why, simply that God made known to the Apostles the mystery of his will, that thereby "he might gather together in one or might reconcile and save all men. But does it certainly follow that all men will be reconciled and saved? I think not. Let us hear Paul on this subject: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech by us; we pray in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor. v. 19, 20. God beseeches men, and by the Apostolic ministry, prays men to be reconciled to him. And this shows clearly that God's purpose to reconcile all things to himself depends for its accomplishment somewhat upon the persons to be reconciled, and that it is not an absolute purpose depending only upon God for its accomplishment, as my friend must assume to make an argument from the purpose of God. Some men refuse to be reconciled to God and saved, and God does not reconcile and save such. Will he ever change? No. Then who can prove from the purpose of God that all will be reconciled to God, and saved?

It is true that God sent Jesus to be the Savior of the world; " but it is equally true that he does not save all in this world. And the reason he does not save some is that they refuse to be saved, and this may be the reason they are not saved to all eternity. Some live under the light of the Gospel in this world, and are not saved, but "leave this world sinful." And, now, my friend is in need of a passage that says Jesus was sent to be the Savior of such as leave this world sinful, and that he will save them any how. It is just at this point that his

proposition is most piteously crying out for help. And I think all its cries will be vain.

III. "Christ Desired the reconciliation and salvation of all men."

Yes, but men have lived and died sinful—have "left this world sinful "—notwithstanding they knew Christ "desired" their reconciliation and salvation. His "desire" did not reconcile and save them, so long as we had any account of them. Will he change, and recon

cile and save men who leave this world sinful as he would not while they were in this world? Does my friend believe in a changeable Savior?

The gentleman quite eloquently says "If God is love not hate, if he is good and not evil, if he is our friend and not our foe, if he is our father and not a cruel despot, he must desire our welfare." And I think he was most undoubtedly correct, as well as eloquent. God does แ desire our welfare." But some refuse to fare well, though God has made all necessary provision for them, some remain in this world sinful as long as they can, and then leave it sinful, knowing all the time that God desires their welfare. Now, let the gentleman find a passage of Scripture that speaks of their welfare, where they go when they leave this world sinful. I will not, now, trouble him to tell us where they go, sinful. It would be shocking to ask him to say they go to heaven sinful; and as he has no future hell in his creed, he would fall under the necessity of making an entirely new survey of the universe, to find a place for "all who leave this world sinful," and that would consume more time than I want him to devote to a little matter of that sort at this stage of our discussion. Therefore, I only ask

him to point out the Scripture that speaks of the future reconciliation and salvation of such. If he knows of such Scripture he should, for the sake of all interests, let us have it. But he wants to know if I believe God will change" in the distant future, and will desire the endless misery of countless millions of his children?" Certainly not. Such a thought never once entered into my nind. I know, however, that millions, if not countless millions, of such persons as Mr. Manford calls "his children," are miserable in this world; and yet it has never entered my mind that this is so because God desires it. Well, if countless millions of "God's children' sin, and are consequently miserable in this world, though he all the time desires their obedience and happiness, how will it go with such when they leave this world sinful, if God change not?

IV. “It was the Pleasure of Christ that all should be reconciled and saved." "And it would be slandering Jesus to deny this."

God has no pleasure in wickedness, but wickedness is, notwithstanding. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but the wicked die, notwithstanding. God, and Christ and Angels, and all good people are "pleased to see sinners become saints; but all sinners who know this, do not become saints. Many of them, on the contrary, "leave this world sinful." My friend wants to know if I believe that "God will by-and-by prohibit their conversion." Certainly not. Does Mr. M. believe God will by-and-by compel their conversion?

V. "The Love of Chirst-of God."

The gentleman thinks the "Love of Christ the most astonishing fact in history," and I will allow it. The story of God's love for man, even sinful and miserable man, beggars all human language. The story of Christ's

love for sinners can never be told in words. Let sinners behold him in the Garden of Gethsemane, up the hill, and on the cross, and then say who can tell the story of his love in words. I think my friend slightly wrong, however, when he says, "Jesus knew man was a child of God, and an heir of heaven, and hence he lavished on him his heaven-born love, and sought his salvation." The Bible affords no such representation of the case. Jesus knew man was not a child of God, was not an heir of heaven, but was lost, was perishing in his sins, "and hence he lavished on him his heaven-born love, and sought his salvation."

the "belief, that all but. satan, and in the image

Then the gentleman refers to a select few are the children of of satan"— and says "it engenders hatred and its attendant sins." Well, I say that all who do his will are children of Satan, and bear his moral image. So Christ taught. Did it "engender hatred and its attendant sin" in him? Will Mr. Manford deny that those who do this will are children of the Devil, and bear his moral image in their lives?

But he says: "That love has never forsaken the children of men, and it never will forsake them, in time or eternity." But I submit that it is pretty hard for poor weak mortals to tell just what may or may not happen "in eternity." Even my opponent will admit, to-day, that eternity includes quite awhile. We may speak more postively of things of time. The love of God. does not save everybody in time, we know, for many "leave this world sinful." Will the love of God, itself, save such in eternity? Here we should like to have a

little good authority. But just here, alas! is where Mr. Manford's fails him.

VI. The Mercy of Christ—of God."

This argument is already answered in what I have four or five times repeated. I, of course, accept all the Scriptures the gentleman quoted, which speak of the mercy of God. But God's mercy, of itself, never reconciled and saved a single soul. Notwithstanding God's mercy, many live sinful, and die and leave this world sinful. Will God's mercy take such persons to a heaven they seemed to despise as long as we had any account of them?

But speaking of mercy, did it ever occur to my worthy opponent that Universalism has no such thing as mercy in it? If I understand it, Universalism is as destitute of mercy as it is of grace, and as utterly destitute of both as it is of truth. It teaches that every man must be punished for all his sins. This I understand to be one of the very pillars of the Temple of Universalism. But if I am wrong, he can show it. If I am right, where then is the mercy of Universalism? No one is saved from any punishment in this life, as every one must suffer all the punishment due him for all his sins; and, of course, no one will be saved from any punishment in the future life, for Universalism teaches that there is none there to be saved from. It puzzles me, therefore, not a little, to understand how Mr. Manford can speak so eloquently and pathetically of that to which, if his theory is correct, he certainly is not, and never can be, debtor to the amount of one farthing.

But I believe in a merciful God, and a merciful and faithful High Priest. In the matter of a sinner's reconciliation and salvation, however, there are other things