Universalism as a sentiment and belief has been in the world since the days of the apostles. Of this fact no reader of the "Ancient History of Universalism" will have a doubt. But Universalism as a consecutive movement tending to organization and ecclesiastical forms, as the germ of a denomination, must be regarded as comparatively of recent origin. Winchester and Murray were, in some respects, efficient pioneers in this work; but the leading spirit-the one whose energy, eloquence, force of character, and sterling intellect, made him distinctively the "father of modern Universalism," was Hosea Ballou, senior. Hosea Ballou, senior. Providence always adapts true men to their work. Scholars and critics follow pioneers, but are themselves seldom pioneers. They nurture and trim the tree that different men plant. The elder Hosea Ballou was not a scholar; and though possessing, in large degree, the intellectual qualities which fit one to become a critic, he was not, in any eminent degree, a critic. His mind was not retrospective-his gaze was towards the present and future, not the past. Reverently holding fast to the Scriptures, and testing all opinions by them, he broke from the trammels of other men's interpretations, and endeavored, by the simple efforts of his own understanding, to elicit the meaning of the oracles. To him the testimony of the Bible to the doctrine of the final holiness and happiness of all men, was clear, explicit, and irrefragible. Filled with this discovery-for to him it was substantially a discovery, and especially in the form in which he received it, though the same essential thought is clearly traceable to the very days of the apostles-he gave to its promulgation the full strength of his vigorous intellect and the unfaltering zeal of his earnest soul. Others caught his spirit, adopted his views, labored in his vein; and gradually the seeds of denominational life-in some measure planted before his day-took more vigorous root, sprang into visible forms; and long before the venerable patriarch closed his eyes upon earthly scenes, conventions, associations, sundayschool organizations, churches, periodicals and kindred instrumentalities, gave outward evidence of the active existence of a Christian organization, to the progress of which he had contributed more than any other single individual. In all this he probably worked without any very definite plan. He was "led by the spirit" of his great truth-acted at its bid

ding. He did not guide the truth so much as the truth guided him.

We must add that in this we see the universal law in the initiatory steps of every religious movement. Religious organizations are never put together as houses are--by rule, plan, and specific purpose. Humanly speaking they hap pen; and the human instrumentalities leading to such results act impulsively under the guidance of strong sentiment, and with but little anticipation of the ecclesiastical forms in which their labors are destined to be enshrined. In this early stage of a denomination's history, zeal is strong; every preacher is a missionary; and without waiting to be sent for, he goes forth to proclaim his thought, it may be without money and without price.

But scholarship and criticism, though never the pioneers of a religious movement, are certain to follow,--that is, if the movement has in it vitality and substance enough to merit the attention of scholars and critics. A denomination that cannot produce a literature will necessarily be of short life. Universalism had, as in new regions it now has, its itinerants, its missionaries, its devoted preachers in whom the simple love of the doctrine gave direction to their labors, and prepared the way for ecclesiastical results which, on their part, can hardly have been premeditated. But the time came for a somewhat different class of laborers,--men who, though not less devoted nor less in earnest, should somewhat reverse the original order of procedure-who, instead of being under the control of the sentiment, should put the sentiment itself somewhat under control; who should act less from impulse and more from premeditation; who should have in their labors more of method and fixed purpose; men who, realizing that even the best of emotions are, in themselves alone, evanescent, should see the need of fortifying their results by resort to criticism, to philosophical disquisition, to the kind of argumentation that will have force after the original tide of deep enthusiasm shall have measurably spent its force.

We do not say that the change from what we will call the impulsive phase of Universalism to what we will call its more reflective phase-from the phase in which feeling controlled the men, to the phase in which men controlled the feeling-was an abrupt change, and hence clearly and defi

nitely distinguished in our denominational history. The poverty of language requires us to speak of the night as succeeded by the day, without specially and verbally making account of the gradual and intermediate changes of dawn and twilight. With the Universalist denomination, as yet brief in its history, the daylight of criticism and scholarship has by no means appeared. But we trust that the dawn of such a day is upon us. And while it would be unjust alike to the dead and the living to attribute the new light to a single star, yet may we assert that among our luminaries one was so pre-eminent, the light it gave was so refulgent, the quickening effects of its rays so conspicuous, the harvest its light and warmth have already ripened so ample and promising, that we need not hesitate to assign it the central and commanding place in our denominational galaxy.

Dr. Ballou has from the first been acknowledged as distinctively the scholar and the critic of our denomination. It was, as we have before hinted, his "mission" to give a more reflective turn to the style of Universalist thought and argument. And never was a man better qualified for such a task. By inclination, by habit, by moral and religious proclivity, by temperament, firmness of purpose, and comprehensiveness of understanding, he was the providential man that came at the time appointed. No other man has done so much to make Universalist theology respected alike by those who do, and by those who do not, believe in it. He did nothing for transient effect-sought for his convictions no precarious advancement-had confidence in no accessions to the cause other than such as were drawn to it by its intrinsic force.

No matter how varied or numerous the forces in any particular person's character, some one force is always preeminent, and gives direction to all the remaining forces. Ambition, avarice, intellectual and moral proclivities, all may be strong, but it will hardly happen that all the tendencies shall have equal strength; one will be somewhat in the ascendent, and so give tone and direction to the complex character. Dr. Ballou had beyond most men a capacious and comprehensive understanding-he saw not only individual truths, but the relations of truths; he had great

mental acquirements-his reading, especially in the departments of theology, history, and mental philosophy, was extensive and very precise; his industry was very extraor dinary-plodding, particular, discriminating and unyielding; but in no one of these features do we find the leading trait in his character. The root of his character was in the moral nature. His sterling integrity, his inflexible conscientiousness, the deep sense of responsibility with which he entered upon any labor, this was in him more than intellect, more than learning, more than industry; it was the quickening element in his entire career-inspiring and sustaining all his faculties-holding him with unflagging perseverance to whatever work he had in hand. In every sense in which he was a laborer, whether as student, thinker, writer, teacher or preacher, the force which stirred his energies was his moral nature. Whoever came into social relations with him distinctively felt his integrity; and this, no matter how remote from moral considerations may have been the occasion which called for intimacy with him. It has been said of Washington that there was a majesty in the most trivial of his acts-even in the most casual direction to a servant. Dr. Ballou could not indulge in a humorous anecdote, describe a mountain, or expose a sophism, but he made his hearer feel his conscience.

As an example of his integrity, showing itself directly, we need but refer to the candor with which he always presented his convictions. No man ever loved Universalism more ardently than he-no man was ever more rejoiced at every proof of the substantial advancement of the cause. But never did he resort to any artifice-never did he employ an argument in which he himself did not have entire confidence-never avail himself of the advantage of a sophism, for sectarian ends. This virtue is rare, very rare. Men of tolerable excellence have too often felt that a lie might at least be winked at, provided it was designed for the glory of God. There have been men too conscientious to tolerate a wrong where it might seem that they or theirs would derive advantage from it, but who seem insensible to such scruples, when the church, the sect, the creed is likely to thrive by an artifice! Strange as the fact may seem, the conscience that will not equivocate for a doated theology, shows the rarest of all forms of integrity! Dr. Ballou, be

yond any man we have ever known, exemplified this fidelity to truth. Whoever heard him speak on religious themes, whoever read his writings, felt that the spirit that communed with them could not deceive.

His dominant conscientiousness was, in one important par ticular, an incentive to the industry which was so remarkable in his case. If it was his purpose to ascertain the opinions of other men on a particular subject, particularly to ascertain the grounds on which they rested those opinions, and still more particularly, if he purposed to make a statement of those opinions and grounds, he felt that he was under a solemn obligation to make thorough work-that he did his fellow-men wrong if he judged of their reasoning hastily, without full examination of the alleged claims of this reasoning-that he was deceiving others if he gave to them as certain men's opinions what he had not, by a most faithful scrutiny, made himself sure were other men's opinions. Hence he worked with patience and perseverance simply that he might do no man injustice.

In another particular his industry found its great incentive in his moral nature. Some persons have an impression that he toiled from the simple love of toil. Such was by no means the case. He once said to us, in substance, and in lamentation over his innate love of ease, as he regarded it, "I have heard of men that have a monomania for hard work, but I never knew any such men; I don't believe there are any such; I believe that man is naturally lazyat least I know that I am!" It gave us much consolation to hear such a man say this; but coming from him, the declaration gave us no encouragement or excuse for idleness. He felt that it was his duty to work and this with diligence; that he was responsible for the use he made of his gifts; that God demanded his toil and that it would be culpable in him to hold back; and his integrity, his master in all things else, was his master also in this. With him as with all men, hard work was a hard struggle, but it was a divine struggle -obedience to a divine call. It was not so much that he was industrious and conscientious, as that he was industrious because he was conscientious. Even the toil which makes so conspicuous a trait in his career, found its incentive in his conscience.

To the readers of the Quarterly, it can hardly be necessary to say much respecting the intellectual gifts and attain