to Universalism, God was compelled to make men sin, before he could elevate them to happiness, I have again and again shown its entire misapplication. There were other ways innumerable, in which Deity could have brought his creatures around his throne, in obedience and love, than that which is now in process. But from an infinite variety of plans, he adopted that which introduces man into existence amid imperfection and temptation. Am I to cavil with God's word, and cast contempt and ridicule upon it, when it declares that his creatures were made subject to vanity, by Him who subjected the same in hope"-and by Him too, who will in good time "deliver them from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God!” I bow before this declaration, and receive the doctrine it inculcates, let my friend despise and jeer it as he will!! It is a most precious and glorious sentiment, that "God is death on sin!" In the utterance of his ridicule, Mr. Holmes blundered into the declaration of a Great Truth! That God shall finally destroy all sin is a doctrine of the Bible-a doctrine which angels love-which saints on earth and in heaven admire-and which crowns the Providence of Jehovah with a perfection, a sublimity, a glory, for which we look in vain, in the light of an opposite sentiment. Even in ridicule, if he cannot be persuaded to do it in any other manner, I hope my friend will still continue to declare the momentous truth, that God is death on sin!!"

My argument on the Will of God, has exceedingly distressed my opponent. Its premises are sound--its deductions clear-its whole weight so irresistible in defence of Universal Salvation, that he is disheartened at the outset of his attempts to weaken it. His first effort, as usual when he has nothing better, is to cast all the disparagement possible, upon this argument. He styles it, "bombastic," besides applying several other choice epithets, which always indicate a paucity of sound objections, and an abundance of sophistry, besides revealing the deep perplexity of him who indulges in them. I would advise my friend to keep cool, and strive to be a little more respectful, at least for his own credit's sake, and, throwing aside the boy's resort of calling hard names, buckle on his armor for sober work. I assure him there is enough before him to occupy his attention, without turning aside to throw stones and dirt at his opponent.

He says I assume the word Will means just what I want it to mean. The audience will unanimously bear me witness, that this charge is absurdly erroneous. In this discussion, I assume nothing! Every position is well grounded, and supported by direct and positive evidence, drawn from the scriptures and from reason. I think I may claim this merit, without fear of contradiction from any candid mind. It would afford me pleasure to have those interested in this debate, review my course, with an express reference to this characteristic.

The Elder asserts that my definitions of the meaning of the word Will, are all arbitrarily framed, with direct reference to the principles of Universalism, and in contradiction to acknowledged standards, both literary and theological. Poor man! In this he has again fallen into a sad blunder, as will soon be manifest. All these assertions are alike groundless. My definition of God's Will, is framed in express reference to truth-drawn distinctly from the philology of the word, and from its scripture usage. As to acknowledged standards, my views agree perfectly with lexicons and dictionaries, for which my friend has so great love, as will be evident in a few moments. For reasons which must be apparent to the discerning, I did not complete my argument from the Will of God, when it was first introduced. I was anxious to have the Elder make a display of his critical abilities before I entered more fully into that argument. This display having now been made, though in a manner that can but excite our pity and sympathy for the perplexed condition of my opponent, I shall now proceed to conclude the argument; and then if he can invalidate it, he shall be welcome to do so. Allow me, however, to allude a moment to his declaration, that I have come here with my arguments all wirtten down, and then reading them upon "the gallop," as he chastely styles my method of speaking. Why should my friend charge me with that of which he is himself guilty? There is not a person attending this debate, who does not know that the Elder has read quite as much, if not more, from his written arguments, than I have. Who does not remember his long, prosy readings from manuscripts laboriously prepared before-hand, and even from the Methodist Quarterly Review, to the evident advantage of those of the audience who were disposed to indulge in drowsiness. It will not be doubted by our hearers, that I have spoken extemporaneously in as great a proportion, as my friend opposite.

In his halting notice of my argument from the Will of God, Elder Holmes has exposed more weak points than I even anticipated, although I was expecting a great failure in that direction. He acknowledged that if I had stated my premises correctly, viz. in relation to the nature of God's Will, I had obtained my case. This is undoubtedly true. On the correctness of my premises, I place my dependence for the strength of my argument. And my premises are, that Jehovah's Will-whatever its nature; whether a Will of desire or of determination-must in all cases, be ultimately fulfilled, to the very letter. From these premises, I draw the conclusion, that as God has expressly declared he "WILL have ALL MEN to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth"-(1 Tim. ii. 4.)—all men will thus be saved, "in the fulness of times." My opponent contends that in the passage quoted, God's Will is a will of desire, of benevolence. Allowing this, it would not help his case in the slightest degree. With a

being like Jehovah-possessing illimitable resources, infinite knowledge, and omnipotent power-to desire a thing is to DO it. The fact that God desires it, shows it to be desirable, and that it would be proper and feasible to accomplish it. The Deity would not desire that which it would be improper or impossible to do. He is not as a weak-minded child, to "long" for what he knows cannot be obtained! When it is admitted, as it is by my friend, that God DESIRES the salvation of all men, then it must either be acknowledged that all will, in due time, be saved, or that he is deficient in POWER-that Omnipotence does not pertain to him. In other words, that he is not the Supreme God!! The scriptures settle this point, by asserting, that what his soul DESIRETH,. even that he doeth!!"-(Job. xxiii. 13.)

While, therefore, so far as the strength of my argument is concerned, it can make no difference whether the Will of God, in 1 Tim. ii. 4, is a Will of desire or of absolute determination, yet I maintain it is a Will of determination. I take this ground simply because this is the true meaning of the word in that passage. In supporting this position, I meet and accept the challenge of my friend, to show that God's will in this case is one of determination! Before proceeding to this work, allow me to introduce an anecdote, of which I am strongly reminded by the position of my friend on this subject. Soon after Rev. JOHN MURRAY had commenced preaching the doctrine of the world's salvation, in Gloucester, Mass., an orthodox clergyman, with a view of overthrowing that sentiment, took for his text on a certain occasion, 1 Tim. ii. 4. After reading the passage, he introduced his sermon with the following words: "My friends, St. Paul asserts in my text, that God, WILL have ALL MEN to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth,' But it will be the object of my discourse to show you that God WILL NOT have all men to be saved!!" This was plain work. His audience were prepared to hear the mistake of St. Paul rectified! My friend's work is of a similar nature. The Apostle declares God will have all men to be saved --Elder Holmes stoutly contends that God will not have all men to be saved! Of course, if the Elder is right, St. Paul has uttered a flat FALSEHOOD!!!

Perhaps there are few instances where the public have been more widely misled by those clergymen who claim to be considered orthodox, than in attempts to show that God's Will in reference to man's salvation, simply signifies his wish or desire. In this, they have made a radical mistake. Thelema-thelematos— theleis-are Greek words of a common derivation, which are frequently found in the New Testament, and usually translated Will My friend has charged me with being afraid to quote Dictionaries and Lexicons. I told him some days ago, that I did not build my faith on Dictionaries or Lexicons, but on the Bible. I would not give a fig for all the theology which depends on Lex

icons or Dictionaries made by fallible men who are influenced by their peculiar religious views. But to please my opponent, I will consult the Lexicon in regard to the words mentioned. Robinson's Greek Lexicon gives their primary meaning as follows: "Thelema-spoken of PURPOSE, DESIGN, intention." He gives as an example of the use of the word in this sense, 1 Cor. i. 1 -"Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will [thelematos] of God,"-i. e. through the purpose, the determination of God. Robinson also gives us another shade of the meaning of Thelema "The sense of command, order, direction" and quotes in illustration, John v. 30-"I seek not my own will, [thelema,] but the will [thelema] of the Father which hath

sent me."

It is true Robinson gives one of the shades of meaning of these words, as indicating, “to desire”—“to wish." But it is a remarkable fact, that in every passage of scripture quoted to illustrate this meaning, the one who wishes or desires, is not God, but some subordinate being. Mark the fact, that according to this Lexicon, whenever and wherever thelema, or either of these words, means "to desire," or "to wish," it is not applied to God, but to some created being. The instances cited by Elder Holmes himself, fully sustain this position. "When Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous [thelon] to see him of a long season." (Luke xxxiii. 8.) "I desire [ethelon] to be present with you now."-(Gala. iv. 20.) "And he said unto her, [the mother of Zebedee's children,] what wilt [theleis] thou?"-(Matt. xx. 21.) In each of these cases, it will be seen it is Herod, Paul, the Mother, that desires, and not GoD! In no instance in the Bible, does thelema, or corresponding words, when used in reference to God's Will, signify simply, desire, or wish. In all cases where it stands for the Will of Jehovah, its meaning is, purpose -design-intention-determination. Let me give a few samples "I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own will, [thelema.] but the Will [thelema] of him that sent me."---(John vi. 38.) "Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the Will [thelematos] of God." (Colos. i. 1.) "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the Will [thelema] of God and our Father."-(Gal. i. 4.) "That ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect [thelemaj will of God."-(Rom. xii. 2.) "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he Will [thelei] have mercy, and whom he Will [thelei] he hardeneth."-(Rom. ix. 18.)

In all cases, (and scores of like character might be quoted,) where the Will of God evidently signifies his purpose-designintention-a similar word is used to that in 1 Tim. ii. 4-God "WILL [thelei] have all men to be saved." Indeed the scriptures know of no other Will of God, but his Will of determination! Hence I pronounce the criticism of my friend, to be entirely

groundless. It is unwarranted by the scriptures, and unsupported by the laws of language, or by any meaning the inspired penmen have given to thelema and corresponding words, when applied to God. He charges me with maintaining that thelema, thelo, etc., signify a will of determination in all cases, and proceeds to quote several passages to show the absurdity of such a position. But this is labor lost on the part of my opponent. I have taken no such position; and it is but ridiculous in him to imagine I could commit so great a blunder. In many instances where reference is had to the will of man, these words have the meaning of desire or wish. But I maintain that wherever thelema, and like words, are used in reference to God, they invariaby signify a will of determination! My opponent cannot invalidate this position. He cannot give a single example where any other meaning can attach to the Will of Jehovah.

With a blindness truly astonishing, my friend has quoted scripture, to show that God's Will is not always accomplished. Suppose he had succeeded in this most reasonable and delightful undertaking, what would have been the result? Nothing less than that he would have made the Bible CONTRADICT itself. No language can be more positive, than the declaration of the divine word, as already repeatedly quoted, that God "DOETH his Will in heaven and upon earth." Hence, if the Bible is the word of the Most High, it cannot in any place, assert or intimate, that his Will is not done in earth and heaven! This is not the first attempt, and I fear it will not be the last, in which my opponent has recklessly strived to make scripture overthrow and destroy scripture, and cause the Deity to deny in one place, what he ha emphatically asserted in another! The passages quoted by the Elder, when correctly understood, in no sense contradict the Bible doctrine that Jehovah's will is always accomplished. None can fail to see this, who take the slightest pains to distinguish between the Will of God, as it respects man's present subjection to vanity, and his Will in regard to the ultimate condition of his creatures!!

But the most puerile, and I was about to say, the most laugha ble, attempt of my friend, on this subject, is his quotation of scripture, to show that Christ's Will has been frustrated. Pray what relation has this quotation to the point in debate? I trust he is not disposed to assume the doctrine of the Trinity, and insist that God's Will, and Christ's, are synonymous! He is aware I cannot grant this, for an instant. Jesus is a subordinate being, and his will is not infinite, as is Jehovah's. That the Will of the Savior is finite, and in subjection to the Will of God, is proved conclusively by the prayer of the Redeemer." Not my Will, but thine be done." (Luke xxii. 42.) However clearly it may be shown that Christ's will, or the will of any other subordinate being, can be overthrown, it will not afford the slightest evidence, that the