had been raised into a man should forthwith be elevated into an angel; that the man who had become an angel, should instantly be stamped an archangel; that the archangel who had been exalted into a loftier essence whose denomination has never vibrated on a mortal ear, should instantly attain a position nearer to Divinity. Would the demands of the principle then be fulfilled? Fulfilled! Commencing afresh with the lowest being in the scale, it would require the elevation of that being, and of every higher created being; and never would find its work of complaint, or its vigour and activity in censuring impaired, until all created beings were raised to a perfect equality, and that equality as nearly as Omnipotence could arrange it on a level with the throne of God. Because these things are not so, God is not Love!

Is it needful to add another word on such outrageous and blasphemous absurdities?

58

CHAP. V.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

ALTHOUGH the objection combated in the preceding Chapter may have been repelled, other difficulties of a kindred but more modified character will be alleged as conclusive against the proposition that God is Love.

Perfect love, it is affirmed, would not have called beings into existence in order to place them in a state of probation, foreseeing their fall.

To this affirmation we are now to attend.

It is not conceivable that the Deity can thoroughly approve beings who do not act according to his known pleasure. Obedience on the part of the agent must be the original groundwork of approbation on the part of God. Obedience, however, if abstractedly considered, might be divided into different imaginable kinds. It might be reluctant, rendered under the constraining influence of force or of fear. It is not with such obedience that the Deity could be well pleased. Or it might be involuntary

and mechanical, as little the result of choice and preference as the persevering motion of a planet in its appointed course. Neither could such obedience, if the being be capable of higher motives, be fully acceptable to God. Obedience, to be completely approved by a God who is Love, must proceed from the principle of Love. From that principle it might flow in beings replete by the gracious gift of their Creator from the first moment of their existence with holy and grateful love to Himself, and exempted from the capability of feeling the slightest temptation to evil. Surely on His own Divine image reflected in these pure Intelligences, the Author of their spotless excellence could not but look with complacency! There may yet be an obedience distinguishable by its own discriminating marks and circumstances from all the preceding descriptions: an obedience voluntary, the result of choice and preference, and flowing from the principle of Love; but manifested by beings placed in a probationary state, enabled to stand, yet free to fall. Such was the obedience of the holy angels: such was to be the obedience of all the angels who fell: such was to be the obedience of man, who fell also. Shall not such

obedience be acceptable to the Deity? May it not have even some especial value in His sight? Shall we presume to affirm that it is inconsistent with the character of a God who is Love, to place created beings in a state of probation?

The objector may probably reply that his argument rests on the annexation of penal consequences to disobedience. Can there then be supposed a state of trial without the annexation of penal consequences to disobedience? Can wilful opposition to the Divine will be permitted to continue perpetually, and with impunity? "It is on the infliction," he answers, "of pain, bodily or mental, on transgressors, that I rest my opposition to your doctrine. Perfect Love would not inflict pain." What penalty would you tolerate?" Annihilation: annihilation only; let the transgressor cease to exist." In other words, let him lose the happiness which in his probationary condition he was enjoying. If then it be consistent with perfect love to take away existing happiness; is it obvious that to impose pain in any case, and for any purpose, and in any degree, must be necessarily incompatible with perfect love in the Deity? But farther; Offences vary in their amount, in their

You

malignity. The laws of Draco punished every transgression with death; and are reprobated by the common reason of mankind, not only for their sanguinary severity, but for their blind folly, their undiscriminating injustice. require annihilation to be the sole penalty for offences against God. Is not your asserted lenity as blind as Draco's severity? Is not your apathy in the punishment of the guilty as indiscriminate as his ferocity? Assume that in the scale of offences there is a certain point at which annihilation would be the equitable penalty. If there be no such point, there is an end to your argument: but for the benefit of your reasoning we will assume that there is such a point. Suppose offences then to occur below that point. You will not contend that all such offences ought to be freely forgiven. To exempt them from punishment would be to encourage the offender to additional transgression; and to promote sin, so far as the example should become known, throughout the universe. How then is perfect love to conduct itself? Does it violate its own lustre, does it forfeit its characteristic essence, if instead of annihilation it imposes on such transgressors the minor penalty