we came upon it. We did not rush blindly and thoughtlessly into the work to which we have devoted the energies of our lives. To break from old friends, old associations, and old influences-to place aside the bias of early impressions, of education, of habit, and throw off the trammels of deep rooted religious opinionsto turn away from paths which lead to worldly emoluments, distinctions, and favors, which were open for us in the midst of other denominations—to become the advocates of a gospel which now, as when proclaimed by Christ and his Apostles, brings its messengers into collision with the popular religion of the day, and exposes them to the opposition and derision of a large class of those who, as anciently, put forth the most exclusive claims to all the piety and righteousness of the world-to close their ears to the seductive voice of public favor, and become subject to every species of indignity which bigotry can cast upon those who excite its ire-in fine, and in an almost rigidly literal sense, to forsake all things most valuable in a worldly point of view, for the sake of proclaiming God as the Father, and Christ as the Savior, of all men-is not an undertaking in which men would be likely to engage without due deliberation. It was not until we had looked well and long at the subject-until by a most close, faithful and prayerful investigation, we had become completely satisfied that the doctrines we propagate, were revealed from heaven as God's holy and blessed truth-that they were precisely such doctrines as the world needed to fill it with light, and love, and peace-and that it was a solemn duty we owed to the Father, to Jesus, to religion and humanity, to become the advocate of these sentiments

that we resolved to go forth among men. If in all this we have erred, it has been an error of the judgment and not of the heart. God knows the sincerity and honesty of our convictions of truth and duty. What can we do, as consciencious men, but to act up faithfully to these convictions, and proclaim the glad tidings of a world's salvation? In view of all the obstacles in their way, of all the disadvantages under which they labor, of all the bitterness and unpopularity they are compelled to encounter, I think I may claim for the Universalist ministry, a self-sacrificing spirit, and a devotion to duty, which we now look for in vain, in older and larger sects!

As you, friend Holmes, have deemed it proper to indulge in an exhortation of my ministering brethren, I trust it will not be thought improper in me to return the compliment, by earnestly and solemnly urging you, and your limitarian co-laborers, to abandon your errors, and seek for more truth. You are undoubtedly sincere in your labors, and verily believe you are doing God's service. So was Saul of Tarsus, when he persecuted Jesus and his disciples! There may have been a time, in a past age, when your sentiments, in comparison with those which had previously prevailed, were to a degree useful. But that day has evidently

passed away. The present age, in its light, its knowledge and its spirit, has left you behind. Although I am not unwilling to acknowledge that it is possible you may yet be of some service to a class who are still unable to appreciate higher motives of ac. tion, yet as a whole, I believe the influence you exert is deleterious. Your religion, I am satisfied, has degenerated into cold formalities your worship, your obedience to God, is rendered more through servile fear of punishment, than love of your Creatoryour congregations are becoming more and more tinctured with infidelity-and the fruit of your labors, as a general thing, I am pained to believe, is to diffuse abroad dissension, bitterness and the most unworthy and wretched selfishness!! I warn you of the error of your ways-I call upon you to repent of this evil, and turn from darkness to light, from the propagation of manmade systems of divinity, to the up-building of that pure gospel of Christ, which will diffuse abroad peace on earth and good will toward men! !"

Before proceeding to my concluding remarks, I desire to notice as many of the numerous assertions made by my opponent, deserving of correction or reprehension, as the brief time allotted me will permit. Near the commencement of his last speech, the Elder has shown "the white feather," so plainly, that his most sanguine friends must be filled with mortification. I had hoped to have found in him a bold, manly champion of the doctrine of Endless Punishment-one who would meet me face to face, and come up to the defence of that odious sentiment, with some degree of promptness and intrepidity. But in this I have been signally disappointed. From the beginning of the discussion on this question, he has shrunk from an open defence of eternal misery on its naked merits. The thing is too dreadful for him to support openly, in its real character. He charges me with seeking to change the issue between us, and pervert the doctrine in discussion. He says I contend against a creature of my own imagination-a "man of straw." I appeal to all candid minds to determine the groundlessness of these allegations. What is the question before us? It reads as follows:- Is there sufficient evidence for believing that any part of the human family will suffer ENDLESS MISERY in a future state?" Have I in any instance, changed this question, or modified, or perverted it, in the slightest degree? The charge is preposterous. Every individual who has followed us in this debate, will bear witness to the faithfulness w which I have adhered to the question. They will all ackno edge it has been my aim to strike directly at the doctrine of "e less mi-ery," in every blow I have inflicted-and that while der Holmes has been endeavoring to turn away into a discuss of future limited punishment, a day of judgment in another wo the time and place in which men are saved from sin, and ot irrelevant points, it has been my endeavor to confine the deb

exclusively to the one, single, point involved, viz: the endlessness of punishment!

While charging me with changing the issue and avoiding the question, he is himself guilty of these very acts, as I will show by his own confession. He tells us the doctrine he has been advocating teaches-"1. A loss of the favor of God and the kingdom of Heaven; and 2, positive unhappiness arising from personal and positive sinfulness." Now I humbly submit that these two propositions contain not one particle of the question in discussion. That question is "ENDLESS Misery." But there is nothing endless, in either of the propositions my opponent has laid down. Men may at one time suffer "a loss of the favor of God and the kingdom of heaven," and yet recover both at a subsequent period by due repentance of sin. They may at a particular period, suffer "positive unhappiness, arising from personal and positive sinfulness," and still afterwards be saved from it, on embracing the principles of the gospel of Christ. In fact, Elder Holmes, and every orthodox professor, will acknowledge that previous to conversion they experienced that loss, and endured that unhappiness yet they now hope to be happy forever. Let it be understood then, by Elder Holmes' evangelical brethren, and all the world, that on his own showing, he has not defended, in this discussion, the doctrine of "ENDLESS misery!!" After this explanation of his view of the question, I seriously and honestly doubt whether he actually believes at all in the doctrine of “endless misery!"

He complains that I have employed extravagant and loathsome expressions in describing the odiousness of the doctrine of endless misery. This is the second or third time he has made a similar outcry. But how could I err in this respect? What is the meaning of ENDLESS MISERY? I have described this doctrine precisely as it has been preached for a thousand years-as it has been proclaimed by Elder Holmes, I have no doubt, hundreds of times-as it is described in orthodox books, tracts and hymns-viz: a condition of endless pain, anguish, torment, and woe-where God's own offspring will forever and ever groan and shriek in agony which no tongue can describe, no imagination can conceive! In heaven's name how would he have me describe this doctrine? What words could I use that would begin to depict its unmitigated horror, its awful malignity!! It is one of those cases where all language fails in coming up to reality!!

Mr. Holmes also complains that I have endeavored to separate the doctrine of "endless misery," from its relations to God's government, and the results of moral conduct. I acknowledge the charge, and ask if this was not the legitimate work before me? Endless punishment has no relation to God's government. It neither administers nor threatens such a punishment. Nor can it in any sense, be shown to be the results of moral conduct.

The Creator has never given his creatures an ability to bring an endless evil upon themselves. Rather than have done this, he would have allowed them to remain in non-entity. I have shown all this satisfactorily I trust, as it was my province to do. And I acknowledge moreover, as the Elder asserts, that I have shown his system makes the infliction of endless misery, "a malignant and revengeful proceeding on the part of God, having no other object in view, and sustained by no other reason, than the gratifition of a fiend-like dispositon, to inflict torture on his unfortunate creatures." I hope all have been brought to see that such is the charge which evangelism virtually brings against the Father of spirits. For my friend to complain that I have endeavored to make this all clear, is to complain that I have met him in debate, ani defended the negative of the question before us!

The complaints Elder Holmes has made against the manner I have treated the question, and his evident attempts to "shirk," the real issue of the endlessness of punishment, which has been the only point actually in debate, abundantly substantiate the charge I made against him, at the commencement of this question, that he is both AFRAID and ASHAMED to defend the doctrine of which he appears here as the champion, as it has been held for ages past, and as it is still received among the great body of its believers. Let the world notice this fact. And let all the evangelical who have any confidence in Elder Holmes, ask themselves in what kind of a light they place their good sense before the public, in adhering to a doctrine which their most able champion dare not defend on its own naked merits, and is ashamed to acknowledge in its true character, as proclaimed by their great men for ages past!!

The Elder's recapitulation, is, in fact, a re-vamping of his ar guments-a repetition through which he wades, in the hope of being able to strengthen weak points, and cover up marked deficiencies. As I have already answered these arguments in detail and at large, as they were introduced, it will not be necessary to enter upon another labored reply here. I shall only notice some of the most glaring inconsistencies into which he has fallen in going over his old track again.

In repeating his argument on moral agency, he says:-"The moral agency of man being established, it follows there is, and must be, a liability to forfeit FINAL happiness." The assumption contained in this sentence is entirely unwarranted. Man in the exercise of his moral agency, is liable to forfeit present happ

ness.

But in the exercise of the same agency, and aided by vine assistance, which is ever granted the sincere repentant, can be emancipated from the unhappiness consequent upon pa transgressions. The sophistry of the above sentence, consis in the idea that man's final or ultimate condition, is made to de pend upon the exercise of his moral agency in this life, or at any

fixed period of time. Neither the scriptures nor reason, countenance any principle of this description.

My friend refers to my assertion, that man's final destiny is not a matter which depends directly on his moral agency. He replies, that if this is so, then man, in his final condition, will have no moral character-and if no moral character, then he will enjoy no moral happiness. Either ignorantly or intentionally, the Elder has misunderstood my position on this subject, and has drawn his conclusions from false premises. The ground I took was, that man's final destiny is not determined by the exercise of his moral agency, at any one given hour, year, or period, of his existence that a wise and benevolent Deity, would not permit a matter so momentous, to depend upon the conduct of a blind and erring creature, within a certain space of time. This position was taken in opposition to that most unreasonable of all tenets, which my opponent was urging, that the final state in which man would exist through eternity, whether of happiness or woe, had been made to depend on the manner he should exercise his moral agency in this life--or more properly, during the last hour of this life. That the final condition of mankind, will be intimately connected with the exercise of their moral agency. I have no doubt. But that agency, so far from being the means of bringing any into a state of endless wretchedness and sin, will, in fact, under the wise superintendence of God's providence, be an instrument by which the exaltation of all to endless holiness and happinesss, will be finally and certainly secured.*

Speaking of human probation, Mr. Holmes makes the following declaration:-"As is the moral character at death, so will it be after death, and exert a corresponding influence in the endless destiny of man." I have already showed the absurdity of the idea, that man's everlasting destiny is determined by his moral condition at the moment of death, without looking at his previous life, or allowing it to have any weight. Let us apply this rule for an instant to those who favor it. Will not Elder Holmes "at" death, be a sinner?-Will not every partialist clergyman "at" death, be sinners? Neither he nor they dare deny this. I lave not heard that any of them claim to be saints! Then according to the Elder's rule, he and they will be sinners "after death," and forever!! More than this-As the Prophets, the Apostles, all the great and good of earth, acknowledged themselves to be in bondage to sin, and died with more or less of sinfulness within them they also, on my friend's premises, were sinful "after death," and must remain so through eternity!! Thus his rule results in universal and endless wickedness and woe!! But let us look in a practical point of view, at my opponent's position that the moral character at death, determines the character and

For my views of moral agency, see p. 439 to 442.