tion should be honest, not only for his own sake, but also for the good of his brethren. He should declare the whole truth, and keep nothing back. Preaching a part of the truth, and not the whole of it, is equal, in many instances, to preaching falsely. In another case, it is so held by our judiciary. A witness is called to testify what he knows relative to a certain case in court, he comes forward and tells part of the truth, part of what he knows concerning the suit, and leaves the rest untold; this course of conduct may be the same as swearing to that which is not truth. Therefore to prevent this, there is a wise provision made in the form of the oath, that a person shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And if it be impor tant that a witness in temporal affairs should speak the truth, how much more so in spiritual things? St. Paul, believing it so, used "great plainness of speech," saying, "Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty; not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 2 Cor. iv. 1, 2.

To conclude the subject, my brethren, the occasion demands that I address you in a few remarks. Three years have rolled away since I removed to this place, and became your minister. At that time, I reluctantly left a very pleasant Society,* with whom I enjoyed myself exceedingly well. I anticipated that I might be more extensively useful with you, than with them. That was my only apology for leaving. This, in some respects, I have since thought to be the case. Brethren, I feel to tender you my thanks for all your goodness to

* The Society at Langdon, N. H.

me. The many favors you have bestowed on me, are now well recollected, and, I hope, duly appreciated; nor will these kindnesses of yours ever be forgotten to the latest period of my life. It is to be remembered, that this Society is one of the oldest of the order in Vermont, and probably is as numerous, if not more so, than any other one. We have many privileges granted us, a pleasant meeting-house, and a well informed choir of singers. These favors afforded to us, while they are denied to many others, should awaken in our hearts a lively sense of gratitude to God, who is the giver of every good and every perfect gift. The doctrine of the final restoration of all things to God we have by faith embraced. It is a doctrine worthy of a God possessing infinite attributes, it renders his character in every point of view amiable, and makes him the proper object of religious worship and adoration to every human being. Let us live according to the spirit of this doctrine, and all will be well; but if we should hold the truth in unrighteousness, we must experience the sad reverse. "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsover things are of good report; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things." Phil. iv. 8.

For the Repository.

MR. EDITOR,-By giving the following a place in the Repository, you will confer a favor upon one of your patrons.

LETTER TO REV. KITTREDGE HAVEN.

Dear Brother,

In answer to your strictures upon y Reasons for rejecting the Doctrine of Endless Miser, with which I am favored through the medium of the Repository, I

address you this line through the same medium. Before attending to your arguments, I will notice several questions with which you close your strictures. Your first question is this: "If salvation is of grace, in pursuance of divine decrees, and a part of mankind are renovated in this life, and are immediately happy after death; while the heathen, infants and idiots, and all those who are nurtured up in vice, are sufferers for an age or ages in a future state, is not God a respecter of persons ?" Upon this I will remark, 1. Tho I cannot believe that you designed to be disingenuous, yet in justice to myself I must say that the above contains an entire misrepresentation of my views. It would seen by your question that I had maintained, that infants and idiots would be punished for ages after death. But nothing can be more foreign to my views. I stated in my reasons that I believed that infants would be enlightened in a future state, but I gave no intimation that they would be punished. 2d. Your question seems to imply that if some are punished after death, and others are not, God is a respecter of persons. But the same may be said of punishment in this world. I think you will admit that all men are not equally happy_in this state. Now, sir, when you can reconcile what takes place in this world, with the impartiality of God, you will solve the whole difficulty; for the same principle will apply in every state. As to the decrees of God, they have no bearing upon this point; for if God can punish men in this state in consistency with his decrees, he can do the same in the future.

Your second question is—“If salvation is suspended upon the volitions of mankind, and they so abuse their agency as to incur future punishment, what certitude have we of their final salvation ?" I answer, the promises of God are our only hope of salvation, and these are not weakened in the least by admitting future pun

ishment. But I am not a little surprised that you should propose a question which may be retorted upon you in its full force. Your last question is-"Why does the writer so frequently use the inscriptural term probation ?"-I have heard it asserted by some ignorant persons that Universal Salvation could not be true, because there was no such phrase in the scriptures. But 1 have always regarded such persons as more critical than wise. And permit me, sir, to apply the same remark to your question. What if the word probation does not occur in the scripture? Must we be such slaves to the translators of our Bibles as to be confined to those words only which they were pleased to use? This attachment to the sound rather than to the sense of scripture, argues a superficial mind. I trust that you will allow me to use the word probation in future, especially as you have in your question used the term inscriptural.

I will now call your attention to your arguments against future probation. In your first argument you maintain that the gospel cannot apply to a future state, because it proclaims peace on earth! Again you say"If the gospel is applicable to the future state, it is strange that the inspired writers have not more explicitly applied it to that state." Thus, sir, you will not allow that the gospel has any application to a future world. But with what consistency can you maintain that all men will be made happy after death? Take a person, for instance, who is taken from this world instantly in the very act of murder. This person was not saved in this world, for he ended his days on earth in gross wickedness. He cannot be saved after death by the mercy of God, for, according to your views, the gospel does not apply to a future state. But your argument not only cuts off universal salvation, but a future state of being also. You cannot prove a future

existence without the aid of the New Testament, and the gospel you maintain has no application to a future state. Thus rather than admit a future probation, you have in fact, relinquished a future state of being. You cannot prove the resurrection of the dead, for the gospel applies to this state only! You further insinuate that we might apply the gospel to a pre-existent state as well as to a future state. Now I presume that you do not believe in a pre-existent state, and if your remarks have any just application to the subject, then we must conclude that you do not believe in a future state. I feel confident, however, that you do believe in a future state, but still you must give up that belief, or acknowledge that your assertions, which I have noticed, are unfounded. It is to be lamented, sir, that you should permit your zeal for any theory to lead you to advance notions which would destroy Christianity itself.

you

Your remarks upon Christ's preaching to the "spirits You assert in prison," are miscellaneous and vague. that I make the preaching take place between Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, but this is a mistake. I have advanced nothing that favors that idea. For a full exposition of the passage, I will refer you to the RepoThere will find the passage sitory, vol. ii. p. 88. explained at large, and by a writer too who is now with have not given a full expoyou you in sentiment. Tho sition of the text, still you have given a hint of your views. You understand the passage to mean that the apostles preached the gospel to the Gentiles. My objection to this interpretation is, that it contradicts the apostle in almost every particular. That this may appear, I will compare your views with the passage. Peter says, that Christ was the preacher, but you contradict this, and say that the apostles were the preachers. Peter tells us that the preaching was to spirits in prison, but tell us it was to men in the flesh. Peter

you