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 discrimi nation.

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.

It were easy to prefer accusations, in this case, of insincerity and the want of open and honest dealing; and this is sometimes done. To such accusations, indeed, there are some who would be justly subjected. But I am not persuaded that all doubters of this class are to be taxed with hypocrisy and double dealing. There are minds of a very serious cast, and prone to reasoning and inquiry, that have in some way come into such a state, that doubt on the subject of endless punishment cannot, without the greatest difficulty, be removed from them.

They commence their doubts, it is probable, with some a priori reasoning on this subject. "God is good. His tender mercy is over all the work of his hands. He has no pleasure in the death of the sinner. He has power to prevent it. He knew before he created man, and made him a free agent, that he would sin. In certain prospect of his endless misery, therefore, his benevolence would have prevented the bringing of him into existence. No father can bear to see his own children miserable without end, not even when they have been ungrateful and rebellious; and God, our heavenly Father, loves us better than any earthly parent does or can love his children.

'Besides; our sins are temporary and finite; for they are committed by temporary and finite beings, and in a world. filled with enticements both from without and from within. It is perfectly easy for Omnipotence to limit, yea to prevent, any mischief which sin can do; so that the endless punishment of the wicked is unnecessary, in order to maintain the divine government and keep it upon a solid basis. Above all, a punishment without end, for the sins of a few days or hours, is a proportion of misery incompatible with justice as well as mercy. And how can this be any longer necessary, when Christ has made atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting redemption from its penalty?'

The social sympathies, too, of some men, are often deeply concerned with the formation of their religious opinions. They have lost a near and dear friend and relative by death; one who never made any profession of religion, or gave good reason to suppose that his mind was particularly occupied with it. What shall they think of his case? Can they believe that one so dear to them has become eternally wretched-an outcast for ever from God? Can they en

dure the thought that they are never to see or associate with him any more? Can heaven itself be a place of happiness for them, while they are conscious that a husband or a wife, a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister, is plunged into a lake of fire from which there is no escape? It is impossible, they aver, to overcome such sympathies as these. It would be unnatural and even monstrous to suppress them. They are therefore, as they view the case, constrained to doubt whether the miseries of a future world can be endless.'

If there are any whose breasts are strangers to such difficulties as these, they are to be congratulated on having made attainments almost beyond the reach of humanity in the present world; or else, to be pitied for ignorance, or the want of a sympathy which seems to be among the first elements of our social nature. With the great mass of thinking Christians I am sure such thoughts as these must, unhappily for them, be acquaintances too familiar. That they agitate our breasts as storms do the mighty deep-will be testified by every man of a tender heart, and who has a deep concern in the present and future welfare of those whom he loves.

It would seem to be from such considerations, and the like to these, that a belief in a future repentance and recovery of sinners has become so wide-spread in Germany, pervading even the ranks of those who are regarded as serious and evangelical men in respect to most or all of what is called orthodox doctrine, saving the point before us. Such was the case, also, with some of the ancient fathers; and such is doubtless the case with not a few of our day, who are far removed from noisy and obtrusive sectarianism, and who even do not venture positively to assert and maintain the modified doctrine of universal salvation, namely, the final restoration of all to divine favour, after punishment and repentance.

Can we find it in our hearts severely to reproach doubters of this retired and modest class; who will not even venture to assert what they hope is true, and on the whole do believe to be true, for fear that it may not after all prove to be so, and then the assertion of the doctrine might lead others to ruin? No, we should not so demean ourselves in respect to serious and also anxious and distressed minds, filled with doubts which they have yet found no adequate grounds to