What "duty" could man owe to his Maker, if he suffered nothing by disobedience? The words "moral agency and accountability," it is true, are not mentioned in the article; neither are they in the Scriptures. The article is truly Protestant, leaving every one at full liberty to read and judge for himself, in regard to the nature of sin, and the time and duration of its punishment; all agreeing, however, that sin and misery are finite, and cannot extend beyond "the times of restitution," "the dispensation of the fulness of times," or "the delivering up of the kingdom to the Father, that God may be all in all.' And, certainly, there was no necessity of introducing that topic into the Profession of Faith.

Inq. Indeed there was not! and why so, pray tell me? Why not rather the utmost propriety in giving it a place?

Uni. Answer; for the plainest of all reasons; because, if there is any express revelation on the subject, there was no more necessity for naming it in the articles of belief, than there was for mentioning many other things which are plainly declared. The doctrine of a resurrection from the dead, is of paramount importance; and yet it is not mentioned in our Profession of Faith.

Though we all agree that it is clearly revealed in the Scriptures that the dead shall rise, and this mortal put on immortality, yet there is no testimony on the subject so definite, as to pro'duce a universal agreement, as to the time and manner of their rising. Similar remarks will apply to the subject of rewards and punishments. It is admitted on all hands, that God has expressly said, that he will reward every man according

to his works; but the Scriptures are not sufficiently plain, to enable us to see eye to eye, in regard to the time and manner in which he will fulfil his word. Hence, as there is no express revelation upon the subject of punishment, as to the precise time when it shall be administered, in all cases, it would have been highly improper for the framers of a common Profession of Faith, to have interlarded it with human speculations, in regard to which there was some difference of opinion, even among themselves. It would have introduced a mere bone of contention and discord. I venerate the wisdom and prudence which the Confession before us exhibits. In regard to questions of doubtful revelation, if I may so speak, let every one, if he can, be fully persuaded in his own mind. But, for myself, I neither believe nor disbelieve theories concerning a future world, of which we have no express revelation in Scripture. "To the law and the testimony," is my

motto.

Inq. I am much obliged, Sir, by the patience and candor with which you have answered my interrogations, and the light you have shed upon the subject of Universalism. It is my intention to reward your well-meant labors, as far as possible, by meditating candidly and prayerfully on the doctrine, and presenting to you, at our next interview, the principal objection which occurs to my mind.

Uni. Very well, Sir, this is the best recompence you could bestow. Call again at your leisure.

1

CONVERSATION II.

UNIVERSALISM represents the Deity as being too merciful to be just. "A God all mercy, is a God unjust."-Such views of God's character would not restrain sin.-Restraint must not violate moral agency.-Is it safe and purdent to proclaim this man-pleasing doctrine ?-The nature and influence of terrefic representations of God's anger and wrath.-The doctrine of impartial grace was charged with an immoral tendency in the times of Jesus and his apostles. The certainty rather than the duration of punishment; or the wages of sin, considered.

Inquirer. Well, Sir, I have called to present my first and principal objection to your doctrine. Having thought much on the system, as laid down in your remarks at our recent interview, and asked the opinion of some of my best informed friends, I am led to believe that several unanswerable objections may be brought against it.— The one which I regard as the most important, I will propose as the subject of our present conversation. In meditating upon your doctrine, and considering the pleasing light in which it exhibits the character of God, as the Creator and moral governor of the universe, I must confess I have been strongly tempted to yield my assent. The more benevolent the Divine Being is, the more agreeable his character must be to every devout and pious mind. The merciful desires and wishes of the christian, are indeed uniformly in favor of the final restoration of all fallen intelligences. Indeed, it would be insolent to pray for the endless ruin of any human being, even of Judas himself.

Universalist. I am truly gratified, my friend, to witness the disposition and feelings you have manifested, whilst introducing the subject of the present conversation. It has long been my conviction, that if I should be made to believe, realiy believe, the doctrine of endless torments, I should be distracted at once; although I might also believe there was a possibility of my escaping it. The very idea of endless, excruciating torture, for any part of the human race, say, of one in ten thousand, without stopping to inquire what particular persons are to suffer, is awful enough to overwhelm the mind with gloom, or crush it with dread. How you can both cherish the compassionate and holy desires of which you speak, and believe the doctrine which sets them at everlasting defiance, is to me unaccountable. And I must caution you, Sir, against giving way to the tender emotions of christian charity, unless you are prepared also, to give up the notion of unending misery. But I grow impatient to hear the objection you have provided for this occasion. State it in the most forcible and striking terms. If I am unable to remove it fairly, and by the light of Scripture and reason, then regard. it as unanswerable.

Inq. Why, my objection is, that Universalism, represents the Deity in such a merciful character that it cannot impose a proper restraint upon sin. By representing him as all-merciful, does it not encourage the wicked to hope that he will not be just? or, that he will gratify his mercy at the expense of his justice? Dr. Young says, if I mistake not, "A God all mercy, is a God unjust."

Uni. It matters not to me, you know, what the doctors say about this subject. My appeal is to the Scriptures and sound reasoning. Your objection supposes that the justice and mercy of Deity are different in their natures, and opposite in their demands and influence. Nothing can be more untrue. Were that the case, the attributes of God would keep up an everlasting strife in his own bosom. That doctrine not only "sets at odds heaven's jarring attributes," but brings down the character of the Creator and Ruler of all, below the level of civilized man. For no enlightened man would voluntarily place himself in a situation, where the virtues of moral rectitude and mercy would oppose each other. Nor has the Deity revealed himself in the holy Scriptures as possessing an awful and stupendous attribute of justice, which stands in the way of executing the merciful plans of his infinite goodness. Such discoveries and revelations were left for "the school-men." It is sufficient to say, till something is shown to the contrary, that the Almighty cannot possess two attributes of opposite nature, any more than he can be infinite and finite, omnipotent and powerless, all-knowing and yet ignorant, at the same time. His perfections must harmonize, or he is not God. Justice is an exhibition of moral excellence. God is just in the bestowment of existence; in making suitable provision for men's various wants; imparting to them lessons of useful knowledge; governing them by rules of equity, virtue, and benevolence, and holding all responsible to him, as their equal judge and king, according to their means and attainment in knowledge, morality, and religion.