The General Convention of Universalists of the United States was formed in 1785.

List of distinguished Individuals who were Universalists.Previous to the Reformation, Universalism was believed and advocated by the following individuals; many of them the most eminent of the Christian Fathers: Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentine, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, Ambrosius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Titus, bishop of Bostra, Basil the Great, bishop of Cesarea, Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Didymus, Jerome, Gregory, bishop of Nazienzus, Evagrius Ponticus, Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, John, bishop of Jerusalem, Victorinus, Nonnus, Leontius, Domitian, Theodorus Ascidas, Clement, Rainold, Walter Lollard.

It may be proper to remark that most of the above individuals were believers in future punishment, and that they freely applied the terms everlasting and eternal to punishment, not, however, to express its endless, but its indefinite duration.

Since the era of the Reformation, Universalism has been held by the following eminent persons, who have lived at different periods of time and in different countries.

In England, it has been advocated by Gerard Winstanly, William Everard, Rev. William Earbury, Rev. Richard Coppin, Samuel Richardson, Rev. Jeremy White, Dr. Henry More, Archbishop Tillotson, Dr. Thomas Burnet, William Whiston, Sir Isaac Newton, Rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke, Dr. George Cheyne, Chevalier Ramsay, Mrs. Jane Leadley, Rev. Richard Clarke, Rev. William Law, William Duncombe, Rev. Samuel Say, Soame Jenyns, Henry Brooke, Dr. Andrew Kippis, Dr. William Paley, Rev. Robert Robinson, Rev. Geo. Walker, Dr. John Coakley Lettsom, Dr. John Hey, Dr. David Hartley, Abraham Tucker, Rev. Thomas Broughton, Bishop Thomas Newton, Sir George Stonehouse, John Henderson, Dr. Nathan Drake, Dr. James Brown, Rev. William Matthews, Rev. Francis Leicester, Rev. Edward Holmes, Rev. Rochemont Barbauld, Mrs. Ann Letitia Barbauld, Rev. John Brown, Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley, Dr. John Jebb, Rev. John Simpson, Rev. Timothy Kenrick, Dr. John Prior Estlin, Dr. Lant Carpenter, Rev. Richard Wright, Rev. Henry Poole, Rev. Robert Aspland, Rev. Dr. Thomas Belsham, Rev. John Grundy, Rev. Russel Scott, Dr. Thomas Cogan, Rev. W. J. Fox, Rev. William Vidler

Nathaniel Scarlett, Rev. Mr. Creighton, Rev. James Rait, Rev Henry Bell, and Rev. William Upjohn.

In Scotland, by Duncan Forbes, Rev. James Purves, Rev. Niel Douglass, Rev. William Worrall, Rev. James Edmands, Rev. Dr. Thomas Southwood Smith, and Rev. George Harris.

In Ireland, by Bishop George Rust.

In Germany, by John William Peterson, Boetius or Balduin, professors of Divinity, Paul Siegvolk, Mr. Marsay, Gruner, Eberhard, Steinhart, Fuller, Semler, Crellius, Fisher, Shetz, and Shepherd, and is now held by a majority of the clergy and laity.

In Prussia, by Paul Jeremiah Bitaube and Rev. Herman Andrew Pistorius.

In France, by Rev. Thomas Cuppe, James Necker, Chais de Sourcesol, Dr. Geo. de Benneville, Durant, De la Chevrette, Dumoulin, L'Archer, &c.

In Switzerland, by Murault, Charles Bonnet, Rev. Ferdinand Oliver Petitpiere, Rev. John Gosper Lavater, and Carbo a Cortiaro.

In America, by Rev. Richard Clarke, Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, Rev. John Murray, Rev. Elhanan Winchester, Dr. Redman, Dr. Benjamin Rush, Rev. Dr. Charles Chauncey, Rev. John Tyler, Gen. Greene, Dr. Benj. Franklin, Rev. Mr. Wright (a Moravian), Shippie Townsend, Rev. Mr. Duchee, Dr. Joseph Young, Dr. Wm. Fitt Smith, Rev. Dr. Joseph Huntington, Rev. Dan Foster, and Rev. Thomas Fessenden.

The following individuals are known to have doubted the doctrine of endless misery, and to have been favorable to Universalism: Fenelon, Daniel De Foe, Dr. Isaac Watts, Dr. Philip Doddridge, Simon Episcopius, John Le Clerc, Rev. C. L. de Villette, Archbishop Newcome, Dr. Edward Young, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Dr. James Macknight, and others. There are some very good reasons for believing that the celebrated John Wesley was a Universalist. 1. He was one of those who requested Dr. Stonehouse to write a work in defence of Universalism. 2. "A work in which Universalism was taught (Brooks' Fool of Quality '), was republished under Mr. Wesley's supervision." 3. He republished a work by Charles Bonnett, entitled "Conjectures concerning the nature of Future Happiness," in which the same doctrine is inculcated. 4. The latter work he introduced to the public with the following prefatory commendation :"

"Dublin, April 7, 1787.

"To the Reader: I am happy in communicating to men of sense in this Kingdom, and at a very low price, one of the most sensible tracts I ever saw. JOHN WESLEY."

If the reader will examine the Ancient and Modern Histories of Universalism, and Stone's "Life of Winchester," he will find the above facts established by quotations from the writings of the individuals named, and by authorities which are indisputable.

DIFFERENCE IN THE BELIEF OF PARTIALISTS AND UNIVERSALISTS.

All the various denominations of professing Christians may be classed under three heads: Calvinists, Arminians, and Universalists. The agreement and the difference in the religious opinions of these three classes on the most important doctrines of Christianity may be stated as follows: :

Arminianism is supposed by thousands to be a much more consistent and reasonable system of theology than Calvinism. But who cannot see that both systems result in precisely the same thing? Arminianism damns as many as Calvinism, and the Arminian's hell is equally as horrible as the Calvinist's. What boots it then, reader, whether you go to an endless hell by the irreversi ble degree of the Almighty, or by the use of an agency which God gave you, and which he knew you would use to your own destruction? In other words, what difference will it make with you whether you are lost, and lost forever, because God cannot save you, or because he will not? The truth is, that between Calvinism and Arminianism there is not one cent to choose, but between either of these systems and that of Universalism the difference is infinite. And no man can fail to see that Universalism is infinitely the best.

MISTAKES OF PARTIALISTS CONCERNING UNIVER

SALISTS.

"Universalists do not believe in a hell."-That we do not believe in an endless hell is very true. But we believe in all the hell taught in the Bible. We also believe that there is no hell taught in the Bible but what is destined to be destroyed.

"Universalists do not believe in a devil.". -It is true we do not believe in the personal existence of an all-powerful evil spirit, such as is believed in by our Limitarian friends, and by them called the devil. Yet we believe in all the devil and devils taught in the Bible. If there are any worse devils than wicked men, the lusts and passions of men, and the spirit of wickedness, we profess to be entirely ignorant of their existence. Nor can we find the existence

of any worse ones taught in the Bible.

We know of the existence

of no devil that is not destined to be destroyed.

"Universalists do not believe in the atonement."-That we do not believe in the doctrine of atonement as it is taught in the creeds

and commandments of men, we have no disposition to deny. At the same time we profess to believe in it as it is taught in the Bible. The difference between us and our opposers is, we believe it was to reconcile man to God that Jesus died upon the cross; they, that it was to reconcile God to man.

"Universalists do not believe in any punishment for sin.”· So far from this being true, we are the only people on earth who believe that God will in very deed render to every man according to his deeds. We are the only people who do not provide some way for the sinner to escape the just punishment of his sins. We teach that the punishment of sin is certain and sure, and absolutely unescapable and unavoidable.

"Universalists believe that sinners will go to heaven and be saved in their sins." - Not so. We teach that sin is a cause, and misery the effect; that sin and misery are inseparably connected, and that so long as a man is sinful he must be miserable, and there is no escape. The reason why we believe in the eventual salvation of all men is, because we believe that all will be saved from their sins, not in them.

"Universalists do not believe in the new birth.”. great mistake.

-This is a very

It is true we do not see anything very miraculous or mysterious in the new birth, nor do we regard it as a radical change of human nature; but yet we profess to believe in it just as it is taught in the Bible.

66

Universalism is a very ancient doctrine. It was preached by the serpent in the garden of Eden." That Universalism is a very ancient doctrine we admit; but that it was taught by the serpent we deny. Do our opponents really think that the serpent taught the doctrine of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind? If they do, let them put their finger on the language used by the serpent in which this sentiment is taught. They cannot do it. We think our opposers are justly obnoxious to the same charge that they bring against us. The serpent taught that punishment for sin was not certain - that some way of escape would be provided. Our oppɔsers teach the same. We teach that punishment for sin is certain and sure, and that there is no way of escape.

“Universalism is a very new doctrine. It never was heard of until quite recently." — We are unable to comprehend how any doctrine can be both old and new at the same time. Besides, this