est. When a thing is foreseen of God, it becomes both necessary and certain. When Jehovah created the human race, he foresaw precisely what fate awaited each one. To say he formed a single soul plainly foreseeing from eternity, that its career would terminate in ceaseless sin and woe, is to say that that doom was both necessary and certain. This becomes self-evident, when we reflect that God's foreknowledge existed prior to the causes which led to a result so dire. These causes were at the control of Deity. He could allow them to have being, and produce the foreseen result, or he could withhold them, and prevent the dreadful calamity. If, under these circumstances, he allowed causes to go into operation which he clearly foresaw would terminate in sinking the souls of any of his creatures into endless blasphemy and anguish, he in reality, made that doom both necessary and certain! This is nothing less than naked CALVINISM!! Our friends, the Methodists, have preached much upon the odious and horrible features of Calvinism; and have said as many hard things against it, as against Universalism. But when their acknowledged sentiments respecting God's Foreknowledge, are properly analyzed, it becomes evident they have virtually incorporated the worst feature of Calvinism into the very centre of their own system!!

My friend yesterday denied that Foreknowledge is an Attribute of God, but said Knowledge is an Attribute. Pray, what is Foreknowledge but Knowledge with God-i. e. knowledge of things in the future? Foreknowledge is as much an Attribute, as wisdom or goodness. It forms one of the fundamental, all-essential perfections of Jehovah. Without it, he could not be God-he could do nothing with any assurance of success-all his works would be liable any moment to fall into ruin and chaos! I do not wonder, however, that Mr. Holmes desires to degrade this perfection from the high station of an Attribute. Its office in the Divine Councils, is such as to forbid with irresistible emphasis, the cherishing of the doctrine that in a universe formed by a "God of Love," any man can become an endless loser by the existence his Father in heaven voluntarily bestowed upon him, in full view of all the consequences that would ensue !!

My opponent gives evidence of his extreme bewilderment and perplexity, by crying out-" Declamation !-Bombast!" This is the second time* he has given vent to his distress, in words which all controversialists know are equivalent to crying “quarter!— quarter!!" I pity the brother; but I can see no help for him!Every school-boy well knows the trick of crying out bombast and declamation, when answer is to be made to arguments, which are invulnerable. It is simply raising a cloud of dust, to flee away under its shadow! The audience, I have confidence to believe, have enough of good sense, to distinguish between sound argu

⚫See page 126.

ment and bombast. Most cheerfully I submit to them the decision of the character of my proceedings in this discussion. If my friend will pardon me, I will recommend him to save his breath wasted in these puerile epithets, the last resort of a bewildered and discomfitted debater, and grapple with some of those principles which he strives to put aside by the cry of declamation! Come friend, I urge you to show that they are not sound and true!!

Elder Holmes declares that sin and misery exist in this life consistently with God's Attributes-that whatever exists in agreement with his Attributes now, may exist hereafter and forever, in agreement with them. Hence he insists sin and misery may exist hereafter and forever!! In this position we have the sum and substance of all that my opponent, or any of his school in theology, has offered or can offer, against the great Arguments from God's Attributes in support of the final holiness and happiness of the world. All that he has said, possessing the slightest bearing against my positions, has in one form or another, resolved itself into this same objection. It is THE argument-the ONE argument of all that Evangelism can summon, in the shape of logic, against the gracious purpose of God to redeem our race!! Again and again has the Elder introduced it into this discussion! Its feebleness-its unreasonable deductions-its suicidal nature, have as often been exposed. But all in vain! Driven out by logic's cutting lash, he returns oft and again, to the old spot as a covet, and seems almost to BEG me to allow him to remain there, as alas! he can go nowhere else! Poor soul!! To what straits men are reduced who volunteer in defence of false doctrines! I know it may appear unneighborly, hard-hearted-nay, almost cruel-that I do not allow my antagonist to occupy this one and only refuge-this hiding place, in flying before truth-and permit him to remain their in peace and safety!! Pity would induce me to grant his favor; but duty forbids! It seems necessary for me again to show the fallacy of this mode of reasoning. It is short-sighted, because it fails to recognize that great Rule of Progression which pertains to man's nature, and characterizes his entire career. It is illogical, in that it lays down the proposition that a state of things which may at one time be allowed to exist by the Creator, consistently with all his Attributes, may exist at another time and forever. I have repeatedly shown that God may allow various things to be at a certain period, and for certain season, which he would not permit at another time and forever. As, for instance, he allowed the Savior, the Apostles, and good men often in all ages, to be derided and persecuted by the wicked. These things for the time, were consistent with all his Attributes. Is it logical to reason, that he will allow them to be thus persecuted hereafter and forev er? This reasoning is suicidal! Every self-styled Evangelical professor and clergyman, experiences much sickness, pain, anxiety, trouble, distress. All this is allowed by God's Attributes in

this life. Hence, according to the reasoning of my brother, this class of persons, may be compelled to endure the same thing hereafter and forever!! This kind of argument is fallacious in the extreme. Because sin and misery are allowed to exist temporarily, for wise and good purposes, it is no reason in the mind of any man of ordinay good sense, for believing they must exist hereafter and forever!! I trust my friend, for his own reputation, if for no other reason, will not compel me to go over this ground again—unless indeed, he is anxious to fulfil to the letter, the saying of the wise

man in Prov. xxvii. 22.

In all the positions which the brother opposite has felt himself compelled to take in defence of his cause, there are none probably that will excite greater surprise, and certainly none that exposes more manifestly the extremes to which he is driven, than his attempt to shake the confidence of the audience in the Attributes of God. There is nothing more evident to reflecting minds, untrammelled by the shackles of a partial creed, than that each and all the Attributes of Jehovah, when allowed their legitimate influence in the Divine Councils, stand out in prominent and infinite opposition to the doctrine of endless wretchedness, and yield all their support to the truth of Universal Salvation. My opponent is aware of all this. He is fully sensible how much these Attributes are in his way. Hence he must weaken their force, neutralize their influence, distort their promptings, or his success in this discussion is hopeless. To this wretched and unholy work he has bent all his energies, and desecrated all his talents. But not succeeding even to his own satisfaction, in the monstrous task of distorting and destroying, one by one, the Infinite Perfections of the Most High, he now takes a bolder, or rather a more desperate stand, and strikes at the whole of them in a body, to annihilate, so far as the weak creature is able, every ray of light and every particle of hope, that frail man could obtain from the nature of his Creator.He coolly and unblushingly asserts that the Attributes of God do not determine the destinies of men-and that conclusions drawn from them, are not to be depended upon!! That is to say, it can make no difference in our reasoning respecting the final condition of the race, whether God is a being of Love or of Hatred-whether he is Good or Malevolent, Merciful or Cruel, a Friend or an Enemy, a Father or a Tyrant-for we can no more determine what to expect from him in the one case, than the other!! Allowing, as it now appears the Elder does, only in name, in sound, that God possesses love, goodness, mercy, and that he is the friend and Father of men, it is impossible to tell from these Attributes whether the fate which awaits his creatures hereafter, will be any different from what it would were he a hating, malevolent, cruel enemy and tyrant!!! Now I unhesitatingly pronounce this to be blank ATHEISM, of the most ultra description. It virtually annihilates all the Attributes of Deity; and when they are gone, then God him

self is destroyed! If these are the sincere opinions of my opponent, he is, to all intents and purposes, practically an Atheist! He has no God of which he possesses the slightest actual knowledge.

Pray, what is the ground on which an assumption so reckless is based? It is this: That God's Attributes are infinite, and that the mind of man being finite, cannot comprehend what influence these Attributes may exert on the Heavenly Father! Is it possible that this reasoning can be satisfactory to a sane mind on earth ?-It casts the most perfect contempt on the Bible, and makes the pretence that God has revealed himself in the scriptures, to be supremely ridicuolus!! If we cannot form some correct idea of what influence his Attributes will exert upon Jehovah, what more do we know of him with our Bibles in our hands, than the heathen who have had no revelation? When the Apostle says that "God is Love," how know we, but he means that his love will influence him to hate the world forever!! When the Psalmist declares "the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works," we know not but he would have us understand that the Lord will with remorseless cruelty, pour out evil upon every human being throughout eternity!! How can we determine these momentous points, unless we can place dependence on the Creator's Attributes, and comprehend the nature of the influence they will exert upon him?

My respected audience, should we not arise sufficiently high in our conception of God, to believe that he possesses a degree at least, of what we call common sense, and that some of that valuable commodity may be looked for in his holy word? If we can attain only to this idea of Deity, we are bound to believe that when he declares he possesses love, goodness, benevolence, mercy, pity, and similar qualities, he would have us understand they are the same in nature, as like characteristics in ourselves; and that he expects us to judge of the influence of these Attributes on him, by their influence on the hearts of the wise, the pure, and upright among men! If we cannot judge in this manner, by what criterion can we know any thing about the Deity, or the influence of his Attributes? Indeed, if we cannot thus judge, the Bible is a nullity, and may as well have been unwritten!! And now I ask the congregation and the public, what confidence can be placed in the reasoning of a man, however plausible it may appear, who will so violate good sense, logic and propriety, as in the instance I have just pointed out?

The Fifth Negative Argument of Mr. Holmes, is that Universalism teaches that the soul is mortal. Not satisfied with this, he absolutely charges us with denying that man has any soul!!—and insists that to be a Universalist, an individual must be a Materialist! Moreover, he says these views prevail generally, if not universally, in our midst. Why did he not go on, and insist that Universalists deny the existence of the body? He might as well have

done this, as to charge us with denying the existence of the Soul! This is the most groundless and reckless charge that could be uttered. I marvel that any man who makes pretensions to fair dealing, should so far forget his candor and love of truth, as to utter so gross a calumny against a large body of Christians. It is true, Mr. Balfour does not believe the soul is immortal in this life, but believes it will be made immortal at the resurrection. There are very few among Universalists who sympathize with him on that point. The great mass of the denomination do not receive the views of Mr. Balfour on the soul. Although a sound theologian, and one of the most pure-hearted and pious christians to be found in any denomination, yet on this subject I think he errs. In this view of the case, what justice or candor is there in charging the whole order with being Materialists!! But there have been both great and good men of other denominations, who coincided with Mr. Balfour in regard to this matter. Among the Greek Fathers, there were several who rejected the doctrine of the present immortality of the soul. Of this number may be named Justyn Martyr, Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch. I make this statement in behalf of Mr. Balfour.

Rev. Robert Hall a most eloquent Baptist clergyman of England, was not a believer in the present immortality of the soul. Why not charge all Baptists and the entire Evangelical sects with the same view, because one of their number entertained it? I could do this with the same propriety that Mr. Holmes makes his wholesale charge against Universalists on this subject! But what has this whole matter to do with the question before us? Nothing!-Whether the views of Balfour and Hall in regard to the soul, are true or erroneous, can have no bearing in regard to the final condition of mankind. Why did the Elder introduce this Negative Argument? Simply because he had nothing better to offer!

His Sixth Negative Argument is that Universalism denies future punishment. Well, suppose it did? Would this prove that all men will not finally become holy and happy? Not at all. There have been thousands who believed both in future punishment, and in Universal Salvation. The former sentiment does not interfere with the latter, in any possible particular. Universalism neither affirms or denies the doctrine of future punishment. Some Universalists believe that doctrine, and others reject it. Murray, Winchester, and most of the early Fathers of Universalism in America, were believers in future punishment, and many of our most talented and eminent clergymen of the present day, entertain the same opinion. What truth, then, is there in this argument of the Elder's? And if it had been true, what relevancy has it in this discussion? Why will not my friend accommodate me with at least one Negative Argument, that has some bearing on the question in debate !!

He contends that Universalism overthrows the principles of