As we said above, Universalists believe that regeneration is a moral or spiritual not a physical change. It consists in receiving no new faculties, nor, indeed, in any constitutional change, as Prof. Finney has shown in his wellknown sermon, but in a change of our moral character, our moral disposition. We ascribe it ultimately to God, but we believe it is effected in our hearts by the Holy Spirit through faith in the gospel. St. John affirms, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;" and again," Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God." This faith is of course something more than mere intellectual faith, and it produces more than "merely a change of party."

In short Universalists maintain that when the gospel is sincerely believed, its faith purifies the heart; the word of God is accompanied by the Spirit of Truth which affects a moral or spiritual change of heart. Man's views of God, of himself, of his duties and prospects, are all changed. In the language of Scripture, "old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new." New hopes, new desires, new objects, new affections, and a new life, follow. ceases to do evil and learns to do well. He strives in his life to act 66 as becometh the gospel of Christ," and by love, and faith unfeigned, to adorn the doctrine of God his Savior. Thus

He

the christian loves God because he feels himself the object of the Divine love; he loves his fellow men, because they are all alike the offspring of God, and he seeks to keep the divine commandments because this is the only way in which he can exhibit his love. It might be well for our author to inquire of his own heart what his state is in this respect. Let him look over the pages of "Universalism as it is" and ask himself whether that is the work of a man begotten of God, and imbued with the spirit of Christ?

That the views of Universalists on this subject are not altogether damnable, or, if they are so, that they have learned company, will be seen from the following quotation from Dr. Knapp's Theology, a work translated and published in the Andover Theological Seminary a few years ago. He says, "When the Israelites spoke of a person changing his religion, they used the phrase birth, new birth, etc. When a Gentile passed over to Judaism--became a proselyte--he was regarded by the Jews as new born, a new man, a child just beginning to live." The same author tells us that the various words employed in the New Testament to denote regeneration, are used in three senses. "1. To denote one's passing over externally from Judaism or heathenism to the christian society, and making an external profession of the christian, in opposition to the Jewish, or a heathen religion, which a

christian renounces. . . . . 2. To denote the internal or moral renewal of the heart, and of the whole disposition of man. This is the object of one's becoming a christian, to renounce the love of sin, and love what is good, and to practice it from motives of love to God and love to Christ. This state is effected in christians by God or the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ.

... 3. In many passages these two senses are combined." Now to all this Universalists most cordially subscribe: but if it is such an unmeaning statement of regeneration, as our author would represent ours to be, how happened it to pass the ordeal of Dr. Woods of Andover without even a note of censure or correction? The truth is, and it must be spoken, our author either knew nothing of the opinions of Universalists on the subject, or else he has willingly misrepresented them. We might refer to other authorities for support of our views were it necessary. See Hammond's Annotations on John iii. 3-8. Lightfoot, ibid. etc.

Our learned author next proceeds to edify his readers upon our views of "the resurrection state;" but the principal object of this chapter is to show that according to Universalism, "ALL

MANKIND WILL BE EQUAL in the RESURRECTION.' Before entering upon the proof of this position, however, Mr. Hatfield stops to inquire "what it is that shall be raised.

What kind of

resurrection do the christian Scriptures reveal ?” To this rather important question our author flippantly replies, "Plainly a resurrection of the body alone." This, it must be confessed, is as completely emptying the great doctrine of the resurrection of all spiritual significance as infidelity itself could desire. If as our author believes the soul is naturally immortal, and will, nay must, live for ever whether christianity be true or false, it might deserve his consideration, what advantage the resurrection of the body can confer upon this immortal part. Is it useful and necessary to its perfection, to its full susceptibility of happiness or misery? Then the soul, if not itself material, is certainly dependent upon matter for its perfection. And, moreover, the disembodied souls of those who have already departed from this life are in a state of imperfect suffering and enjoyment. What is that state?

It may amuse our author to glance at some of the opinions entertained in our Savior's time of a resurrection. We are told, Matt. xiv. 2, that when Herod heard of the fame of Jesus, he said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him." That is, according to Mr. Hatfield's doctrine, Herod believed it was John's " body alone" that had risen! Well might he anticipate" mighty

works" from such a resurrection. Among the people, we observe a great variety of opinion who he was. While "it was said of some that John was risen from the dead, and of some that Elias had appeared," others maintained that he was Jeremiah; and others still affirmed that "one of the old prophets had risen again." Whether they thought he was "the body alone" of some of those servants of God, our author can no doubt very readily decide; but that they regarded him as a prophet who had experienced the resurrection is unquestionable.

We would not take it upon ourselves to affirm, but these instances and what Josephus says of the Pharisees, lead us to doubt whether the Jews of our Savior's time had any idea at all of a resurrection of the body. Josephus says explicitly, "They say, that all the souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies." If he is to be believed, the Jews, it is probable, or some of them at least, supposed that Jesus was the soul of some distinguished prophet which had risen again or reappeared in this new body. And this reappearance of the soul, they seem to have called the resurrection. The Sadducees are said to have denied a resurrection. "Was it of the body alone?" or did they not rather, as Dr. Campbell shows, deny all future existence? It was on this supposition at least that our Savior refuted them.