jection in my mind against Universalism, is the fact that it destroys the necessity of repentance. It is true that while your preachers spend the most of their efforts in maintaining their doctrine, they do occasionally speak of repentance as a duty, but they never enforce it as a duty indispensable to salvation; and until this is done, sinners who love their sins so well, will never repent. To make repentance necessary to salvation, would be destruction to the whole system. Do you say repentance is indispensable to salvation? Look at the conclusion to which such a declaration must inevitably lead you. Do all men repent of their sins and turn to God in this world?This you will not pretend. You do not pretend that sinners repent somewhere, somehow between time and eternity. No. Universalists do not believe in a purgatory. Where then do all men repent? Do you say that those who have not repented in time, will repent in eternity? Then your doctrine of no future punishment is not true. Repentance implies a knowledge and sense of guilt, and a knowledge and 'sense of guilt always does, and always must, from the very nature of mind, produce pain. If, then, you have repentance in eternity, you have pain and suffering there; and thus your favorite doctrine of no future retribution falls to the ground. Take which horn of the dilemma you please. If you say repentance is necessary to salvation, you acknowledge that sin and its consequences go into eternity, and thus dig the grave of your own system.If you deny the necessity of repentance, why mock God in pretending to believe in, and preach it?

I find another difficulty in Universalism, in the fact that it denies the well-established and acknowledged principles of mental philosophy. I must therefore regard those who believe that our present characters have no possible effect upon our future destiny, as bad philosophers as they are theologians. They make as great havoc with the laws of mind, as they do with the written law of God. Let me illustrate.

1. It is a well known principle in mental philosophy, both among the Metaphysicians and Phrenologists, that the moral and mental condition of man is, at any, and every period of his existence, just what his past history has made him. The whole of the past comes in to give him his present character. This is a law of mind. It must be true wherever mind exists. Every moral and intelligent being in the universe, is at this moment, as to knowledge or ignorance, sin or virtue, happiness or misery, just what his past history has made him. The whole existence of the mind is linked to

gether in one continuous chain, and a touch at one end of the chain, vibrates through every link to the other. Well, now Universalism destroys this principle of mental philosophy, by sundering an important link in the chain of the mind's existence, and by affirming that there will a period arrive, when the soul will be totally unaffected by its past history.

2. Again. Universalism conflicts with principles of sound philosophy, in destroying the utility of this state of existence. If time has no moral connection with eternity, why was time given? Why is man placed here and subjected to trials and temptations? Why does God in his providence expend such a vast treasure of suffering and effort to discipline the soul, and advance it in knowledge and piety,-if the present has no connection with the future? According to your system the mind cultivated by study, disciplined by painful experience, and made holy by the truth and grace of God, has made no preparation for the world to come; its nowledge, its piety cannot go with it to eternity. So neither will the ignorance, and besotted depravity of the most abandoned of our race, disqualify in the least degree, for the employment and society of the heavenly world. You regard death as a perfect leveller, as well as saviour. It sweeps away all distinctions between the righteous and the wicked, between the saints and martyrs who followed Jesus, and died as witnesses of his grace, and the haughtiest tyrant that ever sat upon a throne. It strikes, in a moment, a dead level as to character and condition, and makes all the past as though it had never been. Where, then, is the utility of this state of existence?

.

3. But once more. Your system conflicts with the principles of mental philosophy, as to memory and consciousness.— These two characteristics of the mind are annihilated at death, or your system cannot be true. Memory, you know, is that mysterious faculty of the mind by which we recal to mind and reflect upon the past. Consciousness is that faculty of the mind by which we know that we exist, and by which we take cognizance of ourselves. Let memory and consciousness be annihilated, and we ourselves are annihilated. Identity is destroyed, and whatever forms may be given in the future, to the substance of which we are composed, the future would be a new creation, and not a resurrection, or future existence to us. Let memory and consciousness go with the soul to eternity, and according to the known laws of mind, it must enjoy or suffer in view of the past. Let the poor wretch who has to-day fallen asleep in death, amid scenes of debauchery and crime, wake

up in eternity with consciousness and memory, and all heaven, without working a moral miracle upon his moral nature, cannot prevent his being miserable. Memory will spread before him his guilt, number over and aggravate his crimes, and roll them upon his soul, high as the throne of God. While memory surveys the history of the past, and calls up from the tomb of oblivion, a long and horrific catalogue of sins-consciousness would identify the rebel spirit, now standing in the presence of God, reviewing the past, as the unexcused offender, and thunder in his ears in tones solemn and awful as eternity," THOU ART THE MAN!"

While consciousness and memory exist, there is no running away from one's self. Thousands have tried it, but they have always failed. Men have changed their names, their residence, their garments, and fled their country, with the fallacious hope that they should get away from themselves. But alas! wherever they have gone, whatever change they have made in their names and costumes,they have always found themselves with themselves. Consciousness 'and memory go with them to read in their ears the history of the past, and identify and mark the old rogue.

This is not only sound philosophy, it is sound theology.— Our Saviour, in his account of the rich man and Lazarus, represents much of the misery of the rich man in hades to arise from the reminisciences of time. Abraham is represented as addressing him thus, "Son, REMEMBER that thou in thy life time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and thou art tormented."Here the rich man in hades, which your authors say, means the state of the dead, remembered the events of time, and was tormented by the remembrance.

Now here is a dilemma. Which horn will you take? Deny that memory and consciousness go with us to eternity, and you deny personal identity, and consequently a future existence. Admit that memory and consciousness go with us to the future, and you admit that a review of the past must give pleasure or pain; and that Modern Universalism must be a delusion. Will you carefully and prayerfully think of these things till you hear from me again? Yours affectionately.

LETTER V.

My Dear Sir:

I cannot adopt your views, because the inference which you draw from the nature and operations of conscience, are without foundation in truth. You say conscience administers, in this world, a just and equitable retribution.

What is con

Let us look at this matter for a moment. science? Conscience is a two-fold operation of the mind, which I will denominate moral judgment and moral sense.That is, conscience is the judgment which the mind forms of its own sentiments and acts, and the moral sense, or feeling, which such judgment produces in the mind. Conscience is not, as some suppose, a divine oracle, the unerring voice of God within. Conscience is right or wrong, according as our moral judgment and moral sense are right or wrong. Let me illustrate.

1. Conscience sometimes rewards persons for that which is morally wrong in itself, and at other times punishes for that which is morally right. Saul of Tarsus conscientiously persecuted the primitive church; and when engaged in stoning Stephen, and in scourging and dragging to prison the harmless saints, he "verily thought" within himself that he was "doing God service." He was engaged in deeds of muder and outrage-trampling both the law and the gospel under his feet, and yet he was rewarded by his conscience. If conscience is that unerring judge, that faithful tribunal of justice which you suppose, the soul of Saul must have writhed in tremendous agony when persecuting the saints. But so far from this he seems to have enjoyed the approbation of his conscience.— Our Saviour told his disciples that the time would come when those who should kill them, would think they were doing God service. The Roman Catholics, as you very well know, have put to death, hundreds of thousands of protestants. A Catholic friar, who had spent year after year in ferreting out and burning heretics, apparently not only without compunctions of conscience, but with great complacency of mind, has been known to be horrified at finding he had eaten meat in Lent. Our Puritanical forefathers were as conscientious a people perhaps as ever lived; but their consciences did not condemn them for banishing the Baptists, and whipping and hanging the Quakers.

They did not understand the doctrine of religious freedom.They partook of the error of the times, that heretics were the enemies of God, and, that no enemy of God could be a friend of the State. Hence they punished those whom they judged to be enemies of God, as enemies of the State. In this they were morally wrong, but they verily thought they were doing God service, and hence they enjoyed the smiles of an approving conscience.

You believe it morally right to cultivate your intellectual powers, and discipline and enlarge your mind by the study of science. Dr. Adam Clark at one time, supposed he was guilty of sin in making efforts to acquire an education; he experienced great compunctions of conscience, and penitently sought divine forgiveness. Thus you see, conscience sometimes rewards us for what is in itself morally wrong, and punishes us for what is in itself, morally right.

2. It is a fact well known in human experience, that conscience becomes more and more deadened by increasing wickedness. A tender and faithful conscience is one that has not been abused and outraged. One profane oath from lips unaccustomed to profanity, produces more compunctions, more real agony of soul, than a thousand such offenses would produce upon the conscience of the bold and reckless blasphemer.— The one trembles and fears an oath; while the other actually glories in his shame, and prides himself in the flippancy and low wit of his heaven-daring tongue. The word of God tells us of consciences which have become seared as with a hot iron.Seared flesh is dead flesh, destitute of feeling. A seared conscience is a dead conscience. The sinner may by his own wickedness, blunt his own moral sensibility, put light for darkness and darkness for light-call evil good and good evil. In short, it is well known that man may violate his own moral nature so much, that his conscience will become as dead as the bones in the grave-yard. A conscience steeped in rum, and choked to death by the ruffian-hand of repeated and long-continued violence, cannot be an umpire capable of administering a just and equitable retribution.

3. Conscience in its operations, depends upon a knowledge of truth and duty. Let me illustrate this by a case familiar to your recollection. In your native town, you remember the village pastor received but a small salary. By the efforts of a few of the principal citizens, he obtained the appointment of Post Master, and, in connection with his office, he kept a little drunkery, as we should call it in this day. He was universally