commonly called intuitions. Universalists have made liberal use of all these methods of argument. As an illustration of the method first named, the reader's mind will readily recur to the several "proof-texts," which were much resorted to in the more distinctively controversial period of our faith; as examples of the kind which we have called the Scripture-inferential, we may refer to those arguments for the ultimate holiness of the human family, which were based upon the divine paternity, the disciplinary purposes of punishment, and the general spirit of the gospel,-all of which points are made clear in the Scriptures; as illustrations of the philosophical argument, we may refer to those conclusions which Universalists have drawn from the nature of the human soul, particularly in its innate love of holiness, and fitness for it, -facts which we have been accustomed to think are clearly cognizable by reason, and conclusions which seem logically deducible from such facts.

We need not here attempt to show whether any one of these three forms of argument is best. It is enough to say, that we deem every one, in its own way, legitimate; and if well made out, conclusive of the point. The preference which any one person may have for one method over the other two, is perhaps a matter of taste, and also of habit; it would certainly be narrow and overbearing in him to assume that every other person must have the same predilection as himself, and so make use of the same process of argument. The same diversity of argument, and the same occasion for each man to accord to every other the right of choice in its selection, appears in other departments of belief. A skilful naturalist may determine the character of a particular tree by inspecting its roots; another might reach the same result more readily by scrutinizing its fibre; and a third, with a view to the same. end, might prefer a piece of its bark.

But of all the three forms of argument named, in connection with theological doctrine, we are here desirous of noting this important characteristic: not one of them is the popular argument,-that is to say, not one of them appeals directly to the common mind, or can be fully used by it. The textual argument requires a critical familiarity with the letter of Scripture, which very few

except professed biblical students can posses. Stuarts, Clarkes, Balfours and Nortons are not numerous in any sect. None but disciplined and cautious reasoners can be trusted-nor these to any great extent-in the matter of deducing doctrinal conclusions from Scripture prin ciples. Such minds as Edwards, Ballou and Dewey are by no means common. It requires a very pure reason, and extraordinary precision in reasoning, to educe theo logical convictions from "eternal verities" and intuitions. Such intellects as Butler of the past, and Martineau and Newman of the present-and these three quite unlike one another in most points of intellect are rarely to be met with; and when they do appear, they must not be followed any farther than they are intelligently appre hended. It is the same in the case of natural history supposed. With the exception of such applications of the methods of inquiry as are very familiar, how very few persons are competent to decypher the character of a tree from its root, its fibre, or even its bark. Even natural science is too abstruse to permit the world many such heads as Cuvier, Agassiz, and Guyot. And does not theology open as abstruse a region for thought, and demand the exercise of as vigorous intellect as natural science?

We must make still further use of our illustration. It is only the professional that can read the character of a tree in its very substance. But most any one may know it by its fruit! It is only the scholastic, the critical, the profound, that can see a doctrine of religion in the Scripture they quote; in the principle which Scripture affirms; or in the necessary truths which reason apprehends. But most any one may see the truth or the falsity of a doctrine in its fruit. The tendency of theological doctrine, its effects in the human soul, its relation to the development of human character;-all this is matter of experience; it gives an experimental test; it presents the only form of argument which can properly be termed the popular argument.

It ought always to be borne in mind that the practicalness of religion is one of its central characteristics. Its relation to human action in the growth and exhibition of character is direct and ultimate. It is difficult to give

this proposition the prominence it deserves. It is radi cally more than to say, that the doing the best work, the developing of the best character is a proof that a doctrine is true; the proposition says, that the doing of all this is the doctrine's truth-not so much a proof of the truth as the very substance of that truth. And until we get at this, which is but the full force of the proposition, we do not, as it seems to us, really apprehend what is meant by religion as a practical matter. Were it the ultimate aim of religion to entertain the intellect, its essential character would be theoretical; and the first labor in the matter of proof would be to consider its relations to the intellect. But inasmuch as its ultimate object is the development of true character, its essential characteristic is practicalness; and so the popular form of argument must be a judgment based upon its results. However it may stand with biblical scholars, logicians and speculatists, Universalism with the mass of men will be judged of almost solely by its work in the development of human character. If it educates a false character, the great body of human beings will repu diate it, and this too in spite of any ingenious array of Scripture, inference, or intuition. If it is seen to work out the true type of human character, the great body of human beings will in the end accept it, and this, however skilfully sophists may argue against it, and biblicists turn upon it Scripture "threatenings." And we rejoice that it is so. If our doctrine cannot prove itself, we do not feel called upon to perform this important office for it. The ultimate, and as we have said, the decisive question is, What is the relation of Universalism to the development of human character?

That doctrine is true and "worthy of all acceptation" which is fitted to work out the highest type of character; and of existing theologies, that makes the nearest approach to the true one, which in its ultimate results comes nearest this type of character. It will then greatly serve our present purpose can we in any measure determine what the highest possible type of human_character is. We are among those who believe that an Exemplar of this character has once appeared on the earth; and from the brief yet, we may say, exhaustive and graphic record of the facts in which that character was expressed, we deem it

not difficult to determine what principles of theology it illustrated. Does any one need argument to be convinced that the ruling and moulding principles of that character were perfect trust in God as the Infinite Love, whom sinners as well as saints might address by the appellation of Father; as the impartial Benefactor, whose favors were bestowed alike upon the evil and the good; as the Fountain of forgiveness, to whom it would be proper to pray, that even the vilest might be forgiven; as the Pattern of excellence, whom man was to imitate by loving his enemies, and overcoming evil with good; as the Shepherd of souls, that would leave the ninety and nine already in the fold of righteousness, and seek for the lost until found and restored? We deem it much on the score of biblical proof, that Christ affirmed these principles which make the very substance of Universalist theology; but with an eye now to the popular argument, we deem it vastly more that the perfect character of Christ was simply the embod iment of these principles.

It is a wretched mistake to suppose that the highest type of character is necessarily expressed by what are commonly known as outward forms of worship, accompa nied, it may be, with much feeling. Orthodox piety, on this account, is sometimes thought to make a nearer approach to the true standard than is indicated by the less obtrusive, and we may frankly add less enthusiastic practices which Universalism incites. This notion, if a just one, would certainly be fatal to Universalism. Our theology, it is freely confessed, does not incite as marked an enthusiasm, as frequent a resort to the outward or formal observance of religion, as Orthodoxy. But let not our Orthodox brother triumph over our concession; for the Catholic leads him in the particular named quite as much as he leads the Universalist. Nor let the Catholic exult; for what is his observance of visible forms of worship to the Mahometan's; and, still again, what is the Mahometan compared to the Hindoo? We should not accept the proverb without some qualification, but there is a basis of fact in the statement, "Ignorance is the mother of devotion!" Confining our attention to the Protestant sects, we leave it with the intelligent observer to decide, as his eye glances along the array of sects including

17

the Swedenborgians, Unitarians, Universalists, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Free-Will Baptists, if the amount and energy of exterior worship is not in almost exact proportion to the want of culture, refinement of manners, tenderness of devout feeling, and genuine spir ituality of sentiment!

We do not wish to be understood as intimating that all who profess to be Universalists are men of culture, refined manners, and genuine spirituality of thought and aspiration. Among this body of professors, are undoubt edly very many who have no sort of title to the namepersons who find that respectability requires them to be something, and so conclude to patronize a theology that is "liberal"-persons who have never established by any trait of character a claim to profess any form of faith known among men. There are also a much more worthy class of persons, who, however, have been enlisted by some one feature of the Universalist faith, and not by its principles as a whole, and whose exhibition of it in character is therefore disjointed and fractional-good indeed as far as it goes, but not comprehensive enough to be taken as a test of the complete results of which the whole faith is capable. We have in mind however persons who have received Universalism with some approach to its entirety, and in their case the result is of a nature eminently conclusive of its power to mould the human soul into the highest conceivable type of religious excellence. But such is the general imperfection of human nature in its present stage of development, that such examples of the true character must be rare. Nevertheless, a single genuine example of the full result of our theology, considered as an experimental argument, is conclusive of the point.

Orthodox piety is more noisy and spasmodic than what is developed by Universalism. This fact is easily accounted for. Orthodoxy appeals to the fears of men; it calls the selfish nature into action; its aim is to quicken a sense of danger, and excite efforts to escape from an awful doom. It is easy enough to excite people in this way. The cry of fire on board a ship at sea will naturally produce a sensation. It is a fact, that the higher part of man's nature is not as susceptible of phrensied emotions as his selfish part. Visions of prospective excellence, the