pause! I would inform Mr. Holmes that I cannot "pause" at this point. It is a subject to which I have given not a little investigation. And I now deliberately charge his doctrine of Endless Punishment with leading directly to insanity and suicide! The records of our Lunatic Asylums, afford a melancholly proof of the truth of my charge. In the Eleventh Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Lunatic Asylum, written by Dr. Woodward, the Superintendent, there is a statistical table of the number of patients in that institution, made insane by different causes. It appears by this table, that intemperance is usually the most ordinary cause of insanity. But what may surprise my opponent and others, the next most prolific source of insanity, is Religious Excitement! During the ten years from 1833 to 1843, there were generally more made insane by intemperance than by religion. In the last named year, however, there were more than double the number driven to insanity by religious excitement, than by intemperance. While of the whole number of patients, six and one-fourth per cent became insane through intemperance, twelve and three-fourth per cent, were insane in consequence of religious excitement. In the same Report there is a table showing the causes of insanity in ten different Asylums in the United States. In several of these, religious excitement was more fruitful of insanity than intemperance. For instance, in the Hartford Asylum, Conn. in 1836, there were 103 insane from intemperance, and 110 from religion. In the Ohio Asylum, intemperance 32-religion 54. The Bloomingdale Asylum, (near New-York city,) intemperance 19-religion 14. In the ten Asylums, of the whole number of patients, 374 were made in

* See p. 508, 571.

If the reader fails to find in either of Mr. Holmes' printed speeches, any partienlar phraseology. to which I refer with emphasis, I desire it undestood that the word or words, were used by him in the debate, but changed or omitted in preparing it for the press.

sane by religious excitement. Let it be understood, that by "religious excitement," is meant insanity produced by preaching the doctrine of Endless Punishment! Religious insanity was never produced by any other sentiment. I trust my friend is satisfied that I have made good my charge.

In regard to the suicides caused by the same doctrine, the evidence is as tangible and convincing as that respecting insanity. Scores in our land have destroyed their own lives from this cause. No facts are better corroborated than these. But I cannot here introduce the evidence.*

My friend contends that if there is probation in another world, there must be retribution there. If men sin in the future existence -or if any sins committed in this life, do not here receive an adequate punishment-it follows of course, that there will be punishment in that existence. It will not however, be a gross infliction of torture, with no good in view; but a wise, salutary, instructive and elevating discipline-which will give its subjects a proper understanding of the odiousness of sin, the value and lovelines of righteousness, and thus lead to the highest degree of holiness and bliss!

Elder Holmes asserts that if "holiness be an infinite good, then sin must be an infinite evil. I must be allowed to express my surprise at such a declaration, from one who makes high pretensions to logic, and who flourishes his pedantic syllogisms around the ears of the audience until they are nearly bewildered in their mystic depths. In this instance he brings the magnitude of man's qualities on a par with the qualities of Jehovah. Because holiness in God is infinite, therefore sin in man is infinite!! How profound this reasoning! Why is holiness in God, infinite? Because God is himself infinite, and all his qualities partake of his infinity. If Deity could commit sin, that sin would be an infinite evil! But in no other case can sin be infinite. When committed by man it must be finite. The effect cannot exceed the cause.

My friend says a thing may be infinite in duration and not in magnitude. This is very true. But how does it strengthen his cause? To say that any sinful act which man commits, can be infinite or endless in duration, or that endless consequences can flow from it, is to make the effect exceed the cause. The river may send its rapid stream far into the ocean; but ere long it becomes lost in the vast contiguity of waters, and amid the thousand counter-currents, which it meets on every hand. So the consequences of a sinful action may be felt for a long period of time. But in the

Dr. Brigham. Superintendent of the New-York State Lunatic Asylum, in his work entitled "Influence of Religion on Health," gives many facts sustaining this position. He says-"I have the particulars of about ninety cases of suicide from religious melancholy, which have occurred in six of the Northern States."-p. 240. This "religious melancholy," was caused by the preaching of Endless Misery.

broad current of Gol's Providence, in the vast ocean of his Perfections, these rills flowing from human deeds, will in due time, be swallowed up forever. That Deity can counteract and wholly destroy the consequences of man's sinful actions-yea that he can even make them become the sources of great blessings, no christian can doubt. Having this prerogative, this power, why should he not exercise it? Why should he allow dark streams of sin to run through the bright realmsof his moral universe forever, when he has the power to dry them up, or to purify their entire current? That he possesses this power, and that he does exercise it, we have the evidence in the case of Joseph and his brethren, the crucifixion of the Savior, and many other instances recorded in the Bible. We contend that in the exercise of the same prerogative, he will counteract and over-rule in due time, the consequences of all sin.

If the declaration that a thing may be infinite in duration, and not in magnitude, is applied to punishment, it fails to establish its endlessness. Any degree of pain of sufficient intensity to amount to punishment-i. e. sufficient to give serious miserycontinued forever, would at length sum up to an aggregate of wretchedness, infinitely over-balancing the sins any one man can possibly commit in three score years and ten-yea, would outweigh all the sin committed by all men, from the creation of our earth, to the final winding up of its great drama. The plainest promptings of Justice, would peremptorily forbid an infliction of pain of an endless duration, however small its amount.

In referring once more to his doctrine of Atonement, Elder Holmes has fallen into another misrepresentation of my views. He says that according to my theory, the sufferings which St. Paul endured, had the same merit as Christ's sufferings. This is not my position. The sufferings of Christ exceed vastly in merit, those endured by Paul, or any other man. He was a divine being-pure, spotless, compassionate and loving. He suffered voluntarily for the world. Paul was human, erring, imperfect in his own nature. My ground is, that the Apostle's sufferings were endured for a similar purpose, that the Redeemer bore his inflictions that is, to manifest devotion to the cause of truth, and to confer benefit on others. The view I take of this subject, is based on the following passage of scripture, among many others that might be quoted." Hereby perceive we the love of God, [more properly of Christ,] because he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."-(1 John iii. 16.)

The eleventh argument which Mr. Holmes introduces on the affirmative of this question, is that Endless Wretchedness is supported by the common sense of mankind, by which he says he means the common opinion of mankind. It is not worth while to spend much time in noticing the phraseology of this argument; I must be permitted to say, that common sense and common opinion