one of elevated purity and virtue, and the other of debased and malignant vice, could not exist together. They would draw off into separate commữnities; and in the progress of ages, it seems to me, the whole human race would belong to one or the other of these classes.

Now is not the Scripture doctrine of what takes place when men become immortal, after death, exactly what we should expect would take place, were they to become immortal in this state of being? You can see how it might be in this world; that some who now are deemed lovely and excellent, should in new circumstances of trial become guilty and miserable. It may be that it is this tendency of mind that will lead to the same results in future. The Bible simply reveals the fact that there will be this division into two classes in the future state, and the philosophy of the fact is not revealed.

But is it wise or safe or right, because you cannot see the rationality or equity of what the Bible declares, to assume that it is false and act on this supposition? Do you not take as foolish and dangerous a course as the supposed inquirer who is ignorant of the laws of matter, would take in running into the fire, because he could not see the wisdom or benevolence of the terrible sanctions appended to the violation of this law? The Bible says that those who do not obey the requisitions of the gospel will exist forever sinful and forever miserable. It does not pretend to explain whether it will be a necessary result from the present

known laws of mind passing into new and untried temptations, or what is the particular course of influences that will lead to this result. It simply records the fact, that all who take a certain course in this life will be happy forever, and those who take another course will be miserable forever.

There may be many theories that might show how this could be made consistent with wisdom and benevolence and almighty power. But suppose there was not one, even conceivable; would it be wise, or safe, or right, to run the hazard of acting as if it were false? Would it be right to say, with our limited views of the universe and the general tendencies of things, that there actually was no way to render such a result consistent with the revealed character of God, simply because we, creatures of an hour and in this small nook of God's universe, could not discover what it is?

It appears both necessary and right that our Creator should be allowed that place in our confidence and affection, which parents always demand from children; it seems right that we should trust his superior wisdom and goodness and do what he requires, without claiming that we shall first understand the consistency of every thing he has said and done. He does not require us to violate our reason or conscience in any one thing he demands; he does not exact that we should believe absurdities or contradictions, nor do any thing which is made obligatory from such a belief. He tells us what the right way is, and what the good is we shall gain by walking in it, and what the evil is if

we depart from it, and it is not our place to demand, the whole exhibition of those vast plans and relations that make these consequences right or inevitable; plans and relations which he can behold and understand, but which may be as far beyond our comprehension, as is the philosophy of medicine and the human frame, beyond that of the infant that by parental authority is made to swallow nauseous drugs.

I defer the other topics suggested by you for another communication.

Yours, &c.

MY DEAR SIR:

LETTER XII.

You present the lives and characters of those who profess to be regulated by the principle of supreme love to God, as involving a question of difficulty. There are several considerations which perhaps will serve to lessen this difficulty—for it certainly is one of the greatest impediments to the cordial reception of the truths of the Bible that can be found.

The first consideration I would suggest is this, that those who do not claim to be religious, usually misunderstand the nature of the profession made by those claiming to possess the principle of piety.

This profession is supposed to be a declaration, that they who make it, are persons who are better in dispositions, habits, and conduct, than other men. But this is not the nature of their profession. They profess that they love their Maker, and that the desire to please and obey him has the first place in their hearts, and that hereafter it is to be

the business and chief object of interest through life to do his will. Now many who make this profession have naturally unamiable dispositions, while long indulgence has engendered pernicious habits that it requires much time and effort to conquer. Many also have incorrect notions of what is right and wrong; and many have not just conceptions of what God does wish and require from those who love him. A man may really desire to please his Maker more than to do any thing else, and may habitually strive to do it, and yet from these causes, may not appear so amiable or exemplary to the world, as those whose natural disposition, education, correct notions of right and wrong, and early habits, have prepared more readily and easily to discharge the relative duties of life. It is necessary to see the motives, feelings, and the efforts, men make, (of which He who looks on the heart alone can judge,) before it can be decided who possesses the character, on which our eternal destiny hangs. Still the Savior has truly said, "by their fruits ye shall know them ;" and a man who really does desire to please his Creator more than to gain any earthly good, must show it in some way to those who live in daily intercourse with him. And if a profession of piety is not accompanied by improvement in character, which is visible to those who have an opportunity to judge correctly, there is not reason sufficient for believing that the reality exists.

Another consideration to be regarded, is the incorrect, deficient notions as to the nature of