devout christians, are 66 the moral results" of our preaching. They constitute "our epistle" as St. Paul said, "known and read of all men."

It is curious to observe how short sighted our author is and how much he apparently reckons upon the ignorance or prejudices of his readers. On p. 320 he says, "I can not remember to have seen in all my researches (?) in any one of their publications, one single exhortation from one of their number to a faithful discharge of the duty of secret vocal prayer—or any attempt to inculcate the duty of family prayer." Now our author. can not be ignorant that this very serious charge lies against Christ and his apostles as well as against Universalists! Where will he find an exhortation in the New Testament "to the faithful discharge of the duty of secret vocal prayeror any attempt to inculcate the duty of family prayer?" Mr. Hatfield knows, and his readers might know, that there is nothing of the kind in the christian Scriptures. That prayer is a duty or rather a very great privilege, every Universalist believes, but that we should pray vocally in secret is not prescribed by any divine authority, nor is family prayer enjoined in the New Testament. Whether family prayer and secret vocal prayer are necessary to the christian life, whether they are most useful and expedient are matters which we humbly conceive are left to the reason and conscience of every christian for

himself. To pray always, to pray without ceasing and in every thing to give thanks, is enjoined upon the disciple of Jesus Christ; i. e. as we understand it, he is required to cultivate assiduously the spirit of prayer and thanksgiving that he may always feel his utter dependence upon God and his obligations to gratitude and praise.

Mr. Hatfield accuses us of "an attempt to ridicule family prayer, as altogether too Pharisaical for a liberal christian." This accusation is false, length and breadth. We have never attempted to ridicule family prayer, or any other kind of humble prayer. We did ask Mr. Remington and we now ask Mr. Hatfield, if " those who assume much of the religion of the land, the pious, praying people, (we mean such as have piety and prayers to boast of) do not oppose and persecute Universalists, and for the same reasons that the Pharisees of old persecuted the disciples of Christ ?" We reverence prayer too much to ridicule it; too much indeed, willingly to see it prostituted to the ungodly purposes, of vain and boasting hypocrites who make it their only claim to religion. There were those of old who loved to pray to be seen of men; and who devoured widow's houses and for a pretence made long prayer. The fashion may have changed but the thing itself remains. There is little difference we think, in standing at the corners of the treets and praying, or entering the sanctuary

of one's family or closet and then going forth to boast of it, and to abuse those who think it unnecessary in a matter of this nature to sound a trumpet either before or after the performance of a religious service! God grant that there may be more humble, believing, christian prayer, and less noise and ostentation about it. And may the Christian world soon learn, that there are more certain tokens of true discipleship than that of much vocal praying; even those of an upright and godly life, adorned by a meek and quiet spirit.

We now pass to our author's last chapter. Heretofore he seems to have been as mild as a summer evening; but now he awakes in his strength and stirs up all his wrath. We can not do better, perhaps, than to make an extract. He opens his chapter thus:

"The work is done. Modern Universalism in America has passed in review before us. It has been permitted to speak for itself. We have seen the TREE and ITS FRUITS-the doctrines and their results. We have listened to its arrogant claims, and have suffered ourselves for the moment to be unchurched.*

*This looks somewhat like a rhetorical flourish. Instead of allowing "the orthodox" to be unchurched, our author began by announcing that he was about to show "that Universalism has 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!" And if he has not succeeded in showing this, he has asserted perpetually that it was still a fact. And now, after denouncing Universalists again and again as infidels, our author has the hardihood to talk of suffering himself and his brethren "for the moment to be unchurched!!"

HERESIES.

The learning, and wisdom, and piety of all past time, have been made foolishness by its unbounded pretensions. [Orthodoxy is remarkable for its modesty; it makes no pretensions.] Truth appears to have fled the earth until it found a resting-place in the bosom of Mr. Ballou ! Now truth perform thine office.'— Say to what belongs this scheme? Whence came it? Whose is it?" etc. etc. "Other systems of error have, for the most part, contented themselves with a single departure.* But this is a complete MASS OF It openly advocates, as constituent parts of itself, the very worst features of Pelagianism, Antinomianism, Sadduceeism, Arianism, Monophysitism, Socinianism, and Materialism." [And why did not our author add to this list of hard names, Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, and every other ism under heaven?] "The followers of this creed maintain fellowship with Deists, Libertines and Atheists, but withhold it from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists. . . . . They make common cause with the infidel, by their constant efforts to unsettle the confidence of their hearers in the common translation of the Bible..... Of all Latitudinarians these are the most worthy of the name. No heretic can wish more liberty than is here allowed. As in the ancient Pantheon, every principal heresiarch may here find a niche for himself, and receive the homage of his followers. The greatest amity pervades the brotherhood, whether Jove, or Venus, or Bacchus be the presiding deity. Nor must the lines be tighter drawn, lest some good free-thinking brother take offence and desert the holy cause! Is this the Bride?"

etc. etc.

* Has our author forgotten what he said at p. 21? "One error has a strong affinity for every other. They can nestle together in the same bosom. Easy is the downward path; they who enter it wax worse and worse, deceiving and be ing deceived."

Now let no one say that this is not decent, charitable, christian. Let no one call it lowminded and malicious blackguardism. Let no one even harbor the suspicion that he who can thus speak, is not a meek, pure-hearted, amiable follower of Jesus, whose great aim is to honor God and promote peace and good will among

men !

From this strain of fine christian sentiment, our author turns to inquire, "Who are these Universalist authors and preachers that they should lay claim to such superior wisdom?"He begins with James Relly, glances at John Murray, and passes on to Hosea Ballou, whom he represents as the sire of the race whose tenets he has considered. The object of his questions and remarks is to determine whether these men were the most learned, the most subtle logicians, the most unfettered, and the most humble, spiritual, devout and prayerful men, that the world ever knew. If they were, our author seems disposed to favor their views; if they were not, if they did not know more than "all the wise men who flourished in the days of Watts, Guyse, Gill, Secker, Potter, Doddridge, Newton, Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Jenyns, Witherspoon, Hopkins, Styles, Watson and Paley, etc. etc.," then, he will have nothing to do with them. The question with him is not whether some of their leading views are scrip