my authority for preaching the gospel in this world. Will my opponent quote from the Scriptures a commission for any one to preach the gospel to anybody in the next world? Perhaps we shall be cited to 1 Peter 4: 6, and 3: 19-20:

"For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison: which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

But I think it will be a difficult matter for him to find a commission there. Let him try it there or elsewhere, and I will endeavor to be with him.

Again, I press upon my opponent the import of the word "final" in his proposition. Since my friend extends probation into the future world, if I should admit that all would become obedient and happy there, how will he prove that that will be the final or last condition of all men? If probation extends there, as Mr. Hanson, in "Rich Man and Lazarus," p. 6, claims, may not men sin and fall there as well as here? By what word will he prove the contrary? Will it be "eternal," "everlasting," "forever," "aionios," "olam," or what word will it be? We are curious to know his argument here, and hope that he will show his position, as his argument here may help us on our second proposition! We emphasize our denial upon this word "final," and warn him that we shall press him for his line of proofs upon this point. We shall see what he will do with it. Will he ignore it? We shall see. We won't

let him. Let him remember what he has just said, that "no Scripture is relevant in this discussion that does not bear on this final state." We want that remembered.

Since, then, my opponent's proposition involves in uncertainty even the salvation of the righteous, by his

future probation doctrine, we offer this unavoidable but alarming deduction, as our second demurrer, or negative argument No. 2.

III. INFINITE CONSEQUENCES ATTACH TO FINITE CAUSES. Universalists are accustomed to complain that the doctrine we hold affixes infinite consequences to finite actions, and dooms men to endless woe for the sins of this short life. In this connection we have heard much of the justice or injustice of such a God, etc. But I now proceed to show that my brother's position logically affirms infinite consequences as attaching to our finite actions here. He, too, argues for a difference in the future world, favorable to those who have been righteous in this; and we shall probably be treated to some rhetoric upon the "stars that differ in glory," etc., before this debate is over. But to be more specific and to illustrate it so that you may all understand it: Suppose A and B to have been born about the same time, to have enjoyed equal early advantages, and to have been, as nearly as might be, under similar influences and conditions in this life. But by some means, A becomes a good man, while B falls lower and lower in the scale of morality. Both of them die, we may say at the same time, with, so to speak, one hundred degrees of moral worth between them. Now is it to be argued, even on the theory of future progression, that B would ever overtake A? Would there not be at least the difference of the one hundred degrees between them endlessly? But if so, even according to modern Universalism, God does affix infinite consequences to our finite actions. But he can still be the God of love, wisdom, and power, and suffer this chasm to remain unbridged between two of his creatures to all eternity. If A's condition be heaven and B's hell, then my friend and myself are agreed upon the existence of an endless heaven and an endless hell, and that men go to the one or the other, as they are righteous or unright

eous here. We are logically, therefore, agreed as to the thing involved in the proposition, in degree and specification alone the difference lies. Nor will the old story of a "cup's being as full as a hogshead," serve here; for the ability and capacity of B for enjoyment may have been originally equal, or even superior, to A's; and he must forever realize that he has fallen below A on account of his own perverseness and sin; and though he may be compelled to acknowledge the justice of God, yet the very remorse he will feel must be to him an endless hell, even though there should be no other punishment for him to endure.

That there have been extravagant and distorted descriptions both of heaven and hell given by revivalists and others, I do not deny. That the Bible uses highly figurative language concerning both, is apparent; but such strong figures are only demanded to render more apparent that which can not be so well expressed without them; so that this Bible imagery means something after all. If such are the figures, what must the reality be! I presume the "fire and brimstone" of the one place is quite as literal as the "gold-paved streets" and pearly gates" of the other. My opponent's proposition involves the idea that all men will become finally holy and happy, in the sense of going to heaven and dwelling with God forever; while I will deny this, and, by and by, affirm that the wicked can not enter heaven, but will be banished forever from the peaceful presence of God. But we have seen that my opponent's position affixes an endless difference between those that die in Christ and those that die out of Christ. This acknowledgment of his is my negative argument No. 3.

I will now refer briefly to the arguments advanced by my brother in his opening speech. He introduces three arguments,-one based on the Nature of Man, one on the Nature of God, and one on the Holiness of God. All that he said is a part of that line of argument

known as the argument from the Divine Attributes, with a little preliminary relating to the nature of man. But he has not yet completed this line of proof and reasoning, and I shall only refer to a few things in it, till he shall have time to finish the argument. Now, I admit all that he has said in his speech respecting the attributes of God,-the love of God, the justice and holiness of God. I admit all that has been said about them, except his deductions, his "therefores." These I do not admit, and these it is his duty, if he desires to maintain his proposition, to prove. I certainly endorse all the Scriptures he has quoted; but it is the interpretation of them on which we shall disagree; and I shall have occasion hereafter to show why I dissent from his interpretation of them, and I wish him to remember that the Scriptures attribute" vengeance" and "wrath" as well as love and mercy to God. As to the nature of man, we shall, perhaps, know more about it when we have learned more of the laws under which the Creator has placed him. When we find out whether he is a free agent, or whether he is subject to an absolute control over his moral actions. He propounds certain questions touching God's purposes in man's creation. We, too, shall have some questions for him to answer on that point, after a little. And, by the way, I wish my brother would throw his arguments on the attributes of God into a syllogistic form, so that we may measure them by the recognized rules of logic. And I will undertake to show here conclusively, by a similar line of argument, bearing upon the present administration of God in this world, that whatever with reference to the endless punishment of men hereafter, will make God cruel over there, will make him cruel here. Whatever, from our standpoint, is irreconcilable to his justice, love, and mercy there, is irreconcilable, in his existing administration, to his justice, love, and mercy here. So that the objection of my brother lies as hard against the

present administration of God here as it can against his future administration. Let him, then, reduce his argument to a syllogism, and its fallacy will be apparent.

As to the Divine attributes, I remark that God will never have any new attributes. Whatever is opposed to his attributes now, will therefore be opposed to them forever; and whatever will be opposed to his attributes hereafter is now opposed to them. Whatever he wills now will be willed by him to all eternity, since "he changeth not." His moral attributes, justice, holiness, truth, mercy, etc., since he is unchangeable, will remain the same forever. They will be forever what they now are and have forever been. Hence, whatever is opposto these attributes at any time, always has been, is now, and ever will be opposed to them. But sin and suffering have been in the world for nearly six thousand years; and no tongue can describe the suffering that in that time sin has produced among men. And yet God has ruled all the while; and his attributes have remained the same. And if sin and misery have existed upon the earth for so many thousand years, notwithstanding the mercy and goodness and justice of God, how can my brother be sure that they will not exist forever? He will have to find some other arguments than those he has adduced from the attributes of God to prove that this will not be the case. We can, therefore, find no argument bearing against the doctrine of future endless punishment from the Divine attributes, that does not bear equally against man's past or present condition. Indeed one could better prove Universal Damnation with Universalist logic than Universal Salvation. Let us see: God's purity and holiness will not permit him to look upon sin with allowance. (Hab. 1: 13.) His justice will decide rightly; his knowledge and power will enable him to devise and execute; and his vengeance will make the punishment terrible; and since all have sinned (Rom. 3: 23.) it looks much like Uni