theology. In that Communion it is believed that the Atonement is
universal, but that salvation is not universal. Thus the divine
intention is supposed to fail of its effect. So I think it would appear
to any mind untrammelled by tradition.

But putting tradition aside, what does reason say? And what do our
highest thoughts of divine love, and power, and purpose say? Are not our
best ideas of fitness in accord with the view that Atonement and
Salvation are co-extensive? When we once receive the idea that divine
love and power have no petty restrictions of place or time, will we not
accept the larger theory? And this one conception will transform and
transfigure all our thoughts of redemption. I wish some of our Methodist
brethren would look into this matter candidly, and say if I am
not right.

Thus the Calvinists made one mistake, and the Arminians made another. If
both would now adopt the larger view, that one idea would compose nearly
all their differences, and unite them in a bond which our fathers never
dreamed of. Would it be too much to hope for that? I suppose it would,
just at present. But the spirit of unity is here, and I believe that
some day it will embody itself in form.

* * * * *

I quote elsewhere the saying of an orthodox divine that "God infallibly
accomplishes everything at which He aims." Then what does He "aim" at?
Dr. R. W. Dale tells us. He says: "Every man bears the image of God, and
was created to abide in the Home of God." Is not that direct and clear?
"Every man was created to abide in the Home of God." That was God's aim.
But is it "accomplished?" The orthodox view is that it is not. According