REVIEW.

CHAPTER I.

SECTION I.

Gen. xxii. 18. In thy seed shall all the NATIONS of the earth be blessed.

Gen. xxviii. 14. In thee and thy seed shall all the FAMILIES of the earth be blessed.

Acts iii. 25. In thy seed shall all the KINDREDS of the' earth be blessed.

If want of harmony and congruity in a system is an evidence of its rottenness and falsehood, then is the opposition to Universalism most signally condemned.Never, since the foundations of the earth were laid, was any thing more disjointed and conflicting. It sets at defiance every law of harmony and affinity, and utterly defies all rules and classification. In nothing is it more characterized, than by "confusion worse confounded," and a conglomeration of the most antagonistic materials, which distribute through the whole system the elements of destruction. In a word, it verifies the old adage: "Whom the gods purpose to destroy they first make mad."

Nor does this variety and conflict of opinion pertain only to the general movement and transactions of the opposition. It extends through every detail to the minutest particular. Antagonism characterizes its views of the system of Universalism. No two are agreed in what it really is. One author avers that it is an old

doctrine; another exclaims it is a new doctrine. One is confident that it is the doctrine of the devil, another is equally confident it is a doctrine of Hosea Ballou.One asserts it makes God all mercy, another it makes God all justice, &c., &c., to the end of the chapter.The blind literally lead the blind; and as a necessary consequence, they all fall into the ditch of defeat together.

As a necessary concomitant to these conflicting views of our system of doctrine, a great diversity of opinion characterizes the mode and means of attack. It is a work of no difficulty to put Partialism against itself in a thousand particulars-literally compelling it to dash out its brains against the walls of its own citadel.

In the section under review we have an illustration in point. Our author takes the position that the promise to Abraham is conditional; and, per-consequence, its literal fulfilment depends on the conduct of men in this life. Furthermore, he asserts: "There cannot be such a thing as an absolute or unconditional promise involving the happiness of man."

This is definite and plain. The promise to Abraham is conditional. There cannot be such a thing as an unconditional promise involving the happiness of man! Is this the position of Partialists generally? By no means. It is the simple opinion of a CAMPBELLITE Partialist; and, so far as we are informed, in said opinion he stands alone in his glory.

Mr. John H. Power, a Methodist opponent of Universalism, says: "That none of the promises of, God are absolute (unconditional) we presume no one will contend! That some of the promises of the Almighty are absolute we readily admit." Exp. p. 75.

And so perhaps does Mr. Hall. But the difference between them is, Mr. Power admits the unconditionality of the promise to Abraham, while Mr. Hall as we have seen, asserts the contrary! Marvelously harmonious this Partialism!-is it not reader?

But this is not all. Partialism is contradictory in its statement of the views of Universalists, in relation to the Divine Promises.

Hall says: "The assumption that promises of a Universal or general character are absolute or unconditional, form the bone and sinew of Universalism.”

Mr. John H. Power says: "That all the promises of God are absolute, Universalism will be reluctant to affirm."' And we have yet to learn that in any place he reverses this declaration, or attempts to fasten upon us a statement in any shape resembling that of our modest and truth loving author.

This brings us directly to the work in hand. Mr. Hall starts out with the assertion just quoted, and thereon joins issue. Making Universalism affirm the unconditionality of the 'Divine promises, he proceeds very leisurely to array it against itself. We bring him at once to the test of a thorough investigation. Is it true Universalists affirm the unconditionality of "promises of a universal or general character?" Or in other words, is it true Universalists affirm the unconditionality of all the Divine promises?-for this is the gentleman's meaning. We answer emphatically, No! It is denied Universalists have ever assumed the unconditionality of every promise of a universal or general character. Proof to the contrary is fearlessly challenged. Mr. Hall knows better. When penning that statement he knew he was uttering a misrepresentation-a statement utterly

false in length and breadth, yea, in every particular; or else he was totally ignorant of the subject he had undertaken to discuss. This we will prove.

Rev. A. C. Thomas in a Theological debate with Dr. E. S. Ely states the views of Universalists as follows: "I feel no disposition to deny that conditions are appended to many Divine testimonies-such for example as the following: Isa. 1. 19, 20. And I also hold, that while the promise of universal blessedness in Christ is absolute, our present happiness is, in a great measure, dependant on a hearty acknowledgment of the truth.”

Shame on the wilful perverter of the truth!-for Mr. Hall cannot escape the well authenticated charge of malicious dishonesty. There is one authority on this subject with which he professes a thorough acquaintance. He claims to have reduced the "Pro and Con of Universalism" to a "bundle of absurdities”—to have "pulverized" and "sifted" it like wheat. In his book there is a chapter of 45 pages devoted expressly to an examination of that work; and Mr. Hall knows the Pro and Con-or should have known-contains a statement exactly the reverse of his malicious misrepresentation.

The author of that work says: "There are in the Scriptures, unquestionably, some conditional promises; these all, however, respect our situation in time, and in no case extend their reference to eternity.

The promises which respect man's condition beyond death are absolute-as already said they rest on no contingents."

How now appears the statement of Mr. Hall, that the "bone and sinew" of Universalism is the assumption of the unconditionality of promises of a general or universal character? Rotten and hollow as a hypocrit's

heart! How appears in the light of this testimony the issue he would fasten upon us and cram down our throats so unceremoniously? False-utterly false!The issue between Partialists and Universalists is not: Are all the Divine promises conditional or unconditional? We have shown that Universalists do not deny the conditionality of some of the promises. The true issue therefore is this:

1. Are promises which relate to man's condition beyond death absolute?—Universalists affirm, Partialists deny.

We unhesitatingly admit the conditionality of all promises relative to man's condition in time, and which are predicated on faith or physical action; but, we can make no admission of the kind, respecting promises which relate to the spiritual condition of the human family in a future state.

2. The true question, then, respecting the promise to Abraham, contained in the texts at the head of this section, is this:

Does the promise of God to Abraham relate to man's condition beyond death? Universalists affirm; Partialists deny. This affirmative we are now to sustain.

1. First, then, the promise is UNIVERSAL. It comprises all the NATIONS, FAMILIES, and KINDREDS of the earth. No individual can be found who belongs not to some nation, kindred, or family. Therefore every individual of the race is included in the promised blessing This is not denied.

2. But can partialism meet this admission and not suffer defeat? Most certainly not. What is the nature of this blessing promised to all nations, kindreds, and families of the earth? In answering this question