expect an equal number of men, to resemble | the all-glorious Creator.* At one omniscient each other exactly in every shade of complex-glance, so to speak, the Almighty saw all his ion, figure of body, and habit of life. And what works, from the smallest to the greatest, and do you think, sir, of this very brief summary of the much despised doctrine of universal grace and happiness?

Inq. Well, sir, the second article of your faith says, "We believe in One God, whose nature is Love." And what Christian does not believe this? By what process of reason-cence to all his creatures." ing, then, do you make this part of your belief Inq. Your remarks confirm me in the favour the final happiness of the whole human

tain the views in question, a volume more, of the same kind, would not. Different interpretations, however, may be given to the passages you have quoted, though I must acknowledge there is something quite plausible in the arrangement and application you have given them. I think it must soon be conceded by all denominations, that our blessed Saviour was sent, as a manifestation of the Father's love to the world, instead of a vicarious sacrifice to appease his wrath. The Scriptures must I have been misunderstood on that point, even by the greatest and best of men.

be as follows. All men have sinned or abused their faculties and privileges by transgressing the law of moral equity, and departed or fallen from the innocency in which they were made, into degradation and guilt. Of course, if they are restored to the good estate from which they have wandered, they are saved from the moral degradation in which they were involved by voluntary transgression. Their restoration, so far as it goes, implies their salvation. But in order to be truly happy, as accountable beings, all men must be holy as well as harmless. There is some difference between sin. Uni. I am really glad to witness so much lessness and holiness. A being might be candour and ingenuousness, in one who, I said to be innocent, if such an one could be have reason to believe, is sincere and honest found, who felt no enmity to God or hatred to in questioning the truth of Universal Restitu- man; but he only is holy, who loves God and tion. And though I would not dispute the man. After the prodigal son had come to talents or piety of many advocates of a vica- himself or was restored to his right mind, he rious atonement, or of Christ's suffering the exercised his faculties in a rational manner, wrath of God as a substitute for guilty mor- or his character would not have been praisetals, yet, it is hard to conceive how any reflect- worthy. Similar remarks will also apply to ing mind can submit to such a doctrine. If salvation, in the true acceptation of the term. God sent his Son as a commendation of his Because, barely to save from the love and love to a wicked world, to the ungodly, to practice of sin, without inspiring the heart sinners, to enemies by wicked works; a pro- with holy desires and resolutions, would be pitiation for our sins, even the sins of the insufficient to produce conscious happiness. whole world; and if God was in Christ recon- But as man does not stand on neutral ground, ciling the world to himself, how can it be being an active, intelligent, accountable creamade to appear that he did it to gratify his ture, it appears to be taken for granted in the own vengeance and soften the asperity of his Scriptures, as in common conversation, that, own wrath? In that case, God would have when restored from moral insanity, and saved been in Christ, reconciling himself unto the from the love of sin, his faculties will be emworld! And if he had become reconciled to ployed in acts of obedience to the law of a wicked world, he would not, of course, op- reason and of God. Salvation, therefore, impose their wickedness. This doctrine exhib-plies, by common consent, an introduction to its the three-fold absurdity of contradicting a state of purity and bliss. the express declaration of Scripture, reconciling and changing an immutable Being, and favouring the cause of sin and wickedness, instead of virtue and holiness! Such interpretations of Scripture, if interpretations they can be called, contradict Jehovah's word, who hath said "I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient (eternal) times, the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. xlvi. 9, 10.)

Inq. But does the New Testament justify this use of the words restore and save, or restoration and salvation? Is this view of the subject scriptural as well as reasonable?

Uni. Most certainly, as you will see upon examination. When we read in Matt. xvii. 11, that "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things," we can hardly fail to perceive, that the restoration or reformation spoken of, implies a deliverance or salvation from the disorders and confusion which then prevailed. And when St. Paul exhorted his Inq. To dismiss that point, for the present, brethren, (Gal. vi. 1,) to restore one overtaken let us come to the conclusion of that article in a fauit, in the spirit of meekness, he surely of your belief, which stands as the centre and meant that that erring brother should be reheart of the whole system, viz: "Who will formed and saved, by those who were spiritual. finally restore the whole family of mankind It is also taken for granted that the restored to holiness and happiness." There is nothing or saved will become holy and happy. Hence definite in this language in regard to the pre-it was said of the promised Messiah, "His cise time or times, period or periods, in which name shall be called Jesus; for he shall save this great, and if true, glorious work of recon- his people from their sins;" without adding ciliation is to be accomplished. What say and make them holy as he is holy. Their you upon that point? How shall we under-subsequent holiness was implied in the promstand it? Do you maintain the doctrine of ise of their restoration to purity, or deliveruniversal restoration, or of universal salva-ance from the dominion of sin. St. Paul tion, or both?

Uni. Why, both, sir, of course, just as the doctrine is taught by inspired writers. The matter appears to my mind perfectly clear and simple. Discarding all authority except that of the Bible, on this subject, and meddling with no private opinions of individuals, I will endeavour to lay this point of doctrine before you, in a scriptural and satisfactory manner. The reasoning from the sacred texts would

says of God, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. ii. 4.) Again: “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Tim. iv. 9, 10.) Now, since both these passages are connected with an earnest exhortation to honesty and godli

ness, or practical piety, no one can reasonably | who carefully examines the subject. It is a deny, that all the restored or saved, will be confirmed in moral purity and glory. Hence those who are specially saved, through faith and reformation in this life, are exhorted to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

As to the time or times in which this great and universal work will be wrought, we do not pretend to be wise above what is written. If the Master whom we serve was not ashamed to say, "But of that day, [the destruction of Jerusalem] and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," should his followers be ashamed to confess their ignorance of the precise period when a world shall be saved and made holy and happy? Is it not vain-glorious and presumptuous to dogmatize on this all-comprehensive subject, as though we were omniscient, and knew when the time would be, or would not be, aside from an express revelation from God? The only proper inquiry, as all must admit, is, What say the Scriptures on this point?

Ing. I fully agree with you, sir, in that respect. We must, after all, be content with the declarations of Him, who hath appointed the times and seasons for the accomplishment of the various parts of his counsel. But, from the embarrassment which you appear to feel, in giving me a distinct answer to this part of the inquiry, I suspect you find yourself destitute of scripture proof, on a point of such vast importance, and so essential even, to the plausibility of your general system. If it were the will of God, our common Father, that his only begotten Son should finally raise all mankind from the degradation of the fall, to heavenly purity and glory, and bring about the "restitution of all things," by gathering and uniting them in the name of one common Lord and leader, some express revelation would be made in regard to it, as there was respecting Jerusalem's overthrow, although the very day or hour was not exactly known. But, that no such revelation is mentioned, seems pretty evident, both from the fact that Universalists are not agreed upon the subject, and that you are embarrassed in finding passages to meet my inquiry.

Uni. Really, I cannot but smile to see with what ease and fluency you both imagine and state my embarrassments! But you will not be offended when I assure you they are wholly imaginary. I was barely revolving in my own mind several passages of scripture, to make a selection of some few which would be most appropriate in this case. Of this fact I will now satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let us first turn to the gospel of St. John, chap. vi. 39, which reads as follows: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." Here we have a plain declaration of the time when all men, (for all were given to Christ,) shall be raised from the degradation of their fall in sin to purity and glory. That such is the theme of the Saviour's

positive assertion of Christ, that the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand; and hath given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as were given him. And, in the con text preceding the passage just quoted, from the 6th chapter of John, he was saying, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and he that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will, that I should lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day." This raising of all things up, is expressed in the 12th chapter of the same book, by drawing all men to Christ. Thus, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Still, we must say, as the Saviour did on another occasion, of that day, knoweth no man. It is a day or dispensation known only to the Lord Jehovah.

Inq. Well, sir, I must interrupt you by saying, you have succeeded better than was expected in adducing scripture proof. Be so kind as to proceed, if you please.

Uni. We will next open to Acts iii. 20, 21. Now read with me, sir, that no mistake may occur. "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began." In this text, the day or dispensation assigned by Deity to execute his will in the restoration and salvation of all nations, all the families and kindreds of the earth, as declared by a long succession of prophets, is called "the times of restitution of all things." When this time of times, this period of periods, this last day of days will terminate, we know not. But to conclude my quotations on this subject, you are referred to Ephesians i. 10, where the day of the final emancipation of all on earth, and their glorious union with all in heaven, is called "the dispensation of the fulness of times," a very significant and appropriate phrase. "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him." With this infor mation, in regard to the great day of days, I feel perfectly satisfied. And, it is hoped you are convinced, by this time, that I laboured under no real embarrassment, in meeting your questions with a plain scripture answer. The only serious difficulty I meet with is, to make people believe what God has distinctly declared by his servants, and remain satisfied with that, without attempting "to be wise above what is written." When the apostle Paul mentions the ages to come, he speaks of the end for which they are appointed, viz. "That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness to us, through Jesus Christ. For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast: for we are his workmanship," &c. (Eph. ii. 6-10.) To the

when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Fathe: when he shall have put down all rule, authority and power. For he must reign," &c. (1 Cor. xv. 24-38.) I suppose this testimony is sufficiently explicit.

those who conscientiously believe this glorious doctrine, should so often get without the pale of its sanctifying influence, forget that "good works are good and profitable unto men," and become remiss in maintaining order, and neglectful in practising good works. But be it remarked that, it is not the doctrine which influences believers to the neglect of duty and the commission of any sins whatever, any more than the doctrine when taught by our Saviour, influenced Judas to betray, and Peter to deny, and the rest of the apostles to forsake, him. But enough on this point, for the present. I would seriously ask, by the bye, whether you are satisfied that Universalism as a system, recognises the importance and enjoins the practice of the moral precepts of the gospel? And would it not, if univer sally believed and practised, render all men devout worshippers of God and benevolent friends of each other?

Inq. You have obliged me much, sir, in correcting the error into which I had fallen, and by being so particular and definite on "the times of restitution," "the dispensation of the fulness of times." If the doctrine of Universalism is a scripture doctrine, there is hardly room for a doubt that the texts above cited are to the point, and allude to the period when its consummation shall be realized and enjoyed by all mankind. But whether it is true or false remains yet to be decided, as there are many objections to be considered and removed. I will simply inquire in this place, how the last article in your Profession of Belief is deducible from the views already stated? What necessity is there for main- Inq. To be frank and candid in my answer, taining good works, if Universalism is true? I must acknowledge that you have succeeded Uni. Why, dear sir, the moral and prac-in clearing up this difficulty much better than tical part of our system as naturally follows was anticipated. The framers of the Uni the theoretical, as streams issue from their versalist creed have presented the outlines fountains. I think you must have forgotten of the doctrine in a favourable light. By or misunderstood the article alluded to. Let asserting an inseparable connexion between me refresh your recollection by repeating it. moral virtue and happiness, they have in Universalists "believe that holiness and words, to say the least, guarded their system true happiness are inseparably connected; and against the assaults of opposition on the that believers ought to maintain order, and ground of its encouraging immorality. After practise good works, for these things are good all, it must be shown that these views are and profitable unto men." Are not these scriptural as well as reasonable. Can it be sentiments the spontaneous result of belief in shown by an appeal to the lively Oracles of the universal benevolence of Deity, as de- God, that good works are enjoined on the clared in the very heart of our creed, as you ground of his impartial goodness, or the unicall it? And, with this article in view, can versality of his grace and salvation? Can any one seriously ask, what necessity there you produce any passages, which, without a is for practising good works? Surely not; far-fetched interpretation, imply this? for the first declaration is that Universalists "believe that holiness and true happiness are inseparably connected." Hence, there is every reason for practising true holiness, that there is for seeking our being's end and aim; true happiness. Did we believe, as some Christians profess to, that sin is more conducive to true felicity than holiness, and that the reward of virtue is so remote and uncertain, as to make it doubtful whether it will ever be received, you might well charge upon the system, an indifference to the practice of good works. But such is not the fact. Believing as we do, and must continue to believe, so long as we have the Bible before us, and regard the lessons of experience itself, that holiness and happiness are inseparably connected," we shall feel of consequence, "that believers ought to maintain order, and practise good works," for the best of reasons, viz. " that these things are good and profitable unto men." The importance and utility of virtue and godliness are interWoven in the system of genuine Universalism, as the very woof of the web. It is a subject of deep regret that after stating our views so clearly, and repeating and publishing them so frequently, we should still be misunderstood and misrepresented by religious opposers, and our system be held up in carricature for "scorn to point her slow, unmoving finger at." Nor is it a matter of less regret that

Uni. Most certainly. The requirements to universal obedience are always founded on the universal or impartial goodness of God; and for the most obvious reason; since, if one being or more could be found to whom the Creator was not good, they would be under no obligation to obedience. Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that the human family had been created by an Almighty Evil Demon, with the purpose of rendering their existence an endless curse. Would it be possible to lay them under moral obligations to love, and praise, and obey such a being? You will not pretend it. And yet, they would be under the same obligation to him, as to any other being, whose disposition towards them was no better. The mere name by which a being is designated, does not alter the case. No man has the ability or disposition to love and praise a being, which, at the time, appears hateful and detestable. All objects are appreciated and loved, just in proportion to their real or supposed value and loveliness. Hence we read, "We love God, because he first loved us." Now, if the antecedent love of God to Christians, was the producing cause of their love to him, or if it made them Christians, and sustains them in holy affections, the same cause must produce the same effect in all others. And as no effect can exist independent of an adequate cause, so no rational being could truly love God,