think so cannot have any very elevated views of the Divine character: they must regard Him as being revengeful, and forget that He is infinitely merciful and wise. Will He resent the moral rebellion of men upon the insensible part of His creation, on that part to which no moral responsibility has been attached, and which has undeviatingly obeyed the laws implanted in it since the first hour it was ushered into existence? Is it not enough for the purposes of Divine wisdom to remove men from the earth? Why then destroy all animated nature? Why bring ruin upon "the world," which the Lord said "is mine and the fulness thereof"?[1] For God to put a torch to the universe, because some who inhabit a mere speck of it have offended against His laws, would be something like the conduct of a king who would sink an island in the sea because some of his subjects had set his authority at defiance. Surely, in such a case, it would answer all the purposes of a reasonable man to remove the rebels, for no advantage could result from the destruction of the island. It cannot then be said that the transgression of men affords a reasonable cause for God to set fire to the universe. We will, therefore, look upon another side of this question. If such a catastrophe is to occur, is it to be preceded by the millennium, when, as it is supposed, pure religion will have reached its highest intelligence and virtue? Where would be the reasonableness of such a course? It supposes God to undertake the destruction of the world at the very moment when its inhabitants had attained the regenerated purpose for which they were redeemed, and, consequently, to bring upon them a terrible disaster at the very time they were obeying and enjoying the fulness of His religion! It seems impossible to defend such an idea and at the same time maintain the
