Will my friend Remington think of these things, and reflect whether it is a love of truth or of victory that prompts him to employ objections so fatal to every thing pure and lovely and of good report. As ever, yours,

THOMAS J. SAWYER.

LETTER XX.

Dear Sir-The seventh objection with which you favor us is that "Universalism is unscriptural ;"- -an objection much more easily made than proved. You denounce it, however, as unscriptural, and plausible only as it is successful in pergerting the word of God. To make this manifest to your readers, you adopt a somewhat thread-bare, but at the same time, a marvellously short-hand method. You select ten or twelve of the popular proof texts of your favorite dogma which you arrange in a column under the title of The Holy Scriptures. In another column you present us with the same passages as you, and those from whom you copied, think "they should stand in The Creed of the Universalists. Under this latter head, Mark xvi. 16, reads thus: "He that believeth not shall be saved." John iii. 35: "He that believeth not the Son shall see life, and the wrath of God shall not abide on him." 2 Thess. i. 9: "The wicked shall not be punished, but rewarded with everlasting happiness.' "Hades in Luke xvi. 23, is rendered grave instead of hell, and so also is Gehenna, Matt. x/28; xxiii. 15, 33.

Really, friend Remington, this is but a shallow business, not very honorable either to your heart or your head. In the first place, you know, or you ought to know, that from the beginning to the end, this is a graceless and inexcuseable misrepresentation of Universalism, exhibiting a pitiable ignorance of its character and expositions of the Bible, or else a mean attempt to impose, upon the public credulity. You assume that these several passages mean precisely what the unlearned

and unthinking have been taught and suppose them to mean. You take it for granted that the word saved, for instance, means to be rescued from endless misery, and that hell uniformly signifies the place of such punishment. Hence you conclude that Universalism is guilty of "palpable perversions of the word of God." All this, however, is utterly destitute of proof, and whether you are aware of the fact or not, men who are well qualified to produce it, are singularly indisposed to make the attempt. I do not make this remark to your disparagement; though I may be allowed to hint that had you and your advisers known more on the subject, the Willet-st. lectures would never have appeared in print.

The remark introduced in this connexion that you would not preach Universalism if you believed it, unless first convinced of the infallibility of your own judgment, is deserving a slight notice; not merely because you make this declara tion, but because I am led to think it quite common in your denomination. The late Dr. Fisk once expressed the same sentiment. Perhaps, however, the import of such a remark was not fully comprehended by either you or him. If a man would not preach Universalism if he believed it, should we not be justified in suspecting that he might preach Methodism or something else, even if he did not believe it? Besides, how shall we know that such a one does not now believe Universalism? True, he denies it, but that is to be expected, for he openly avows that he would not preach, and Of course would not confess, even if he believed it! Whether this is christian conscientiousness or accursed hypocrisy, you and your friends may decide; but for myself, I pray God I may ever have the honesty to preach what I believe. I had rather err with a good conscience, than to hold the truth in unrighteousness.

The ironical commendation which you here tender Universalists for their want of missionary zeal, is peculiarly unfortunate. You acknowledge that we are diligent in the dissemination of our faith, while we are perpetually opposed by all the self-styled orthodox denominations in the land. We are not idle, therefore, though we "do not send out missionaries to

Africa and other unhealthy climes." If we are doing nothing among the heathen abroad, we are exploding some heathen errors at home. But how long, allow me to ask, has the great Methodist denomination been "animated with a very active spirit of missionary zeal"? How many missionaries do they now support in foreign countries? What good are those missionaries doing? Still farther, what are you doing at home? Is your denomination increasing in numbers and knowledge and virtue? On the contrary, is it not, with all its missionary zeal, and all "the saving influence" of the dogma of endless misery, at a stand-still, and obviously taking on the aspect of internal discord, decay and ruin?

Your eighth objection is derived from the not very obvious, but still assumed fact, that "the apostles and primitive ministers of the gospel cannot have believed in Universalism.” This is proved by asking whether any one can suppose that they would have submitted to so many privations, hardships and sufferings in such a cause; whether the people would have persecuted them for preaching such a doctrine; and finally, whether their preaching could have produced such wonderful effects if it had embraced Universalism. Let us

glance at these questions separately.

1. "Can any one believe that the apostles would have submitted to nakedness, cold, hunger, thirst, disgrace, poverty, bonds, imprisonments and martyrdom, for preaching Universalism?" The question clearly involves an absurdity in the view of my friend, Mr. Remington; and no wonder; for a professed minister of the gospel, who can unblushingly avow that he would not preach Universalism if he believed it, must of necessity think it impossible for the apostles to submit to any inconvenience, the slightest even, in its promulgation! You seem to think that the only thing which can urge a man to preach any truth whatever, is the fear of hell-fire. This is the only motive whose power you are willing to acknowledge. Still you might reflect that God has constituted and endowed some mortals so strangely that they are actually capable of making sacrifices for the happiness of their fellow creatures without being driven to it by the terrors of endless damna

tion! And I cannot but think that Paul and the other apostles were individuals of that number. "The love of Christ," said he, "constraineth us ;"-" for therefore we both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of them that believe." He exhorted his brethren to look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of their faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame. In short, I remember no passage where any inspired writer intimates that the apostles or primitive ministers of the gospel were actuated by a belief in the dogma of endless misery. On the contrary, it was the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, the love of Christ constraining them, the love of their fellow men urging them on: they spoke as if they were the partakers of a new and higher life, of a deep and fervent charity which embraced a world, and which taught them not to seek their own good exclusively, but to go out preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ to every creature. They had learned that their home was in heaven, and of course they did not count their life dear to them so that they might finish their course with joy, and the ministry which they had received to testify of the grace of God.

Reflect for one moment how you rob the apostles of their honór, and disgrace your own character, by contending against the Universalist, that love to God and love to man, deep and pure and divine, is not sufficient to furnish a motive for all the labors which even they performed and all the sacrifices they made.

2. "Can any one believe that the people would have inflicted these punishments or sufferings on the apostles for preaching the glad tidings that all should surely be admitted into the kingdom of heaven?" Here is another marvel to the eye of the pastor of the Willet street church. Perhaps I can explain it. People are not generally much offended at the preaching which assures them of their individual salvation; but there is in every age a large class of men whose rage and hate can be excited by nothing so readily as by preaching that God is the Father and that Christ is the Savior of all other

men as well as themselves!

The Scribes and Pharisees of

our Lord's day afford a striking illustration of this fact. Had Christ preached that they were God's favorites, and his only beloved, and that He would damn the whole world beside, think you he would have been crowned with thorns and nailed to the cross? No; he would have been hailed by them as the Sent of God! But alas! Jesus of Nazareth wrought miracles for the poor, and the poor had the gospel preached to them; he ate with publicans and sinners, and showed himself to be their friend. He taught that God is kind to the unthankful and to the evil; and the result was such as might have been expected; these pious and praying souls, who trusted that they were righteous and despised others, persecuted the Savior from village to village, and from city to city, and rested not till they crucified him between two thieves!

As it was then, so is it now. We are not wanting men of the same temper and spirit in this age and this country, as were engaged in the persecutions of Christ and his apostles. True, you tell us, "the most devoted men of God received the apostles with open arms, and gave every demonstration that was possible of their love and attachment. But the wicked hated them and did all they could to injure them and prevent their spreading the doctrines of the gospel." But pray, who were these "wicked?" Were they not the most religious people, the piously orthodox of that day? And these "devoted men of God," who received the apostles with open arms, were the heretics, the off-scouring of the earth, the despised and down-trodden of their age. And how is it now? Do not those who assume much of the religion of the land, the pious and praying people, (I mean such as have piety and prayers to boast of,) oppose and persecute Universalists, and for the same reasons that the Pharisees of old persecuted the disciples of Christ? Who are they that wish to deprive Universalists of the name of christians, and even of the privileges of citizenship? Are they "the wicked," or are they "the most devoted christians"? Who hears any objections to a man or a sect that believes that only a very few will be saved?Preach partialism and you preach to please the corrupt heart.