versalists steady to any point. And I believe this is a general impression on the public mind. It may be denied, I know, and like all other similar subjects which do not admit of demonstration, it must be left to the observation and judgment of those who are disposed to look into it. One thing, however, is certain; the system itself is very loose and indefinite: and we should of course infer that the arguments in favour of it must be so too. To prove that this is a loose and an indefinite system, we need only quote the language of Mr. Hosea Ballou, in his Treatise on the Atonement,* a work which has been triumphantly termed, unanswered, and unanswerable." He says,

perhaps the reader will say, he has read a number of authors on the doctrine of Universalism, and finds considerable difference in their systems. That I acknowledge is true.” (Mark, he acknowledges our objection true.) "But," he adds, "all agree in the main point, viz., that universal holiness and happiness is the great object of the Gospel plan." Mr. Ballou means undoubtedly that all men will finally be holy and happy. This is precisely what we say, that they assume the one desired, much desired point to be true, and then go about to prove it as they can; if one way will not do, another must; for the main point must stand at any rate. Mr. Ballou says farther: "As for the different ways in which individuals believe their work will be done, it

* More properly a treatise against the atonement.

proves nothing against the main point." Does it not? In my view it proves much against the main point; and for the following reasons:

1. Truth is clear and definite, but error is always confused. Truth starts from the same point, and moves in a direct line, but error is always changing its position and direction. The proofs of a true system are always consistent with each other, as well as with the system itself, but the arguments by which error is maintained, having no accurate, common measure among themselves, are therefore inconsistent and contradictory. Though the advocates of a false system may begin to build together on the same foundation, yet like the builders of ancient Babel, before they progress far their language becomes confounded, so that they can neither be understood by each other, nor by those around them. When therefore a doctrine is found to possess all these marks of error, it becomes at least very doubtful.

2. When the proofs of a system professedly founded on revelation vary so much, and are so contradictory in the hands of its supporters, this is almost demonstration that these proofs are not clearly revealed. If all men are ultimately to be saved, we should expect the thing itself, and the means by which it is to be brought about, would be revealed in the Bible; especially when the Scriptures are designed to reveal salvation. to man, and to point out to him the way by

which it is accomplished. Has infinite wisdom so failed in its work, as to blind the minds of the great body of believers in the Bible from the beginning until now, so that they have not believed in Universalism? And at last when some men have got a glimpse of the system, it is so darkly revealed that they differ in their views as widely as the poles, and their plans are as contradictory as truth and error!

3. This union in the main proposition, and this variety and contradiction in the proofs, very naturally lead us to the conclusion that the main proposition is first assumed as true, without regard to the proofs. Indeed the conviction seems almost irresistible, that if this main point had been reached by a chain of evidences that led to it, all who arrived at this conclusion would do it by pursuing a corresponding course; and therefore would support their position by corresponding arguments. On the contrary, when a point is assumed without proof, and its supporters are pressed for their reasons, we might expect the different individuals would bring up the best thing they could think of at the time, and when these were taken away they would resort to some other, and so would keep changing the character of their proofs precisely as Universalism now does. Such a course very justly brings suspicion upon a system. That edifice must be air-hung that is commenced at the top; and that system is

no better which starts with what ought to be the conclusions, and ends with the premises.

4. Once more. When a system in the hands of its advocates is continually changing its forms and its evidences, when it is obscure and indefinite in its parts and proofs, it is no breach of charity to conclude that its supporters themselves are afraid to define it, lest it should not bear examination. If they who have examined it so much, and therefore best know its strength, if those who extol it so highly, and profess to trust in it so confidently, dare not define it clearly, and arrange all its parts systematically, there is certainly strong presumption that they fear to venture an engagement on fair and open ground. If they can intrench themselves behind a rampart of negatives, and define nothing clearly, they have, at least, more hope that they shall avoid a general defeat. Mr. Ballou has acknowledged his fears on this point, and given our objection its full force. "I had been often solicited," he says in his Treatise on the Atonement, "to write and publish my general ideas on the Gospel, &c.; but I have declined, on the ground that it might be attended with disagreeable consequences, as it is impossible to determine whether the ideas which we entertain at the present time are agreeable to those which we shall be under the necessity of adopting after we have had more experience!" This is a very important concession, not only as it shows their system

to be of recent date, as we shall notice more particularly hereafter, but also as it shows the reason why Universalists dare not define their doctrine, they are afraid of disagreeable consequences,-they fear they shall be under the "necessity" of changing their ground, as indeed they have been. Who does not know that they have been "under the necessity," in very deed, of adopting new ideas, and varying the features and proofs of their system until the present day. And even now if one would attack it, he hardly knows what to attack; he finds it a very Proteus, it changes its shape before one can describe it; and after labouring long to prove it false, it is found to have assumed another form, and the man has lost all his labour. Like the fabled Hydra of antiquity, this system has many heads, and when one is cut off there are others left, and when these are assailed the former springs out anew. Not only does it change its shape, but like an ignis fatuus, it changes its place before one can get his hand on it. It stays nowhere long enough to be described and examined by the rule of truth, or attacked by the arguments of truth. If this doctrine is true, I should be glad to embrace it; but I certainly could never consent to embrace, I know not what. Universalists inform us what their system is, let them give a consistency to its parts, a distinct portraiture to its features, and a permanency to its proofs; then they may submit it

Let