801

condition of the soul after death, and forever. This fully corroborates the position I took sometime since, that according to modern evangelism, it is no matter how a man lives; but every thing depends upon how he dies!! Hence, according to this doctrine, if he "serves the devil," and riots in sin all his days, and repents an hour before death, it is just as well for him hereafter, as though he lived through life in the service of God-at death, he will ascend to glory, and an hour from his sins, will be shouting praises with Gabriel, and David, and Paul!! This is the moral system which has been so boastingly extolled as superior to that doctrine which teaches that every sinner shall be justly and certainly punished for all the wickedness of which he has been guilty!! Let a candid and enlightened public decide between them.

Among other things relating to his sixteenth argument, he makes the following assertion: We have seen that the scriptures declare the wicked have their portion in that worldly and temporal happiness which pertains to this life." I have had frequent occasion to call the attention of our hearers to the licencious tendency of modern orthodox doctrines. Here is another specimen of it. What can be more immoral, than to instruct men, that the wicked enjoy great happiness and prosperity in this world; and that if at death they will repent, they can escape the just punishment their sins deserve, and enter upon the endless joys of heaven? I insist, this idea that the wicked enjoy happiness in this life, is not only demoralizing and corrupting in the extreme, but that it is highly unscriptural. The Bible inculcates no such doctrine. I am astonished that a clergyman and a Presiding Elder who had ever read God's word, should hazard an assertion, which every reader of the Bible can show to be false.— If the Elder would lear. the teachings of the scriptures in regard to "the happiness" of the wicked in this life, let him read and ponder the following: The wicked ARE like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest; whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There IS NO PEACE, saith my God, to the wicked!"-(Isa. Ivii. 20, 21.) There is peace, there is " happiness," to the wicked, saith Elder Holmes! The world can have their choice between these two authorities.

My tenth Negative Argument was, that Endless Punishment violates the moral principles which God enjoins upon his creatures. In his review, Elder Holmes asserts that the infliction of such a punishment by the Deity, perfectly corresponds with the instructions given for regulating our intercourse with each other. It will require but a few words to show this declaration to be destitute of dependence. What are the principles which God has directed should govern his earthly creatures in their intercourse with one another? He has commanded us to love our enemiesto bless those who curse us-to do good to those who hate us—

and, in fine, to overcome the evil of our fellow-beings, by an unvarying exhibition of goodness towards them. We are not to do these things for an hour, or a day, but always. Does the Creator himself, act on these sublime and perfect moral principles, in his dealings with his creatures? wretchedness is true, he violates every one of them. According If the doctrine of endless to that doctrine, throughout eternity he will hate his enemieswill curse those who curse him-do evil to those who hate him and instead of overcoming evil with good, he will be overcome of evil, and inflict the most awful woes on those of his blind and erring children, who fall into evil in this life!! These suggestions must be sufficient to satisfy every candid mind, that either God himself infinitely violates the holiest and most perfect moral rules he has enjoined on man, or the doctrine of ceaseless agony is a blasphemous libel on his moral character, and a double-distilled falsehood!

As for the ridicule and contempt which Elder Holmes casts on the wise, gracious and holy principle on which God punishes his wayward and blinded children, viz: to turn their footsteps back to righteousness, obedience and love-a principle which forms the highest glory of God's government, and receives the admiration of angels in heaven, and all pure and good men on the earth-in denominating it a " fine moral speculation" in which "the universal Father" is engaged on a capital of "sin and misery," I am pained to say, it indicates too plainly to be mistaken, a darkened mind and unrenewed heart!!

The Elder indulges in some stale ridicule of the Universalist exposition of scripture, in reference to Jerusalem. His ridicule would apply with much greater force against the writers of the New Testament. We did not write the Bible; but we take it as it has been given us by Divine inspiration. Finding in the New Testament many passages which plainly and unquestionably refer to God's dealings with his ancient people-the casting of them aside as the depositories of his truth-their destruction as a na tion, and the overthrow and ruin of their beloved city and tem ple-we construe these scriptures accordingly. Nor are we alone in this matter. Every learned and eminent commentator of the orthodox sects, corroborates our views of many, if not most, of the passages which we apply to the destruction of the Jewish temple, city and nation. When we reflect that the gospel was proclaimed just before these events transpired-events the most important that ever took place in the world's history, and in regard to which the Savior said there should be such tribulation as had not been since the world began, nor ever should be afterwards it will not appear astonishing that the New Testament so often refers to them, and abounds in so many warnings and exhortations of the Jews to escape them!

My friend makes a desperate struggle to overthrow my expo

sition of 2 Thess. i. 7-9. Those familiar with the grounds I took in regard to this passage, will see at a glance, that he has done little that can affect them.-[See p. 705.] It can only be necessary for me to glance at a few of the inconsistencies into which he has fallen. The Elder affects to think it is wonderful that the Jews residing in Thessalonica, should be threatened with banishment from the presence of the Lord, at the Temple in Jerusalem. This wonder of the Elder's is in consequence of his ignorance of the Jewish customs. The Jews at Thessalonica, as well as in other parts of the Roman empire, were in the habit of visiting Jerusalem periodically, to worship God in his holy temple. And this going to the temple, was considered going into the presence of the Lord. This privilege was highly prized. Hence, for the Jews at Thessalonica to be deprived of this opportunity of going where God manifested his visible presence, by the abolition of the Jewish ritual, and the destruction of the Temple, was as virtual a banishment from the presence of the Lord, as it was of the Jews resident in Jerusalem.-[See p. 706, 707.] Mr. Holmes says, the destruction of Jerusalem took place "long after the death of the Apostle," [St. Paul] and of many, if not all, of those Jews to whom the Apostle refers. This shows his knowledge of chronology. St. Paul is supposed to have died about five years before the overthrow of Jerusalem; and his second epistle to the Thessalonians was written about sixteen years previous to that event. Hence most of those Jews who troubled the Christians at Thessalonica, were undoubtedly living, and became involved in the calamities which befel their people throughout the Roman empire.

Elder Holmes says, neither the Apostles nor other christians had "rest" in that age, from persecutions and tribulations. In reply to this I give the testimony of Dr. Hammond, who asserts that after the destruction of Jerusalem, the christians enjoyed a relaxation or "rest" from persecutions. And he adds of these times"Though it was a day of vengeance to the unbelieving Jews, they were times of refreshing to the saints, who were now deliv ered from their persecutors."

But my friend finds a little encouragement in the idea that I have overturned all I have said on this passage, by the use I afterwards made of the word "destruction." In reference to the declaration of the Revelator that " death and hell were cast into the lake of fire," I remarked that the signification was, they were destroyed-i. e. it was a perpetual, irretrievable overthrow. Now the Elder inquires if I use the word destruction in this sense, in regard to death and hell, why I do not give it the same signification in reference to those Jews who persecuted the christians at Thessalonica? The reason is very obvious. The meaning of the word destruction, like that of many others, is modified by different connections where it is found. When used in reference to

death, sin, pain, or any thing in opposition to man's good, it signifies total annihilation. But where that word is applied to man, it cannot have the meaning of annihilation; for man is destined to live forever. In this case, it signifies punishment, without having anything in itself which shows that punishment to be endless, any more than punishment indicated by any other word.

In the same sentence, Mr. Holmes acknowledges that hell is to be destroyed without remedy. He says its destruction is to be irretrievable and perpetual! This is a remarkable admission. I wish all the Methodists, and other limitarians, to take due notice, that Elder Holmes declares Hell will be DESTROYED!!! Hence, all he has said, heretofore, or may say hereafter, in regard to an endless hell, amounts to nothing. He believes not a word of it. As hell is the only place in the future world where he pretends men can be punished, it necessarily follows, that when hell is destroyed, the punishment will cease. Elder Holmes, therefore, at most, has been contending for limited punishment. All his criticisms in regard to this word hell, and all the passages he quoted where that word occurs, in his tenth speech, can apply, according to his own showing, only to temporary punishment, and have no legitimate connection with this discussion.

The Elder's assertion that the author of "Paige's Selections," does not scruple to garble and misrepresent the views of orthodox commentators, as often as it suits his purpose, is a sheer and wanton misrepresentation of a candid and honorable author, and a most valuable book.

He takes to himself great credit, in having driven me, as he says, to abandon the general ground of Universalists in regard to the kingdom of heaven, etc. My friend makes a small mistake in this matter. My position from the commencement of this debate has been, that the kingdom of God, of heaven, of Christ, was established in this world, and will be continued in the next, until Jesus shall accomplish the objects of his reign, and reconcile all creatures to God. So far from compelling me to take this ground, I occupied it long before I had seen or heard of Elder Holmes.To the extent of my information, this is also the view of most Universalists. It is true, we have written much to convince the world that the kingdom of heaven was to be entered in this world, and enjoyed here. But it was in opposition to the usual orthodox notion that that kingdom could be entered only in the future existence.

Mr. Holmes says, that when the scriptures declare the ungodly shall not enter or inherit the kingdom of heaven, they refer to the kingdom in its future and heavenly state. I need not say to any understanding reader of the Bible, that this is a sheer assumption, without a particle of proof in the word of God. Indeed, all his declarations on this subject, are simple assertions of his own, unsupported by the testimony of the scriptures.

In regard to the new class of scripture passages my opponent has introduced, in support of his view that those who do not enter the kingdom of heaven bere, cannot hereafter, I have only time to say, that they have not the slightest reference to the future world. They are parables uttered by the Savior in express application to the condition of things existing at the establishment of the gospel. They were designed to show the blindness of the Jews in rejecting the gospel, and the consequences which would result to them, involving them in the destruction of their nation, which was then hastening on, and was, indeed, near at hand! The views we entertain of these parables, are corroborated by many of the most able orthodox commentators.*

It surely cannot be necessary for me to follow the gentleman through his last expiring effort to twist out of aion and its derivatives, an argument in favor of endless punishment. He has not overthrown the positions I have taken in regard to these words.All his labors in this department, have proved singularly abortive. Even allowing the rule which he now lays down, (which is far from being correct,) that they always signify endless duration, unless the nature of the subject to which they are applied, require a different meaning, it does not afford him the slightest help. For I maintain that the nature of punishment, being reformatory-that its infliction being a wise and salutary chastisement, administered in goodness, and not in cruelty or revengerequires a strictly limited signification of aionion, when applied to it. This position has been established, I trust, to the satisfaction of every candid mind. Although we may not be able in all cases, to discover the way in which punishment produces this effect, yet our ignorance does not annihilate this most glorious and holy principle in the divine government. And a punishment which removes men from one world to another, as in the case of the antediluvians and others, is no more an exception to this most admirable rule, than one which should remove the guilty from one continent to another.

My friend Holmes sagely inquires, by what rule I determine that "forever" means time without end, when God says he will not cast off forever; but limited time, when he says he will cast off forever! Although my opponent declares there are many places where God says he will cast off forever, yet there is but one passage in the Bible where such an expression occurs, and that was uttered by David with especial reference to Solomon, and to no other mortal among men.—(1 Chron. xxviii. 9.) In this case, forever evidently means time without end. But the passage does not show that Solomon would have been punished forever for disobedience. The sentiment conveyed by David, was that if

To those who would read an interesting work on this subject, I would recommend Whittemore on the Parables.