such a course, in reply to a quotation, from Clarke, whom you have unfortunately imitated. He says Universalists contradict our Lord, who speaks of an unquenchable fire, and a worm which dieth not. But Isaiah uses the same language, with respect to events in this world; so that if there be an absurdity in our arguments, there is in the language of the prophets. Tares and chaff, unsavory salt, bad fish, foolish virgins, and a dead tree, are figures to represent the moral condition of apostates and Jews; the burning and destruction of these, represent their destruction at the close of the Jewish polity. All this we have proved, by an appeal to scripture, and by the testimony of orthodox critics. Your play therefore, upon these figures, is absurd in the extreme, because it applies to our final state, figures employed to express a temporal judgment. As well might you say, prove that the worms which Isai. (chap. lxvi. 24.) called undying, are still living, and the fire which he calls unquenchable is still burning, and I will believe the Bible, as to make the request you have. One would be a no greater perversion of figures than the other. God says, (Ezek. xxii. 18.) that the house of Israel had become dross in the midst of the furnace, and that they should be melted in his wrath. He also says, (Mal. iv. 1.) that they should be burnt up root and branch. Paul says, (Rom. xi) that they were branches broken off from the true olive tree. Now here are figures, equally as expressive as those, in your proof texts; but they simply refer to events in this world. Until therefore, you can show, that this burning and destruction refer to future torment, your play upon these figures, must be regarded as

a mere superficial turn, having no bearing on the real question. The same is true of your remark on the great gulph. Prove its existence in the resurrection state or its endless existence, and then you will meet the point in dispute, and not till then. I am quite tired of assumptions, and this playing around the question.

In conclusion, I will glance at the wide difference, between the nature of the proofs, on which partialisms rets and those on which Universalism rests. The former are ambiguous words, dark figurative expressions and parables, which some of the most noted orthodox writers explain in perfect accordance with Universalism. The latter are plain, unequivocal, literal declarations of holy writ, harmonizing with all the attributes of God. Of the former, we have a specimen in your letter, and for a specimen of the latter, see the following: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me (John xii. 32.) For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom. v. 20.) And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. (1. John iv. 14.) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself, 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. (Eph. 1. 9, 10.) Here are no parables, no ambiguous terms, no figurative expressions. The language is plain and literal. Now if all men are drawn to Christ and made righteous, if Christ be the Savior of the

world, and if all things are gathered together in him, endless misery, cannot be the doctrine of Revelation, unless Revelation be contradictory. Í remain very respectfully your

obe't. s'vt.

OTIS A. SKINNER.

LETTER No. VIII.

BALTIMORE, Dec. 18, 1834.

To Rev Otis A. Skinner:

DEAR SIR, I think it expedient to make a few historical remarks respecting the rise and progress of Universalism, for the purpose of enabling the reader to form a more comprehensive view of the subject under investigation.

Qrigen, a native of Alexandria, born in the year 185, was the first man who embraced and propagated the doctrine of a universal restoration, of whom any written account has been transmitted to us. This man, who may be considered the father of the Universalists, was one of the most extravagant fanatics that ever troubled the world. Every one, acquainted with the history of his times, must be aware that he was the first who denied the fire of hell to be real and literal. He strenuously maintained the doctrine of the transmigration of souls from one body to another; that Christ would die in a future world for the redemption of devils; that the sun, moon and stars, had rational souls, and that all bodies after the resurrection should be of a round figure. He understood those words of our Lord:

"some men make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" in a literal sense, and followed them to the letter, lest he should ever become guilty of any improprieties, arising from the propensities of the flesh. He was at length excommunicated from the christian church, by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, as an egregious heretic. Such are some of the prominent features in the character of the man, who first propagated the heresy of Universalism. Some affirm, with great confidence, that the serpent in Paradise was the first preacher of Universalism, where God said to our ancestors, "in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die"; the serpent said they should not die, but live, and become wise into the bargain. God has said by the mouth of the apostle Paul, that the adulterer shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but the Universalists say he shall, and will inherit that celestial world. Hence, the coincidence between the doctrine of the serpent, and that of Universalism is manifest.

The commencement of Universalism, as an organized sect, may be traced to England and to the days of Wesley and Whitfield.James Relly, a Whitfieldite preacher, dissatisfied with the Calvinistic doctrines of Whitfield, left his communion and gathered a congregation in London, to which he preached the future happiness of all men as the glory and essence of the gospel. This congregation is still in existence, and holds communion with four or five other congregations in England. This was the beginning of Universalism as a

sect.

Among the followers of Relly was John

Murray, an Irishman by birth, and a Methodist by education. This man, after his conversion to Universalism, embarked for America, and in 1770 arrived in this country. He preached first at Cranberry, New Jersey, then in New York and Philadelphia, and soon after made his way into New England. In Gloucester, Mass. he found a few who were acquainted with the writings of Relly, and had embraced his faith; these he collected into a society, of which he was pastor. He died in Boston, 1815.

About the year 1780, Elhanan Winchester, a baptist minister in Philadelphia, began to preach the doctrine of a final restoration, and soon drew after him a considerable part of the congregation to a separate place of worship. Six years afterwards, he went to England and formed a congregation in London, which is now numbered among the Unitarian Churches of that country. He returned to the United States in 1794, and continued to itinerate till his death, which occurred in Hartford in 1797.

Murray and Winchester are generally acknowledged as the founders of Universalism in the United States. Of the two, Winchester was the more learned, and the more sincere; there is a spirit of sincerity and reverence for God and truth observable throughout his works, which I never apprehended in the works of any other Universalist.

Since the days of Winchester, several champions for Universalism have appeared, who have used all the sophistry they could command, in defence of the heresy under consideration. Among these may be ranked Dr.