crowded assembly-what though all were doomed to fall under the rising power of Macedon, ultimately to be trampled under foot by the hostile tread of Roman legions? The outward and embodied temple of Grecian greatness indeed perished, but the legacy of her wisdom, her art, above all her glorious example, attesting the triumphs of individual might, was bequeathed to the world.

G. H. E.

ART. IX.

Importance of Universalism in Religious Culture.

THERE has been a good deal of discussion, in the religious world, on the final condition of mankind. In the present article, we shall have occasion to inquire into the degree of importance that belongs to the topic itself. How far is it a matter of rational interest and of religious power?

We will first observe, however, that the phrase "final condition," has been sometimes objected to, as implying a state in which mankind are to be fixed forever in one unvarying mood, without the possibility of farther growth, improvement, or of any free action whatsoever. It is hardly necessary to say that this is not what we mean, nor what is usually meant, by that expression. We say the "final," or eternal, "condition" of men, because there must be something tantamount to this, for all the purposes of human thought. If our existence is to be immortal, it must resolve itself into eternal well-being, or eternal ill-being. One of these two issues is before every man. So that, for all practical and logical uses, we may comprize the whole in the common form of inquiry, Whether all are to be eventually saved, or a part only.

Now, of how great moment is it to our essential wants, and especially to our religious views and character, that we should have any definite answer to the question, or any clear understanding of the subject? It would seem easy to pronounce, at once, whether the degree of importance,

that belongs to it, is great or small. Yet we perceive that different classes of thinkers differ considerably in the weight they give it. Some appear to treat the whole matter as one of little importance in comparison with other points in speculative theology. We wish to ascertain the place, be it high or low, which it really holds among the several topics of religion, that we may regard and use it according to its worth. For if we make any very wide mistake in this respect,-if we pass it over as a trifle when it really is important, or place it among the highest concerns when it is really insignificant, it cannot fail to work injuriously on our minds, by deranging the action of those truths which have been committed to us as "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ;" and, for the same reason, it will misdirect the influence that we exert, by these means, on the hearts of others.

In the view of common sense, at least, there are few questions in theology which appear so momentous, as that of universal salvation, or partial salvation. Put it how we will, let the alternative to the salvation of all, be either the endless damnation, or the annihilation, or some undecided tendency, of a part, still it is the question of men's eternal and infinite interests. Such it is seen to be at a glance. Of course, it takes hold of the profoundest feelings of our nature. The eternal well-being of our race is felt to be a matter of greater moment than we can estimate. We believe that, in point of fact, the question always comes home to the people at large with the peculiar force of absolute sacredness. We believe, indeed, that every earnest mind, which has not been sophisticated by artificial and unnatural modes of judging, recognizes it, on the first suggestion, as involving concerns of immeasurable importance, such as it would be the height of recklessness, as well as of inhumanity, to disparage.

How does it appear under a more critical examination? If we consider the question in this way, we find it does not lose its importance; we only perceive the reasons more distinctly why it must ever be regarded with solemn interest. Whether all, or only a part, shall eventually be saved, is a question that can of course never cease to command the very earnest attention of men, so long as they have any sympathy in each others' welfare, or in each

others' moral condition. Then, again, the question is always felt to have no little bearing on the assurance of one's own future blessedness, and especially on his anxiety with respect to the eternal well-being of his friends. We need not, however, illustrate so obvious a fact. We return to its relations of a broader kind. We are to consider that the human heart is so constituted as to be incapable of resting satisfied with a prospect of ultimate good, to the exclusion of a single fellow-creature. There is, in every man, a sensibility for others, without which no social element could exist; let it be pressed upon violently enough, or long enough, and it starts into action even in the most hardened and cruel. That mysterious fellow-feeling, which underlies all our personal likes, dislikes, and indifferences, is as the net-work of nerves in a living body; it is touched by the joys and sufferings, and by the moral condition too, of every creature that partakes of our common nature. Its presence is demonstrated by every emotion of pity, and by every enterprize of benevolence. And as this is one of the essential elements of our being, like conscience, it acts with a deeper and more permanent force, than do the sallies of passion and selfishness, by which it is frequently over-ridden for a time. We cannot but see how vitally it is concerned in the question before us. In fact, this is the question, above all others, to the sympathetic portion of our nature. And a religion, that would meet our necessities, must respect the benevolent affections as sacred.

Attempts have indeed been made to void the importance which this unappeasable need in us of universal salvation fixes upon our subject. It has been contended that the sensibility, of which we have spoken, may be done away, in the present state or in the next, by the perfect developement within us of the Christian spirit. But we know, on the contrary, that the spirit of Christianity raises this fellow-feeling to its highest power, or elevates it into the intense principle of charity; as we see in the case of Jesus Christ, and as may be seen also in the entire history of his religion. When, or where, did the gospel ever prevail, without giving a new impulse in this direction? Historically, as well as Scripturally, "charity" is proved to be one of "the greatest" among the Chris

tian elements; "it never faileth," even when faith is lost in knowledge, and hope in fruition. It must continue, both here and hereafter, to demand the purification and blessedness of our whole race. We say, of our whole race; for to exercise charity, as a principle, is to exercise it toward all, as to be really just, or good, or true, is to be so to all,-principles being universal in their relations. We e see, therefore, that the everlasting condition of our fellow-men, must, next to our own, be for ever a matter that takes a strong hold of our feelings.

These considerations show how deep and permanent is the ground on which our question stands attached to the human heart. But to all this we must add, that a large share of the interest we feel in the fact of a future state, is measured by the extent of well-being or ill-being we associate with the idea. Life hereafter, if wholly abstracted in our minds from these predicates, could neither be desired, nor feared, nor cared for in any way. And just so far as we go towards divesting it of these properties, or so far even as we render them indistinct, we of course lessen the appreciation of a future state, and weaken its power over us. This would be to paralyze one of the strongest energies with which religion operates on the heart. It is pleaded by some that we have no need to be specific in our views of the final condition of mankind; that the demands of our nature are sufficiently answered simply by rejecting the old dogma of positive everlasting torment, and believing in the capability of all to progress indefinitely hereafter, without troubling ourselves as to what they will actually do in this respect, or as to what will actually become of them. Now, we have shown that this is not consistent with the Christian spirit, nor with the natural exercise of human affections. But even if the mood of indifference, here supposed, were compatible with the healthful state of the soul, as we are sure it is not, it would still remain to be asked, What reverential and powerful interest can we feel for such a future life? and what commanding influence can the prospect of it have? Its vagueness dissipates its force, and prevents its concentration upon our hearts, as the clouds that overshadow the sun absorb his beams, and make it impossible to gather them into a burning-point. We can kindle nothing in this way.

If the considerations now submitted are just, they admonish us of the bad consequences of habitually treating the subject in any such way as to sink its importance in the public mind. Just so far as this is done, it reduces the problem of "life and immortality " itself into a matter of indifference; and, so far, it goes towards repeating the experiments of the ancient Stoics and modern Pantheists to rid us of all interest in the question of a future life. Indeed, it is the Pantheistic element, lurking in many of our Theologico-Philosophical speculatists, which makes them ambitious of laxness in this respect. One would suppose that the results, which have always followed those experiments, whenever they have been tried in past ages, would be enough to deter us from an attempt, so sure to be futile in the end, and so destructive of all depth and earnestness in its immediate effects. We must remember that the question of human happiness or human woe, of man's holiness or sin hereafter, is inextricably inwoven in the idea of a future existence; and that to disparage the one is to disparage the other. Any studied. practice of waiving that question off, or of reducing its weight, or of withdrawing it into the back-ground and keeping it there, or any neglect to give it the prominent place it naturally holds among religious topics, will prove, in the issue, to be not only a grave theological error, but a serious moral evil. It will not only tantalize all those imperative wants of ours that relate to eternal destinies; it will affect other interests. For our views of the final condition of mankind are vitally connected with the common sympathies and benevolent affections of our nature. They do much towards educating them, and towards forming our characters in this respect. We do not say that they are the sole agent in the work; for there are a thousand other influences that coöperate, or counteract. But they obviously have an essential part to perform, and they accomplish it for good or evil, accordingly as they are right or wrong. It is a remark of writers on human character, that, as a general rule, different nations and bodies of men, are stern and cruel, or kind and amiable, accordingly as their religious views of the future world are of the one or of the other description.