that instead of being all of us taken to heaven at the resurrection, other distinct existences, will then be created and enter heaven in our stead. In this case, the universal SALVATION, of which these writers boast, and in which they glory as alone taught by them is NO SALVATION AT ALL!” This it will be seen is a very fine spun argument, all depending upon an if lying far back. If the Universalists do believe that man is annihilated at death, then of course there is no resurrection but, as our author says, a new creation; and then also there is no salvation for us; but we cease to exist and God may create whom he pleases in our stead! All this is very plain "if these things be so." But these thinge are NOT so, and Mr. Hatfield uttered a falsehood when he affirmed they were. What then, becomes of his argument? Why like his Presbyterianism it is all vanished in thin air. It was built on falsehood, and was therefore by nature unfitted for this rude world. But did it never occur to Mr. Hatfield to apply this acute and logical mode of reasoning, to his favorite doctrine of total depravity and regeneration? Perhaps he would discover that a being totally depraved can not be regenerated. Omnipotence itself can not change sin into holiness. Hence if all men are totally depraved, there is no salvation at all for any; for total depravity can not be saved. Hence it is folly to talk of E. F. Hatfield, who

was born in such depravity, being taken to heaven, and it is equal folly to speak of his being born again here; because he is the identical being now that he was before he professed to have been regenerated, which could not be the case "if these things are so." The conclusion is that these totally depraved beings must be annihilated or go to hell for ever. To heaven they can not go, for no unholy thing can enter there. And if God is pleased to make a new creation to people heaven, it will no more concern us than the new creation of a company of angels. "This system then teaches us as fully as ever the Sadducees taught it, that THERE WILL BE NO RESURRECTION." So says Mr. Hatfield of Universalism, and so say we of his orthodoxy. "This consequence of their system," says he, "some of them perceive and are honest enough to avow." How? Do we understand our author? Does Mr. Hatfield assert that some Universalists avow that according to our system "there will be no resurrection?" So it is written. Now permit us to say in all candor that this assertion is an unqualified falsehood. No Universalist ever made such an avowal. And yet with an effrontery that would shame any common liar, our author pretends to adduce the proof of his statement. He takes it from the Universalist Union p. 234. And what does it prove? That the writer of the article avows that there will be

no resurrection? Nothing like it. He calls in question the popular doctrine of the resurrection of "the matter composing the physical body at death," and modestly expresses his opinion that "the heavenly body is entirely distinct from earthly matter, flesh and blood." And does Mr. Hatfield flatter himself that this will pass among intelligent readers for proof of his bold and defamatory assertion. It is an insult to their common sense, as well as to their sense of justice and truth.

the subject

in

But there is one grievous charge more upon which our author insists. It is that according to Universalism all mankind will be equal in the resurrection. The thought of this is too much for our pious and benevolent author to bear in patience, and he therefore exhorts his brethren to shun such "profane and vain babblings." We remember certain men mentioned by our Savior who seemed to look upon the same light as our author. They murmur ed against the good man of the house saying, these last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us who have borne the burden and heat of the day." The only comfort left for such murmurers is that granted to those of old. "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good?"

66

Whether all shall be strictly equal in the res

urrection, equal we mean in mental and moral developement, in holiness and the inward susceptibility of happiness, may we think, be well doubted, and is so doubted by many Universalists. That all alike will be made alive in Christ, that all will be raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, and with spiritual bodies, and will be like the angels, and be the children of God being children of the resurrection, is what the New Testament expressly teaches, and what no well instructed christian, it seems to us, can deny. But all this does not, to our comprehension, imply that a Paul or a John may not be farther advanced in knowledge, holiness and love, and hence also in consequent happiness than another man, or a child, even as one star differeth from another star in glory." For ourselves, we

can not but look upon the future state as one of progress, a state where our finite but immortal powers may be for ever and freely developing themselves and thus becoming the instruments of a higher and purer happiness. If all our fellow beings shall be equal with us we trust we shall have such a modicum of grace as will ena. ble us rather to rejoice and joy in their felicity than to murmur at it. Mr. Hatfield we suppose would not take it kindly, for like some of old he seems to have an eye upon "the uppermost seats." There was always a wide difference be. tween the spirit of Pharisaism and of Christian

ity. The striving of one is to lift itself above, and think itself better than other men; that of the other is to lift other men, all men, up to its own level, and to find its happiness in their elevation. One thinks itself the peculiar favorite of Heaven, the other is happy in believing that his goodness and mercy are over all.

Our author's next labor is to exhibit the Universalist denial of A DAY OF JUDGMENT IN THE RESURRECTION-STATE.

"It requires no small effort," says he, "toshake off that sense of accountability which is so universally and deeply impressed on the human mind." Is it not very odd that beings totally depraved should be impressed with such a sense as this? Will Mr. Hatfield explain the apparent incongruity? "But this sense of accountability with most men has to do chiefly with another world. They expect a strict account will be required of them in another world for the deeds of this." But would it not be quite as much for the advantage of piety and virtue, if man's " sense of accountability” had something more to do with this world, instead of being chiefly directed to another? Perhaps it is natural to put off the evil day as far as possible, and in this respect the popular religionists succeed to admiration. No one could reasonably desire a longer credit than they promise to the transgressor.