high station that he holds as head over all things ;— "wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." And when the Revelator was describing his vision of things to come, and representing the final scene in the vast economy of God, he uses this emphatic, this sublime language; "and every creature, which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever." It seems impossible that language more suited to prove the doctrine of the final salvation of the whole world, than that of the passages we have quoted, could be employed. And on the supposition, that it had been the intention of the spirit to announce this doctrine, what terms more expressive and more appropriate could have been chosen for the purpose?

In citing these texts, however, and in offering the remarks which we have made upon them, we do not wish to have it understood that we rely entirely on the mere letter of scripture to prove the doctrine in question, nor to demonstrate the correctness of any opinion, in which we may agree with, or differ from any of our Christian brethren; we have adopted the course of reasoning, that has been thus far followed, to meet an objection in the precise form in which it is presented. If objectors will assert, as they frequently do, that there is nothing in the bible, which countenances the doctrine of universal salvation, we must reply to the objection by bringing forward the passages which certainly relate to the subject of salvation; and in doing this, we must be

careful to notice distinctly the terms that are used, and satisfy our opposers, if we are able, that those terms must be understood in the most extensive sense. A sense of duty, justice to ourselves, and to the cause which we mean to support, compels us to take this course. But our principal reliance for the proof of the doctrine for which we contend, is founded on principles which are generally admitted, tho the reasoning employed with reference to those principles, and the legitimate inferences deduced from them, are as frequently denied. We depend on the acknowledged character of God as a Being of infinite benevolence, wisdom, and power, as the foundation of our faith in the ultimate happiness of the human race. We depend on the moral attributes of Deity; we found our reasonings on those moral principles which render the Supreme Being what he is, and agreeably to which all his dispensations, with all his communications must be interpreted; we rely on the infinite goodness, the everlasting mercy, the unerring rectitude, and the perfect justice of the Almighty; we are unwilling to believe, we cannot believe, that the attributes of God are marked by opposing exercises; on the contrary, we view them in complete harmony, having one and the same object, and gloriously displayed to effect one and the same end. The language of divine revelation illustrates the principles of our faith; and while it exhibits the moral character of God, and points us to the happy destiny of our race, its terms very strikingly correspond to the obvious design of the spirit which indited the scriptures; and unless we "wrest those scriptures," we cannot prove they can be made to convey sentiments other than those which they seem naturally designed to express. Persons of different habits of thinking may differ in their interpretations of the scriptures; but we may be certain, that every interpretation that opposes the moral character of Deity, must be wrong.

Secondly. Having replied to the charge of attempting to establish a doctrine to which the voice of revelation gives no support, we come with our answer to another allegation; it is this; we are charged with denying the veracity of God in the threatenings he has denounced against the wicked, and with seeking to explain away the punishments that divine justice awards to the impenitent.

In framing a proper answer to this charge, we shall commence with observing, that we have never intentionally labored to prove that the threatenings which God has denounced upon the wicked will not be executed, nor endeavored to show that the punishments, that the moral justice of God awards to the impenitent sinner, will not be inflicted; we have never attempted to explain away the denunciations of the divine law. If those who oppose the doctrine of the salvation of all men, suppose that the support of that doctrine requires the denial of all punishment, they must be ignorant of the ground that we take in defence of our principles; and if they see fit to assume the very point in dispute, and to take for granted what none of us admit, we cannot help it; and we shall not wonder, if, considering these circumstances, we are adjudged guilty of corrupting or denying the word of God. We do not, however, believe that the system we advocate demands that we should attempt to set aside the solemn assurances of "him that cannot lie," that he will render to every man according to his works, we have reasons for believing that no threatening of judgment and fiery indignation can so far affect or contravene the provisions of the evangelical covenant, as to render them nugatory, and consequently to exclude any from the favor of God. We are willing to allow that the divine administration varies with the moral condition of the subjects of the divine government. It is not fitting, nor would it consist with

the wise and benevolent ends which the Sovereign of the world has in view, that he should look upon sin with approbation, or treat the humble and obedient in the same manner as he does the proud and the rebellious. To do this would be to subvert the great object of the government of God, which is, to promote the rational felicity of all intelligent beings; but the admission of these facts does not, in the smallest degree, weaken the argument for the infinite goodness of God, nor prove the final misery of one individual of the human family. It rather illustrates an idea, that we consider just and reasonable, that Deity, to further the purposes, and attain the end of his moral government, employs various means, all suited, however, to the end in view, and accommodated to the mental and moral circumstances of his creatures. "There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord;" and no change or variety, that we may observe in the dispensations or economy of God, can prove a change in his nature, or evince that the principles of his administration are various and discordant.

As far as we are able to ascertain the design of the punishment which God has threatened to inflict on the obstinate transgressor of his laws, we find it intended as an emendatory discipline, to subdue and reform the subject. Punishment, therefore, is a means, not an end. We offer these remarks as the result of some inquiry, and we have, at the same time, a full conviction, that unless their truth is admitted, it will be impossible to represent the Almighty in the light of a benevolent, moral governor and judge of the universe. Punishment will become revenge and cruelty. It will be of no consequence what name we apply to the God whom we profess to worship, nor how eloquently we declaim concerning his attributes, nor how readily we avow our regard to his administration, or our willingness to suffer

the worst he can inflict, for his glory. Neither names, nor specious metaphysical reasoning can change the nature of things: we ought to be cautious, that we do not incorporate into our systems of divinity principles which, if followed to the points to which they tend, would exhibit the Father of the universe as a Baal or a Moloch, and his administration, the exertion of omnipotence in acts of tyranny and vindictive wrath.

To express still more fully and distinctly the views we entertain of this important subject, I will present it in the light in which it is exhibited in the sacred writings. In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul makes this assertion, "the covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of no effect." The points established in this text are these: the covenant confirmed by God in Christ was antecedent to the law, and of consequence, the gospel holds the priority in point of time, as well as in other cases, over the law; and from this important fact, the apostle draws the conclusion, that the latter dispensation could not make void the solemn stipulations of the previous covenant. The dispensation, first in the order of time, would go into effect, and nothing contained in the second, would be allowed to operate in such a way, as to invalidate the promises which form the covenant of God. It seems scarcely possible to mistake the meaning of the text just quoted; and if we have not mistaken it, then it follows, that all that properly belongs to the law must be understood with reference to the evangelical covenant, which preceded the law. All the rules prescribed in the law, all the precepts it enjoins, and all the penalties it threatens, must be interpreted in such a way as will not infringe the stipulations of the prior covenant. In fact, we shall find, that unless we are willing to represent the dispensations of God in