direct opposition to each other, it will be necessary to consider the law in subjection to the gospel, acting as its servant, and contributing to carry its provisions into effect. There is nothing in this that can be called unreasonable, or difficult to understand. You have a son to whom you intend to give a rich inheritance, when he arrives at the proper age; you wish also, that he should be educated in such a manner as will render him virtuous and respectable; you institute regulations and laws for his government; you annex severe penalties to your laws, and in case of disobedience, you inflict those penalties upon the transgressor. Now, all this is done with reference to the ends you have in view, which are to make your son respectable, as well as rich. You are sensible, that if his passions are not restrained, if his mind is not well disciplined, in a word, if he is not formed to the love of virtue, the estate which you intend to give him will be of no use, and will probably prove a curse, rather than a blessing. You make your laws for the regulation of your son's conduct subservient to your original design. And if another person should charge you with the exercise of feelings incompatible with your purpose, because he has seen you correct the youth, when he disobeyed your command; and if he should state, that you had become dead to parental affection on that account, you would consider your character impeached, and treat him who made the report as a base calumniator.

That the punishments threatened under the law were intended to reform the characters of those who suffered . them, is evident from those parts of the old testament, in which the judgments of God are denounced on the Jews for their wickedness. In the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus, we find numerous evils are mentioned as forming punishments which Israel would suffer, if that people "walked contrary" to their God. And tho every Vol. 8. 6

new instance of national depravity exposed them to additional punishment; and tho, from time to time the Jews were informed that their sinfulness, as it increased, would cause them to be "punished yet seven times more for their sins;" still, "if their uncircumcised hearts were humbled, and they accepted of the punishment of their sins," they were promised a return of all the blessings they had enjoyed previous to their disobedience. The promise of the God of Israel accompanied the denunciation of his anger: "I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor cause my faithfulness to fail." In these passages, the benevolent design of punishment, and the mercy which directs its infliction, are both recognized.

When, therefore, we are charged with denying the truth of those scriptures which contain the denunciations of the law, we shall answer the charge by stating distinctly the views we entertain of this subject, and submitting them to the consideration of the candid.While we read the testimony of the psalmist, "Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy, for thou renderest to every man according to his work," and while we find the same sentiment in many other portions of the scriptures, we feel a conviction of the fact that mercy dictates all the punishment that God has denounced on the wicked, prescribes its proper limits, and will render it ultimately efficient in subjecting the obstinate offender to the righteous authority of Jesus Christ. We do not, therefore, sink the dignity, nor deny the utility of that law, which we believe to be holy, just, and good; our system of belief represents it as a dispensation calculated to form the human mind for the enjoyment of the superior blessings of the world to come. God's disapprobation of sin, the punishment he has threatened, and which he will inflict on the guilty, the misery that ac

companies or follows transgression, we regard as means which the moral Governor of the world employs to effect the high purposes of his government. We hope then, we may with truth adopt the declaration of the apostle, "wo do not make void the law through grace; but rather we establish the law."

Thirdly, The doctrine of the final restoration of all men is charged with encouraging licentiousness, and with leading to every sinful practice. If this charge be well founded, and if the heart of man is naturally as wicked as it is said to be, why has not this doctrine been more generally received than it has been? Why, when the doctrine is so pleasing to the wicked heart, has not the number of its believers exceeded that of any other denomination? The preachers of this doctrine have seldom had cause to boast of their success in making converts, especially in the short period in which some others are wonderfully successful. If there be any thing in this doctrine that is peculiarly attractive to the carnal heart, it still appears to possess something that is equally repulsive. And tho our opponents urge its licentious tendency, and we find it necessary to meet the objection, yet we may be able to discover hereafter, that Universalism possesses some other property quite as objectionable to many, as its supposed licentious tendency. We may even find, however, it may surprise some to hear it mentioned, that this doctrine possesses too much of a self-denying character to render it very palatable.

But when the objection, that Universalism opens a door to immorality, is advanced; when our opponents say that it takes off all salutary restraints, and relaxes the obligations to moral duty, we wish to understand the grounds of the charge; because it is possible, that even if this doctrine is justly deserving the character attributed to it, yet it is no worse, in this respect, than some

others that are considered among the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Besides, we are interested in knowing how far we agree with our opposers, as to the principles which make a doctrine licentious, and which, when allowed to exert their proper influence, lead to wickedness. The ground, then, on which the charge we are considering is predicated, is this: Universalism asserts the final happiness of all men, and hence it produces a false security, and induces a fatal neglect of prescribed duties, and gives a license to the believer to live as his corrupt heart dictates. To meet the charge on this ground, we should observe, that we do not perceive how the idea of the universality of salvation should necessarily demoralize the believer. If the doctrine in question is licentious, its licentious tendency must be referred to some other cause or circumstance, than merely the number supposed to be interested in the salvation by Christ. As far as any man is influenced by a doctrine that he believes, he is affected as an individual; he acts for himself; his principles of action are his own. If the belief that all men will ultimately be saved, be immoral and dangerous, then the belief that the number of the saved will be very great, will be proportionably immoral and dangerous. If we allowed ourselves to reason in this way, we might proceed to form a tolerably accurate scale, by which we might determine the several degrees of immorality and danger, with which various systems might be thought to be chargeable, according to the greater or smaller number that those systems asserted would finally be admitted to glory. There have always been considerable differe nces of opinion among divines and private christians, about the number of those who will "obtain salvation." But few of them, we presume, would be pleased to submit their respective theories to be decided upon as to their moral or immoral tendency, by a standard so obviously false and arbitrary.

But further, the doctrine of partial election makes the salvation of all the elect certain and sure; it makes the number of those who are to be saved so definite, that not one can be added to it, nor taken from it. Will our brethren, who oppose our views, admit the dangerous tendency of their doctrine, because it founds salvation on the immutable will of Jehovah, and represents the elect as sure of obtaining the heavenly prize? They are not disposed to admit this; yet the two doctrines, as far as salvation is considered the effect of "the determinate counsel of God," are known to stand on the same basis.

The

Again, we are desirous to know how far we agree with, or dissent from our opposing brethren, in regard to the principles which give a doctrine a licentious tendency or character. In relation to this point, we learn that Universalism is considered a dangerous scheme, because it does not threaten endless misery, and hence, he, who believes in the scheme, will not be affected with those apprehensions of the wrath of God, that are supposed necessary to deter men from sinful courses. proper answer to this statement will probably show how far we agree with our opponents, and wherein we differ from them, with respect to the moral influence and good effects of the fear of punishment. As to the moral influence or effect of fear, there is reason to believe that Christians generally entertain nearly the same views, as will appear from consulting what has been written, and is frequently said, in relation to this subject. I have ever believed, as much as others, that fear has a useful effect, so far as it rouses the minds of the thoughtless, awakens the stupid, or alarms the carnally secure to a sense of their present condition, and of the danger of continuing in it. The passion of fear could not have been given us in vain; we are so formed, as to fear evil in the same proportion as we love what is good. Fear