Spirits "can do nothing but LOVE!!!" But Elder Holmes insists God can cherish other emotions for man, than love-that his feelings towards the evil, are different from those he entertains for the good. The Elder also points to the earthquake and pestilence, and inquires what these things mean? If Deity cherishes a different feeling than love, for any created thing, that feeling must be hatred! With such a being as God, there can be no medium ground between love and hatred-no state of indifference, partaking neither the character of love nor hatred. He must either love men or hate. And to say God does not love them, is equiva lent to asserting he hates them. This is the position occupied by my friend. He does not like to declare in so many words, the abhorrent thought that the Creator HATES his own offspring. But he says that which can mean nothing else, in insisting that God possesses other—(i. e. opposite-) feelings than love, for men. This is one of those instances, of which we have had frequent specimens during this discussion, in which Elder Holmes for the purpose of influencing the more ignorant portion of the audience, covertly INSINUATES that which he DARE NOT assert!! It is true, our Maker approbates the good, and disapprobates the sinful. But this disappobation does not destroy his love for the wicked. Every parent may know this, when he reflects that although he disapprobates the conduct of his disobedient son, yet he does not cease to love him. That God loves the sinful, is one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Has not my friend yet come to the knowledge of even this simple truth? St. Paul speaks of the "GREAT LOVE wherewith God loved us, even when we were dead in sins!"-(Eph. ii. 4, 5.)

I have shown how materially Mr. Holmes differs from Dr. Payson in regard God's love. Let us see whether he agrees any better with his own Dr. Adam Clarke. "God is Love. An Infinite Fountain of Benevolence, and Beneficence to EVERY HUMAN BEING. HE CANNOT HATE, because he is LOVE!! He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good; and sends his rain on the just and the unjust. He has made no human being for PERDITION; nor ever rendered it impossible, by any necessitating decree, for any fallen soul to find mercy. He has given the fullest proof of his love to the whole human race, by the incarnation of his Son, who tasted death for every man. How can a decree of absolute, unconditional reprobation of the greater part, or any part of the human race, stand in the presence of such a text as this? It has been well observed that although God is holy, just, righteous, &c., he is never called Holiness, Justice, &c., in the abstract, as he is here called LovE. This seems to be the ESSENCE of the Divine Nature, and all other Attributes to be only modifications of this!"-(Dr. C. on 1 John iv. 8.) Behold the position of the parties on this subject. Dr. Payson declares God can do nothing but love-Dr. Clarke asserts that "he cannot hate."-But Elder

Holmes contends he can do something besides love--he CAN HATE! Here we have Edward Payson, D. D. and Adam Clarke, D. D. versus David Holmes, A. M.

My friend has called our attention to earthquakes, storms, and tornadoes, to famine, pestilence, the cholera, and the destruction of the antediluvians, with an intent to show that God is not Love, or that he can hate as well as love. All these calamities and convulsions he introduces as evidence that he is filled with wrath and hatred towards the wicked. Whither is my opponent tending? Does he not know that in his phrenzied efforts to destroy the love of God, he has wandered into the grossest notions of the benighted heathen? The earthquake, the thunder, the whirlwind, the pestilence, are viewed by the ignorant Hindoo, the poor Indian, as evidence that their gods are ANGRY and full of hatred; and forthwith they fly to conceal themselves until their wrath is past, or haste to offer some sanguinary sacrifice to appease their excited fury!! In the Dark Ages, when the civilized world was plunged into the deepest ignorance, similar notions crept into the church of Christ, respecting the proceedings of the true God. Hence the origin of prayers, and fasts, and various ceremonies to appease the supposed anger of the Deity, in the midst of great calamities! But it could hardly have been anticipated, that in this enlightened age-in the middle of the Nineteenth Century-a clergyman could be found, holding a high station in the ranks of the Evangelical, who would resort even in so great an extremity and distress as my friend is, to these heathen notions, to prove that God hates his creatures! I have before asserted, that the distinctive features of modern orthodoxy, were drawn from Pagan mythology, and here we have another evidence of the truth of the assertion. Return my friend-I beg you, for the sake of consistency-return somewhere within the limits of Christianity to obtain your arguments-If not to find any that will be of more avail, at least return for the sake of supporting in some degree, the dignity of our discussion!!

When the whirlwind rushes over the earth, prostrating all things in its course-or the black cloud arises in the west, causing the hills and valleys to reverberate with its awful voice-flashing forth its vivid lightnings-crashing rock, tree, edifice, with its terrific thunder-bolt-the heart of man is filled with awe at the mighty goings forth of God in nature! To the ignorant, these movements appear the indications of anger in Him who "rideth on the whirlwind and directeth the storm." But to the intelligent mind, to the student of nature, who has investigated the operations of the physical laws of the world, these movements furnish the strongest evidence of the benevolence and love of nature's God. He sees in them a purpose characterized by the utmost wisdom and beneficence-a design to cleanse the atmosphere of the noxious vapor, the deadly miasma--to furnish a fresh,

pure, invigorating and healthful element for man and beast to inhale-and to water the earth with genial showers, that it may bud and blossom, and "bring forth seed for the sower and bread for the eater!"

In a similar light, and for similar uses, should famine, pestilence, the destruction of cities and nations, be viewed. They subserve the same purposes in the moral atmosphere of human society on earth, as the thunder-storm and whirlwind in the physical atmosphere. In the way of examples, warnings, admonitions, and all the thousand influences which they exert, they cleanse the moral atmosphere-burn up. as it were, the poisonous miasma of wickedness-restore a just equilibrium in the moral elements--and furnish for the time being, a pure atmosphere for the world! Is it inquired, what becomes of men, of nations, thus destroyed? Follow out the analogy. What becomes of the unhealthy malaria when removed from the atmosphere by the tornado or the thunder-storm? Is it destroyed? Not in the least. But it is changed in all its relations it enters into new and more fitting combinations; and through this transformation, that which before was poisonous, becomes pure and healthful. So of those individuals, communities, or races, whom God removes through great and terrific calamities, to cleanse the moral air of our world? They are not destroyed. A wise God would not create that which he foresaw it would be necessary for him to destroy. The very process by which he removes them to another existence, is one of the agencies through which he purifies them, while by their temporal calamity, he is purifying the earth! In another state of being, they are placed under higher influences-they form new and holier associations-they are instructed with heavenly knowledge their minds are enlightened, their hearts cleansed and thus they are fitted to go up to still holier and happier scenes-until at length they become worthy to worship with angels before the Throne of Omnipotent Love!!

Elder Holmes inquires whether God's love is not as strong now as it ever will be? And he insists that as his love does not now make all men happy, it never will produce that effect! Is my friend blind-or stubborn-or in an utter extremity-that he persists in urging again and again, an argument which is entirely destructive to his own hopes of salvation? An argument too, the fallacy of which has been repeatedly shown during this discussion. God's love does not save Elder Holmes, nor any of his Evangelical co-laborers, from sin, and imperfection, nor make them perfectly happy, in this life; and as his love is as strong now as it ever will be, it will never save them from the ills and evils of this existence. God's love is as strong now as it will be hereafter, and yet it allows the pious to endure crosses, trials and tribulations, while it permits the wicked, according to the partialist doctrine, to enjoy life in high glee, experiencing so much happiness

that they do not know even when they are punished!! Hence all these things will be precisely so hereafter and forever! How does my friend relish his logic when applied to himself! Let him test his argument by men's proceedings. A father loves his son as much at five years of age, as he will at twenty-one. But he does not establish him in business at five, hence we must conclude he will not at twenty-one!! Take another illustration-God's wisdom is as great when the green blade of wheat springs from the earth, as it will ever be. Yet it does not cause that blade then to produce the well-loaded head, hence he will never allow it to become ripened for the sickle! Is this the "deep water" of partialism? Need I again remind my friend and the audience, that all God's works and providences are progressive? His love is as strong at one time as another; for "he can do nothing but Love," says Dr. Payson. But he has times and seasons for the bestowment of all his gifts on his dependent creatures. He will grant each favor at the proper moment. The river of his Love, as manifested toward men, will gradually increase its volume in width and depth, until it becomes a mighty stream that "no man can cross over." in which a universe can bathe their souls, and wash away all their contaminations!

Mr. Holmes charges Universalists with representing God as "the basest of all hypocrites" in first making it absolutely NECESSARY for men to sin, and then commanding them not to sin, and punishing those who do sin! The audience cannot fail to see the groundlessness of this charge. His argument to support it affords as rare a specimen as the annals of controversy can show, of a reckless assumption of false premises--a charging upon an opponent positions which he has never taken, and then reasoning from these false premises and positions, as though they were true! If any system that the crazy imagination of man ever invented on earth, charges Deity with hypocrisy, it is that to which Elder Holmes is himself wedded. It acknowledges that God foresees and foreknows all things that can take place throughout time and eternity. He knows when he places terms before his creatures whether they will accept them, or reject them. Yet the gentleman's theology declares that Deity has affixed certain conditions to salvation that he is willing and anxious that his creatures should assent to them-nay, exhorts, urges, entreats, them to flee from the wrath to come, and comply with the terms of salvation -tells them they can comply, and that eternal happiness shall be the reward of their compliance-and yet all the time, FORESAW and FOREKNEW, that they would never comply!!-foreknew when he made the creature, that he would not fulfil the terms of salvation-foreknew when he arranged the terms, that the creature would not accept of them!!! And a man contending for such a theory, charges Universalists with making God a hypocrite!

This charge is destitute of even a shadow of truth. We do not assert that God has made it necessary for men to sin, or that he wills and compels them to sin. Nor do we take any ground from which such an inference can justly be drawn. I have repeatedly stated our views on this subject, and yet as repeatedly has my opponent continued his misrepresentations. We believe that for wise and good purposes, the Creator was pleased to cause man's endless existence to commence in the midst of imperfection -with a body subject to vanity-or as St. Paul expresses it"We have this treasure in EARTHEN [frail, imperfect] vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." -(2 Cor. iv. 7.) We believe that he endowed man with Moral Freedom, which involves not a necessity, but a liability to sinThat as a consequence of his condition and his gifts, he was in a state of exposure to temptation and wrong; but that there was no necessity, no compulsion, resting on him, to make him sin-there was no capacity or faculty of body or mind, that unavoidably led him to the commission of wickedness. He had sufficient power given to resist all temptation, and control all his passions, so that he could be, as was the Savior, "tempted in all things, and yet without sin!" He was made FREE to obey or disobey, as he might choose. And from this freedom grows his responsibility!! Viewing the subject in this light, God could, with great propriety! forbid him to sin-and advise, urge, exhort him, not to give way to temptation!!-He could also with the utmost consistency and justice, when he fell into sin, punish him for his wrong doing, to turn him from his evil ways, and bring him into obedience and love!! Here is where Universalists stand on this subject. Hence all intelligent minds will see, that the Elder's argument so full of display and flourish to prove that we make God a hypocrite, vanishes into thin air; and that the three horns of his boasted dilemma, effect no other mischief than to gore to the vitals of his own system!

Having given our opinion on the subject of man's imperfection, let me call upon my opponent to assume the responsibility of laying before us his explanation. Will he inform us how Deity could bestow moral freedom on an intelligent being, without involving a liability to sin? Man's subjection to imperfection and exposure to temptation, must have been either in accordance with God's will, or in opposition to it. If in opposition, as Elder Holmes contends, then his Will has been frustrated. If the Creator's Will has been frustrated in one respect, will he show us why it may not in another, and all respects? Will he instruct us why it may not be frustrated in its plans to make any of his creatures happy in another world? I hope he will also tell us upon what foundation he places his trust for future and endless felicity, if God's will and purpose can be overthrown! And moreover let him not forget to teach us the meaning of the Bible dec