15. thus writes: p. 11. "Now the question arises, Has the serpent's head been bruised in any degree answerable to the manifest import of the passage under consideration? A great part of mankind have gone to destruction. Does this look like bruising the serpent's head? If the greater part of the human race are to be lost by the cunning craftiness of satan, will that look like bruising his head? To me it would seem far otherwise. Should satan continue the god of this world from the beginning to the end of time, leading whole nations captive at his will, surely he will seem to have cause to triumph.

"But the head of satan must be bruised; his plots must be crushed. Are all mankind to he saved? Certainly not. That would be giving the lie to numerous declarations of eternal Truth; it would be throwing away the Bible at once. And if the Bible be thrown away, it would be impossible to prove the salvation of any. But there is no doubt that by far the greater part of mankind will be saved. This appears necessary, in order that the serpent's head may be bruised. I am strongly inclined to the opinion of Dr. Hopkins, that of the whole human race, thousands will be saved for one that is lost."

We are happy to see from such respectable authors, that thousands are to be saved to one that is lost; and that if the greater part of the human race are to be lost, satan's head would not be bruised, but that he would have cause to triumph. If so many must be saved as stated in this quotation, to avoid these consequences, we would suggest it for the consideration of all, as well as that of the worthy author, whether satan's head could be bruised, or he destroyed, and whether he would not have cause of triumph if one individual of the human race was lost. If but one was left in his power, to be tormented by him forever, how could his head be bruised.

and would he not triumph in this small conquest, as well as over one in a thousand? We do not see how the number could materially alter the case. We seriously think that if the number to be saved be so great in proportion to those lost, we would do well to consider if all mankind may not be saved, and that we may believe this without throwing away our Bibles. But I only hint these things in passing. On this quotation, we cannot help remarking how different the sentiments contained in it are, to what was considered true orthodoxy in former ages. In those days, it would have been considered throwing away the Bible, to say that thousands will be saved for one lost, just as much as saying in these, that all will be saved. This quotation, no doubt, must serve the cause of Universal Salvation, and prepare the minds of men for its universal reception. If Christ comes so near saving the whole human race, in the name of humanity why not let his triumph be complete; why strain at the gnat and swallow the camel?

God also promised to Abraham, that in his seed, which was Christ, all the families of the earth should be blessed. But if the doctrine of endless misery be true, and a great part of mankind are decreed to such a punishment, how can this promise of God be fulfilled? It will be allowed that the sentiments which I have advanced, are much more in unison with the language of this and similar promises, than the doctrine of endless misery. Let any one go over the promises and predictions of the Old Testament, two of which I have merely adduced as a specimen, and then candidly say, if he finds them in unison with the limited views of salvation which most men entertain. It would be as endless, as useless for me to dwell on this topic.

But let us view the two doctrines in regard to the threatenings of God. The doctrine of eternal misery supposes that God threatened Adam, that in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit he should die, and that death. threatened is said to be death temporal, spiritual, and eternal. This eternal death is said to be endless misery in hell. Hell torments, then, was threatened before sin existed, or before the promise of a Saviour was given. But is this a correct understanding of the death threatened Adam? The falsehood of it is evident from one fact, that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and all the Old Testament believers did not so understand it. If they had, would they not have taught it to mankind? But do we find them referring to Adam's sin, as involving himself or his posterity in endless misery in hell? Or do we find such a doctrine taught by any Old Testament writer? Let all the threatenings of God in the Old Testament be examined, and we shall find them in unison with this first threatening to Adam. God threatened to destroy the world by a flood; Sodom and the cities of the plain by fire; but is a hint dropped that the wicked in such cases were at death to be eternally miserable?

But let us also view the two doctrines, in regard to the attributes or character of God. It has been said, that my views are very dishonorable to God's character. His justice, his holiness, and truth are dishonored if there be no endless punishment for all the wicked. If my views dishonour his character, it must be admitted that the endless misery of his creatures do his character great honor. This is not denied by the believers of this doctrine, for they aver, that he is as much, if not more glorified in the damnation of men as in their salvation. If this be true, the more sent to endless misery the bet

ter.

And what difference would it make as to the glory

of God, if none were saved? But if my views dishonor God's justice, holiness and truth, what comes of his mercy and goodness, if the opposite doctrine be true? We have to be sure seen attempts made by some metaphysical writers, to reconcile eternal misery with the mercy and goodness of God, but in vain. All they have said, is only enveloping the subject in a mist, or throwing dust in people's eyes to blind them on this subject. It is reported of the late Dr. Osgood, that when he was asked the question," how he reconciled the doctrine of eternal misery with the character of God as a God of mercy and goodness;" he lifted both his hands, and said, "if any man is able to do this I cannot do it."

It is a sentiment advocated by some of the orthodox preachers in the present day, that God is more glorified by the eternal misery of a part of the human race than by the salvation of the whole. It has, if we are correctly informed, been asserted lately, by a very celebrated preacher, that it was actually necessary, that a part of mankind should be eternally miserable, as a contrast or offset to those who are saved. All we would say of such a preacher, is, that he and all who believe his doctrine, ought to be this part of mankind; for it could be no great hardship for them to go to hell, seeing it is a part also of their creed, that they are willing to be damned in order that they may be saved.

Whether God is more glorified in men's damnation or in their salvation, I need not discuss the point. One thing is certain; that those called orthodox writers in the present day are fully aware, that if God did not ultimately save the greatest part of mankind, God's character would be dishonored. If this was not the case who could deny that the devil was more honored than God? Mr. Emerson, aware of this, agrees with another celebrated

divine, that those saved at last, will exceed those that are lost by a large majority. I am truly glad to see men of such good characters and intelligence so much concerned for God's honor and glory in this respect; and I hope the time is not very distant when they may think God most honored and glorified by saving the whole human race. It is a very evident case, that those writers do not hesitate to dissent from ancient orthodoxy, which was, that a great part of the human race were, by the decrees of God, doomed before they were born, to endless misery. Had they written so in some former ages, they would have suffered death, in some of its most terriffic forms for their temerity. At any rate, I am not a greater heretic now, than they would have been then.

But so far as our limited powers of thinking goes, we do not see that the number's being small or great who shall be eternally miserable, makes any material difference, as it regards the honor of God's character. If his character would be dishonored by the damnation of ninety-nine out of every hundred of the human race, it must be dishonored by the damnation of one in a thousand. And if the devil had cause to triumph, if the greater part of mankind were made miserable, why should he not triumph over the small number, which even merciful men in the present day, are still disposed to assign him? Allowing the devil to have been once a fallen angel, but now a malignant spirit, according to the common opinion of him, it is evident from the above quotation, that his head is not so much to be bruised, as that he is to be killed or destroyed. No; Paul must have been mistaken when he said, Heb. ii. 14. that Christ not only destroyed death, but him "that had the power of death, that is, the devil." And John did not very clearly understand what he meant,