effects than the truth of God? This authorizing men in the name of the Lord, to state facts or fictions, as they may deem most useful and proper, appears to me too much like having witnesses sworn in court, to tell the truth, unless, in their opinion, a falsehood would have a better effect.

When Moses was charged with an embassage from God to the Israelites in Egypt, did he pause by the way, to calculate the consequences, and alter and amend, as his superior wisdom might dictate? Had he any right to devise some measures more prudent than God had appointed, and accommodate his commission to Pharaoh's treachery and stubbornness of heart, with the vain hope of preventing some of the bad consequences which might follow a plain declaration of his errand? Suppose that all the holy prophets of old, could have suspected or foreseen, that if they announced the prophetic truths of God in the language they received them, they would be misapplied by the Jews, and followed by the rejection of the Messiah, his crucifixion and all those atrocious crimes which ensued? Would such suspicions or even discoveries have justified them in departing from the words of the Lord, with the pious intent of teaching safe and prudent doctrines? Are fallible men better judges of what it is proper and safe to proclaim, than the unerring Author of human existence? I must tell you plainly and kindly, Sir, that although it were admitted that God had a right to employ lying prophets by special commission, in days of old, I shall be the last one to believe that the prophets and teachers who are commanded to tell the truth, have a right to lie in the name

of the Lord, at discretion. Let each one appoin-ted of God, speak according to the tenure of his commission, and leave the consequences, for better or for worse, with the Ruler whose signature it bears. And I have no suspicions of your dissenting from these views, when they shall have been duly considered. It must be conceded on all hands, that the truth of God should be proclaimed, in the language which infinite wisdom has chosen, as the medium of its communication. And

Inq. You need not pursue the illustration, Sir, for my sake. I grant the justness of the conclusions. I am reminded of what is recorded by Jeremiah. "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream, (or tell it as a dream) but he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and as a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Behold I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith." (Jer. xxiii, 28, 29, 31.) Still, it may be inquired, whether the scheme of salvation, as taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, is liable to objections of the kind in question.Could any one be so blind or prejudiced as to suppose the gospel capable of exerting a demoralizing tendency? Was it not above suspicion?

Uni. Though this is a digression from the main question, yet I will answer you, by saying,: that whether you call it prejudice or blindness,, the people of apostolic times opposed the gospel of the grace of God, on the very ground you are now occupying in opposition to Universalism.

Even Jesus himself was accounted a "deceiver," and branded with the most opprobrious names, on the suspicion of his co-operating with the father of mischief and of lies, even while casting out evil spirits.

The taunting accusation, "This man eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners," was thrown in the face of his disciples, because people of that description came to hear him. The overmuch righteous professors of that day had no more doubts of the demoralizing influence of the gospel of Christ, than many have, at the present time, that Universalism has a similar tendency. It was said that "the common people heard him gladly," and "the world went after him." (Mark xii, 37, John xii, 19.) How could it do otherwise than rouse the indignation of that age, and extort the cry of "demoralizing tendency," for the new Teacher to declare, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance?" "Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.” "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance." (Luke v, 32; John viii, 11; Luke xv, 7.) Must not such preaching have appeared as lax and licentious to the punctilious Pharisees and scribes, who, on account of their ceremonial piety had separated themselves from the world's people, as the doctrine and preaching of Universalists can, to the believers in endless misery, at the present day? Especially when it is considered that the Saviour was continually assailing the religion of the Pharisees and other limitarian sects, and presenting their characters

in comparisons and contrasts which were by no means enviable? Read, in particular, Sir, the 23d chapter of Matthew's gospel. But Jesus did actually defend his doctrine against the charge of immorality, in examples too numerous to mention. The Jews thought he had come to do away the restraints of the law and the prophets, and hoist the flood-gates of error and crime.Hence, he refutes and explodes that notion, before his disciples, in these words, viz. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets I am not come to destroy, [render null or void] but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. v, 17, 18.) See, also, in defence of the influence of his doctrine, the parable of the creditor and two debtors, the reply to the lawyer, and the parable of the man going from Jerusalem to Jericho, and of the Pharisee and publican in the temple at prayer; in all which, and many more examples that might be named, Jesus was taking for granted the truth of his doc trine, and illustrating its influence by way of contrast. He reproved the Pharisees and denounced their doctrine, though in more mild and measured terms than usual. (See Luke vii, 41–50, and x, 37, and xviii, 6—14.)

And St. Paul labored frequently, and at considerable length, not only to defend his doctrine against the cant aspersions,-"let us do evil that good may come," but to prevent people from perverting and misusing it, through a superficial knowledge of its principles and precepts. Let us turn to the Epistle to the Romans. In the

1

fifth chapter, the doctrine of universal grace is. advanced in the most explicit terms, concluding with these bold and unqualified declarations, viz: "The law entered that the offence might abound: but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign unto life eternal, by Jesus Christ our Lord." And then, as though some might hastily abuse their liberty, as criminals occasions might suggest, the apostle anticipates their false reasoning, and inquires, "What shall we say, then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?", As much as to say, Shall we who are saved from sin by grace, voluntarily plunge ourselves into the fire of guilt, for the sake of being plucked as brands from the burning? Having been washed and purified, shall we return. again to the wallowing in the mire? Shall we create an appetite in the soul for that nauseous food of sin, which we loathed at every considerate moment, even when we were its bond-slaves? Because saved by grace, shall we forget to in-. quire, what fruit we had in those things whereof we are now ashamed, the end of which is death? And he answers, "God forbid for how shall we who are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?" A palpable solecism! "The wages of sin is death;" and the payment certain and prompt. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." "There is no peace to the wicked, saith my God." "Destruction and misery are in their way." Now who would be so foolish as to labor hard for such wages? For the way of the transgressor is hard. Paul knew that a lying lip chants the syren song, "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread caten in secret is