are often quite different, an very far apart. Many things which are upheld by common opinion, do great violence to common sense. The worship of idols receives the sanction of common opinion throughout heathen lands, but does not common sense reject it? Nothing can conflict more directly with common sense, than the doctrine of the Trinity. But it is sanctioned by common opinion throughout the ranks of partialism. I trust my friend will pardon me for saying, that the argument now under consideration, is the weakest I have ever heard offered in defence of endless punishment. It is predicated on the childish assumption, that numbers of believers decide the truth of doctrines. I ask the audience to follow out this argument legitimately. Where will it lead us? To act on its principles, all Episcopalians should become Presbyterians-the Presbyterians should turn Methodiststhe Methodists should join the Baptists-and all Protestant sects should immediately become Catholics. For each of these sects increase in their numbers in the order they are named. In fact, to follow my friend's criterion, all christendom should abandon the doctrines of Jesus, and go over to Paganism in a body; for the adherents of heathen religion, far out-number all the rest of the world; and according to the rule he lays down, heathenism must inculcate the only true doctrines among men. What do you think of the Elder's argument? Suppose a doctrine is believed by but a few, what evidence can that be of its falsity? There was a time when Christianity itself was believed only by the Man of Nazareth, and his twelve humble followers, while the entire "common opinion" of mankind was against it. Was that sufficient reason for the Jews to disbelieve and reject its divine doctrines? If the Scribes and Pharisees had only been as shrewd as my opponent, what an overwhelming argument they could have wielded against the gospel of Christ!! In one word, "common sense" declares that numbers or age cannot be a test of the truth of doctrines.

Mr. Holmes insists that endless punishment has been believed among the heathen, from the earliest ages. What then? So has idol-worship-so has the doctrine of a plurality of gods-so has the belief in a hell of literal fire and brimstone. But my friend will not contend these sentiments are any the more true on that account. He defies me to prove that the idea of endless woe was invented. I have already proved beyond the slightest doubt, by the language of heathen writers, that that doctrine was an invention, got up in their own midst. For the satisfaction of the Elder, allow me to introduce the testimony again. Cicero, the renowned orator and scholar of Rome, says, in his sixth oration"It was on this account that the ancients INVENTED their infernal punishments of the dead, to keep the wicked in some awe in this life!" The Elder says that Endless Punishment is a tradition. That is true! And I will add, it is nothing but a tradi

tion! He informs us that all tradition can be traced back to some common source. True again. What is the source of this tradition? Was it revealed to the heathen from God? I deny the assertion. There is no more evidence that he revealed that doctrine to them, than that he revealed any other of the absurd religious notions prevailing among Pagan nations. The doctrine of eternal misery was never revealed by the Deity to the Hebrews. There is no biblical scholar of any note in our day, who claims to find any such doctrine revealed in the Old Testament. Can it consistenily be supposed that God would reveal such doctrine to the heathen, and withhold it from his ancient people, to whom were delivered the "oracles of truth?" The tradition of endless torments has already been traced to its common source in heathenism, in my third reply on this question. I showed that the idea was first suggested among an ignorant and superstitious people, by the custom of depositing the bodies of the dead, in deep and dark caverns and sepulchres.*

My friend doubts whether Sir Isaac Newton was a believer in the salvation of all men. That he departed far from those views which are denominated "evangelical," there can not be a doubt among those who have read his theological writings. Bishop Horsely, the editor of Newton's works, is charged with suppres ing some of his manuscripts, which would undoubtedly have thrown more light upon his religious views. But that the great philosopher rejected the doctrine of the endless perpetuity of misery, is true beyond a doubt.† Rev. Wm. Whiston, known throughout the world, as the translator of the works of Josephus, who was an intimate friend of Sir Isaac Newton, his assistant while Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge University, and successor to Sir Isaac in that Professorship, and who had the best opportunity of knowing his real religious opinions, declares that Newton's views were precisely the same as his, on the subject of Endless Punishment. And it is well known that Whiston decidedly rejected that doctrine, and published several works against it. The Elder asserts that Newton was greatly offended with Whiston for representing him as an Arian. This may be. It is very possible he was not an Arian, and yet was a believer in the salvation of all mankind. It was not uncommon for Trinitarians to be Universalists in those days. Indeed there is reason to believe it was considered a greater offence at that time, to deny the Trinity, than to object to the doctrine of endless suffering. That Newton rejected the latter sentiment, is unquestionably true, however far he may have been removed from Arianism.

'See p. 494.

In his paraphrase on Rev. xiv. 10, 11, he says-"The degree and duration of the torments of these degenerate and anti-Christian people, should be no other than would be approved of by those angels who had ever labored for their salvation, and that Lam who had redeemed them with his most precious blood."

signing to bring the entire race to a state of holiness and happiness. Moreover, he will acknowledge that the Father sent the Son to save all men, and that in his gospel the most abundant provisions are made for the salvation of every human being! Will these gracious purposes-these benevolent designs-be accomplished? His system declares they will not. And why? Because the CREATURE will not be saved-will not ACCEPT the terms of salvation-will not ALLOW God to save him in his own way!! If this is a true statement of the case, the creature overthrows the plans of the Creator. Does not this unavoidably make the Deity dependent on man for the fulfillment of his purposes? If man will do certain things-if man will comply with certain terms-then God can accomplish his original purposes. But if man will not lend his aid-if he will not perform a certain part of the work-then it is impossible for the designs of the Creator to be accomplished!! Who does not see that this makes Jehovah dependent on a worm of the dust, for carrying forward to a successful issue, his divine and infinite plans? It makes" the hinge," the turning point, of those plans, to rest in the most weak, fickleminded and uncertain of creatures, rather than in God, the most mighty, wise, able and sure of all beings!! Why should the Creator allow this? Why should he disrobe himself of that which would give infinite CERTAINTY to all his primary designs towards his offspring, and place it upon the shoulders of ignorant man, where he knew it would be in the very midst of UNCERTAINTY? No reason can be assigned for a transaction so destructive. Hence whoever adopt such an idea, must believe it in direct violation of their own good sense! We may be sure Jehovah has not delegated to other beings, nor put away from himself, for any cause, that which is essential to give success to all his measures for man's salvation. Within his own infinite nature and endless rescources, there is an abundant sufficiency to carry into execution every design and plan he has formed in regard to his creatures. No being in heaven or on earth, can thwart his will. To none has he given the power to overturn his purposes! If men possess an ability to frustrate the designs of God at one time, they may at another. If they can annul his purpose to save them, they can annul his purpose to damn them!! How absurd the idea that Deity will permit bis creatures to thwart his efforts to make them endlessly happy, and will not permit them to thwart his efforts to make them endlessly miserable. All such errors should be abandoned. Jehovah's Will is the Sovereign Arbiter of all events. His Will is able to make man's will the agent to accomplish its designs—“Of his own Will begat he us with the word of truth"-(James i. 18.) "It is God which worketh in you, both to WILL and to DO, of his good pleasure!"-(Phil. ii. 13.)

My thirteenth Negative Argument, is that the doctrine of End

less Punishment dishonors God, and disgraces Christ. It represents God as creating mankind under such circumstances, that a large portion fall into unending blasphemy and woe. Is not this casting dishonor upon his good name? Jehovah formed the human race for his own pleasure-"Thou hast created all things; and for thy PLEASURE, they are and were created."-(Rev. iv. 11.) God took pleasure in man's creation. He took pleasure not only in the act of his creation, but in the end for which he was created. As Deity is omniscient—as all eternity is NOW to him -that end was clearly seen and known to him. And if to any of his creatures it is an end of agony and sin, God who saw it, and knew it, must have taken PLEASURE in it. Surely he would not create any for an end in which he did not take pleasure! Hence, this doctrine virtually charges an infinitely holy Being with taking pleasure in a state of endless sin and woe!! Does not this dishonor God?

In whatever way it may be supposed man will become an endless sufferer and blasphemer, it equally dishonors God. If we say with the Presbyterians, that God from all eternity reprobated a part of mankind to eternal woe, we dishonor him by dishonoring his benevolence, his goodness, and his mercy! If we take the ground of our Methodist brethren, and while contending that the Creator designed all to be happy, insist also that his plans to accomplish that design have most signally failed-yea, that God knew they would fail; knew that all his provisions and offers would be in vain; knew that a large part would forever be sinful and wretched, when he made them-we should deeply dishonor God, by dishonoring his Wisdom, his Power, and all his most important attributes.

This doctrine also disgraces Christ. His Father sent him to save all men, and he came expressly.to perform that great and good work. He had ample POWER to complete it He declares, All power is given unto me in heaven, and in earth."(Matt. xxviii. 18.) Will Jesus succeed in this holy work? The doctrine my friend advocates, declares he will not! It insists he will meet with a great overthrow-an almost total rout!! It declares his adversary, the Devil, will succeed in robbing him of vast myriads of those for whom he died! It proclaims a mighty victory for the Devil! It insists that the Son of God will return to his Father, suffering under an eternal defeat, with but a small remnant of those he was sent to save-that the conqueror's wreath shall be snatched from his brow by the arch Adversary, who shall remain forever undestroyed, unconquered !!-A consummation which would make all Heaven MOURN, and all Hell REJOICE!! I insist that a doctrine which makes such representations, casts deep disgrace on the Son of God!! How different, far different, does the opposite sentiment represent, exalt, and honor him!!