the slightest objection was made to their belief in the salvation of all mankind. In the enumeration of their errors, that doctrine was not named. This shows their Universalism was not considered an error, and is proof with other circumstances, that the salvation of the world was generally believed in the church of Christ, at that early age. This important fact Mr. Holmes cannot disparage.

Elder Holmes has taken a hasty glance at some of my Negative arguments, which I will notice, as far as my recollection of what he said will allow. In reply to my argument that Endless Punishment is not recognized in the devotional exercises of the Patriarchs, the Prophets, or Apostles, he says they did not pray against it! Really, if every religious chimera which these servants of God did not pray against, is true, the scope of our religious faith should be immediately enlarged. My friend, however, is greatly mistaken in his assertion. The Prophets and Apostles did pray against the doctrine of Endless Punishment. In the sublime prayer of David, recorded in the 86th Psalm, he says-" All nations whom thou hast made, shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone." St. Paul says "I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. ii. 1-4.) Are not these prayers directly against the doctrine of eternal misery? If I am not mistaken, he said Christ did not allude to heaven, in the Lord's prayer. Let him look at that prayer again. How does it commence? "Our Father which art in HEAVEN."

Mr. Holmes complains that my fifteenth Negative Argument, in which I show the number which must inevitably be lost, according to his doctrine, is based on a false view. He says he believes infants will be saved, (although he contends they are full of depravity,) and that many of the heathen will attain to salvation. What have we to do with Elder Holmes' opinion on this subject? According to his own rule, as applied to me, his individual views are of no consequence in this discussion. His own creed, and the whole array of self-styled evangelical systems, lay it down as a fundamental principle of the gospel, that faith and repentance, in this life, are absolutely indispensable to salvation in the future world. No doctrine in their articles of faith is more frequently and positively insisted upon than this. Now infants, the insane, the idiotic, the heathen, cannot exercise faith in Christ, nor experience true gospel repentance, in this world. Hence according to orthodoxy, they must all be lost! And all attempts to dodge this conclusion, or shrink from its terrific decision, are made at the expense of the fundamental principles of modern evangelism !

My friend flies to Dr. Beecher for assistance. Affrighted at the

horrible aggregate of the number of the damned, according to their beautiful hypothesis, the Doctor strives to conceal it under a blaze of glory drawn from the great number to be saved among those who will be born by and-bye. Their theology makes the past and present so black and terrific, that they fain would relieve the odious picture, by drawing imaginary light from the future !! But this is all moon-shine! We know, if orthodoxy is true, that the number already lost, in comparison with the saved, is immense, beyond all human conception. Of what avail to surmize in regard to the future. How does Dr. Beecher, or any other man know the proportion to be saved hereafter, will be any larger than heretofore? What assurance have they that the world will stand another century, or that even one generation more will ever exist on earth? The whole scheme is a cowardly attempt to skulk from the responsibility of charging God with casting into torment, so vast a majority of his own offspring, as they insist he has already done.

The Elder touches for an instant, my sixteenth Negative Argument, that the doctrine of Endless Punishment condemns multitudes of the best moral men on earth, to eternal perdition. He cannot gainsay this position. Its truth is self-evident. The most honored and loved statesmen in the annals of American history, who have labored, bled and died for our country's good, are now in hell, if modern orthodoxy is true! And they are there, not for any immorality-not because they were not strictly honest, benevolent, patriotic and pure, in their habits and lives; but because their good sense would not permit them to receive unquestioned, the dogmas which self-styled evangelism would impose upon them! My opponent asks what I mean by a moral man? I do not wonder he is at a loss as to the meaning of this phraseology, considering the views he propagates! Let me enlighten him. A moral man, is not one one who joins some limitarian church, prays, shouts, runs down the Universalists, and then turns and cheats his neighbor, and indulges in his dealings, in all the trickery that he can and avoid the meshes of the law! But he is one who is honest, temperate, fair in his business transactions, pure in all his habits, benevolent and friendly in his intercourse with all men. Elder Holmes acknowledges his doctrine condemns all such men to hell. unless they bow down to the tenets of orthodoxy. At the same time it opens the gates of heaven to the most hardened of villains on earth, if they will repent an hour before they die, and adopt the evangelical creed! I ask the world what they think of such a doctrine?

Elder Holmes has several times declared that according to my views, the reformatory power of punishment is the only instrument of man's salvation. He must be perfectly aware that this is a sheer misrepresentation. Punishment is but one of the means of salvation. The teachings of the Gospel, the influence of God's spirit,

the displays of his love and grace, and a numerous catalogue of means, which Jesus brings to bear upon the hearts of sinners, all have a part in that most wise, benevolent and blessed process, whereby an alienated and sinful soul is brought to the love and obedience of God, and whereby all intelligencies shall at last be brought to holiness and heaven.

My friend insists his religion is not based on fear. This is a matter which may easily be tested. Take away fear of future torment, and how many revivals could our orthodox friends get up? How many converts could they make to their peculiar notions? Let that fear be banished, and how many would submit to their discipline, or remain in their churches? It is one of the strongest objections our opposers urge against Universalism, that it removes the fear of endless punishment, without which, multitudes imagine religion could not exist at all. Let fear be removed, and the whole superstructure of modern orthodoxy would fall into ruins in a single month."

The Elder, in his seventh speech, stung to madness at the tottering condition of his cause, asks, as he imagines, some "killing" questions. He inquires where are our Martyrs and our Missionaries? In reply, I point him to Christ and his Apostles and early followers, who were put to death, solely for proclaiming that God is the Father of all men, and Jesus is the Savior of the world! I would also direct his attention to Servetus, the eminent and pious Unitarian, who was burned at the stake by the Evangelical John Calvin. Neither would I have him forget the Quakers who were whipped, banished and hung by the Evangelicals of Massachusetts. Let me remind him also of that truly learned and christian Unitarian and Universalist, the renowned Dr. Priestly, who was driven from England by the persecutions of orthodox religionists. And now let me ask the Elder, where are his Methodist Martyrs ? Come, friend, march them out. We would know who they are? As to Missionaries, we hold it to be our duty to cultivate first, the field at home. God knows there is a call for all the laborers we can obtain, to counteract the poisonous influences to corruption, hypocrisy and infidelity, which modern evangelism is exerting on community. While priests and elders have the presumption to stand up in the face of the world, and contend by the day, that men can riot in sin with impunity, and escape all punishment -while they will so blacken the character of God, as to declare that he will torture his own offspring forever for the frailties of a few years while we see the deadly virus of these errors, diffusing itself through the community, and manifesting its fatal influences in the skepticism which is so generally prevailing in evangelical congregations, and in the foul corruptions, alas! so frequently seen among professors of religion-while witnessing all around us

See p. 582

"

this sad state of things, we feel under obligations to tarry in our own country, and counteract heathen errors, and heathen vices here, rather than to spend our strength in distant lands! I am pained to make these allusions, and point the public to the wellknown facts which justify them. It is only when in self-defence I am compelled, by the censure and reproach which my opponent seeks every oportunity to cast on God's holy truth, and those who defend it, that I lift the veil for a moment, and allow the public to catch a brief glance of the enormities which are continually taking place in the very bosom of that body who arrogantly assume the name of Evangelical. I warn my friend not to tempt me too far in this direction. His abuse may compel me to state certain FACTS in relation to orthodox morality, which will make his ears tingle!! In commencing his eighth speech, Elder Holmes makes a desperate plunge at my twelfth Negative Argument, that Endless Punishment makes God dependent on man for the accomplishment of his purposes. He says this argument is "stuff" The pronouncing of such a word is very easy, and I must also say, very childish. My argument is composed of plain common sense-a kind of "stuff," in which my friend would seem to deal very sparingly. Does he attempt to overthrow the argument, or show there is a defective point in it? Not in the least. He pursues a more easy course. With solemn gravity he turns up his lip, and attempts to kill all I have said, by exclaiming stuff!!-Imagining, I have no doubt, that the community, in admiration of the profound depths of such logic, would catch up the death-dealing word, and from mouth to mouth, the echo would be heard, on every hand-" STUFF!!! After thus summarily disposing of my argument, in the only feasible way within his reach, he sets off in a long, rambling and prosy discussion, composed of musty assertions, which he has heretofore been in the habit of urging against Calvinism, in which there is a delectable compound of sense and nonsense, of consistent conclusions drawn from false premises, and false conclusions from true premises-all proving my friend skilful in murdering logic, and reason, and in perverting the Scriptures. But why start off in this tangent? To find something that would really bear against the plain proposition sustained in my argument? He had not the slightest hope of such a result. The object of this long journey, was to lead the mind so far away from the real point at issue, that it would lose sight of it entirely, and then befog it in such a wilderness of metaphysics, as to inake it believe that God forms a definite purpose, and then selects such means to accomplish it, as shall totally defeat it! Come back my friend, from your tedious wanderings, and let us look at the point which separates us. The whole subject is comprised within a nut-shell, and can easily be comprehended by the most ordinary capacity. Elder Holmes has acknowledged throughout this discussion, that it was God's original Purpose, as well as Will and Desire, to save all mankind from