honest men, attempt to prove that, in the nature of the case, it was quite probable that all Christians throughout the vast Roman empire were, in the times of the Apostles, believers in Universalism, and, that immediately after their death, with one accord, and without the least controversy, they agreed to reject this doctrine and embrace the sentiment of eternal punishment, and, that yet all this might be done without leaving the least record of any such transaction? Why did he not attempt to prove that Christians universally, in the life time of the Apostles, believed there is no punishment for man beyond the grave; that when the Apostles left the world, this doctrine left with them, and that every vestige of it vanished from the thoughts and recollections of men for seventeen hundred years? He knew better. He must have been aware, that it is an indisputable fact, that the churches personally instructed by the Apostles; that men trained by the Apostles, and by the Apostles set over these churches, believed in a future and eternal state of retribution. And he knew that, this fact appearing, Universalism would be seen to be without the shadow of a foundation. Instead, therefore, of fairly meeting the argument like one who seeks after the truth, he attempts, by the grossest evasions, shifts, and subterfuges, to cloud this fact, and draw away the mind from the contemplation of it.

Mr. Ballou concludes his first sermon with

a long string of scriptural quotations in support of Universalism. In relation to these, for the present, I shall only say that not one of them explicitly denies future punishment, or explicitly states that all men shall be holy and happy after death. Every one of them may be justly interpreted consistently with the doctrine of future and endless woe to the wicked. To attempt to support Universalism by a long list of disconnected scriptural quotations, when he has met the arguments contained in the first chapter of this volume only with sophistries, assertions, and evasions, reveals the weakness of his cause.

CHAPTER II.

THE REVIEWS OF THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE FIRST PART OF THIS VOLUME EXAMINED.

SECTION I.

An Examination of Mr. Ballou's "Review" in reference to the inquiry whether Universalism is according to Godliness.*

It will be recollected, that, in the second chapter of the preceding Part, it was shown that Universalism is not according to godliness, by contrasting Universalists, as a sect, with the Apostles and first Christians. This, it was contended, is a just and satisfactory mode of testing this system. True Christianity is the same in its character and effects in all ages. The Apostles and their immediate disciples generally were true Christians. It is

* Mr. Whittemore's remarks on this subject are so general, and being in substance the same as Mr. Ballou's, I deem it unnecessary to make explicit reference to his work.

perfectly just, therefore, to compare modern pretenders of all kinds with primitive Christians. If any, as a sect, shall differ essentially in their religious character and practices from the Apostles and those instructed by them, it cannot be said that the truths they hold are according to godliness.

It should be kept in mind, also, that the comparison is between modern Universalists and primitive Christians, and not between modern Universalists and Congregationalists, or any other Christian sect of the present day. Much, indeed, most, that is said, in this part of this Review, has no connection whatever with the real subject in debate. Thus he talks of the abuse, and comparative importance of forms, and of the wickedness and hypocrisy of those whom he calls "Partialists." Now these things do not tend to show that Universalists do, or do not resemble, in their religious characteristics, the first Christians. In accordance with a species of cunning common to Universalist controversialists, they were thrown in to divert the minds of his readers from the truth, and to withdraw his antagonist from his strong hold. But the contrivance is too bungling to succeed this time. As I pass along in the examination of this review, I shall have no reference to any thing said that does not relate to the comparison between Universalists and primitive Christians, till I have considered what does relate to this comparison, and, then,

I shall pay that attention to the other matter which it merits.

The question, then, is this,-Do modern Universalists, considered as a whole, resemble essentially in their religious practices and character, the first Christians? It is not asked how it is with here and there an individual, but what are the prominent distinguishing features of the whole sect?

In showing whether Universalism is in its tendencies according to godliness, modern Universalists were compared with primitive Christians in fifteen particulars. I shall consider Mr. B.'s reply to them in order, and

1. Respecting the Sabbath.* Our reviewerdoes not deny that it is the practice of leading Universalists, generally, to visit their friends on the Sabbath, and spend its sacred hours in secular conversation-that the Sabbath is frequently employed, by young people of Universalist families, in the diversion of the walk, or the ride; that they seldom or never meet for worship without a minister ;-that the average attendants of professed Universalists, at public worship, counting fifty-two Sabbaths in a year, is not more than one-eighth of their number, and that where they have large Societies, they seldom meet oftener than once in two weeks, very commonly not oftener than

The several heads will not be well understood unless the reader bears in mind what was said under the same heads to which Mr. B. replies.