is no hell, and that the wages of sin is not death, but eternal life.' Here I must say, you are possessed of the most retentive memory of any person I ever heard of, or else you are the most extraordinary conjurer the earth has ever produced. Either you must have existed, in some sort of an animal, in the days of Adam, and have been conversant with the serpent, who, perhaps in confidence, told you his whole plan and meaning, and, by the laws of transmigration, you have come to be what you now are, and retain all those things still in perfect memory, or you must have made the discovery by conjuring.

66

'Perhaps you may say I do not treat this subject with that Christian candor which I contend for. To which I answer, I know of no way to show you and others the glaring absurdities contained in your sermon, without making its author appear to disadvantage.

"When a professed minister of the gospel undertakes to tell what a serpent meant, who talked almost six thousand years ago, in order to make a certain doctrine appear ridiculous, against which he is unable to bring any scripture evidence, he ought not to complain if he sees his own ridicule justly falling on his own head.

"Did you, sir, ever meet with the idea, in any of the Universalian authors, that the wages of sin is eternal life? If you never did, do you believe that you ought to be looked upon as an honest man, when you endeavor to represent such an idea? Do you expect to be treated with that respect to which the gentleman is entitled, while you studiously represent the Devil as the Universal preacher, in order to stigmatize those with whom you dare not contend on fair and open ground? Will your low cunning support you long in the estimation of enlightened people? Have you not already practised this mischief of misrepresentation to your damage in your own parish? How far abroad do you wish to have yourself known to be a person who can so easily descend to unjust measures to carry a bad design into effect?

66

Sir, I profess to believe and preach Universal Salvation from all sin and moral death; and I glory in the belief and labor, notwithstanding all you and the rest of the enemies of the doctrine have said, or can say. But I do not believe that the wages of sin is

eternal life; I thank God that his gift, through Jesus Christ our Lord, is even to those to whom sin has proved death; to which truth all God's holy prophets have borne testimony. Jesus preached the same doctrine. The apostles were faithful in its propagation, and all real Christians and good men, in all ages, have fervently prayed for its accomplishment. All this I am ready to prove, and I pledge myself to do it whenever I may be called on to that effect by a regular antagonist. I have already published a treatise on atonement, in which I have inserted many arguments in favor of universal holiness and happiness, which I believe are unanswerable; however, should any one attack that work and prove my arguments erroneous, I will disavow them to the public.

66

On page 9th, you speak of the devil as not being confined to parish, state, or continent, &c. By this, I suppose, you mean to stigmatize those who, faithful to their Master's command, ..Go ye, therefore, into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,' comply with the same, to the utmost of their abilities. Ah, sir, do you consider how far your satire extends? Will you represent all those who enter your parish to preach Christ and him crucified to be the servants of the devil? Go on, then, and meet the certain consequences.

66

Although I believe in the final salvation of all men, yet I as fully believe that all unrighteousness of men will receive a due recompense of reward. And, should you persist in your present line of conduct a little longer, I do not think you will believe the consequences of sin to be altogether in another world.

"On page 13th, inference 3d, you say, 'See a reason why it ought to be rejected, because it is an ancient devilish doctrine.' You will not contend that Universalism ought to be rejected. merely because it is an ancient doctrine? It is true God preached it when he promised that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head; he preached it by the bow in the cloud, to Noah; he preached it by promise to Abraham, saying, In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed; ' he preached it to Isaac and Jacob, by confirming the same promise to them; he preached it by the law and figurative priesthood given to Israel by Moses; he preached it by the mouth of all his holy prophets,

who testified of the restitution of all things, through the glorious mediation of the promised Shiloh. But, because it was preached so long ago, do you think it ought to be rejected?

"You say it is a devilish doctrine! Harsh, inconsiderate expression! Is that doctrine which argues the destruction of the devil and his works a devilish doctrine? Is the doctrine which argues universal reconciliation through Christ a devilish doctrine? O, may God forgive you this folly, and lay not this sin to your charge!

the

"Must I believe you ignorant of the testimony of scripture in support of the two points above hinted? Then read Heb. 2: 24, Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.' Also, 1 John 3: 8, 'For this purpose Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.' By these quotations, it is plain that the object of Christ, in his mission, was to destroy the devil and his works. See also Eph. 1: 10, 'That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him.' Also Col. 1: 20,- And (having made peace by the blood of his cross) by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.' These, and a multitude of scriptures more, read plainly to prove that true which you are pleased to call a devilish doctrine.

66

Page 14, inference 7th, you say, 'It is probable that the doctrine of universal salvation will still prevail,' &c. To which I reply, 'If this council, or this work, be of man, it will come to naught; but, if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.'

"A few observations on that obscene poem, which you had the indecency not only to read in public, at the close of your sermon, but also to insert in your pamphlet, will not be deemed improper. The burden of this poem is to convey an idea that Universalists suppose all manner of vile characters will be received to the enjoyment of everlasting happiness, without being cleansed from moral defilement. I will not pretend to say that such charac

ters as yourself may not have caused some very uninformed persons to believe that Universalists held to such absurdities; but I do not believe you have that idea yourself; and why you should wish to deceive, you must be accountable.

"When Jesus said to the thief on the cross 'This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,' must we rationally infer that Jesus meant that there should be a thief with him hereafter in heaven? Yes, with as much propriety as you have indicated all you have by that poem.

"I close with a word of advice.

"Rev. Sir, if you view me an enemy to mankind in general, and to yourself in particular, yet good advice can do you no harm; but, providing you profit by it, and practise accordingly, it will be just as good from me as from any other person in the world. However, I can say, in the fear of God, that I am not an enemy to you, or to any other person. I sincerely wish all men holiness of heart, and happiness in the same; and I can truly say, also, did I believe that at last you would not find favor in the Lord, my soul would be filled with inexpressible sorI not only wish you happiness in the world to come, but I wish you may enjoy it here; and so conduct as to live in good agreement with the people of your charge, and in good repute among your acquaintance. Agreeably to this desire, sir, I give you the following advice :

row!

"Cast off all your prejudice towards those denominations who differ from you in sentiment or opinion; treat them all as you are willing to be treated by them; never be so cruel as to misrepresent their tenets, in order to cause people to dislike them; be honest with all men; use no underhanded means to prosecute your designs; let all your conduct stand in the fair and open sunshine of truth. When your conscience dictates to defend your sentiments, be cautious that you contend fairly and honorably, and treat your antagonist as a brother, and not with disrespect. Study humility, and by example teach it to others. Search the Scriptures impartially, never endeavoring to cause them to bend to this or that system of divinity; rather yield your tenets to the word of God, than endeavor to cause that

immutable word, which cannot be broken, to bend to your peculiarities of sentiment.

"If you see cause to enter further into a correspondence with me, and answer this epistle, do be so good as to give me no occasion to use such severity as has been necessary in this; which if you are careful to observe, I will treat the subject of controversy with all the candor of which I am master; and, in every instance, will be, sir, your humble servant, for Christ's sake, "HOSEA BALLOU.

"REV. LEMUEL HAYNES."

Mr. Ballou's letter had laid before the public unanswered for more than a year, when Mr. Haynes appeared again, in a "Letter to Rev. Hosea Ballou, being a Reply to his Epistle to the Author; or, his attempt to vindicate the old Universal Preacher. By Lemuel Haynes, pastor of a church in Rutland, Vt. (1807)." Previously to the appearance of this pamphlet, Mr. Ballou had invited Mr. H. to meet him in a public debate,- a proposition which Mr. H. declined. In the published letter, Mr. H. intimated that he should soon come out with a review of the Treatise on Atonement. You say you have published a Treatise on Atonement. * * * I have read the piece, and, by the leave of Providence, perhaps you and the public will know my mind more fully about it before long." Mr. Ballou delayed his reply to Mr. Haynes' epistle until the review of the Treatise on Atonement should appear; but, as that review never came, here ended the controversy. The doctrines of Mr. Ballou continued to increase in Rutland, and in all that section of Vermont.*

66

*The account of Mr. Haynes has been drawn from the following work: "Sketches of the Life and Character of Rev. Lemuel Haynes,