jects-must all harmonize, in measuring out the results of human conduct. If any of God's moral subjects are under the influence of error in opinion, unless that error be wilfully embraced, and tenaciously adhered to in rejection of the means of better information-even though it lead to error in practice, yet such are not esteemed guilty on account of an error honestly entertained, nor held morally responsible for its results. St. Paul presents my views exactly, when he says, (Rom. ii. 8): "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness; (God will render) indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile."

My friend complains of the manner in which I use the term evangelical, I have not applied this term to my system of theology for the purpose of reflecting upon his theory, but for the sake of distinction. But since he has referred to this point, I will not conceal my firm belief, that the term as applied to my system is strictly correct, while it would be a misnomer, if applied to his.

In regard to the definition of salvation, once more. I have contended in this discussion, that there is no way in which God can save men from their sins, without saving them from the punishment due their sins. Mr. Austin contends there is. Now here

is a wide distinction. To sustain his view, he defines salvation to be, the saving of men from commission of sin. The obscurity of this definition, is of itself proof of the necessity of something more explicit. I want to know whether my friend's theory makes it necessary that men should be saved from the commission of sin in this life and also how they are saved-whether by being brought under the power of physical death, or by the resurrection, which will be a physical event. Or finally, is this salvation to be effected by the gospel? If so, does the saving power of the gospel extend to another world, or is it confined to this world? If it be confined to this world, how are those to be saved who reject the gospel and die without salvation? If it extends to another world, by what agency is it to be preached there, and brought to bear on the moral condition of the sinner? Now as the gentleman wishes us to believe that all men will be saved finally, he is bound to give us explicit information on these points. He may evade the issue if he pleases-but I shall continue to press upon his attention, these important questions.

One word more in regard to Mr. Austin's illustration of the original condition and present and future progression of man, by the figure of the tree. My objection to this was, and is, that on his principles, there is no analogy between the illustration and the subject illustrated. He makes the human race commence their original existence in a state of moral imperfection; and their improvement, is not the expansion of element and powers, already

perfect in their nature, but deliverence from that state into which God subjected them, "not willingly." But the tree is created in a state of physical perfection: and its improvement is not deliverance from original rottenness, imposed on it by its Creator, but an expansion of the perfect elements if its perfect constitution. There is all this difference between the subject and the illustration; hence I said to make the figure applicable to the subject, he should find a tree created in a state of rottenness: but as God never created a rotten tree, the illustration, so far from explaining-really contradicts his theory. I deny most positively, and emphatically, that the Bible any where teaches that man was originally created in an imperfect, state or in a state of unavoidable subjection to vanity, or sin and misery. The physical, intellectual, and moral constitution of man were originally free from defect, they were only imperfect in a sense that admits of the expansion of those powers, already existing in a state of physical mental and moral perfection. The idea that God subjected man to a condition of sin and misery, against his will, is monstrous-and comes directly in the face of the gentleman's brilliant descriptions of the love of God.

Though I have already remarked incidentally on Mr. Austin's argument from the love of God, yet I will now give it a more particular consideration. He has taken great pains to frame this argument so as to cover its weak points, and produce the best possible impression, but by the aid of scripture, and a little common sense logic, we shall be able to dissect it and expose its fal

lacies.

1. Love is not an attribute, but an emotion of the mind: hence like other emotions, such as fear and hatred, it has no independent existence is not an essential element of nature, depends in its exercise upon external circumstances, and must vary in its character, according to the nature of the object which calls it forth. It is not safe to build an argument, in so grave a case as this, upon a mere emotion or affection of the divine mind, considered abstractly from the principles of his government, and the harmonious exercise of his attributes.

ter.

2. As God is the first source of all science, hence the principles of moral philosophy have their foundation in the divine characBut on these principles, that which is loved by a holy being, must be lovely in itself, must have some quality adapted to call forth love, and must be morally assimilated to the character of the being who loves. This is certainly true of the love of approbation or complacency. There may be love of pity, or compassion, without complacency, and it was in this sense that "God so loved the world," as to make provision for their salvation. But only that which is morally lovely, can he love with the love of approbation and delight.

Saints are lovely in his sight,

He views his children with delight,

He sees their hopes, he knows their fears,

He looks and loves his image there.

An argument from the love of God, for the salvation of such as acquire holiness of character, and trust in him by a course of obedience, would be sound; but a conclusiou from such a premise, embracing the unconditional salvation of all men, without distinction, and regardless of that moral character acquired by holy obedience, would violate the rules of sound logic, and the principles of moral philosophy.

3. That God "can do nothing but love," is not true, because it contradicts the scriptures. Dr. Payson, from whom this language is taken, never intended to use it in an unqualified sense; or, if he did, it would make no difference, since it is flatly opposed to the word of God. God is said to be displeased with sin, and to be "angry with the sinner every day." I admit there is nothing in the nature of God which answers to revengeful feeling, such as man in his condition of depravity, exhibits towards his fellow-men, yet it is a feeling of opposition and disapprobation towards those who transgress his holy law. My friend will not dispute that the Bible abounds in expressions that cannot be explained in any other way, than on supposition that there is in the mind of God, a feeling of disapprobation—of displeasure—a holy indignation against those who love depravity and practice sin. What did Isaiah allude to, but this, when he said, "O Lord I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortest me."-(xii. 1.)

It is also said in the scriptures, just as specifically and emphatically, just as unqualifiedly, and absolutely, "God is a consuming fire," as it is that he "is love." And the same logic that would prove the salvation of all men from the latter passage, would prove the damnation of all men from the former. It is also said, "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"(Heb. x. 31; xii. 29.) If these passages and their context, do not prove that God exercises a feeling towards those who are contentious and do not obey the truth," far different from that which he possesses towards his loving and obedient children, I am wholly at a loss to understand the meaning of language, or the force of terms. Observe. I do not believe that this language: "Our God is a consuming fire," is to be taken in an absolute and unqualified sense. Nor do I believe, the language, "God is love," is to be so understood. Both these passages, and all others represented in their character by these, are to be explained in their specific bearings and application, by the attributes of God, by the nature of his government, and by the relations and responsibility of man.

4. That God can do "nothing but love," is contradicted by the

voice of nature. Get some commanding eminence, and look out upon God's universe. If we had no voice announcing from his word, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life," what conclusion should we draw from the facts exhibited in nature? What conclusion have the heathen come to? Their consciences tell them they are guilty-and nature proclaims God an avenger of guilt a being of TERRIBLE MAJESTY. I know nature gives many indications of the wisdom and goodness of God. The flowers exhibit their beauty, and emit their fragrance, grateful to the sense of man. The grass is green -the rain of heaven descends upon the just and upon the unjust. The birds sing sweetly, the sun shines brightly; and when his disc is hid:

"The moon awakes, and with her virgin stars,

Walks in the heavens, conversing as she walks,
Of purity, of holiness, and God."

But then there is another side to this picture. There are moaning winds, and blighting frosts, and winter blasts. There are storms as well as sunshine. There are times when nature groans, and seems to die, while

"God and angels come to lay her in the tomb."

What means the pestilence which "walketh in darkness," and the "destruction which wasteth at noonday." What means that dreadful scourge the cholera, which with fearful visage, marches on-and on-and onward still, with giant tread, from continent to continent, interrupting the relations of life, and devouring its thousands at a meal? What means the sweeping tornado which speeds its furious course, spreading destruction of property and life wherever it comes, and then turning into calm and sunshine, as if to mock the joys and hopes of men, it looks, and

-"smiles, at the ruin it has wrought."

What means the inward rumbling, trembling, upheaving of the quaking earth-the burning lava which rushes down the mountain side, consuming every green thing, and overwhelming villages, cities, and their inhabitants in one common and dreadful destruction. To these examples of God's severity we might add the drowning of the old world, and the many other marks of terrible vengeance which God has executed upon the nations of the earth. Can God "do nothing but love?" If nature speaks of God's love, it also speaks of his severity and justice. From the foregoing facts, it must be evident, that if hope prevails over fear and despair, it will be because of the gracious assurance of revelation. The Bible assures us there is a disposition in the mind of God to forgive sin, and that he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall find mercy. But neither Revelation nor na

ture gives any pledge that the love of God, will, by its own absolute influence, effect the unconditional universal salvation of all

men.

5. The argument from the love of God refutes itself. The gentleman reasons thus :-"God is love," therefore all men will be finally holy and happy. My reply is "God is love," therefore all men are now holy and happy. This latter conclusion is false no one disputes this, hence the presumption is, that the other is false also. If holiness and happiness are the absolute productions of divine love, why do they not now exist with respect to the whole human race God's love is as strong now as it ever will be-it will possess no elements or influence hereafter beyond what it possesses now, but it does not now produce human holiness and happiness, how then is it to effect this object hereafter. It has been as true for six thousand years past, that "God is love," as it is now, and yet the world has abounded with depravity and misery during the whole period. Now, if the love of God acts upon human character and condition absolutely, irrespective of human agency or the principles of moral government, why has it not removed degradation and misery from the Universe? It has not done so, but on the contrary, thousands have become more and more depraved and wretched the longer they lived! The conclusion is unavoidable, that the argument is erroneous; for that which has not produced holiness and happiness in the ages that are passed, and is inefficacious to effect it now, can be no sufficient security for holiness and happiness in the fu

ture.

6. Mr. Austin argues again from the love of God, in substance as follows: Endless misery is an evil. If men are finally miserable, God will make them so; but this he cannot do, because he cannot be the author of evil: therefore all men will be finally holy and happy. Here is another specimen of the gentleman's slip-shod logic. I am sometimes really at a loss to determine whether my friend intends to deceive the audience, or whether he lacks the discernment necessary to detect the fallacies of his own argument, and is, therefore, himself deceived. In the process by which he arrives at the above deduction, there are a number of mere assumptions. First, he assumes that endless unhappiness is morally wrong, for this is the sense in which I understood him to use the term evil. But this depends upon principles and facts which are yet to be settled. In saying that the final perdition of the ungodly is morally wrong, he assumes the very point in debate-begs the question, and then draws his conclusion so as to harmonize with his theory. Secondly, he assumes that the moral character of punishment arises out of its duration, whereas, the nature and fitness of the punishment, does not depend upon its duration, but on the turpitude of the crime, and moral desert of the punished. Whether the punishment be for a long or short