he voluntarily placed him there, KNOWING that the result of that proceeding would be the death of the child! In this act also, the father would violate the claims of Justice, which the child held upon him. The child was passive in the hands of his father he was not allowed his own choice, or in any way to determine whether he would or would not, be placed in a condition so full of peril-he could exercise no foresight as to what would be the consequence of such an exposure, and when placed there, was entirely ignorant of the disaster that would ensue! The father foresaw every thing that would transpire; and having the child within his control-being able to do whatever he pleased-to expose him to such a danger, or keep him in a place of perfect security-the simple requirement of Justice dictated, that under such circumstances, he should not put at hazard a stake so precious as the life of his offspring!! His failure to guard the welfare of one thus wholly dependant on him, was a marked and monstrous violation of the first principles of Justice. Apply this illustration to our subject.

All human beings, at the time of their creation, are wholly at the disposal of God. Their destiny depends upon the circumstances which accompany their existence. Deity does not give his creatures the privilege of exercising any choice, whether they will be created or not. He allows them no choice as to the time, or the circumstances of their creation-no choice respecting the world in which they should exist-no choice in regard to the kind of beings they should be made--no choice as to what capacities, passions or propensities they should be endowed with! In fine, they had not the slightest choice, voice, or influence, in the whole matter. There they were, passive, HELPLESS, UNCONSCIOUS, in the hands of God, as clay with the potter!! The Creator acted according to his own pleasure, in the entire transaction. He was under no compulsion to create, but was perfectly independent of all beings, and subject to no influence, except such as originated in his own nature. And when of his own accord, he determined to create, he was at full liberty to form his creatures at such time, in such a world, and under such circumstances as he preferred. He could create them angels, or men, and could endow them with such propensities and capabilities as seemed good in his own sight. He could make such things dependent on their actions as he pleased, and place such essentials to their welfare both here and hereafter, beyond all contingency, as seemed good to him. He could PERIL their final destiny, or make it PERFECTLY SECURE at his own option! Moreover, his all-seeing Eye beheld what would be the ultimate condition of all human beings, under any given class of circumstances in which they should be placed in life. He foreknew what would be the final effect of placing any conditions before them, or endowing them with any agency or freedom. He well understood precisely what would result in the everlasting

misery of his creatures, and what would make certain their final holiness and happiness.

In this undeniable view of the case, who does not see that the final condition of mankind, depended wholly upon the circumstances under which the Creator should give them being? And now allow me to inquire, Would Infinite Justice consent that God should FORCE sentient beings into existence, clearly FORESEEING that through any contingency whatever, their ultimate doom would be ENDLESS AGONY!! No! NO!! If we have the slightest conception of the principles of Justice, it would utter its SOLEMN PROTEST in the Councils of Heaven, against any procedure of this description! It would insist that passive, unconscious creatures had committed no crime, no offence, that ought justly to subject them to the evil of being created with such a doom clearly foreseen as awaiting them!!

It is in vain to say that the creature need not fall into endless woe-that God gave him power and opportunity to avoid it, if he chose. How could that doom be averted when the Creator clearly FORESAW he would experience it. Such an event cannot take place without Jehovah foresaw it from the beginning. And the fact that he foresaw it, made it positive from eternity, that it would take place. Whatever ability or agency may have been given to the creature, those whom God foreknew would be lost, he foreknew also, would through blindness, ignorance, imperfection or sinfulness, neglect and abuse all such gifts, and fall into endless blasphemy and ruin! Justice would forever FORBID that any being should be formed, with such a destiny foreseen! It would insist if human beings could not be created without finally being plunged into eternal despair, that they should be allowed to sleep in harmless oblivion! Why should a wise and merciful God create at all, when he saw the existence of his creatures would terminate so disastrously-so entirely in opposition to his own goodness and mercy, and the wishes of all good beings? But creating man for his own pleasure, and making him such a being as seemed best to him, plain Justice-evenhanded Equity-demanded that God should not allow any being to become an endless loser by his existence. Justice would insist that he should so create man, and so control his destiny, that it shall result in permanent good-in securing to each being holiness and bliss, and to God himself the obedience and love of all his intelligent offspring. Thus strict Justice requires the final happiness of all men.

Elder Holmes yesterday, in his fourth Reply, made a desperate struggle to overthrow my argument from the Love of God. To do this, he takes positions which totally rob the Creator of every particle of love, or of all love that possesses any activity, efficiency, or value! He is compelled to this course, in order to weaken evidence in favor of Universal Salvation, which legitimately flows

from Jehovah's love. Did he allow there was but ONE DROP of pure Love in the Nature of the Most High, it would prove beyond every contingency, the truth of the final salvation of all men, and the utter falsity of the Elder's darling tenet of Endless Wrath!! Hence he closes his eyes, and with blind fury, drives "rough-shod" over scripture, reason, logic, common sense, to show that there is NO LOVE in Deity, upon which a human being can place dependence for salvation. In the very teeth of express declarations of the Bible, he virtually contends that God does not love his enemies-sinners-but that his love extends only to friends; those who love him. In this he ignorantly reverses the position established by the Apostle-We love him because he FIRST loved us"-(1 John iv. 19)-and virtually insults St. John, by telling him he should have written, He loves us, because we FIRST loved him!!" The result of his description of God's love, is that it is only that selfish and miserable emotion, which was cherished by the publicans of old, and which so justly received the rebuke of the Savior-"If ye love them [only] which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?"-(Matt. v. 46.)

But

The Elder asserts that Love is not an attribute, but an emotion; and that it has no independent existence. Then God is but an emotion-and has no independent existence-for "God is Love." Dr. Payson and Dr. Adam Clarke elevated Love to the dignity of holding the highest station of all the characteristics of Deity; and maintained that every attribute of the Creator, had birth in his Love, and were indeed, but varied manifestations of Love. But Elder Holmes drags it down from this high estate and tramples it into the ignoble condition, so far as its existence is concerned, of equality with the brutal passions of fear and hatred!!! He declares it is not SAFE to build an argument in favor of salvation, upon such a MERE emotion of the Divine Mind, as LOVE!!! That such an argument bears strongly against the safety of the modern orthodox theory, is undoubtedly true. when men forsake God's love, as a foundation for hope of salvation, will our friend please inform the audience where they can rest their hopes? Moreover, Mr. Holmes informs us that an argument from the Love of God for the salvation of all men, "without regard to heir moral character," is against logic and philosophy. Very well-who builds such an argument t? I have not. My position is, not that God will save all men without reference to their moral character; but that his love will prompt him to bring all men, through the reign of Christ, into such a moral and spiritual condition, as will fit them for the enjoyment of his presence forever! Why will my opponent persist in giving a false coloring to my views? All the advantage he seeks to gain in this discussion, is upon distorted representations of my positions.

He asserts that the scriptures as positively declare that "God is a consuming fire," as that he is "Love" Let us give this position a brief notice. The scriptures repeatedly assert that "God is Love"-they declare his love extends to all-and to describe the impartiality, boundlessness, and eternity of that love, is one of the favorite topics of the divine writers. Hence to believe as my friend is evidently striving to make you, that the Bible urges with equal emphasis, and as of equal importance, the assertion that "God is a consuming fire," is to magnify the latter declaration into an importance which it was never designed to possess. What does my learned opponent understand by the declaration under consideration? What does God consume as a "fire?" Human beings? his own children? How abhorrent the doctrine! The Elder does not like to assert this, in so many words; but he insinuates such an idea, in quoting the passage for the purpose he has. If he really believes the Creator burns up his offspring, as the savages do their enemies, we have a rare specimen of his intelligence. If he does not believe this, and yet quotes the passage with the object of conveying such an impression to the unen-. lightened portion of the audience, he affords us a still rarer specimen of his candor! What should be understood by the declaration that "God is a consuming fire ?"-(Heb. xii. 29.) It is simply a phrase indicative of God's power and energy in detecting and destroying all the schemes of the wicked, and in bringing them to a just punishment-which punishment shall result in burning up, destroying, all iniquity and error, and in the cleansing of the guilty from every immorality. The whole scope of this kind of phraseology is given us by St. Paul, in his use of a similar figure." For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be SAVED; yet so as by fire-(1 Cor. iii. 11-15.) Origen, one of the most learned and eminent of the Christian Fathers in the third century, in the following extract from his works, gives us his view of the meaning of the declaration that "God is a consuming fire," and like scriptural phraseolgy. And there is the best of reason for the belief that Origen imbibed his sentiments on this subject, directly from the immediate successors of the Apostles. He says:

"The sacred scriptures do indeed call our God a consuming fire; and say that rivers of fire go before his face, and that he shall come as a refiner's fire, and as fuller's soap, and purify the the people. As therefore, God is a consuming fire, what is that

to be consumed by him? We say it is wickedness, and whatever proceeds from it, such as is figuratively called wood, hay, stubble; these are what God in the character of fire, consumes. And it is evidently the wicked works of a man which are denoted by the terms wood, hay, and stubble; it is consequently easy to understand what is the nature of that fire by which they are to be consumed. Says the Apostle, the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any one's work abide which he hath built, he shall receive a reward. If any one's work be burned, he shall suffer loss."

The Elder informs us that the Bible declares "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."(Heb. x. 31.) Do the audience perceive the object for which he is hunting up these passages of scripture? It is to infuse doubt in your minds in regard to the love of God-to make you fear that God hates instead of loves-in other words, to find something that shall contradict the assertion of St. John, that "God is Love!"-(1 John iv. 8.) He would, as far as he dare, destroy the influence of the inspired Apostle, and induce you to believe God IS NOT Love! It is truly a fearful thing for the wicked to fall into the hands of the living God. Why? Not because his love is withdrawn from them, but because he inflicts condign punishment upon them, and by a process, severe and trying, but salutary, brings them at length to a heartfelt repentance of their sins. The infliction of pain, is ever fearful to him who endures it, however beneficial the object. It is a fearful thing for a wounded man to fall into the hands of a surgeon, to have a joint set, or a limb amputated. Yet he knows the physician is his friend, and that the pain is designed for his good!

Mr. Holmes says he does not believe the declaration of the scriptures, that "God is Love," is to be taken in an absolute sense! So any one would judge from the positions he assumes, and the doctrines he defends. There is a very weighty reason why he should seek to weaken the strength of this important declaration, and throw around it all the doubt and suspicion possible. For when received only in its most plain and obvious sense, it utterly annihilates the doctrine of the endless perpetuity of sin and misery, and proves to a demonstration, the final happiness of all mankind. Did I deem it my duty to defend the doctrines my friend advocates, I would strive to thrust aside and overthrow if possible, a declaration so Omnipotent in its weight and influence, as the three inspired words of St. John-"GOD IS LOVE!!" But who so weak-minded among the people, as to be deceived by his futile attempts to neutralize the weight of this passage? There it stands so plain that a child can comprehend it, and yet so mighty that all the arts of sophistry cannot overturn it!

In my argument on the Love of God, I introduced an eloquent extract from Dr. Payson, in which he declares that the Father of