termined to do it? If a part of mankind are saved, and God alone saves them, it must be because he was pleased to save them only; for he will do all his pleasure. On the other hand, if sinners are not saved, but punished forever, for not obeying according to their ability, it at least supposes that they had ability to affect their own salvation : which is the same as to save themselves. If the difference between this system and the other, be not because God works according to his decrees, neither because some men are saved and not all men, it must be on account of the greater partiality in Calvinism than in Arminianism, Then let us endeavor to ascertain the impartiality of the latter. Can it be on any other ground, than that God is indifferent to the salvation of men, after making it possible for all? If we say, God works in the saved, both to will and to do, to submit and to obey, then the question is fair, Would they have been saved, more than others, if he had not thus supernaturally influenced them? and is not the work as really his own, as though it had been decreed? Now, if Jehovah knew when he gave men existence that they would be endlessly miserable, unless he did supernaturally influence them to obey and be saved, and yet also knew that he would not thus save all of them, did he not also know that they would be endlessly miserable? and could he know they would not be saved, and yet make it possible for them to be saved? or, in other words, was it possible for that to fail, which infinite wisdom knew was certain to take place? If God knew that some individuals would be saved, he also knew what individuals; and if he knew their salvation was certain, he knew they could not finally be lost; and if he did not know it, when it takes place, God will know more than he did before! And further. If God had any design respecting his children, he designed them for the dooms with which they will meet, or he will be frustrated in his purpose. Will any one pretend that God designed men for that, which he knew was impossible? or will they contend that an event was possible, which God knew would never take place? This reasoning drives us to the following point, viz. Either to ascribe the salvation of some to God, according to his prior purpose, and the endless misery of the others to causes which they have no ability to prevent; or, what is worse,

we must acknowledge that God was indifferent in their salvation, having made it possible for all, and left it to sinners to save themselves according to their works, or be lost forever! If we are dissatisfied with this plan also, let us appeal to the third scheme, pages 50 and 51, and candidly decide, whether that is any more compatible with the real character of God.

That system differs in nothing essential, from the last, in relation to the saved; but contends that to punish or torment the wicked endlessly, would be the height of cruelty, as it could not benefit them; and to suppose that the righteous would be made more happy, by their sufferings, is to make them demons, and not saints. This doctrine maintains the final destruction of the wicked, which is surely more merciful than either of the other schemes. But is it not also deficient? Was it not as easy for God to save all men, as a part, and is he full of mercy in the destruction of that capacity which is susceptible of endless happiness? Is it not, at most, a kind of negative benevolence, or, a not doing worse? If God be as merciful, as he is powerful, will he destroy forever, those whom he might restore, if so pleased? If we say, he will not prevent the free exercise of their moral faculties, may it not be asked, whether it would any more destroy the agency of all, if God should save them by his grace, than it would that of a part? If God can subdue some sinners, and not infringe on their agency, he also could all others. With him nothing is impossible which he is disposed to perform.

That He, who can speak, and it is done; with whom the conversion and salvation of the whole world, is no more, comparatively, than the resurrection of Lazarus, should prefer the final destruction of many of his rational family to their restoration and ultimate bliss, is a supposition equally opposed by philosophy and revelation. The transition is easy and the consequence natural, to pass from this, to the fourth, and only remaining plan, viz. The final restoration of all sinful intelligences to ultimate holiness and happiness, and to ascribe the work wholly and universally to the Almighty Saviour, who is equally good unto all, and whose tender mercies are over all his works. Whether all events take place according to the predetermination of infinite

wisdom and goodness, is no longer a matter of controversy, if we are once convinced of the Paternal character of God, and of the equality of his design in the great plan of redemption. In this scheme, the justice of God is no less displayed than his mercy; since justice as loudly demands the uprightness and obedience of the creature, as any other divine perfection. If God can be just, and the Saviour of some, he surely would not be less just, in the salvation of all who were equally sinful.

Until the majority of Christians are freed from the soulkilling horrors of the doctrine of endless misery, that legitimate descendant of papal superstition and cruelty, it is hardly worth our while to be particular, concerning the certainty of immediate happiness at death. The question, which like Aaron's rod, swallows up all others, is, Will the misery of God's rational offspring be strictly endless? And are we not extremely happy, in being able to answer it in the negative?. No reasonable argument can be raised against us. It is perfectly consonant to the benevolent desires of all rational creatures. No being in the universe can be injured, in the least, by that administration of the divine government, whereby the equal felicity of all men is forever secured. As well might we individually complain, because millions of others are now rejoicing in the light of the sun. The doctrine can by no means increase the depravity of the community generally, since it does not deny the faithful administration of rewards and punishments. It perfectly harmonizes with the noblest conception of the divine attributes, is the obvious sentiment of revelation concerning the will of our Almighty Father, has the cheerful concurrence of all holy beings, and is shown to be of divine original, by being the subject of almost every prayer which is devoutly offered to the throne of Grace. Should we hear a man pray that all men might not be saved, we should consider it the index of a cruel and unrenewed heart. Then shall we blush to acknowledge our belief in that system, which is so honorable to the character of God, exalting to the mediation of Jesus, perfect in the administration of justice and mercy, and conformable with the highest felicity of all created intelligences? Nothing but a palpable misunderstanding of the system can be the cause of that unabat

ing zeal, by which most limitarian professors are prompted to exhibit such violent opposition.

We do charitably believe that thousands of our brethren, of different denominations, do not, at heart, oppose this doctrine, though a mistaken prudence prevents their being its professors.

FOR THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.

MR. EDITOR-I have been for many years a believer in the final restoration of all men to holiness and felicity. This doctrine I received, and have contended for, as far as I was able, on the ground of the mediatorial office of Jesus Christ, who is called "the Saviour of the world." I considered our Lord in this character, because the scriptures so frequently speak of his "reconciling all things to himself," and subjecting the world to his righteous authority. The preachers of universalism, whom I sometimes heard, used to argue against a limited salvation, from the scriptural declarations, that Christ died for all, and that it was the divine purpose, through his mediatorial work, to bring 66 every knee to bow and every tongue to confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the father." They likewise contended, in opposition to those who maintain that all opportunity for salvation closes with the present life, that the empire of Christ extends into a future world, or at least that no evidence to the contrary appears in the Bible. In vindication of the idea, that wicked men may be restored to holiness and happiness in another life, I have heard Universalist preachers cite the promises made to Sodom and her daughters, that they should return to their former estate.

I had always supposed that these views of the doctrine in question were correct and scriptural. I had believed that repentance was a necessary process of mind, a mean to effect the sinner's salvation. Nor was it till lately, that I learned, that these ideas are considered by many as absurd, and that a different scheme is, by some, openly defended. According to the plan here alluded to, Jesus Christ saves those only who are made acquainted with his doc

trine, by which they are delivered from all groundless fears of future misery, and made exceedingly happy in the prospects that lie before them. But as the number, who gain this knowledge in the present state is very small; and as millions live and die, ignorant of Christ and his doctrine, and religion, he cannot be said to be their Saviour, and of course, the doctrine of the universality of his grace, of his dying for, and being the Saviour of all men is unfounded. You may perhaps conclude, that this deficiency is balanced by extending the dominion of Christ into the future world. This, however, does not seem to be the case. When the abettors of this scheme are asked concerning the state of such as live and die in impenitence; they say that death delivers them from all iniquity, and they pass at once into glory and felicity; and they rest the proof of this theory upon this declaration," he that is dead is freed from sin," and consequently, say they, from misery or punishment. This doctrine, if I understand it, makes repentance unnecessary, it knows nothing of a moral, disciplinary process, by which to subject the creature to the dominion of the Saviour; and it appears to exclude the agency of Jesus Christ from the salvation of all, who are not, in this life, made acquainted with his doctrine.

I have said, Mr. Editor, that my information, that this doctrine was believed, was recently received; and you may wish to know what impression it made upon my mind. will confess to you, that for reasons already advanced, it struck me with surprise. I found, that if this doctrine were true, we ought never again to call Christ the Saviour of the world, or of all men; and that the work of subjecting the sinner to God, and transforming his soul into the divine image, is not to be attributed to the mediator, but is to be considered as the result of a physical law of our nature. Death delivers us from sin and misery. Surely, thought I, if this be the doctrine of the bible, I am grossly ignorant of that sacred book; "I have not so learned Christ;" and if to believe in this theory is to be a universalist, I am not of that order. Men may call me what they please; perhaps I may be unable to say what I AM; I can however say what I am NOT; I am not a universalist. EUMENES.