to the place this doctrine occupies in our faith, the importance we attach to it, the grounds on which we predicate and defend it, etc. etc. But he who consults the "text-book" of our author, will be wholly disappointed in his reasonable expectations on this subject. Whether the pastor of the Seventh Presbyterian Church really knew nothing on the point, or whether it did not consist with his design to tell what he knew, our readers can judge as well as we. That we believe in the ultimate holiness and happiness of all mankind he has asserted, and proved most incontrovertibly, too, by the testimony of Hosea Ballou and Thomas Whittemore! Let his readers thank him for this important information.

True, after revealing to his brethren this astonishing piece of intelligence, he adds, "at what time this anticipated result will take place, does not fully appear. All however agree in the belief that it will not be delayed beyond the resurrection.... But how long a time will elapse before the resurrection they do not pretend to say." Hear that, ye "students in theology," and our author's "brethren in the ministry," and wonder at the immense and "heart-sickening" labor which he must have undergone to have brought forth such marvels as these!Should they wish any further information on the subject, they may refer to our Savior's language, Matt. xxii. 30, Luke xx. 36, and to that of

St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. where the views of Universalists are very fully expressed.

"The reader, however," says our author, p.

40, "who has not made himself familiar with this crafty system, will, doubtless, be ready to ask, how do these preachers dispose of the numerous passages which affirm the everlasting punishment of those who die in their sins ?"— Very true and our readers who are not familiar with our crafty author will also be ready to ask, how does he answer this question? This easy task he accomplishes with singular facility in the space of a little more than four 12mo. pages!

"In the first place, then," says he, "they maintain that the Old Testament says little or nothing of a future immortal state." This is proved by five lines from "the younger Ballou," who says that "the future state of existence was not clearly revealed till the time of our Savior," and that "the views which the Old Testament had afforded of this most interesting subject are faint and indistinct, like a prospect amid the obscurity of night." The heresy, not to say infidelity, which the keen scent of our erudite author seems to detect in these lines, tempts us to quote a short paragraph from Professor Stuart's Exegtical Essays, p. 122, who says, "that to represent the Old Testament as determining the future state either of the righteous or of the wicked with the same clearness or fullness as the New

Testament does, savors either of prejudice, or of an imperfect acquaintance with the Jewish sacred Records. Where is the specific difference between the future state of the righteous and the wicked fully set forth in the Hebrew Scriptures? Where are the separate abodes in Shcol for each, particularly described? I know not; nor do I believe any one can inform me. In the New Testament all is clear. Life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel.'" Let this suffice on this point. If our author wishes to dispute the question whether "the younger Ballou" misstated the fact in relation to the Old Testament we respectfully refer him to Professor Stuart, and could, if necessary, introduce to his acquaintance many other eminent orthodox authorities to the same purpose. What is unfortunate for our author is, that Prof. Stuart himself thinks the Old Testament doctrine of the future state so exceedingly dark that the specific difference between the condition of the righteous and the wicked is no where fully set forth, nor their separate abodes in Sheol particularly described.

But this is not the worst of the case. The Universalists not only agree with Prof. Stuart, and many other most eminent orthodox divines on this subject, but they also maintain that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, makes no part of the Mosaic religion! The re

sult, if this position can be sustained, is very obvious. It leaves the people of God for four thousand years without the moral doctrine of endless torments. That the Universalists entertain this view of the subject is proved by several quotations from their writers, who contend that temporal sanctions were the only sanctions made known to the Jews.

"But why not quote Heb. xi. as in point?" inquires our discriminating author. In point of what? we inquire in return. Our author seems to have confounded two very different questions. Whether the Old Testament clearly reveals a future state, is one question, and upon this Heb. xi. has some bearing: but whether the doctrine of future rewards and punishments is taught in the Old Testament, is another question quite distinct from the former, and to which the chapter before referred to, does not apply at all. It is very obvious that if a future state was not clearly revealed in the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of future rewards and punishments could not be. At the same time, it is easy to see, that future rewards and punishments do not necessarily follow a clear revelation of a future state. The truth of the latter does not involve the truth of the former.

Altogether overlooking this rather obvious distinction our author enjoys a complete triumph over Universalists, by convicting them of great in

consistency. "Now it happens," says he, pp. 41, 42,"very unfortunately for these innovators, that some of their most important proof texts are derived from the Old Testament, e. g. Gen. xxii. 18. To be consistent they must admit that here is no hint of future rewards, except in this world. The same must be admitted of Ps. xxii. 27, Isa. xxv. 8. Before appealing to these again, I would advise them, first to settle the question, whether or not the Old Testament sheds any light on the immortal state; and if so, how much."

Thanks, gentle brother, for this clear-sighted advice. But indulge us in two remarks. In the first place, Universalists have not been accustomed to regard Gen. xxii. 18, or any other passages of either the Old Testament or the New, as promising immortal happiness in the form of reward for man's good works! They have been taught to contemplate this unspeakable blessing as the pure GIFT OF GOD, and to thank him for it. They are, therefore, consistent enough to admit that in the passages referred to there is " no hint of future rewards"; and farther, if our author had known as much of Universalism as he professes to know, he would not have betrayed himself by thus attempting to involve them in the charge of inconsistency.

But secondly: We conceive that Gen. xxii. 18, may furnish very clear proof of Universalism