endeavors by the soft, entreating language of mercy to bring the elder son to the enjoyment of the same inheritance possessed by the younger. How most exactly does this parable represent the kind and merciful character of our heavenly Father. He calls on his disobedient children to return unto him, saying, "Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be ye saved, for I am God, and there is none else." He has sent his own beloved "Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” Let us all return unto God, that we may live. May we repent of all our sins and become humble like the prodigal; then we shall wear the robe of righteousness, have shoes put on our feet, and be made partakers of a feast of fat things, prepared in God's love for all people. Which may God grant to be the happy lot and portion of his whole Israel.

Mr. Editor,

MISSIONS.

ΑΜΕΝ.

For the Repository.

As this is an age of missionary exertions, I have thought proper to communicate to you my opinion and feelings upon this subject, and if you think them worthy, you may give them a place in the Repository.

I have long viewed with disapprobation, the means employed to aid the cause of missions. They have appeared to me low and grovelling, calculated to degrade rather than exalt the cause they are designed to support. The arts which are frequently practised to obtain money, have appeared to me more like the intrigues of courts than like the wise exertions of pious Christians. But I frankly acknowledge that I am no better pleased with the mode frequently made use of to oppose missions. Most of the pieces I have seen published against missions, have been directed against the

thing itself, as well as against its abuses. Many communications have appeared, and, I am sorry to say, in our own papers, too, which go against missions no less than against Christianity itself. We frequently see declarations like this brought to oppose missionary exertions: "God has created the heathen, and he will take care of them without our assistance." Now such declarations involve a principle which saps the foundation of religion and morality. It goes directly to destroy all exertions on the part of human beings, in forming habits of piety and virtue. This principle reduced to practice, would have forever prevented the introduction of the gospel. If the benevolent Jesus had adopted this principle, he certainly would not have died upon the cross for the salvation of sinners. If the apostles had said, "God has created mankind, and will take care of them without our aid," they would not, if consistent, have endured such severe trials for the sake of publishing the gospel to the world. But this principle not only opposes the introduction of the gospel, but goes directly to destroy its influence after it is introduced. If we adopt this principle, and are governed by its influence, we should entirely destroy the moral influence of Christianity. If we are called upon to be virtuous, that thereby we may be happy, the reply is ready at hand-"God has created us, and he will take care of us without our assistance." Thus would all the warnings of the divine spirit, and all the other means of the gospel, be completely baffled, and their tendency destroyed. The legitimate fruit of this doctrine, is to destroy all moral and religious exertions, and produce a state of total indifference relative to divine things.

Now it is to be lamented that those who profess the Christian name, should adopt maxims which aim a blow at the foundation of Christianity. No sincere and enlightened Christian can feel opposed to the cause of

missions, if they be properly conducted, and the genuine gospel be taught. If improper means are adopted to aid that cause, we ought to oppose the abuse, and not the thing itself. We have no more reason to reject missions because they have been abused, than we have to reject Christianity itself, because that has been abused. We, as Universalists, profess to believe that the gospel is designed for all, and will eventually be realized by them. And we must believe that the gospel is to be propagated by human agency, or that it is not. If it is, then we must be in favor of reasonable exertions being made to spread the gospel. If it is not, then the exertion we are making to extend our cause, is idle and absurd. It would be unreasonable for us to use our influence to promulgate any doctrine which we do not believe; unreasonable to contribute beyond our ability to propagate any doctrine; and unreasonable to send missionaries abroad, while so much remains to be done at home. That these remarks may excite inquiry upon this subject, which may lead to the discovery of truth, is the sincere desire of your friend and brother,

C****** H** **

The following substantial Reasons for rejecting the doctrine of endless misery were recently written and published in a pamphlet, by Rev. Charles Hudson. We give them an

insertion in the Repository, for the benefit of our readers, both friends and opponents.

A BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REJECTING THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS MISERY.

That the misery of the wicked will be limited by the restoration of all men to holiness and felicity, appears evident from various considerations, among which are the following:

1. We do not believe the doctrine of endless misery; because it involves principles which shock every feeling

of humanity and piety, and are contradictory in themselves. It is an essential ingredient in the doctrine of endless misery, that the sufferings of the damned augment the joys of heaven. This is strenuously contended for by those who style themselves orthodox, at the present day. They assert that the good of the universe requires the endless torment of a part of mankind, and that every degree of misery in hell will produce corresponding degrees of joy in heaven! I am sensible that the liberal part, (if such they can be called) of the votaries of endless misery disclaim such principles, but still their doctrine necessarily involves them. Tho they generally reject the doctrine of God's universal decrees, they maintain that God overrules all things for good. This is not only contended for in direct form, but is a principle recognized in all their reasoning. Now, if all things be overruled for good, then the misery of the wicked will increase the joy of the saints. If God overrules endless misery for good, some happiness must result from it; and this happiness must be enjoyed by the saints; for surely it cannot be said that the wicked will be made happy by being endlessly punished. Thus does the doctrine of endless misery, on any system, involve the principle, that the saints will rejoice at the misery of the wicked. But what heart warmed by the love of God, can rejoice at the endless, unspeakable torture of a great part of mankind? Can the saints in glory be so destitute of charity, and all those principles of affection, and feelings of benevolence, which the gospel enjoins, as to exult at the intolerable suffering of their nearest and dearest earthly friends and connexions ? If the saints in heaven can rejoice eternally at the sight of infinite anguish, they must be vastly more inhuman and savage than the most hardened wretch ever resident upon earth, and, one would think, better qualified for the society VOL. VI.

2

of merciless demons, than for that of the merciful God and his compassionate Son. Men in this world cannot enjoy happiness from the consideration that their best friends will be a prey to never-ending torture; and unless they be far more unfeeling and vicious in heaven than on earth, this can never be the case there. It is blasphemous to ascribe feelings thus infinitely savage to the angels in light, since Jesus hath told us,* that the saints are so desirous of the happiness of their fellow creatures, that the repentance of a single individual will fill the courts of heaven with an ecstacy of joy.

But we are told that the happiness of the whole universe requires the misery of a part of mankind! What can be more absurd than this? Every whole is made up of parts; and the happiness or misery of the whole must be the happiness or misery of all the parts which compose this whole. The whole universe is made up of individuals, and the greatest happiness of this universe must be the aggregate happiness of every individual. How is it possible that the greatest happiness of the universe can require the extreme torment of the greater part of the members of which the universe is composed ? We might as well pretend that the greatest misery of the universe required the infinite happiness of the greater part of mankind. No man would admit such absurdities on any other subject. Who would pretend that the greatest happiness of a human body required the extreme misery of the greater part of the members which compose this body? It is manifest from the figure introduced, that the happiness of the members would be the happiness of the body; and the pain of the members would be the pain of the body. And so it is with the universe. The greatest happiness of the universe can no more consist with the misery of a part of its own members, than the greatest happiness of the

* Luke xv. 7, 10.