« AnteriorContinuar »
to profess before God and man, to fellowship those who believe and avow it,--to fellowship them as christian ministers! and have even studiously sought to prevent every thing that might lead to a separation from them! Let those believe all this story who can. The fact is, he who contrived this story, has not wished to prevent a separation, -he has sought one with all his heart, as we shall shew before we conclude ; but he and his associates knew that a separation would be unpopular, and wished to fix the odium of the measure on others.
How desirous they have been “to preserve peace and tranquillity,” is evinced by the manner in which they published their Appeal. Let it be here observed, however, that in the Appeal they endeavor to make the public believe that those brethren who deny the doctrine of future punishment, together with the editors of the Magazine, have conducted so inconsistently with the rules of good fellowship as to provoke towards a separation.* Now, this appeal the authors published to the world, with all its items of complaint against their own brethren, without having exchange ed one word with them on the subject. They had not informed us that they were even dissatisfiedt with
of the truth, as well as detrimental to the morals of commonity,”
in our opinion the doctrine of universal salvation at the commencement of a future state, and that of the final resloration of all men by Jesus Christ, through faith and repentance, are distinct and different doctrines, and are incapable of being reconciled together.” Extracts from their Declaration.
* "But be it ever remembered, and I appeal to the foregoing FACTS to substantiate my assertion, that if a separation be the final RESULT, we did not seek it, and they must be considered as its legitimate anthors.”—Extract from the Appeal.
+ It may be proper here to state that in November last (after the Appeal was sent to the "Christian Repository” for publication) we accidentally heard that Mr. Turner and others had, at their meeting at Shirley, last
September, publicly complained of wrong received from the Editors in the management of the Magazine. One of the Editors saw Mr. Turner on the
that part of our management of the Magazine of which they complain in the Appeal, altho some of them had been frequently in company with us, and had conversed with us particularly about the Magazine. They had preserved the same silence too, at least as far as we can learn, towards those brethren (or that party, * as they call them in their "most conciliating spirit”) who deny the doctrine of future punishment. of them they complain, that they at length "seemed to attach more importance to” the idea that all misery is conlined to this life.” The authors had not before told them that they felt dissatisfied with this circumstance; they had not even told them that such a circumstance existed. They complain also, that these brethren were wont to dwell on that idea "in their public discourses, and this too on Conventional occasions, and when they exchanged desks with their brethren who differed from em on this subject." They had not before mentioned a word of all this to those brethren, so far as we can learn ; to many of them we know they had not.
In one word, they have published those complaints without previously endeavoring to dissuade their brethren from the commission of the pretended abuse. We mention this, not particularly to shew that it is a flagrant transgression of the rules of fellowship; but to bring forward the character of their procedure into
same day, and told him what he had heard. Mr. T. replied that he had thought we did wrong in not following the plan offered in the "Proposals.” This editor, perceiving a dissatisfaction, wrote him an account of our management in every thing relating to the "Proposals,” (the substance of which account we shall insert) and then added, "if, contrary to my ex. pectation, it should still appear to you that we have injured, I ask of you the boon of a brother, - forgiveness." Afterwards he went to Mr. T.'s house, and Mr. T. then told him that he knew not that we had done wrong in that affair, except in not following the plan offered in the “Proposals.” After this Mr.T. approved of the Appeal as it stands in the Repository !
* We believe the authors are the first, and we hope the last, to call those brethren who do believe in future punishment, and those who do not, PARTIBS. It is a word of bad infuence.
full view. All their fervent desire for the preservation of harmony never put it into their heads to mention their dissatisfaction to their offending brethren; but it led them to think of holding those brethren up to public dislike.
When the "Appeal” was published, the authors still remained silent. We were occasionally in company with some of them, and once with all of them, except Mr. Hudson ; but they said nothing about their publication,* nor gave us an intimation that they were the authors. And when we at length sent to Mr. Dean requesting him to inform us whether he was one, and, if so, who the others were, he refused to answer unless we would first agree to terms of secrecy. When we wrote to Mr. Streeter of Salem, expostulating with him for his breach of the rules of fellowship in publishing complaints against the brethren without a previous labor with them, he attempted to conceal the fact that he was one of the authors, and affected much surprise that we addressed him as such
The foregoing is chiefly an account of the circumstances connected with the publication of the Appeal, We now come to an examination of the Appeal itself.
We shall first prove that the following representation, which is kept up through the whole of the Appeal, viz. that the authors have sought “to preserve the peace and union of the order," is entirely false.
In the year 1816, Mr. Jacob Wood applied to the General Convention of Universalists for a letter of fellowship, and received one. In this very year (more than six years ago) he persuaded one of the Universalist ministers to believe that it was necessary that the Convention should take a decided stand in favor of the doctrine of future punishment; and at the same
* One of the Editors, on one of these occasions, attempted to expostulate with Mr. Wood for publishing the Appeal without a previous labor with the brethren complained of ; Mr. W. neither said, or denied, that he was one of the authors; but would not hear the expostulation, and said he would do nothing on the subject except
by writing or publications.
time privately instilled prejudices into his mind a. gainst Mr. Ballou, then of Salem, (now of Boston,) who was supposed to doubt that doctrine. At this period, Mr. Wood was preaching in Haverhill, Mass. where he talked so much against Mr. Ballou that the society became dissatisfied with him as their preacher. All this while he pretended much friendship in Mr. Ballou's presence, as he likewise generally has since. Soon after this, he represented to Mr. Ballou that Mr. Turner was desirous of a correspondence with him on the subject of future punishment, and persuaded Mr. Ballou to write to Mr. Turner and invite such a correspondence. Let it be noticed that until this correspondence which was carried on in the "Gospel Visitant," there had been nothing special said or written against the doctrine of future punishment. After engaging Mr. Ballou and Mr. Turner in the controversy, Mr. Wood obtained letters from almost all the Universalist ministers in New-England, stating their belief in future punishment; and then published extracts from those letters, without the knowledge of the writers, in an Appendix to a "Brief Essay on Future Retribution.” He said he did this for the purpose of making known that the Universalists were believers in future punishment. The Essay, with the letters, was published under the approbation of Messrs. Turner and Dean, who had written their own letters for publication in it. In this Essay, Mr. Wood manifested some harshness, of which the following extract is a specimen : "The many gross absurdities to which the doctrine of immediate universal salvation is liable, and the vicious effects which it is calculated to produce, render it a doctrine justly deserving of disapprodation and CONTEMPT.”* This pamphlet cante out about the first of September, 1817; and within a week or fortnight afterwards, the General Convention met at Charlton, where Mr. Wood was then preaching. At
*+ Set “Brief Essay,” &c. page 24. Who can produce so se vere and contemptuous an expression as this in all that has been written against fôture punishment?
this Convention, Mr. Wood privately endeavored to persuade a number of ministers (among whom was one of the editors) to join him in a separate Association under the title of "Restorationists,” but did not succeed. It would seem, from several circumstances, that Messrs. Turner and Dean then knew and
approved of this attempt.
Mr. Wood had previously agreed, with one of the ministers, to bring the subject of future punishment before this Convention at Charlton ; and, if there proved to be a majority of members who would not assent to that doctrine, to declare their separation from them, and declare it openly. However, when the period agreed on had arrived, Mr. Wood refused to act according to agreement; but took the clandestine manner we have described. We wish the reader to bear in mind, that at this period there had existed no excitement against the doctrine of future punishment
there had been so little said or written against it, that very few of the Universalist ministers knew each others' opinion on the subject.
At the Convention, in Charlton, Mr. Wood pursued his former practice of privately instilling prejudices, some of them of the most cruel kind, against Mr. Ballou ; and boasted that "he had got to come down." He had likewise pursued the same practice in his conversation with the members of his society in Charlton, till it had become a subject of very general complaint among them.
Ever since that Convention, he has, both in conversation with the ministers and in letters to them, confidently declared that there would be a separation of the Convention. Of himself and his associates, he has said, that they do not think that a union ought to be maintained, or can be justified, between two so opposite theories as are professed by the members of the Convention. (Mark this, reader, for they, in the Appeal pretend to have labored for union.) He has almost uniformly maintained that the doctrine of smo future punishment tends to immorality; and that the