pose God ignorant of it until it takes place. Another fallacy on which my friend builds this argument, consists in confounding certainty and necessity-things in themselves entirely different. An event may be certain, without being necessary. Certainly is that which will be, though it might have been otherwise. Necessity is that which must be, and cannot be otherwise. God may know an event to be certain, simply because he is infinite in knowledge; but at the same time, the event is not necessary, because it might have been otherwise. God may certainly know that a particular sinner will be lost, but why does he know it? Not because there is any efficient influence in mere knowledge-but because he foresees the sinner will voluntarily choose death, in the error of his ways; and he knows, at the same time, that the sinner has power to take a different course and be saved. If, therefore, he knows a sinner will be lost, he knows it as the result of the willful rejection of the Gospel, and at the same time he knows the sinner has (if he would use it) power to repent, and change the nature of his destiny. The responsibility of the event, it is plain from this, rests upon man, not on God.

By taking into view these two important points, wholly overlooked by Mr. Austin, viz, that knowledge in itself cannot be responsible for the character of events, and that an event is not necessary, because it is certain, we shall find no difficulty in reconciling foreknowledge with the contingency of events, and the moral agency of man. The conclusion which my friend would draw from divine foreknowledge, seems to be this-that it would be incompatible with the character of God, to allow a being to come into existence whom he foreknew would be finally miserable-that he would have allowed all such to "remain in non-entity." He therefore concludes, God has suffered none to exist, save those whom he foreknew would be finally holy and happy. Without stopping to enquire how any portion of the human race could "remain in nonentity," it will be a sufficient answer to this conclusion to say: First, that it is founded on the supposition, that divine knowledge and predestination are identical--than which nothing is more palpably erroneous. Knowledge is an attribute, but predestination is an act. Hence, it is utterly impossible that they should be identical. Knowledge is that which exists, but does not imply action -may exist forever, without any action or efficiency whatever. Predestination is that which performs-acts--and cannot exist without executive energy and efficiency. Secondly, as man must be a moral agent, in order to be the subject of moral happiness, hence if he is created with the power of happiness, he must also possess power to forfeit happiness, otherwise he is not a moral agent. But possessing power to forfeit happiness, God must foreknow any event of this kind that will ever take place. He foreknows it, simply because he is infinite in knowledge, and for no other reason. To say he may not create men, because he foresees

they will unnecessarily and perversely violate the laws and conditions of their being, and make themselves miserable, is to assume that he may not create moral beings at all, and thus rob him of his character as a moral Governor. That is, it is to get above God, and dictate what is, or is not proper for the infinite Jehovah to do. In the third place, Mr. Austin's position makes God morally responsible for every event, evil in itself, which occurs in the universe, simply because he is infinite in knowledge. He places the infinite God under the disagreeable necessity of remaining in ignorance of all evil events, until they actually occur; or, on the other hand, of standing out before his universe, as the direct and efficient author of all moral evil. Which of these conclusions will my friend take? One he must take, or give up his argument, and acknowledge his conclusion a nullity. Either God does not know all things, or, on Mr. Austin's principles, he does all things, and thus the gentleman's logic is destroyed by the absurdity of his conclusion.

I have already shown, conclusively, I think, that to prevent the existence of one, because it was foreseen he would forfeit his own happiness, would be to deprive many of the blessing of existence, who, if allowed to live, would be holy and happy forever. The gentleman has referred to this, but in such way as shows how entirely unable he is to refute it. The constitution and relations of the family of man directly confirm my view. To gather up the tares, would be to destroy the wheat with them. Had men been created without a federal head-without the relations which now exist among them-like the angels of God, each one independent of all the rest-they would have possessed the same power to sin as now, and sinning, their circumstances would have been less favorable to salvation. Perhaps it was seen, that falling, under such circumstances, they could have no redemption. We read in scripture of the angels which kept not their first estate and are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day."-(Jude 6th.) As the human family fell in Adam, so they are redeemed in Christ-a benefit not awarded to sinning angels.

Mr. Austin makes an effort to answer my negative argument on the subject of salvation. He alledges I said Universalism teaches there is no salvation. Not so. I said there is no salvation in that system-by which I meant, it possesses no evangelical influence, and presents and confers no gospel benefit, which can properly be denominated salvation. This must be perfectly obvious to every intelligent mind. The gentleman is contending for the holiness and happiness of all men in their final state, and yet his own definition of salvation is proof positive that their final holiness and happiness cannot be the result of gospel salvation-or of salvation in any sense. His definition is that to be saved, is to be delivered from sin. Well, in the mouth of an orthodox man, we should at once comprehend the meaning of this language; but coming from a Universalist, who rejects the standard signification of many Bible

words, we are not quite satisfied; we therefore enquire, what he means by "salvation from sin," and he tells us to be saved from sin, is to be "saved from sinning" Very good, as far as it goes; but as it stops short of the point at which we aim, and seems yet somewhat obscure, we press the gentleman for farther light --and then we get the whole of it--salvation, is to be " saved from a condition or state in which we are exposed to sin." This is the "summum bonum" of the salvation of Universalism. And now, in view of this definition, which appears sufficiently plain, I repeat, with emphasis, my former declaration-there is no salvation in the system Mr. Austin advocates. Look at it: salvation is deliverance from that state or condition “ in which we are exposed to sin.” Now, in the first place, God subjected us to this state himself, purposely, according to my friend's own showing: hence, the salvation he confers, if any, is deliverance from a condition in which he has placed us, and for which he alone is responsible. But in the second place, even this salvation is not conferred, since no man on earth, by the gospel or otherwise, is delivered from a condition in which he is exposed to sin. The holiest man on earth does not enjoy such salvation, nor can he. A condition of exposure to sin, is our unavoidable earthly condition: hence, salvation from this condition is not possessed, and cannot be secured by any living man. Well, is this salvation conferred in a future state? No, because Universalism does not admit that men are exposed in another world. It is a fundamental proposition of the system which my friend advocates, that there is no moral evil in a future world, to which men are exposed, and from which they need be delivered. Moreover, if the gentleman should succeed in proving that all men will be finally holy and happy, that holiness and happiness would not result from salvation, nor would it be salvation, unless salvation may be enjoyed independent of the gospel. He does not believe men were ever lost, in respect to their final condition: hence that condition of final happiness for which he contends, is in no sense a gospel benefit. Salvation is not effected here, because our state of exposure to sin continues during life-it is not effected in the future world, because there men are not in a condition in which they are exposed to sin and misery; final holiness and happiness is not salvation, for the reason that men were never lost, in respect to their final state. Here, then, on Mr. Austin's own principles of definition and interpretation, his salvation ooxes out-is filtered away-and vanishes into smoke,

-"as the vapor flies,

Dispersed by lightest blasts, and leaves no trace behind."

My respected auditors, what do you now think of my negative argument, founded on the fact that there is no salvation in Universalism? Is it not sound and unanswerable? And what do you think of the salvation taught by Universalism, and defended by the

gentleman opposed to me? There is no telling the amount of ink that has been shel to defend this salvation--the amount of eloquence and rhetoric employed in recommending it. The changes have been wrung upon "universal salvation," through the length and breadth of the land. Invidious and ridiculous comparisons have been instituted between it, and the salvation taught by orthodox christians, whose views are stigmatized as stinted, partial and pharasaic; and when the attention is arrested by the vociferations of Universalist propagandists, and the mind is directed to the work of scanning the, nature and testing the merits, of that salvation of which so many beautiful and glorious things are said-it is then only, that the imposition sought to be palmed off upon the reEgious public, appears in its true light. The more the mind attempts to define this salvation, the more indefinite it appears; and when the task is nearest done, the mind is fixed with a vacant stare, gazing on emptiness. Is such a salvation worthy the time and attention of intelligent minds? Will you bewilder yourselves with such a chimera--such a moon-struck reverie? Will you trifle with your dearest interests, by pursuing such a "Jack o'lantern" salvation-which recedes from you the more you approach it? I offer you a better-one you can explain, see, feel, and know that you have it the present and abiding sense of God's pardoning love, and the inward enjoyment of the first fruits of a glorious, heavenly inheritance. As for this salvation of Universalism, "I wot not what is become of it."

I have now answered nine of Mr. Austin's affirmative arguments. These arguments are founded on the intention-desire--sovereignty -love-will-justice--and foreknowledge of God, together with his deductions from the Divine Paternity, and the fulfillment of the law by Christ. I have shown these arguments to be unsound in their premises, or sophistical in their conclusions--that they are inconsistent with the government of God, and that most of them, so far from sustaining Universalism, do even refute the proposition they were brought to establish. And now, as something has been, and much will be said, concerning the Divine attributes, I will proceed to state some principles and facts, which cannot fail to set this subject in its true light, before the audience.--[ Time expired.

[MR. AUSTIN'S EIGHTH SPEECH.]

Gentlemen-I do not know that I have ever seen or heard of a controversialist who has been driven to the straight in which my brother oppsite is involved. In his extremity he has gone so far as to deny some of the fundamental perfections of God's naHe would seem willing to strip from Jehovah his most glorious Attributes, rather than have them yield their support to octrine so desirable and lovely as the salvation of all men from

ture.

265

sin and death. He declares Mercy is not an Attribute of God, nor Justice, nor Forcknowledge!

it.

MR. HOLMES.-Foreknowledge is not. Knowledge is.

MR. AUSTIN.And thus he seeks to overthrow the chief arguments I have introduced, by undermining the Attributes of the Most High, on which they are built. Realizing the deep conviction wrought upon the minds of the audience by the argument from the Foreknowledge of God, he renews his feeble attack upon In doing this, he has not hesitated to trample under his fect the first principles of reason. Foresees and Foreknows a certain event, does not make it necessaHe asserts that the fact that God ry or certain it will take place!!! Here is a specimen of Evangelical logic-a specimen of the reasoning by which our partialist neighbors are seeking to perpetuate their inconsistent doctrines! Is the man blind! Or does he imagine the audience and the world have thrown away their common sense!! How could my friend summon the courage to insult the understandings of men, by a statement so absurd! evident dictate of reason, that if God foreknows a thing will be It is the most simple and selfdone, it is conclusive proof it will take place. He foresees and foreknows it, because it is CERTAIN it will transpire. Were it not for this certainty, it could not be foreknown. All eternity is simply NOW, with Jehovah. For him to foreknow an event, makes it as certain, as it will be when it has transpired. Whatever God foresees, it is to him as much a present object, as that is to man which he now actually sees. tainly know the sun shines, when we SEE its light at mid-day, We do not any more certhan he foreknows whatever will transpire throughout eternity. If any human beings will be miserable forever, God must have foreseen that such fate awaited them, when he created them. And voluntary ushering them into existence, under the light of this foreknowledge, he must have formed them for that express end! These facts are self-evident. Hence we maintain that not a creature God has formed will become forever miserable. A being possessing the moral perfections attributed to Jehovah-Benevofence, Goodness, Love-would not, and could not, form a sentient being, when he foreknew that such a doom awaited it. The truth is, in every logical and enlightened mind, the only choice is between pure Calvinism and pure Universalism!-between Election and Reprobation, and the Final Salvation of all men!!

The anecdote of the quack physician who was "death on fits," was of course calculated to raise a laugh from a few thoughtless youth and children. But to the reflecting portion of the audience, who perceived the object of its introduction, it manifested deep irreverence of God, and took the form of a solemn mockery of the great plans he has adopted for the extinction of sin and wretchedness in his Universe! As to the representation that according

12