or general character of the Creator, ought to appear the same in nature and religion: or that the philanthropy which appears in the natural creation, should also appear in the Christian religion. But you infer that the philanthropy which appears in creation, greatly transcends that which appears in the Christian scheme of redemption. Hence you object because, in your judgment, nature and Christianity agree not in their testimony concerning the Almighty; and, if you are compelled to believe but one of the witnesses, you will, through great reluctance, believe nature rather than Jesus Christ.

In the analysis which I gave of your letter in my former epistle, I did not thus express your second difficulty. According to my former letter," the too narrow and exclusive spirit of the Christian religion, compared with the Divine philanthropy developed in the creation and providence of the Almighty Father and Benefactor of our race, constituted your second capital objection to the Christian religion." This is, however, to the same effect. It is, sir, with me, a matter of the first importance, in every attempt to aid the inquiries, or to meet the objections of any searcher after truth, to come to the precise point at which his mind halts, and to meet the objection in its full force. You will, therefore, excuse the otherwise unnecessary verbiage with which I have spoken of this difficulty. I wish to have it ferreted out, and distinctly placed before my mental vision, that I may not be found beating the air.

Against the messengers of the Christian religion, or the credentials which they submitted to the test of reason, you offer no objection. It is, therefore, wholly impertinent for me to say anything of these. Nor do you object to the whole message itself, as either unworthy of God or unworthy of man. Nay, you approve the most of it. That God should propose to bestow immortality on mortal man, and that he should honour our apostate race by sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, to reconcile us to God and to effect for us an eternal redemption, you cannot think to be incompatible with the glory of God or the best interests of man. That purity and holiness, sometimes called virtue, should constitute the highway to future and eternal happiness, also fully meets your approbation. But one objection seems, for a moment, to outweigh the ten thousand arguments in favour of the mission, the missionaries, and the divine credentials. This objection, too, is but an inference drawn from what some have styled the doctrines of Christianity; or rather, from one of those doctrines which represent but a small remnant of mankind as likely to be the participants of this salvation.

In passing, permit me just to say, that Jesus Christ and his Apostles are as silent as the grave upon the relative proportion of the saved and the lost. The relative aggregate of all the generations of men who shall be saved or lost, is no part of the Christian religion. Nothing definite is said or written on this point. It is true that John the Apostle represents an innumerable multitude, which no man could number, of every nation, kindred, and tongue, as having attained to immortality; but that many shall be lost, is fully and unequivocally stated, both by our Lord and his Apostles. And, let me add, that if you can never submit cordially to the government of Jesus Christ till

you discover that every human being shall be saved by him, with the present revelation, and your powers of discrimination, I predict, you will never permit him to be the Sovereign of your heart.

But, sir, I am far from thinking that, with your premises and data before your mind, you will make such a discovery a condition of your acquiescence in the only rational exhibition of religion submitted to the acceptance of a dying world. That some will be saved, and that some will perish with "an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and glory of his power," I do admit is clearly taught in the Christian Scriptures; and that it is not at all incompatible with your own premises and reasonings, from the testimony of nature I hope to make satisfactorily evident to you.

But let me first observe, that with the exception of a few Universalists of one particular school, the human race, in all ages, have contended for a future state of rewards and punishments of some continuance. The Pagan superstitions, one and all; the Mahometan imposture, the Jews, and the Deists also, have confessed their belief in future punishment. We urge not this almost universal belief, or opinion, as an argument in proof of our position, but rather submit it as an evidence that there is nothing in the idea generally repulsive to the human mind. If not an oracle of reason, it is an oracle to which reason has not found much to object.

But, sir, to approach your difficulty in the direct route of your own . premises and reasonings, permit me to call your attention to this very fundamental proposition:

I. There is no unconditional favour bestowed on man.

The enjoyment of life itself depends upon conditions, a disregard of which must of necessity result in a forfeiture of it. Not a single favour, which contributes to the preservation and comfort of life, has been bestowed on man, which he may not forfeit; which he will not certainly forfeit, if the conditions on which it is bestowed are not complied with. Might not, then, my dear sir, a theorist of some ancient or modern school, make this an argument against the philanthropy of the common Father of our race, because he has made life itself, and all its enjoyments, depend upon conditions which may, through ignorance and imbecility, be neglected or violated, and which through either ignorance or neglect, in countless instances, have caused the forfeiture of life, or health, or happiness? Millions of our race have experienced ten thousand times ten thousand calamities, from their ignorance of these conditions, or from their inability to fulfil them. Could you, my dear sir, place before your eye in one immense group the innumerable multitudes now dragging out a miserable existence, in consequence of having sinned against some law of nature, of having violated the conditions on which health and competence are necessarily consequent; could you add to these the immense throng, who, in the morning of life, or in the midst of their days, have been cut off from the generations of the living for refusing obedience to these conditions, or because they were ignorant of them, methinks you would no longer complain that the philanthropy displayed in the gospel differs essentially from that displayed in the works of creation and providence.

But you say, "Exclusive partialities cannot comport with the wisdom, the justice, the all-absorbing love of the Almighty for his feeble and erring creature, man." This is one of your favourite inferences from the works of creation; but I confess I know not from what premises, found in the volume of nature, this is a fair induction. In following you through your contemplations on this terraqueous globe, and on the lot of man upon it, I am compelled to another conclusion, which I shall here state as a second proposition, only inferior to the first in importance.

II. That something like "exclusive partiality" does appear to be an essential part of the system of creation and providence.

Without examining the circumstances of man in every degree of latitude from Behring's Straits to Terra del Fuego, or from Nova Zembla to the Cape of Good Hope; without examining all the influences of climate, soil, and government, operating on the physical and moral constitution of man in one hemisphere, if we only select a few we may arrive at sufficient proof to sustain the above proposition.

From the shivering Greenlander to the sun-burnt Moor, what varieties of stature, figure, complexion, beauty, constitution, do we find! what diversities of intellect, moral habits, manners and customs affecting the happiness of man! what various modes of sustaining life from the various products of soil and climate! The human body is known to vary from four feet, as an average stature, to almost seven; and the mind follows it in the same scale of comparative stature, strength, and activity. Here man is an adult of mature age and reason at twelve, and a patriarch at thirty; there his constitution is not formed till twice twelve years have run their race, nor are his days completed till fourscore years have wasted his strength: here he is of a temperament as mild as the genial breath of spring; there as fierce as the northern blasts which drift the snowy mountains of Spitzbergen: here, he pants for breath in the burning deserts of the torrid zone, and there he inters himself under ground to survive the rigours of a nine month's winter; here he is born to affluence, to a throne and a sceptre, and there he sinks into the sordid hut of abject slavery.

His education and moral training are necessarily contingent on all these circumstances, over which he generally has no control. How then infer from these data, from this volume of unequivocal signs, that this "exclusive spirit" of Christianity is at war with the unexclusive philanthropy displayed in creation and providence! The utter impossibility of all men living in the same latitudes, or even in the same temperate zone, lays the foundation of ten thousand diversities in the constitution, character, habits, and circumstances of man, which are as necessary as the law which made this earth a globe. The foundation of this exclusive system is found in the formation of our globe, and in its position to the common centre of our system; and, consequently, is a part of the plan of its omniscient and omnipotent Creator.

Indeed, sir, if we may call all the diversities in the lot of man "partialities," if all differences found in the family of man must be regarded as tokens of partiality, then is there written on the face of the whole creation nothing so distinctly and so legibly as the partiality

of its Creator. The spangled heavens, the myriads of shining orbs of various magnitudes and lustre, the fixed stars, the planets, primary and secondary, the comets of every eccentricity, proclaim to the listening ear the partiality, as some would call it, of the Almighty Creator. The oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, with all their scaly tribesthe mountains, hills, valleys, and plains-the immense continentsthe sandy deserts-the vast morasses-the barren, cloud-capt peaksand all the spicy islands, with all their tribes of inhabitants, loudly proclaim that God delights in variety.

The susceptibilities of pleasure and pain, the capacity for sensitive, rational, and moral enjoyment, are as diversified as the physical constitution of the spheres and all their inhabitants-no two things alike in all respects, as far as human science can explore. Why, then, should it be thought an insurmountable objection to the word of eternal life, that all will not-that all cannot embrace it ? Does not creation-does not the providence of its Almighty Author preach the same lesson in ten thousand varied types, figures, and analogies? Can all of any class become like one of that class, or like one of another class? Making nature (which is but a co-witness) the judge of revelation, trying the oracles of religion by those of reason, comparing the voice which speaks in every creature, with that of Apostles and Prophets, in my ear there is no discord. Nature and the Bible speak the same lesson. My aphorism is, that which is just in little, is just in much; that which is unjust in a farthing, is unjust in a million. Thus taught the great Prophet. From all of which my reason concludes that, if it be compatible with the wisdom, justice, philanthropy of our heavenly Father, to allow these diversities in the children of one family to exist in this state of human existence; if he have made animal life and enjoyment depend on conditions which may easily be broken; if he have so governed this world for six thousand years, as to keep before our eyes a continued scene of varied suffering and distress in consequence of sinning against the laws of nature, who can infer from these premises that it will be incompatible with his whole moral character, to save those who honour and obey his Son, and to condemn all who reject the Messiah, and despise the salvation of God!!

Thus, sir, I am led to the conclusion that nature, which is another name for creation, and Christianity concur exactly in their testimony concerning God. If these two witnesses are attentively heard, and their testimony fairly interpreted, it will appear that no two witnesses ever more perfectly harmonized in identifying the character of any person, than do the works and word of God in attesting his character

to man.

But, sir, suppose that, in interpreting their testimony (for men are just as much divided in interpreting the testimony of the works of God, as in interpreting his word), a discord or contradiction should appear, a question arises which of the two witnesses is to be believed. "Neither of them," says the Atheist. 'Nature," says the Theist. Both are equally capricious. Could we suppose such a discrepancy, in fact, I would undertake to show that revelation is the most credible and intelligible guide. I would find an offset to the allegation that the latter witness is more liable to interpolation and misinterpretation

than the former in the contradictory testimonies of all the polytheists of ancient and modern times. But this is wholly gratuitous; for the works and word of God give but one and the same testimony, though. neither would be intelligible without the other; but when both are fully and fairly heard, there is the fullest assurance given that God is just and merciful, as well as infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness. Your third objection I must defer till another moon.

With high consideration and respect, I remain, &c.,

A. C.

A SERIES OF LETTERS ON THE SABBATH.

LETTER SECOND.

SIR.-In my former communication I considered the subject of the Sabbath as it was given to man, as a blessing accompanying the covenant of works, whether to our first parents or to the children of Israel; distinguishing them from the nations, and pointing them out as God's own people. But as they, like the rest of the children of men, did not continue to keep that covenant, but broke it, I concluded that they could not receive the accompanying blessing, and, as it was therefore necessary, that a new covenant should be made, and was made, it becomes us to inquire-Is the Sabbath of the seventh day abrogated, and if so, is any other instituted ?

Man was in a state of amity with God, and he was made under law to him; but the law under which man was originally placed, was not a Sabbatic law. The law under which God was pleased to place man, was the law of a positive precept. Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The Sabbath was given to man, as is seen before, for a benefit; it was not given, like the other, as a test of man's obedience.

Man, in his state of original purity, loved the Sabbath as an infant loves it mother's breast.

The circumstances under which the law of the ten commandments was given were very different. Man had become totally corrupt, and none of the children of men knew the deceitfulness and desperate wickedness of his own heart. The law of the ten commandments was given that sin might be known, or, as the Apostle says, (Rom. v. 20,) "That the offence might abound;" also, (Tim. i. 9,) "The law was made for the lawless and disobedient;" and so the law being holy, and requiring perfect obedience, which the fallen children of men were unable to yield, did, by showing them their sinfulness, become their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ. (Gal. iii. 24, 25.) And we see how admirably calculated to answer this end was the law regarding the Sabbath; for it required of them, not to think their own thoughts, nor to do their own deeds, but to enter into communion with God; and this, being not at all suited to their carnal desires, the Sabbath, of necessity, became a weariness to them, plainly showing the alienation of their hearts from God.

The original Sabbath, being one of the blessings attendant upon their continuing in a state of amity and obedience to God, must, therefore, of necessity, cease when these cease. It was an attendant