professed believers of it are, in general, infidels. The following is only a specimen of his representations : Returning from Boston, he stopped at Mr. Nathaniel Whittemore's in Lancaster. Mr. Whittemore asked him, What news? to which he replied, "Bad news, bad news, Br. Whittemore I am really sorry!" What is it? rejoined Mr. Whittemore. Mr. Wood answered, "Nine tenths of Mr. Ballou's society are infidels,I am really sorry." As to his common practice of talking against Mr. Ballou, it may be well understood by considering the fact that he has repeatedly declared to the ministers that it is his design and determination to lessen Mr. Ballou in the public esteem; and the societies where he has preached can bear him testimony that he has shewed himself in earnest in the prosecution of that design.

When we consider all these facts, the part that Mr. Wood has acted with the knowledge, and, often, co-operation of Messrs. Turner and Dean, and the course that Messrs. Turner and Dean themselves have pursued, tho not so openly, we stand in utter astonishment at the falsehood of the Appeal. Have. they endeavored to preserve union? Are we the authors of the threatening separation? Why, Mr. Wood himself has voluntarily and deliberately stated that he knew ENVY to be the cause of the threatened schism! Br B. Whittemore had asked him the cause of Messrs. Turner and Dean's opposition to Mr. Ballou. "Br. Whittemore," said Mr. Wood, in answer, "I know human nature so well as to know that envy is the cause of the impending schism." He likewise told one of the editors that he had no doubt that the opposition of Messrs. Turner and Dean was caused by envy towards Mr. Ballou.

Mr. Dean has reported, secretly, that Mr. Ballou retained nothing of Christianity but the name; and has talked against him in such a manner, to some of the brethren, that they have told Mr. Ballou they never should repeat the conversation, nor tell him what it was, unless they saw him in real danger from it. A

bout two years ago, Mr. Turner intimated an unwillingness to proceed on in harmony; for, said he, "then there would be nobody but Ballou."

But we desist from the enumeration of the facts in our possession.

We shall now attend to the particular statements which they have made in the Appeal.

It may perhaps be thought that those statements are of too trivial a nature to merit attention. We grant that, in themselves, they are; but the reader will please to remember that, however unimportant, they are those on which the authors rely to substantiate their assertion that, if a separation be the final result, we and the other brethren complained of, are its legitimate authors. We have discovered too, by letters, that they have endeavored, by means of those and similar statements, to make our brethren believe that those complained of have manifested an over-bearing spirit. We therefore beg the patience of the reader.

The first of those statements, which we shall attend to, is, that those brethren, who believe that all misery is confined to this life, were wont to dwell on that sentiment in their discourses on Conventional occasions.

Now, the fact is, that not even one sermon has been preached at our General Convention against the idea of future punishment. Mr. Turner himself preached a sermon at the Convention in Lebanon, 1819, in support of that doctrine; and he is the only one who has preached directly on that subject, on those occasions. We beg not to be misunderstood; we do not deny that there have been sermons preached before the General Conventions, both by those who be lieve, and those who deny the doctrine of future punishment, in which particular texts were applied to this life, that some Universalists would refer to a state of punishment after death. Let it be understood too, that we do not mention the fact that Mr. Turner preached a sermon at the General Convention, in fa vor of future punishment, as an impropriety; the im

propriety lies in his making the above statement, in the Appeal.

Their next statement is, that those brethren who believe that all misery is confined to this life, were wont to dwell on that sentiment when they exchanged desks with their brethren who differ from them on that subject.

:

We have not authority to deny that there have been instances in which brethren have dwelt on the idea that all misery is confined to this life, or preached against the doctrine of future punishment in the desks of those who believe that doctrine; but we neither know, nor have heard of such instances, and therefore venture to say they are not numerous. Let us, however, apply the remark we made in the preceding par agraph we think that sermons have been preached in the desks of those who believe in future punishment, in which particular texts were applied to this life, which some Universalists would refer to a state of punishment after death. But this is no more than what Mr. Wood himself has repeatedly done in his writings. But after all, how trivial is the statement we are replying to! Is there any impropriety in preaching directly on this subject in any desk? If we are not misinformed, some of those brethren who believe in future punishment have preached that doctrine in the desks of those who do not believe it; and we confess we never have been able to discover any impropriety in this practice. Our union will never be jeopardized by frankness; it is only the secret plotting of a demestic enemy that can endanger it.

They also state, in the way of complaint, the treatment they have received in the editorial management of the Magazine.

*See his "Examination of Mr. Mann's Sermon," and his "Remarks" on "A Letter to a friend, by a Clergyman of Massachusetts." In these two Pamphlets he has applied Jude 7.Mat. xii. 32.-Mark iii. 28, 29.-Luke xii. 10.-Mat. v. 26.Mat. xviii. 24.-Luke xii. 59.-Rev. xiv. 11.-Rev. xx. 10, to the present life; all of which passages some Universalists have referred to a state of punishment after death.

To shew that this complaint is without cause, we offer the following statement. It is abridged from a long and very particular account which one of the Editors gave,* * in writing, to Mr. Turner, more than a month before he finally approved of the Appeal. It may be proper to state that after giving Mr. Turner this account, the writer added, "if, contrary to my expectation, it should still appear to you that we have injured, I ask of you the boon of a brother,-forgiveness," This forgiveness, it seems, is not for us.

STATEMENT.

"1. The "Proposals" (so called) by "Restorationist," had been published in the Magazine about eight weeks, before we, at Mr. Bowen's request, became the editors. In the mean time there was a controversy (not about FUTURE PUNISHMENT, but) about the propriety of acceding to the plan which the Proposals offered, viz. to write a statement of doctrine on each side of the question, &c. &c. &c. 2. When we engaged to become editors, Mr. Ballou, 2d. of Roxbury, (who has never held "that all human misery is confined to this life") told Mr. Ballou, of Boston, that he wished that controversy about the Proposals to be stopped immediately. Mr. Ballou replied, that having been himself engaged in the controversy, he would have nothing to do in the editorial management of it, but leave it entirely in the hands of the two other editors. Mr. Ballou, 2d. then persuaded Mr. Whittemore (the other editor) to join in stopping the controversy; and himself wrote the notice to "Restorationist," excluding, in future, the controversy concerning simply the Proposals. This notice was inserted in the first paper that came out under our care. 3. After this notice was printed, we received the "two communications from Restorationist" which he says were in our office when we closed the controversy "by an editorial edict." [Be particular to observe that this controversy which we had closed was not about future punishment, but about the pro

* See a former note, '

priety of the Proposals; let it be observed too, that if any wished to accept of those Proposals, they were at perfect liberty so to do,-our exclusion of the controversy notwithstanding.] 4. Afterwards we gave the following notice; "if any person or persons think proper to accept those Proposals, we shall be ready to make known such acceptance through the medium of this paper." 5. After this, "Restorationist," over the signature "Lover of Truth," sent another Proposal. This second Proposal we published, altho nobody [either one PARTY or the other, to use his own darling epithet] had seen fit to accept his first Proposal. But we pointed out some faults in it. He then sent us the reply [published in the Appeal,] which contains a third Proposal. This we rejected; and it is the only one that we can with propriety be said to have rejected from this author.".

Let the reader remember that the whole of that management of the Magazine, of which the authors of the Appeal complain, was in consequence of the counsels of that editor who has never held "that all misery is confined to this life ;" and that in complaining, they as much complain against their own PARTY (to borrow their favorite term) as against any other PARTY in the universe. Of what importance, let us ask, was the controversy about Proposals which every body had the opportunity to accept? Had we written the Proposals ourselves, we would have stopped any controversy about them which was likely to occupy much of the paper.

Three more particulars we will insert from the account sent to Mr. Turner, and we have done :

"-6. We had not, we think, rejected one communication in favor of the doctrine of future punishment. 7. We had rejected, at least, eight communications designed to support the doctrine of no punishment after death. 8. We had rejected many communications, on other subjects, from the friends and supporters of the Magazine."

We now take our leave of the Appeal.