Doctrine of Future Retribution." These, with many fugitive pieces and some smaller works, form the sum of his productions.

As a writer, Mr. Ballou cannot lay claim to even ordinary merit. There is a looseness and want of depth and chasteness about his style, an appearance of sophistry and evasion in his arguments, and a tedious and even disgusting repetition of the same illustrations, especially those of the family relation and the history of Joseph, which will secure for all his productions a place in oblivion almost as soon as his head is pillowed in death; and it is a matter of astonishment that even now works of so little merit in any view can exert so great an influence.

Thomas Whittemore, principal editor of the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine, stands next on the list of Universalist writers. His principal works are, "The Ancient and Modern Histories of Universalism," and "Notes on the Parables." Neither of these works ranks high. The first is doubtless the best; and even this does not attract a very general notice.

"Balfour's Inquiries," perhaps, claim attention next. These, as well as his answer to Hudson, seem, of late, to have gone into disrepute. They are, among books, what Wat Tyler and Jack Straw, heroes of the time of Richard II., were among generals: powerful without strength, influential without merit; and, in their illiteracy, the guiding spirits of a blinded host.

The before-named are Ultra-Universalist authors. The Universal Restorationist sentiment has found lately, in Charles Hudson, its principal defender. He wrote, a few years since, the treatise to which Mr. Balfour replied. Of the character of this work we are not able to speak definitely, having had no opportunity of perusing it. Besides the books already named which have been published against this system, there are others of modern date. Rev. Bernard Whitman has given to the world a treatise, entitled, "Letters to a Universalist," which is well written; and presents the argument against Ultra-Universalism in such a form, and with such force, as to render it truly valuable. Mr. Whitman was probably a Restorationist, though a clergyman of the Unitarian Church; but he has, nevertheless, struck a blow at Ultraism from which it cannot soon recover. The principal treatises, however, against this error, as well as the strongest arguments in its favor, are to be found in the records of the public controversies which have taken place. Of these there have been several. One was carried on about ten years since, in the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine, between Rev. 0. Scott, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and Thomas Whittemore, editor of the Trumpet. This was kept up until the columns were unceremoniously closed against Mr. Scott, and it, of course, was broken off before the parties had finished their work. Mr. Whittemore afterward had an oral discussion with Rev. Mr. Braman, of Danvers. This took place in 1833. The report does no honor to either party. The speeches on both sides were full of the most contemptible nonsense and quibbling; and well was it for common sense, so beleaguered by these clerical wranglers, when the sun went down and the discussion ended.

In the autumn of 1827 a public disputation took place in the town of Springfield, Mass., between Rev. T. Merritt, of the Methodist

Episcopal Church, and Lucius R. Paige. Their discussion was carried on by lectures and rejoinders, which were read in the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was on all hands acknowledged that Universalism was worsted in this contest. Indeed, it has never since then been able to sustain itself in that region until within a short time. Of late one weak society has been formed, a few miles from the place of dispute.

Between Rev. Luther Lee, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and Rev. Mr. Morse, a Universalist, another discussion took place in the state of New-York, a year or two since. The whole has since been published by Mr. Lee.

Rev. Ezra Styles Ely has engaged with Rev. Abel C. Thomas, and Rev. Mr. Breckenridge with the same person. The matter of these various disputations given to the world, forms the most valuble resource from which the oppugners or the defenders of Universalism can draw their arguments. They remain, too, and ever will remain, imperishable records of the weakness of error, and of the power of truth and the triumph of sound theology, over sophistry, bigotry, and delusion.

Of course Universalists do not, and will not, admit all this. Even as they fly from the field, they raise on the lance's point the armor of a fallen foe, whose dead body they stripped in their retreat, and triumphantly point to it as the most indubitable evidence that they have come off conquerors, and more than conquerors, from the field of strife. But let them, we say, substantiate their claim by remaining upon that field, and showing themselves able to keep it; not by shouting victory in the confusion of retreat.

Our next work is to look into the history of Universalism as a system of theology, and to ascertain what changes have taken place in it, if any; and how those changes stand related to Christian theology.

Four different theories have been advanced and defended since the introduction of Universalism into this country. These, in the hands of different persons, have been subjected to a thousand modifications and modes of defence, the history of which cannot be given in this short essay. We confine ourselves, therefore, to the principal features of the heresy.

Murray, the father of American Restorationism, held to the proper divinity of Christ, the doctrine of atonement, spiritual regeneration, a general judgment, and the existence of both happiness and misery after death. But, while Mr. Murray admitted these doctrines, he connected with them some most singular tenets. A follower of Relly, like him, he contended, not that Christ suffered instead of us, but that we were so united with Christ as actually to be punished for our sins in his sufferings-that we suffered in his sufferings, or that his sufferings were ours.

He claimed, that if we were so connected with the first Adam as to sin in him, so we were so united with the second Adam as to suffer in him the penal consequences of our guilt. In establishing the fact of this union, the following, among other passages of Scripture, were relied on, viz.: "For we are members of his body, and of his flesh, and of his bones ;" Eph. v, 3. "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being

many, are one body, so also is Christ;" 1 Cor. xii, 12. "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another;" Rom. xii, 5. "I am crucified with Christ," &c.; Gal. ii, 20. As he claimed that the penalty of the law for all sin had been inflicted on us in the person of Christ, so he maintained that there could be, henceforward, no penal suffering for sin, but that all the evils coming upon the sinner are the natural effects of his acts, and are not at all measured by the moral nature of those acts. The misery, therefore, which he believed the wicked would suffer in the next world would not be a punishment, but rather the natural effect of their blindness and unbelief; so that, as soon as they believed, they would be received into heaven. The other doctrines named as helping to compose Mr. Murray's system, it is believed, he held as they are generally taught and understood.

Mr. Winchester, who had learned his Universalism from Seigvolk and Stonehouse instead of Relly, did not receive this doctrine of union and its consequences, but in all other particulars he agreed with Murray. Winchester believed that sinners might receive the penal consequences of their sins even now; that they would thus be punished in the coming world; and that the duration and measure of their pain would be in exact proportion to the demerit of the transgression. This penalty he believed to be inflicted by the will of God on account of sins already committed, and he held, in consequence, that the suffering would terminate, not when the sinner repented or believed, but when he had been punished during the period claimed by justice.

The difference, then, between Murray and Winchester, was this: Murray held that we were so united with Christ as to be punished in him; Winchester denied such a union. Murray taught that sin procures no punishment, but only some natural evils following upon that kind of action; Winchester believed that sin has its proper punishment in this and the future world. Murray limited misery in the future state by the blindness of the sufferer, and claimed that the pain ceased when the creature willed; Winchester limited it by the desert of the sinner, and insisted that it ended when God willed. Such were the points of their disagreement. It never caused, however, as we can learn, any disruption of feeling or effort, though it must be acknowledged that the systems differ very materially from each other.

These distinctions were the only ones known in the early days of Universalism in this country. But change, which sweeps over all, was to make its influence visible on these systems of doctrine; and Universalists, ceasing to be distinguished as followers of Winchester on the one hand, or of Murray on the other, were to assume new denominations and sentiments.

A heresy which has one principle fundamental to the system, may always be known by the constant changes which take place in the defence, the explanation, or the illustration of that principle. Truth is unchanging; and though there may be additions to the means of defence, and sometimes, perhaps, a slight difference in the arguments, in general all the reasons and facts which sustain the true assumption will remain the same-as changeless as the truth they establish. The argument once formed, and applied aright, is

incapable of refutation, and of course will need no new fashioning. But no valid argument can be brought to defend an error, and, therefore, one after another as they are brought they will be exploded; and unless the principle be given up, others must be created to supply the vacancy.

So it has been with Universalism. Its own friends were not satisfied with either the system of Murray or of Winchester. The arguments did not convince them, or, evidently, they would still be urged; and, in fine, there seemed, after years of examination, but a small portion of either theory which was worthy the name of truth. The principle that all will finally be holy and happy was not given up. This, to those who believed it, seemed a doctrine too glorious and heart-cheering to renounce; and it was still retained as a cherished idol.

What might have been anticipated took place. One by one the doctrines taught by the fathers of Universalism were consigned to the record of exploded propositions, and new hypotheses took their place.

The doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, Depravity, and Regeneration, as they are generally understood, ceased to be taught, and soon to be believed; and the whole body of Universalists became Unitarians. All this, however, was not the work of a moment. Years were spent in bringing about the change; but the work, though slowly, was effectually performed, and the old systems silently sunk into general disrepute, from which, among Universalists, they were never to rise again.

Here, then, we find the third system. It differs from the theories of Murray and Winchester by denying the doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, Regeneration, and others depending on these, and by maintaining the Unitarian notions upon these several points. agrees with the old theories in asserting the doctrine of a general judgment and limited future punishment.

It

Of this last class are the modern Restorationists, in connection with the Massachusetts Universal Restorationist Association. There are also, it is believed, a considerable number of this faith in the fellowship of the General Convention of Universalists; and it is probable that the larger part of the Unitarian body in New-England are likewise strongly tinctured by the doctrine, if not entirely satisfied with it.

But the most considerable departure from ancient opinions remains to be noticed.

About the year 1818, Hosea Ballou, of Boston, and Edward Turner, of Charlestown, published, by agreement, a series of letters in the "Gospel Visitant," on the subject of future punishment. Turner defended the doctrine of the Restorationists; and Ballou, in opposition to him, maintained that there would be no suffering of any kind for any man after death.

This was a new sentiment, which the world never heard soberly defended until then, and its novelty excited attention. It was just the thing desired; and before it could be known if the doctrine was defensible, multitudes had staked their every eternal hope upon it. There were some singular features about this controversy which deserve notice. Mr. Ballou declares, that when he sat down to

defend his proposition he was not satisfied that it was true. He had some thought that it might be, but he was not sure. He claims, that when he wrote his "Notes on the Parables" and the "Treatise on the Atonement," he had left entirely the doctrine of penal suffering; and was convinced that if suffering should take place in the future world it would be because men would be sinful there.

This he gave up during the discussion, and "became entirely satisfied that the Scriptures begin and end the history of sin in flesh and blood, and that, beyond this mortal existence, the Bible teaches no other sentient state but that which is called by the blessed name of life and immortality." (Mod. Hist. Univers., p. 337.)

How long this system had been in preparation we are unable to say. Probably, however, not long, as Mr. Ballou (who, doubtless, was the first man in the world who ever thought of it) tells us that he himself was not confirmed in the sentiment until this controversy took place. But whatever was the date of its origin, it is certain that in a few years after the discussion the great majority of the Universalists had become Ultra. So congenial was it with the feelings of unsanctified nature, that hundreds readily embraced it who before had believed in future punishment; and very many who had professed to be infidels, as well as those who neither professed nor believed any thing, also ranged themselves under its banners and became its defenders.

The system of Ultra-Universalism differs very materially from Universal Restorationism, and it may be proper to mark out more definitely the points of disagreement.

Ultra-Universalists teach that the first moment of consciousness after death will be one of supreme holiness and happiness, which will be without end.

Restorationists, on the contrary, hold that, in the case of millions, the first moment of consciousness will be one of suffering, and that this will continue for an unknown limited period.

Ultraists claim that the resurrection is but the putting on of immortality and blessedness upon the souls of all men. Restoration

ists that it is the bestowment of unsexual, indestructible, and immortal bodies, perfectly adapted to that state of existence, which bodies are to be the instruments of souls, as our bodies are here, and that these bodies will be given alike to the just and the unjust.

Ultraists teach that there will be no judgment after death. Restorationists that there will be a most strict and impartial judgment passed upon all men, in which the righteous will be justified and the wicked condemned.

The former class maintain that there is no connection between this and the future existence; that neither will vice, virtue, suffering, nor enjoyment in this state benefit or injure us in that; but that we shall be in that state in every respect as though this had not been.

The latter claim that there is a direct and sensible connection of the two states; that the virtue and suffering of this state procure their actual reward, and the vice its positive punishment, in the eternal world.

Ultraists hold that the benefits of Christ's mission are all confined to this present world. Restorationists believe that the effects of that mediation will be experienced in an incomprehensible importance