deceived as to the doctrines of the bible. For example; Walker defines the word redemption, “The purchase of God's favour by the death of Christ." Could anything be more absurd than the idea, that the infinite Being sells his favors? and sells them for the blood of suffering innocence?! The scriptures everywhere represent the grace of God as being free, or gratuitous; but purchased grace can scarcely be termed free. Webster gives us as the meaning of damnation, “ A sentence to eternal torment;" and he even refers us for his authority to Mark xvi. 16. Now it happens that said passage is entirely silent about "eternal torment ;" and that there is nothing in the connection which necessarily inplies anything of the kind; consequently, both his definition and his reference are a sheer assumption. Three words in the original tongues, which are wide of each other in their signification, (I mean sheol, tartarus, and gehenna,) are represented in our common version by the one English word hell; and, until lately, it was not known that even this term has now a different signification from what it had formerly; insomuch, that Christ could be said to have "descended into hell." (See what is miscalled "the apostles creed,") without its being thereby meant that he went down to a region of torment, which is the idea now conveyed by the phrase. The English words eternal, everlasting, forever, etc. most commonly signify endless duration. The reader must bear it in mind that the scriptures were not originally written in English; the original terms which in our version these are made to represent, often to misrepresent, are not equivalent in their meaning, but require to be understood in each case according to the connection in which they stand; hence these terms cannot be relied on as sufficient, of themselves, to settle such questions concerning duration as may arise in the course of this investigation. But of these things in their proper place. For the present, the reader is only requested to bear in mind, that his religious education has led him to associate with every biblical term a particular idea, and that this association is often incorrect, having grown out of interpretations entirely arbitrary; and, therefore, that it is in such cases likely to lead him to wrong results in his inquiries into the meaning of the scriptures. He is requested as far as possible to guard against the influence of this circumstance; and, instead of leaning too much upon any authority aside from

the scriptures, to prefer making them in all possible cases the interpreters of themselves.

Lastly. Although it is freely confessed that mere human authority is insufficient for the settling of a question like the one before us, yet should it be found, that a doctrine now received as true, was not known by christians in the early ages of the church, the fact would warrant the conclusion, that said doctrine is not taught in the scriptures. What should we think of a politician who should set up certain principles as belonging to the Jeffersonian school in politics, and on enquiry it should be found, that none of the immediate successors of that statesman had ever held them? We should conclude with certainty that said politician was mistaken. In like manner, when a theologian starts a theory in religion, and we find it to have been unknown by those who immediately succeeded Christ and his apostles in the gospel ministry, we are compelled to conclude against the truth of said theory.

It must not, however, be inferred from the above, that the mere age of an opinion entitles it to respectful consideration; for the early converts to christianity from the Jewish and heathen churches, brought many strange whims with them, which they were fond of incorporating with their new faith and the notion of a dark infernum, populated with doomed spirits, which is the basis of our present theory of hell, was, without doubt, one of said whims. Whilst, then, the entire novelty of a doctrine is proof presumptive of its untruth, the mere antiquity of a doctrine affords no presumption in its favor. That the belief of universal salvation is not a new thing in christendom is evident from ecclesiastical history. Origen, in the third century, a distinguished father in the church, maintained this opinion distinctly; and although several of his tenets were subsequently condemned as heretical, this was not included among them, which goes to show that even at that early time, this doctrine was not regarded as a novelty. The fact of its not being then considered a heresy is of great weight in its favor, for, unlike the doctrine of endless misery, it cannot be shown to have been derived from any system of heathen mythology: but, on the contrary, must be regarded as a tenet peculiar to christianity. Whereas the opposite doctrine, whilst it forms a part and parcel of most of the pagan codes of faith, was entirely unrecognized by the Jewish religion, which claims its origin from God himself.

Many other important considerations, reader, might be suggested here on the threshold of this investigation, serving to show how very small is the probability, that the dogma of ceaseless suffering can in the issue be regarded as of scriptural authority: but the above, it is believed, are quite sufficient for this purpose. Of this, however, you must be judge for yourself. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

UNIVERSAL SALVATION

DIRECTLY AND POSITIVELY PROVEN FROM THE AT TRIBUTES OF GOD.

1. GOD IS LOVE.-(1 John, iv. 8.)-This proposition has been much declaimed upon, by those too, who, while they admitted its truth in terms, denied it in fact. It is now introduced as a subject for careful argumentation. In this business we shall not need those rhetorical embellishments which, at the same time that they amuse the faney, often make it an instrument in deceiving the judgment: the less our argument is encumbered with these the better it will be, because the more intelligible.

As has been well remarked (by Adam Clarke) "God is never said, in the scriptures, to be Justice, or Patience, or Holiness, but he is frequently in one form or another said to be love." Hence it is inferred that love is his moral nature, and the basis of all his other attributes-love is God: to say that God is just, or holy, or unchanging, is the same as to say that infinite love is characterised by these qualities; to say that all creatures throughout all space are in God's hands, and subject to his control, is in effect to say they are in love's hands, and subject to its control: in short, God and love are so essentially identical, that the name of each may be, and often is, employed for designating the other; any predicate of the one will answer equally well as a predicate of the other; hence we may affirm of infinite love that it rules the universe, is eternal, impartial, holy, just, good, &c., for God is all these, and God is love. In these three words is he defined

E

by John, a fisherman of Galilee, and they express more than all the collected wisdom of previous and subsequent ages ever has or can express.

The doctrine of endless misery is utterly irreconcilable with this essential attribute of the deity, for love invariably seeks, and to the utmost of its power promotes the ultimate good of its objects; by this circumstance alone is it distinguishable from its opposite principle; to affirm that love will consent that any of its objects shall be miserable, without reference to any eventual good from that misery, is to affirm that it approves of misery for its own sake, and this is to confound it with hatred. The doctrine of endless woe does in effect affirm this, and thereby it absurdly confounds Jehovah, who is infinite love, with infinite hatred. To make this more plain, we will suppose God to be the opposite of what he is-What should we expect as the result? Anything worse than what is contemplated in the belief of unceasing torment? If not, in affirming this doctrine, are we not manifestly confounding love with hatred, since we ascribe to the one such actions as can only result from the other?

Wherever infinite love is, there can no suffering be, except per mitted from motives of ultimate benefit to the sufferer, and consequently, in no conceivable case can the theory of endless misery be verified, except by some means the subject thereof could get beyond the presence of love, or, which is the same thing, beyond the presence of God. But,

2. GOD IS OMNIPRESENT.-(Psl. cxxxix. 7.)—And, of course, love is omnipresent; it surrounds, pervades, and sustains all things, (Ephe. iv. 6,) to get beyond its reach, therefore, is impossible, for whither shall we go from its presence? Shall we ascend to the heaven of heavens? it is there. Shall we descend to depths unfathomable by the plummet-line of thought? it will still be far, far beneath us: and should we speed with the wings of light to the farthest bounds of being, still, still should we find its presence to extend immeasurably beyond us. The sinner is in its hands when he goes hence equally as while he is here, and although he may find it "a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God," yet the result will prove that they are the hands of love, and, therefore, not the hands of an enemy. Such was David's view of the matter, when reduced to the necessity of selecting

" said

one out of three modes of punishment. "Let me fall now," he, "into the hands of the Lord, for very great are his mercies; but let me not fall into the hands of man." (1 Chro. xii. 13.) But why prefer falling into God's hands, rather than those of man, if, as the dogma of eternal torment affirms, God's inflictions will infinitely exceed in duration and severity any which the most cruel of mankind would be willing to sanction?

The power of Jehovah cannot extend where his love does not, for that would prove the latter finite, and if his power cannot extend beyond his love, it can act on creatures only as directed by love; it can inflict only such suffering as love approves as conducive to its own ends: hence it may with confidence be affirmed that even present suffering would not be permitted except with reference to some future benefit to the sufferer, and, consequently, that no useless suffering exists, for if divine love will overrule it all for ultimate good it is not useless. The scriptures abundantly sustain this view of the matter. "For the Lord," say they, "will not cast off for ever, for though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies, for he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." (Lam. iii. 37. See also, Heb. xii. 10.) Of course endless misery is entirely excluded by this reasoning, for misery without end can produce no beneficial results to the sufferer, and if no beneficial results to the sufferer, then infinite love can have no agency in its infliction; and if infinite love would refuse to sanction it, then it must take place, if at all, where love is not, but it cannot take place where love is not, for love is everywhere.

If unending misery be inflicted, will it not, as it regards the subjects, consist of an exercise of power to the exclusion of love? and will there not in that case be creatures whom God will not love? and since he will not love them, can he be a God to them, inasmuch as there can be no God where there is no love, for God is love? It is impossible for answers consisting with the faith of endless misery to be rendered to these questions. If in the vast, vast solitudes of space, there existed a point beyond which the divine presence did not extend, and beings were capable of hurling themselves into this desolate void, (for desolate it must needs be without a God) they doubtless could thus be rendered miserable without end, and thus only, as has already been said, there is