Man, to be infinitely happy, must be made free; if he is free, he is capable of sinning, as well as of obeying. I say, if he is free, if he is a moral agent, he is capable of sinning as well as of obeying. If God thus intended to make man capable of the highest enjoyment to which he could arrive, it involves-I speak with deference-the necessity of making him such a being as will give him the power of sinking down in sin and ultimate endless ruin, if he chooses so to use his moral agency.

You are conscious, my friends, that hear me to-night, that your sins have been voluntary ones. You are conscious that God is not to blame for your sin; that he set before you the right and the true way. You chose the wrong way. If you then voluntarily, with all the light shining upon your mind that now shines, sow the seeds of disobedience and wickedness, is God unjust if he makes you reap the harvest of punishment? No, my friends, God's throne is clear, whatever be the result to the human family.

But he says the attributes of God positively demand the final restoration and happiness of the human family. We cannot judge upon this matter. I boldly say that I am not able to measure and compare and decide upon what must be the attributes of Jehovah, or their workings.

I, a creature of yesterday, and who know comparatively nothingshall I attempt to say that such and such result must accrue from the attributes of the infinite God of Eternity? All we know about his moral attributes are here in this book. His natural attributes shine from the works of nature, but all we know of his moral attributes we learn from the volume of inspiration. But all his attributes will harmonize, whatever may be the result to the human family. Here let me say that this argument, if it proves anything, would prove too much for our present purpose. It would prove that the attributes of God can harmonize with the

misery of the present, and because the misery of to-day is consistent with them, the misery of to-morrow may be consistent, the misery of a week may be consistent, the misery of a year, of an age, may be consistent, the misery of eternity may be consistent.

Now, suppose prior to the peopling of this world, two angels should have been in conversation, if they existed at that early day, and one of them had said—“I have learned that God, our Maker, is to establish and people a world, and," he says, "I have looked through the vista of the future, and have seen that world filled with tears, and heard it vocal with groans. I have beheld it an abode of wretchedness inconceivable. I have seen all the institutions for man's future good violated and trampled upon, and sorrow of the deepest die springing and enshrouding the domestic circle. I have seen the wedded pair unfaithful to each other, and their whole life embittered. I have seen the mother abandon her infant and give it up to destruction." The other angel, arguing from what he knew of the attri butes of God, would say "Impossible, my fellow servant. Why, is not God good? And if he is good, he must desire the best good for all his creatures. Is he not infinitely wise, and if infinitely wise, he certainly can establish and people that world so that there shall be there no tears or sighing. If he is almighty, he can give efficiency to his goodness and his wisdom.

Now I ask whether that argument would not be equally good between those two angels as the arguments of my opponent ?

I need scarcely say in reply that the world has existed for six thousand years a vale of tears," a scene of sorrow, of woe and of agony. And my friend will not argue that all this misery was necessary in order to make man happy. If so, the angels must come down for a while, and be misera

ble in order to be happy. I only introduce this to show that the misery of some of God's creatures is consistent with his attributes, and if the misery of some of his creatures for six thousand years is consistent with his attributes, I know not why their continued misery and sinfulness may not be.

I have other arguments which I wish to notice, but probably time will not allow me. Because we are moral agents, God is not responsible, he says, for our sins; but he seems to imply that he is responsible for the consequences of those sins. I am not sure that I understood the gentleman on that point. God has made us moral agents. He has given us inducements which should have been sufficient to cause us to walk in the true and right way. He has promised us happiness if we choose to walk therein. I would stand here and vindicate the throne and character of my God, and say that there is no tarnish upon his government. But the gentleman says God requires us to be holy, therefore he will never give us up till he has made us holy. He here unhappily differs from an old writer, that we believe is an inspired one. That writer about the closing up of the scripture says, representing Jehovah speaking of his servants-" He that is holy, let him be holy still; he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; he that is unrighteous, let him be unrighteous still."

And here the message from heaven closes; beyond that I dare not say that Jehovah will still prosecute the work of mercy unto those whom he declares he gives up and leaves in their unholiness.

REV. DR. SAWYER.-My brother congratulates himself, and very sincerely, I doubt not, on the comparatively happy position in which he is placed. This is in consistency with It is a joy that a great many of his faith have

his errors.

possessed before him. If I am wrong-if we are wrongsay they, your faith and the grace of God, as you hold it, is broad enough to take us all in-that the case cannot be reversed, because if we happen to be wrong, even innocently in error, it seems that his God would condemn us all forever. I have a better opinion of our heavenly Father than that. I am happy in this opinion, because this world has trials and troubles enough, without feeling that there is over me a malignant power, from whose awful grasp I cannot wrench myself, and who may, in a moment of his anger, crush me. He quotes a passage from a sermon that was delivered at a Universalist Convention, and I do not much doubt I have said things much like that myself, although I did not happen to say that. Our views do differ, and I thank God they differ so widely from what he calls the evangelical world around us. Their views are revolting, and, in my opinion, unworthy the great Being who made the universe, and who placed us so wisely and beneficently in it. My brother hopes to see the time, and I agree with him in that entirely, when both he and I will be so absorbed in the will of God and his goodness, that we shall be entirely satisfied with whatever pleases the heavenly Father. I believe in that; and if it were determined what pleases our heavenly Father, we shall know what ought to please us. I have before quoted a passage, that God "will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." God wills this to be the fact, he desires it, he has made provision for it, he has sent his Son to effect it, and I do not believe that he will rest satisfied till he accomplishes it. The prophet says Christ shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; and when Christ is satisfied, who tasted death for every man, you and I shall be satisfied, and my brother, too. My friend says that as man was made a moral being, he can sink down to endless suffering if he will. Meta

physically, I do not know that this can be denied; but what do you think of the probability of any man's willing it? There is, on the one hand, a deep love of life and happiness; on the other hand, there is an instinctive dread of misery, which is as deep as this love of life-then God has so framed the whole moral universe, that he that sins involves himself in misery, and he that breaks off from his sins begins at once to taste the joys that flow from well-doing. God calls man every day and hour by his providence and by his word, to virtue, and truth, and happiness.

We have all, more or less, turned aside from the path of duty and of life, and have tasted from the bitter cup, by our own hand put to our lips, and what do you think of the probability of any man's pursuing a course of wrong and trampling under foot commandments that he sees at once to be intended for his happiness, and pursuing that course throughout eternity, and sinking himself day after day, year after year, and century after century, and cycle after cycle, into the depths of hell? If he will, he can rise up again. Sinners, however deeply sunk in sin, can, if they will, be good again. They may grow in grace, and put on the garments of heaven, and rise to the throne of the Almighty through eternity, if they will. Heaven is open to all-an invitation is given out to all. Think you that all will not hear? Think you that the eternal Father will suffer any of his children to be lost irrevocably, when he can reach them?

My brother thinks that we are not able to judge of the influence of the Divine attribute; and yet his whole creed goes on the hypothesis of judging in the matter. He is not afraid to judge that some men will go to hell forever, but allows us not to judge that all men will go up to heaven. I do not know that we can see all things, but we can see some things—we can see that goodness requires something