which universalism is made to rest; are directly opposed to each other, and cannot all be true. If all are to be saved because sin does not deserve endless punishment, then they cannot be saved on the ground of divine mercy and forgiveness, nor on the ground of Christ's death; for, in such case, they may be saved without either. Again if men are to be saved because God is merciful even to the forgiveness of sin, as universalists often argue, then the circumstance that sin does not deserve endless punishment, cannot be the ground of salvation, since a pardon would secure salvation even if sin did deserve endless punishment. Nor can the death of Christ be urged as the ground of salvation, if God's forgiving mercy secures it; for if mercy can extend pardon to offenders without the death of Christ, then sinners can be saved without it, and therefore the death of Christ cannot be the ground of salvation. Once more, if the death of Christ be urged as the ground of salvation, or as a reason why all men will be saved, then neither the small demerit of sin, nor the pardoning mercy of God can be urged as such ground, or reason. If endless punishment be unjust, and if Christ, notwithstanding, died to save men, then he must have died to save them from an evil which they did not deserve, or to prevent God from being unjust. Thus it is plain that universalism is discordant in its parts and self-contradictory, and therefore is defective as a system of religious faith.

II. Universalism is indirect and confused in its proof.

This must follow to some extent, from the confused and contradictory views of universalists stated above. Where there are so many and contradictory views taken of the same theory, there will be a proportionate confusion in the modes of proving it; for though all aim at the same point, yet as they have different modes of coming at it, each will argue as he conceives most consistent with his own peculiar views, and as there are so many contradictory views taken of the system as a whole, so the arguments employed to support it will clash with each other just as they are suited to the different forms in which it is held and defended. We will notice a few instances of the indirectness and confusion of universalists arguments.

1. Universalists labour more to disprove the sentiments of

others than they do to build up their own theory by direct arguments. The reason of this is plain; they can constantly assail others in this way without hazarding any thing in the warfare. It is much easier to oppose a system even of pure truth, than it is to rear a fortress of error, which will stand an assault; hence, universalists, by keeping their own system indefinite so as to present nothing tangible to be demolished, can, after the manner of infidels, carry on an offensive warfare without hazard. No one who has read many universalist books, or heard much universalist preaching can fail of being convinced that their arguments consist mostly of negative propositions, designed to prove that such and such things are not true. Mr. Ballou, under the pretence of writing a treatise on the atonement, has written one against it, in which the principal effort consists in denouncing the opinions of others. His exposition of the parables is in a similar style. Mr. Balfour has written an entire volume of three hundred and forty-eight pages, to disprove the existence of a place of punishment called hell. The same author has produced a second volume to disprove the existence of devils or evil spirits. This last effort is no more than justice might seem to demand of the author; for if in his first he has annihilated hell, as he pretends, it appears no more than right that he should, by another blow, strike the devils from being, and not leave them to linger in a homeless existence. In like manner universalist criticism is usually spent in attemps to prove that some pre-conceived notion of the sacred text is absurd—that such and such texts do not mean so and so. Now, we ask why is this so, if universalism be the plain and obvious sentiment of the Bible? If the scriptures in their most plain and natural construction, are not opposed to universalism, why is all this labour and critcism spent to prove that they do not mean what common readers generally understand by them? This kind of proof though it may have some bearing on the subject, is indirect and of itself insufficient. Should they succeed in proving every argument advanced by their opponents false, still it would not follow that their theory is certainly true.

2. Universalists employ arguments which contradict and destroy each other. We will give a few instances as speci

mens. It is common for universalists to urge Christ's death for all men, in proof of universal salvation. They contend that as Christ died for all men, all must be saved; for, say they, he could not die in vain. Let us then see how this will agree with other arguments which they employ. They urge the salvation of all men from the corrective design of punishment. This is a favorite argument, entering into the very composition of universalism, and is directly opposed to the argument drawn from the death of Christ. If men are to be saved because punishment is designed to make them better, then the death of Christ cannot prove their salvation; for if punishment can effect it, the death of Christ is superfluous and can prove nothing on the subject; and if punishment cannot effect the salvation of sinners, then the argument drawn from its corrective nature and design must fall. The two arguments are opposed to each other, and therefore they cannot both stand. Again, universalists argue from the goodness of God, which is directly opposed to the argument drawn from the death of Christ. If the goodness of God secures the salvation of all men, irrespectively of the atonement or any conditions, then the death of Christ cannot have secured their salvation, and therefore cannot prove it. If sinners might have been saved without the death of Christ as an atonement for sin, then it cannot have secured their salvation, and hence cannot prove it; and if sinners could not have been saved without the death of Christ as an atonement for sin, the goodness of God does not secure salvation, and therefore cannot prove it. We see then that to argue the salvation of all men, both from the death of Christ and the goodness of God, is to contradict one's self.

Universalists also introduce the justice of God to prove universal salvation, or to disprove the doctrine of endless punishment, which also contradicts the argument drawn from the death of Christ. If the endless punishment of sinner: would be unjust, as is insisted, then no sinner could have been endlessly punished if Christ had never died for our redemption, since it cannot be admitted that God could do an act of injustice. Now, as no sinner could have been punished forever without a violation of divine justice, Christ can

not have died to save men from endless punishment; for this would suppose that he died to prevent a violation of divine justice. We say then as Christ did not die to save men from endless punishment, on the supposition that such punishment would be unjust, it follows that his death cannot disprove endless punishment on one hand, nor prove endless, universal salvation, on the other. The arguments then drawn from the death of Christ and the justice of God clearly contradict each other.

Once more, universalists contradict themselves in their exposition of terms. They often urge the term destruction, in proof that the devil and sin will have an eternal end, because this term is applied to the devil and his works; but when it is said that sinners shall be destroyed, they turn in defence and attempt to maintain that destruction means nothing more than some temporal evil, which is perfectly consistent with an eternal and happy existence. The above points have been produced as mere specimens of the contradictions which exist between the arguments employed by universalists. We ask then, will the reader venture the cause of his eternal salvation on evidence so contradictory?

III. Universalism is not calculated to reform community, but is demoralizing in its tendency. We are perfectly aware that this objection will be highly resented by many universalists, and be condemned as false and slanderous; but our appeal is to the candid, who will please to remember that it is not universalists that we here assail, but universalism. Let facts speak for themselves.

1. Universalists as a religious community have not done, and are not doing so much for the spread of the gospel and the advance of the Messiah's kingdom, as christians of other denominations. As a denomination they have not made the least effort to spread the saving influence of the truth beyond the circle of our own already christianized congregations. Christianity is evidently designed to fill the world, and to bless all nations; and if universalism be true, its heralds should fly on mercy's wings to proclaim it to the ends of the earth; and yet a universalist minister was never known to step over the line of christendom to scatter the light of the gospel in the pathway of the benighted heathen. All other denominations

are making praiseworthy efforts to bring the heathen under the influence of the gospel, while universalists instead of coming up to the work, so far as they have done any thing on the subject, have actually opposed. Those among christians, who believe that they must live a sober, righteous and prayerful life here, in order to be saved in heaven, are entitled to their unmingled pity, while the degraded savages excite no sympathy, and Hindoo widows can perish upon the funeral pile; and they have not a tear to shed, nor an effort to make, to have it otherwise.

The following article, which is copied from the Magazine and Advocate, a universalist paper published at Utica, N. Y. goes to prove the effect which universalism produces in drying up the streams of benevolence, and paralizing the efforts which are made for the support of the gospel under the influence of other sentiments. As the article is short we copy it

entire.

"For the Magazine an Advocate.

WHY IS THIS?

I know men who, while they were Partialists, paid from forty to sixty dollars per annum, for the support of these doctrines. They are now universalists, and are as able as ever-but they complain of being unable to afford ten to twenty dollars per annum to support the doctrine they profess! Did they love Partialism more-Universalism less, or their money most of all? WHY IS THIS?"

We answer, because if universalism be true, all will be just as well off in the end, without the preaching of the gospel as with it.

2. No visible reformations take place under universalist preaching. When and where have universalist preachers entered the neighborhood of sabbath-breakers, drunkards, and of vice in general, and had them transformed under their ministry into a sober, praying and moral people? Such an instance has never fallen under our observation, though we have often seen these fruits follow the labours of those who preach the doctrine of endless punishment.

3. Men do not generally become more pious, better citiizens and neighbours, when they abandon the doctrine of endless punishment and embrace unisversalism; but men do,