he has omitted all notice of many points of belief which have ever been regarded as essential to the integrity of our faith. To show this we remark that his work consists of twenty four chapters, of which the following are the titles. 1. Primitive Universalism. 2. Prevailing creed of Universalism. 3. Final happiness of all mankind. 4. Penalty of Sin. 5. Denial of Native Depravity. 6. No Punishment after Death. 7. Sin ceases at Death.-Death not the fruit of Sin. 8. Man has no immortal Soul. 9. No escape from Punishment. 10. Sin its own Punishment. 11. No such thing as Punishment. 12. Denial of the Atonement. 13. The sufferings of Christ not peculiar. 14. Denial of the Trinity. 15. God's favor never lost. 16. This life not probationary to another. 17. Faith not necessary to future Happiness. 18. The New Birth.

19. The Resurrection State. 20. The Day of Judgment. 21. Devil and his Angels. 22. Christians have no Ordinances. 23. Fruits of Universalism. 24. Learning of Universalist Preachers.

Now it can escape the observation of no one, even slightly acquainted with the subject, that our author has made no mention of several imimportant doctrines held without exception by the Universalists. Of our faith in God, in his attributes and government; in Jesus Christ, as his Son, and the Savior of the world; in the authen

ticity and inspiration of the Bible, etc. etc., our author says nothing, or what he does say is only incidental, and rather calculated to convey the idea, which he expresses clearly in the very outset, that "Universalism has but little more of Christianity than the name, is a crafty system of covert infidelity, and does not deserve to be ranked as a Christian denomination!" To say that this may be ascribed to ignorance, or oversight, will not avail; for the author professes to possess "a minute acquaintance" with his subject, and has moreover referred to several works which exhibit these points with great clearness; while all the writings which he claims to have examined, are avowedly conducted on an undoubting belief in the existence and perfections of God, in the mission of Jesus Christ, and the devine authority of the Sacred Scriptures!

Again, no one can fail to notice, that our author has managed to introduce in several instances, not what we believe, but precisely what we do not believe. For example, instead of

66

The

giving our real views on the subject of human depravity, he introduces our denial of native depravity:" and so likewise our " denial of atonement,"-" denial of the trinity," etc. etc. want of candor manifested in this course is obvious to all. It is as if we should characterize every opinion of Presbyterians which differs from our own as a denial of what we regard

fundamental Christian truth! But in the case before us, it is incomparably more pernicious, as it is calculated only to perpetuate ignorance respecting our true views, and foster prejudices which are strong enough already.

There is another remark that belongs here.. Let any man with the slightest conception of order and systematic arrangement, glance for one moment at the series of subjects presented by our author, and tell us if he can perceive any thing like system or sequence here. His table of contents presents nothing but chaos, emphatically "without form and void," and "darkness," it seems to us must have rested not only on our authors work, but on his mind also. His subject must have presented itself to him without either "beginning, middle or end." But write he must and write he would, whether he comprehended his task or not. Hence it happens, that according to his representation, Universalists make "the final happiness of all mankind," the first article of their faith while as yet he leaves his readers in profound ignorance whether they believe in the Scriptures or even in a God! And this, if our author is to be believed, is Universalism as it is! This is the "text-book" for "theological students" and "orthodox preachers."

Once more: it must not be overlooked that our author, unsatisfied with exhibiting what we do not believe, is kind enough to introduce as

another part of our faith, his own inferences and conclusions, from opinions which are more or Take one inless generally received among us.

66 по

stance, from chapters ninth, tenth, and eleventh, where he represents us as believing, first, that there is "no escape from punishment," and second that "sin is its own punishment," and lastly, which is his own well or ill-grounded inference, as the case may be, that there is such thing as punishment!! To say nothing of the absurdity of charging those who believe "in no escape from punishment" with at the same, maintaining that there is "no such thing as punishment," the above is a specimen of as rank injustice as could well be committed. But our author is not easily pleased. He complains of our belief that God "will by no means clear the guilty," but will "reward every man according to his works;" and then he turns round and abuses us, because we do not believe that the divine punishments are merely vindictive, and designed only to torment, without benefitting the punished. This, according to our clear sighted author, is the same as to maintain that there is "no such thing as punishment!"

But this is not all. Our author goes still farther, and charges us, as a body, with believing what, we think, no individual in the denomination believes: or at least of which he has furnWe now ished not a particle of evidence!

66

allude particularly to what he lays down as our faith in relation to angels, that they are only our fellow men. The only evidence of this grave but false accusation, is, that our writers have defined the Greek word angellos, MESSENGER, and in some places interpreted it of human beings a thing which our author either knows or ought to know, has been done by, perhaps, every commentator that ever lived!! And yet he asserts, not only without evidence, but in the very face of much plain and undeniable proof that we believe "there are no merely spiritual beings called angels, either holy or unholy."

To say that all these things are the result of ignorance, would be a reflection on our author's understanding. He cannot have read the works to which he refers, without knowing that his exhibition of Universalism is exceedingly imperfect in its design, and defective in its execution; that it is an uncandid, and, considered as a whole, a false presentation of his subject; that it exaggerates, caricatures and misrepresents our faith, and is altogether unworthy of public confidence. We are willing to concede that our author's acquaintance with Universalism is not so intimate and "minute" as he is pleased to represent it we see no evidences of a familiar knowledge of the controversy which has been going on in this country, for the last fifty years; but we do see traces and tokens enough that he