Ballou of the last year, and endeavored to impress the sentiments thereof upon the people anew. The remarks of the last-named were reserved to the very close, when the president [T. A. Goddard, Esq.] called him up. He rose with great meekness. He felt that the call was made as a compliment to him-a kind compliment to an old, worn-out man. Still these compliments are pleasant. There were two thoughts impressed upon his mind: 1st, Progress; 2d, Reformation. After giving his opinions in general as to these subjects, he hoped, he said, that progress and reform would be carried on in the spirit of divine wisdom. Divine wisdom is full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Let all law be full of mercy, let all doctrine be full of mercy, and let them all be without partiality. Let everything be done in the spirit of these two principles. He spoke of the gloomy day, the clouds, and the rain; but, said he, if we live to the middle of June, we shall rejoice to see the blossoms which these rains will produce. He drew a picture of the beauties of nature under the effect of these rains; and he hoped that the showers of truth which had fallen on this assembly would make all the virtues flourish among us, as in the garden of the Lord. Such is a mere epitome of his remarks.

SECTION X.

MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION OF 1849.

This body met the present year at Salem. Some sixty clergymen were present. Father Ballou preached, on the afternoon of the first day of the session, from Isaiah 25 6. This sermon was reported by a stenographer

present, and was subsequently published. At the close of the forenoon service on the following day, the Lord's Supper was administered to a large body of communicants, not far from three hundred. Fathers Ballou and Streeter presided at the table. The latter commenced with a tender and affectionate address, setting forth the benefits of this ordinance. Father Ballou, in the second part, spoke of some of the early corruptions of the service, which drove away the body of the people from the communion-table; and, although the Protestant church is now nearly free from these errors, still the influence of them is by no means fully overcome. He would have all who joined devoutly in the public exercises of the sanctuary-in the singing, in the prayers, and who listened attentively to the sermon—join also in the service of the Lord's Supper. Taken altogether, this was truly a spectacle morally sublime. The venerable father among our laymen, Nathaniel Frothingham, Esq., officiated as one of the deacons, an office he has holden for many years. He was assisted by Deacon Harvey Newcomb. Deacon Frothingham had been a prominent Universalist in Salem for more than fifty years; and he has ever been known and loved as a faithful, affectionate man in all the relations of life. He still lives (Aug. 10, 1855).

SECTION XI. —SALVATION IRRESPECTIVE OF CHARACTER.

In August of this year, father Ballou gave to the public an article with the above extraordinary title. The Christian church has generally believed that God will save men strictly in respect to their characters; that is to

saved, and the wicked

How would the wisdom

say, that the righteous shall be shall be made miserable forever. of this world be puzzled at the proposition that God saves men, not because they are good, but, on the contrary, because they are wicked! Said father Ballou :

66

-

"There is, at this time, no objection to the doctrine of universal salvation more pertinaciously insisted on by its opposers than that all men are to be saved irrespective of moral character, and in violation of the freedom of man's will. The objection supposes that Universalists believe and teach that God has decreed the happiness of all men, and that he will make them thus happy and forever blessed, be their moral characters what they may-holy or unholy, clean or unclean, righteous or wicked. The amount of the objection is, that, as God will have all men to be saved, he will save them whether they will or not - whether they repent of their sins or not- whether they reform or remain sinful. If we ask any opposer of Universalism whether he ever heard a Universalist state his doctrine in this way, or ever read such a representation of the doctrine in any writer in defence of the doctrine, he will answer in the negative; but, at the same time, will say that the doctrine implies all this, and must thus be supported, or not supported at all. Now, if we do, as we always wish to do, exercise charity, and allow that our opposers are honest in alleging such an objection to Universalism, we must offend them by believing and saying that their objection, in room of disproving the truth of universal salvation, proves, beyond all controversy, that they are utterly ignorant of the nature of salvation, and know nothing concerning the process by which it is effected."

The Christian world has had very erroneous views of salvation. Salvation has been thought to be, not deliverance from sin (the greatest of all evils), but deliverance from the wrath of God-deliverance from hell in the future world. Hence father Ballou said:

"The old doctrine of the church, ever since the corruptions of Christianity, has taught that salvation means a salvation from hell in the future state, or from the wrath of God, or from the punishment of sin, which both mean the same. But concerning such a salvation the Scriptures are silent, and no well-informed Universalist believes in it. The Universalist believes in a salvation which he finds set forth in the Scriptures as of divine authority. This is a salvation from sin. Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.' Thus said the angel to Joseph. Now suppose Joseph had asked the angel whether Jesus would save his people from their sins irrespective of their moral characters? whether he would save them from their sins even if they continued to live in sin? Would not Joseph in this have shown that, either he did not understand the nature of salvation, or that there was insincerity in his question? Jesus said, 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' What sense would there have been in the question, had any one asked him if he came to call sinners to repentance irrespective of moral character? Jesus said that he was the bread of God, which came down from heaven to give life to the world.' Suppose he had been asked if he would give life to the world irrespective of moral character? In what light would the question present him who asked it? Jesus represented the process of the sinner's salvation by the recovery of a lost sheep which had gone astray. The owner, who went after it, found it, and carried it home on his own shoulder; and Jesus applied his parable by saying, ‘Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.' Who recovered the sheep that was lost? The owner. Who saves the sinner? Jesus Christ. How does he save him? By bringing him to repentance. Does he do this irrespective of moral character? The reader sees that the question proves either the ignorance or insincerity of him who asks it.

"God spake to the house of Israel on this wise, by Ezekiel : Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out

of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.' Now, hear the learned divine of our times ask the grave question whether God meant he would do all this for his people irrespective of their moral character. Could God do this without working an entire change of their moral character? Look at these words: 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.' Here comes the wonderful, the profound question, Will God sprinkle clean water on that which is unclean? By the prophet Isaiah, God said he would give his elect a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes; to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house. Does not the darkness of the Gentiles indicate their moral condition, and their blindness and imprisonment, their sinful state? And if Christ is to them a light, and if he opens their eyes, and brings them out of their sinful condition, is it reasonable to bring the objection to all this, that it is irrespective of moral character? that it does not allow the freedom of the human will? Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles' to open their eyes; to turn them from darkness to light; from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive the remission of sins, and an inheritance among all them who were sanctified by faith which was in him.' Was all this to be done irrespective of moral character? Does it not necessarily imply an entire change of moral character? Could any sincere person reasonably object to all this because it is unconditional as to moral character? Malachi, speaking of the coming of the Messiah, says: 'But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap; and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.' As no one can doubt that moral purification is here signified, would it not be a most unreasonable objection to the passage to say that this promise of purifying is irrespective of moral character? "St. Paul, in his epistle to the Ephesians, thus exhorts : ‹ Hus