tiny; it is not usual for him to swagger respecting his convictions, nor to boast of their certainty and firmness, nor to flout or leer at every thing which is suggested against them. Soldiers are wont to say, that the men who talk most of their courage and prowess in the retirement of a camp, are very apt to fall in the rear on the field of battle. Men of calm, cool, deliberate, unostentatious courage, it is expected, will execute the command to charge with the bayonet, while men of a different stamp will turn pale and tremble, when the bullets begin to whistle.

So, I am apt to think, is it with most of the champions of Universalism. Did they feel that they were well armed and well manned for the contest, they would not, like the Persian and Turkish arrays of battle, rend the heavens and earth, at the onset, with the clamour of voices and the din of arms, in order to frighten the ranks of opposers. Conscious possession of truth, in an honest cause, is wont to stand firm and collected, knowing its ultimate resources, and well persuaded too that noise is not argument, nor confident assertions reasoning.

In fact, there is no more suspicious mark of weakness in a combatant, than swaggering and obtrusive confidence. And if this be so, is there not reason to believe, that most of those who attempt to prove the doctrine of Universal Salvation. from the Bible, do, after all, feel that they are labouring to obscure the Scriptures, not to say, pervert them, rather than to educe their simple and plain meaning?

It is wrong to judge any class of men with rigour, and I would not willingly do it; but I hope they will bear with me, in this case-they, I mean, on whom my remarks fall-when I honestly state the impression which their manner of theologizing makes upon me. If I am singular, or in the wrong, I hope I shall be forgiven for the apparently uncharitable views that I have expressed. That I am singular, cannot be true; to my certain knowledge it is not. That That I am in the wrong-I shall believe, when I become convinced that the Bible teaches the doctrine of Universal Salvation.

The attempts at philology, which some of our fellow citizens of the class named often exhibit; the shew of learning, the parade of alov and by, and of declarations respecting them which shew that the mere elements of critical study are not mastered; the descants on the foreign languages of

Greek and Hebrew, by those to whom they are still altogether foreign; may provoke the smile, or the disgust, of one who has studied those languages more thoroughly, but they can make but little progress towards convincing him. When will men learn, that reason and not noise, that science and not ignorance, that patient and protracted investigation and not hasty and a priori assertion, are the appropriate means of convincing and winning over their fellow men? I know of no class in our country, who have more to learn in regard to this, than some of the Universalists.

But unhappily, while these truths are not denied in theory, or at any rate ought not to be, it seems only to spur on some champions to more adventurous dabbling with this subject. They must needs keep up the shew of learning, in order to preserve appearances. And so we have books on air and

, those two refractory and unsubduable words that give so much trouble to some, written by men who cannot even frame to pronounce rightly the very words themselves, and who would be irretrievably puzzled to distinguish between some of the letters of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets. What kind of a cause must that be, which calls for and admits such advocates and such efforts as these?

But our weariness of so much noise, accompanied by so little argument and fairness of mind, should not prevent an examination of the subject before us, in a candid, serious, patient manner. If it be true that all men will be saved, it is one of the most interesting truths, in some respects the most interesting truth, ever published to our guilty and sinful race. It is worthy of proclamation through heaven, earth, and hell. It places the whole of the divine govern. ment, counsels, and proceedings, on a basis entirely different from that on which they are commonly supposed to rest, and would oblige us literally to begin anew the study of the Bible and the study of Theology. To this no rational man should object, provided his mind can be satisfied of the need of it. Let us welcome truth, from whatever quarter it may come; for truth is eternal; and not only so, but the old adage, Magna est veritas et prævalebit, should be most heartily assented to. Yet methinks there is something more than obtrusive and confident assertion, or reckless and drivelling criticism, or noisy contumely and coarse jesting, necessary to convince intelligent minds that we are actually to

begin anew on this subject. When is the question to be calmly, intelligently, kindly, and fairly discussed? I will not say, Never; for I would hope that better things than we have seen in our day, are yet to come. Still my fears are, that when a man has once tampered with his conscience and his Bible so much, as to become a convert to the views in question, fairness and candour are not to be expected of him. But I would fain indulge the hope that there are, even now, at least some who are better than my fears would represent them to be. At all events, it is painful to me, in the extreme, to speak as I have now spoken; and those who are offended by it, for such there doubtless will be, can, notwithstanding this, learn from this honest and open avowal of my feelings, what impression their writings make on at least a part of their opponents. While they are indignant at my declarations, they may still learn, perhaps, in future to avoid with more skill the giving offence to others who think as I do, and whom they are desirous to win over to their own party. In the end, therefore, this apparent evil may prove to be at least a real good to them. Nor should I omit to say, that on reviewing what I have now said they will find, that my remarks are not without restriction or discrimination.

The Universalists, it seems, are divided and dividing, among us, into two classes or sects. The one, as yet much the minority among professed Universalists, believe in future punishment, but not in endless punishment; and so they are called Restorationists by many. The other party "go for the whole," as the phrase is, and deny that there is any pun ishment in a future world. All that is to be suffered, and indeed (as some maintain) even all that is threatened by the Scriptures, is merely evil or punishment in the present world.

It would be difficult, perhaps, in surveying the past history of Christianity, in all its professed forms, to find any one of them all, either in ancient or modern times, which does so much violence to the Scriptures as this last named opinion. I have long since come to a full persuasion, that it is useless to attempt argument with men of this class. The truth is, there is no basis on which we can take our stand in common with them, so that we may have a chance to erect a better building than theirs. If the Bible does not

teach some future retribution of the wicked, then it cannot be fairly said to teach any thing; for on no subject whatever is Scriptural language plainer or more explicit than on this. We can make the appeal therefore to Scripture, with no ground of hope that it will be of any avail, when a man discards all its declarations respecting the future retribution of the wicked. And if we cannot appeal to the Scriptures at all, then of what use is it to attempt argument? Pure Deism might, indeed, as it often has, maintain that God will make future retribution; but as the immortality of the soul itself can merely be rendered probable by the light of nature, we cannot well suppose that future punishment can be fairly proved by it. So we have no way in which we can come at materials for convincing our opponents, on a question like that before us. I am fully persuaded, therefore, that in general it is best not to make the attempt at persuading them, in the way of polemic discussion.

In fact it has often seemed to me, that the mind is as it were undone, in respect to fairness and candour, when a man has once committed such violence upon it as deliberately to reject or pervert the declarations of the Bible, in regard to future retribution. There are no skeptics among us, of any sort that can be named who do not seem to be easier brought to give a fair hearing to argument and reason, than the thorough Universalist of the lowest order. Fact seems to shew, that Deists, and even Atheists, may be more easily won than these. I hope this representation is not correct; but so far as any knowledge or observation of mine goes, I deem it to be strictly so. And if this be the

case, there is presented a curious problem to be solved, in regard to such a phenomenon; one, I may add, of deep and painful interest.

I have heard of many persons being converted, on a dying bed, to a belief in future punishment, who had all their lives maintained the contrary doctrine; never yet have I heard of one who, in the like situation, was converted from the common belief to that of thorough Universalism. How is this to be explained? If it be indeed a gospel-truth, that all men are to be saved from every degree of future punishment, then why should not the Spirit of God put his seal on this most important truth, and bring it out to the world from the lips of the dying, by whom it had not previously been professed?

I do not state, that no professed Universalists do not die in the faith which they have adopted while living; but only that I never heard of a person, who had rejected their doctrines aforetime, that was brought, on his death-bed, to believe in it. Of course I do not make the absolute assertion (how could I prove it?), that there never was any such person. Still, inasmuch as I have never heard or read of such an one, it has been a matter of serious consideration with me, how such a phenomenon can be explained. We should expect that God would put his seal on such an important doctrine, provided it is true, by the triumph that it would give to his children in a dying hour. And yet, of all the dying-beds by which I have stood, I have never witnessed any thing of this nature.

My conviction is, that a mind, in the attitude of thorough belief in Universalism, is not to be won, except by the application of truths contained in the Gospel, different from those which respect the when and the where of punishment. And if so, dispute directly on this point would seem to be of little avail; inasmuch as the most plain and direct declarations of the Scriptures are not admitted. Still, I am aware how easily injustice may be done, by making any declaration of this nature without exception or limitation. I would hope, at least, that such is not the case with all who are professedly among the most thorough class of Universalists.

In respect to the other class or Restorationists, justice would require some change of tone and representation. There are indeed among them, men of like temperament and demeanour with those already characterized. But there are not a few of a different character, and whose doubts and difficulties are entitled to kind and respectful consideration. Not a few persons in our community secretly belong to this class. They perceive the extravagant and obtrusive assumptions of those who deny any future punishment; and, fearing to encourage them in their error, they withhold the expression of their own doubts and difficulties, guarding themselves at the same time from expressing and inculcating any positive belief in the doctrine of endless punishment. Thus they live, and perhaps die, without ever making any explicit avowal of their secret belief, or at least of their secret doubts. And among these are not a few of the professed preachers of the Gospel.