DIALOGUE III.

Friend. I am glad to meet with you, to have some farther conversation upon the very important and interesting subject of the final Restoration. Since I saw you last I have had opportunity of hearing some very capital objections made against this system, which I beg leave to state in the plainest and strongest manner.

Minister. Your frankness is well pleasing to me, and I am ready to hear whatever can be urged against my sentiments, and will do my endeavour to answer all reasonable objections; therefore propose them as soon as you think proper.

Friend. One grand objection that is very generally made against the doctrine of the Restoration, is, that it tends to licentiousness; that it is the doctrine that the serpent preached to Eve; for we read, (Gen. iii. 4.) "And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die;" and that it is a doctrine calculated to give encouragement to the wicked to continue in their evil ways; that it is "saying, peace, peace, when there is no peace;" and that this doctrine is as dangerous as that of the wicked prophetesses of Ezekiel's time, of whom God says, "With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not re

turn from his wicked way, by promising him life They say unto them that despise me, JEHOVAH' hath said, ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, no evil shall come upon you." Jer. viii. 11. Ezek. xiii. 22. Jer. xxiii. 17.

It is said that it is the nature of God to lay the highest possible restraint upon sin, and, therefore, he has threatened it with eternal, or endless punishment; and this is even found too weak to prevent the prevailing iniquity. What a flood of impiety, therefore, would overflow the world, if it should be generally believed, that after some ages of suffering, mankind should be restored to some degree of happiness? Would not the restraints be wholly taken off from the lusts and passions of the wicked, if once this doctrine should become prevalent? Will you be so kind as to give a fair and candid reply to this objection?

Minister. This objection is stated with all possible force, I shall, therefore, endeavor to answer it as well as I can; putting in this caveat, that if I shall not answer it to your satisfaction, do not imagine that no solid answer can be given; but impute it to my not being sufficiently master of my subject, or not being able to express my mind so clearly as I could wish. As this objection is frequently made, and often used, by people who mean well, but have not considered the subject thoroughly, I shall be as explicit as I possibly can upon it.

I would first observe, that the great truths, or first principles, upon which the Restoration is founded, and from which it is derived by natural

and easy consequences, are far from tending to licentiousness. But in order to make this evident, it will be proper here to set them down in their order.

First principles upon which the Doctrine of the Final and Universal Restoration is founded.

1. GOD is the universal and only Creator of all; contrary to the opinion of the Manichees of old, who believed the devil to be creator of most, if not all visible beings. The Mugletonians, of the last century, and the Buchanites lately, assert nearly the same sentiments; contrary to Rev. iv. 11. Col. i. 16. Psalm c. 3. Numb. xvi. 22. Isaiah Ixiv. 8. Ezek. xviii. 4. Zech. xii, 1. and a vast number of other scriptures.

Now who can say, that this noble thought, which St. Paul enlarges upon so beautifully, (Acts, xvii. 24-30) tends, in the least, to make men wicked? Does it not tend to dignify and ennoble human nature, to be told, that God is our Father, Creator and First Cause; and that we were made by his power, according to his will, and for his pleasure; and that the chief end for which he made us, was, to glorify his name, and enjoy him forever?-as the Assembly's Catechism beautifully declares. This is one of the principles from which God himself deduces the certainty of the final end of wrath, as I have observed before:-" For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." Isaiah, lvii. 16.-Those who venture to contradict their Maker, and say, that he he will

contend forever, and be always wroth! ought to be able at least to give as good a reason why he will, as he has assigned why he will not; and consequently prove, that he hath not made all souls; which is the true foundation upon which endless misery must be founded, and the only doctrine which is perfectly consistent with it.

The poor untutored Indians in America, argued (with a missionary that was sent from Sweden to convert them) from the universal providence of God, that he, who was so kind a Father as to provide for their bodies all things needful, had not wholly neglected their souls. But this I do not insist upon, though, I think, the argument has weight in it; and certainly, the providential goodness of God, and his long suffering, tends to lead men to repentance. Rom. ii. 4. 2 Pet. iii. 9.

2. The universal benevolence of the Deity, or the love of God to his creatures, is one of the first principles from which the general Restoration is deduced: and who can say, that this leads to licentiousness? If those who believe that God loves them, in particular, find that consideration the strongest obligation on them to love him again, and to obey his will; by the same rule, if all the individuals of the whole human race, were to believe that God loved each one of them, would not the same cause produce the same effect? And if so, can this be charged as a licentious doctrine, which is expressly grounded upon a cause which powerfully operates to produce holiness? Is there any thing like argument in this reasoning? I know that God loves me, and seeks to do me good; therefore, I

must hate him. What should we think of a woman who should leave her husband; and do all in her power against him, and should be able to give no better reason for it than the following: "My husband loves me, and I know it, and he has always loved me, and always will; and therefore I am determined to hate, ridicule, despise, and contemn him, and have left him for this very cause, and am determined never to love or obey him more. "" Bad as human nature is, I question whether such instances often occur. We commonly say, that love begets love. "We love him because he first loved us;" says the apostle, 1 John, iv. 19. Therefore, the doctrine of God's universal benevolence, cannot lead to licentiousness, in any light in which it can be viewed; for, if he really loves us, he will do all in his power to bring us to love him again, and to be like him; and I am sure the consideration of his love to us, goes as far as moral persuasion can go, to induce us to love him again, nay, the belief of it is acknowledged to be one of the strongest motives to obedience; and the love of God, shed abroad in the heart, produces the best effects, and is the most powerful principle, and spring, of good and virtuous actions, that we are acquainted with. This being a first principle, from which the universal Restoration is concluded, we are happy to find, that "God is love:" and that he 66 so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life: For, God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world, through him might be saved." See 1 John, iv. 16. St.