We are safe in saying that since the beginning of the eighteenth century, there has been a steady improvement in novels. Not but we had powerful books of this class before this epoch, but the general tone of the work was not what it has been since. Has the novel reached its culmination, or are we still progressing? Some of its characteristics we have considered; let us look at one single ingredient-that of humor. Sterne was one of the greatest wits of his time; yet though he was a clergyman, his humor was broad and often indecent. His sentiment was tinged with affectation; tears came easily from his eyes, but the fount was shallow. His characters may some of them be immortal, but his books will not be. Our children will be familiar with the names of Widow Wadman, Uncle Toby, and Doctor Slop; but it will be a rather misty acquaintanceship. We will not be likely to put into their hands Tristram Shandy or the Sentimental Journey. Sterne, it is true, is but one example, yet he is a good representative of his time. Later times produced more genial humorists and better men. Still wit was rather brought into the novel as a sort of a flavor, something necessary to make the thing palatable; and witty things were often said for wit's sake alone. But now humor is often the greatest power of the novel. It is always aimed at something, and always hits it. It is more powerful in many ways than argument or reason, for it goes into places impregnable to either of these forces.

The humor of Dickens and Thackeray and Reade and Curtis and Holmes, is never broad nor coarse; it is always delicate, and has a vein of sound, healthy philosophy running through it. It has more of the tenderness and pathos of Hood, though Hood was no novelist, than of the qualities of Sterne; and though sometimes very sarcastic, it is a healthy sarcasm, and is never applied where it is not needed. It never is witty for the sake of provoking a laugh; it never wastes ammunition for the sake of making a noise; but every joke, every pun, every thrust is aimed at something, and always tells. We laugh at Mr. and Mrs. Potephur, but beneath all we feel that there is more truth than fun there. So we see that in this single ingredient of the novel, we have the same characteristic that the novel as a whole possesses. They are the characteristics of the age;-intenseness, practicability, the desire of bringing every force to bear upon the purpose in hand.

Let us look for a moment at the comparative morality of the novel of the present and of the time we have been considering. In genius, imagination and power, the novel of the eighteenth century was far superior, as we have said, to the early novel. But in point of morals, much remained to be done; and although it had not the open dissoluteness of the early time, its tone was not high. Indeed we think one strong argument we can use in favor of our novel is its high moral tone. Our representative works of this class we are not afraid to put into the hands of our children, and this is more than can be said of all works on theology.

In the early part of the nineteenth century, we perceive a change for the better in respect to the moral tone of the novel. Female influence undoubtedly had much to do with this change; for though there had been female novelists before this time, never, till now, had the feminine element entered so largely into this class of literature. Such writers as Mrs. Opie, Miss Edgeworth, Miss Austen, and Hannah More, must have exerted a good influence. With Scott, too, came a great improvement in novels. He raised the standard more than any other man; he threw the mantle of enchantment over the past; his vivid imagination and correct taste glorified every subject he touched. But Scott lacked what our novelists possess. Progressive he was not, nor universal; what he did was for his time, his country and himself, and he has rendered them all immortal. He stands there in his niche in the temple of fame, his light shining clear and undimmed; we go about with our torches hither and thither; now up in high places, now down in dark corners; now flashing upon folly enthroned in wisdom's rightful seat, now lighting up the gloom where virtue and poverty strive with vice and crime; wherever a torch is needed, there some adventurous torch-bearer is ready to go. One light streams out from its sacred niche down through all the ages, and men come up and worship it; the other goes about among men, and whether heeded or unheeded, it does its appointed work.

There is yet another thought in connection with the novel of the present time. If, as a late writer says, "the greatest benefit we owe to the artist, whether poet, painter, or novelist, is the extension of our sympathies," then, indeed, should the novel of the present age have the pre-eminence,

for at no other time have our feelings of common humanity for all classes been so fully enlisted. Never before have the sufferings of the poor in England and the oppressed in our own country been so well portrayed; never before have the followers of fashion and frivolity so keenly felt the shafts of ridicule and sarcasm; never before have the virtues of common life and domestic duty been rendered so beautiful and attractive. Where is the truth better exemplified that an upright, pure-minded, whole-souled man is your true gentle man, than in "John Halifax?" Where is that pride of birth and station which overlooks and undervalues honest labor, better overcome and rebuked than in Mrs. Gaskell's “North and South?" Where is the beauty of a woman's character, her strength to resist temptation, her enduring love and faithfulness, better portrayed than in that powerful novel, "Jane Eyre?" Where do truth and straight-forwardness, the tremendous power of the man of principle, who never hesitates, never stoops to the slightest evasion, better shine forth than in " White Lies?" And where is the great principle which has shaken a nation to its centre brought so powerfully to our very souls, as in "Uncle Tom?"

As one studies the works of the old masters, so we study the books which other times have produced; we look upon them with respect and reverence, for they have been proved and handed down to us; time has set his approving seal upon them, criticism passes them by yet harms them not. But this reverence for the past need not make us blind to to the merits of the present. Though one has the works of a Raphael or an Angelo in his possession, no less dear is the sketch of his childhood's home, or the pictured face of his mother.

The books of our time are the fruits of our time; if they have faults they are the faults of the age, and when the age improves they will improve. We have hope for our novels, and think they are progressing. The young, awkward, unattractive girl, has grown to the delicate, refined woman. She takes broader views of life and humanity; let us hope that years will mature her powers and give her added strength; so that our children may gather wisdom and instruction, pleasure and profit, from her lips. And let us hope, also, that some of the many thoughts she has given us, which have wiled away many a weary hour, imparted

strength to many a despairing heart, and lightened many a darkened path, may not be lost amid the brightness of the future, but may go down to posterity with those "immortal things that are not born to die."

N. T. M.

ART. XVIII.

Literary Notices.

1. Discussion of the Scripturalness of Future Endless Punishment. Part I: The Affirmative, by Rev. Nehemiah Adams, D. D. Part II: The Negative, by Rev. Sylvanus Cobb. Boston. 1859. pp. 507.

IN the affirmative of this discussion-the substance of which is given in Mr. Cobb's reply, in the form of numerous and extended extracts-Dr. Adams makes a statement of several common-place objections to the doctrine of Universalism, and also brings forward the usual scripture texts relied upon by Calvinists, as affirming the doctrine of endless punishment. To all these Mr. Cobb replies at length,-as an interested party we may not say with what success. In reading the discussion, we have experienced but one regret that Mr. Cobb did not have an opportunity to exert his powers on the most plausible and forcible objections which have been urged against our faith. We do not doubt the general ability of Dr. Adams; we do not call in question his learning, usually considered to be of a high order; we do not doubt that he is capable of strong intellectual effort in some departments of theological inquiry. We can therefore be guilty of no disrespect when we say, that, as the antagonist of Universalism, he is out of his sphere. Certainly, in the work under notice, he has not done his cause justice. He has not stated the strongest arguments against our theology. Any intelligent Universalist can state a much stronger argument against Universalism than any of the threadbare objections which Dr. Adams has brought forward.

Further, the weaker argument is sometimes preferred to the stronger, even when both are in our author's mind. On this point we will give an example. Universalists have always respected the objection to their faith, based upon the presump

tion of endless sinning. They have felt, that this argumentresting upon a casual connection between sin and punishmentthrew upon them the burden of proof. In reply to it, the Universalist must lead off, and show it to be false the presumption in favor of endless sinning. Of course, being Universalists, we believe it possible to disprove this presumption; nevertheless, the work of disproving rested with the Universalist. But Dr. Adams voluntarily surrenders this presumption, and, in the affirmation of penal infliction for sin, takes upon himself the burden of proof. Let us be understood. Dr. Adams does not deny that the outraged conscience is the instrument of punishment. His position is, that it continues to be the avenger of guilt only through an arbitrary application of the divine power. His words are:

"If, therefore, there is to be, in the strict sense of the term, punisment after death, it would seem that there must, in the nature of things, be visitations upon the wicked of that which the Bible calls indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish.' While there must be in the sinner himself a state of things which will make these inflictions punishment, there must also be a mighty hand stretched out forever, to make the future condition of the wicked one of retribution. There is both error and truth in the common saying with many that future misery will proceed from conscience;-error, if it be supposed that conscience, left to itself, will occasion torment; for, if in this world, with so much to stimulate conscience, it so easily falls asleep, the provocations, and the necessity of self-defence, and redress, and all the bad influence of hell, must have the power totally to sear it ;but there is truth in the saying, if it be allowed that God is to visit the wicked in ways that will excite conscience against them; this would be infliction,' compared with which fire and brimstone, though the most appaling images of torture, we can easily conceive do not convey more terrible ideas of retribution." (p. 90.)

In this surrender of the natural argument, as based upon a presumed perpetuity of sin, and its inherent power to cause punishment, Dr. Adams has seriously weakened his cause. That his opponent knew how to dispose of the unwarranted assumption of a special infliction of punishment, the following extract will show:

"In this style our friend proceeds at considerable length to exhibit and elucidate his views of the miseries of hell, as being, in great part, positive inflictions by the hand of God. We stop