I had seen the blessed influence of the doctrine spread out often on paper, but I could not see them any where else! No-God knows I am honest in this assertion. I do not feel to abuse the denomination, but it is true, that I could not for my life see any good resulting to society from the sentiment. This conviction rolled in upon my mind and my feelings with tremendous effect. Alas-thought I, have I been spending "my labour for that which satisfieth not!” Are all my efforts useless, and only tending to make looser the restraints of religion and virtue? I recollected of delivering a discourse in this place a year ago last winter, published in the 1st volume of the Genius of Liberty, designed to arouse universalists to something like a religious course, if they did not mean indeed to identify their cause with infidelity. I was given to understand that they wanted no such preaching, and although frequently solicited to preach here since, my answer has been substantially, that I would when I was satisfied they wanted to learn how to be

universalist editors to find a single word against the morals of universalists in the Renunciation. I did not, at the time, intend to take any hostile course against universalists; nor did I intend to either preach or write against any christian sect. I intended to let "mad opinions" take care of themselves. I intended to judge all opinions by their practical utility, and all men by their practical goodness. To promote the christian virtues, and persuade to a good life was my grand object; and I had found universalism to be of no use in such a work. This is the great sin: for which I have been made to feel the vengeance of the "only non-persecuting denomination." I have still taught that all the good will be saved. But the editors are not satisfied with that. It is not liberal enough. They wish to have it distinctly and clearly understood, that more than the good, all the wicked too, will certainly be saved! They think the wicked will be very likely to reform if they are sure they will be saved at all events! I am perfectly willing the vicious should have the trouble to fear the damnation of hell, or else take the trouble to reform. Most all the universalists, who are generally considered candid and virtuous men, (except these writers,) so far as I have conversed with them on the subject, acknowledge, that they have the best evidence that the nature of the subject admits of, that the belief that all will be saved positively and unconditionally, has no good effect in the piety and morals of men. They admit that the course pursued toward me, by a class of men, for the honest expression of my views on that subject, is full proof that universalism does not make men tolerant.

come better. But with these impressions, I was obliged still to be a universalist; for I could not make up my mind fully to be an infidel, and viewed all the doctrines of the orthodox almost with abhorrence. I could much easier have gone into infidelity than orthodoxy. My prejudices were so strong against the orthodox generally, that I misapprehended many of their sentiments, and believed them all either very ignorant or unprincipled hypocrites.

With such feelings, I concluded one Sunday last summer to go in and hear Mr. Gillet, of the Presbyterian church in this village. My object principally was to enable myself to expose some of the gross inconsistencies of his doctrine.But he preached on practical social duties; I was highly pleased and edified with the whole discourse. In the afternoon I went again, and discovered as I thought some errours, but in consequence of the happy effect of his first sermon, I could not feel it in my heart to find any fault with him before the publick; for I found myself beginning to respect his feelings, which I had formerly sported with in a very wanton manner; and had verily thought I was serving God in so doing. Soon after I heard him again, and fina!ly was induced to hear as often as possible; for the more I heard the more satisfied I was that his grand object was not to oppress and injure human society as I had supposed, but to upbuild practical religion and morality, and thus subserve the best interests of men, as well as to promote the declarative glory of God. I had certainly supposed that presbyterian clergymen were the most unprincipled men in the world, though from their superiour literary attainments, I did not hold them in such perfect contempt as I did the methodist clergy. But upon becoming acquainted with the above individual, I was constrained to perceive that I had been blind with prejudice; and was further persuaded by degrees that his preaching and general views were useful to the community around him.

Last winter I attended the protracted meeting in this

place, to see if indeed they conducted it in the ludicrous and revolting manner represented by their opponents.Caudour demands of me the statement that I heard not a single sarcastick expression or unchristian insinuation, or any thing else, more than serious practical, preaching, and impressive appeals to sinners to come to Christ and live.-There were some things, that infidels might not approve, and that abandoned people might condemn; but I think there was nothing, that any christian could be displeased with.

About this time it began to be talked that I had renoun-, ced universalism. I had not done it, neither had I deter mined that I should. I was dissatisfied with it, as being not calculated to build up serious and devout societies; but I dared not immediately renounce it, through fear that my, objections were the result of some intellectual hallucination, or temporary prejudice, or hypochondrical affection. and might finally wear off. Being thus circumstanced, I felt it improper for me to urge upon my readers a belief in universal salvation. It was also equally improper for me to urge objections to the theory until I should become fully established either against or for it. Therefore I took the only course remaining for me, which was to confine my publick remarks, to subjects not immediately connected with the question, and to urge upon my readers such considerations as I believed would be useful to them.

Although, I have for some time thought I should ultimately renounce the doctrine, yet I was determined not to do it so hastily as not to be fully conscious, of doing right. I published an article in the 44th No. 2d volume Genius of Liberty, from the Boston Trumpet, by a Restorationist, which professes to give an account of the religious condition of universalists generally in New England. The reader is requested to peruse it. The editor of the Trumpet asserts that it is a misrepresentation. How it may be in New England, I do not know; but this I knew, that it is

66

not a misrepresentation of their religious condition so far as I know any thing about them. I would not speak harshly of them. My affections have clung to them with almost the grasp of desparation. Certainly as a people they deserve no evil at my hands. I only wish to speak of the general effects of the doctrine. I know individuals among them of the most amiable dispositions and characters, that would honour any profession. But I do not think their doctrine ever made them so. I candidly aver in the fear of God, that I do not believe the doctrine ever made a single soul any better than he otherwise would have been, while it has been the means of removing necessary restraints, and giving latitude to thousands, whose propensities and passions needed restraint, whereby they have indulged in criminal pursuits and gone to perdition. I only judge from what I know from what I have seen, in reference to the general effects of the doctrine. The tree must be known by its fruits." And after taking the fruits of the tree of universalism into long and deliberate and prayerful consideration, so far as I have ever seen them, I am compelled to conclude the tree is radically defective-that God never designed to give mankind a religion which would do them no good, and about which most of its friends would feel so perfectly indifferent as universalists generally do about their religion. When I learn of a single drunkard, or swearer, or gambler, or debauchee, or knave, being reformed in consequence of the universalist doctrine, I shall think better of its influence than I do now-for it is my solemn opinion that such an instance never occurred. And I would gladly hold up this truth to all the friends of the doctrine, and make it speak out in thunder to their consciences-and then ask them if they will still teach this doctrine to their children?

Being aroused to these considerations, I began to ask again whether the Bible did teach universalism in its own plain unsophisticated construction. In the first place, it is

manifest that hope and fear are the two great sources of human volitions. Hope is powerful when balanced by fear in inducing men to action. Men will never do much for an object because they hope for it, unless they fear that they shall not obtaiù it without action. Induce an avaricious man to believe that he shall become rich whether he works or not, and he may ardently hope to be so; but such hope would never induce him to work. On the other hand induce him to believe that if he works he shall become rich, and to fear that if he does not he will be poor, and this hope and fear together will make him active. So when we look impartially into the scriptures, we shall find the hope of reward and the fear of punishment, every where held forth,, as the proper inducements to a good life. These are the inducements-they are parallel through the Bible-the one would have no practical effect without the other. In reference to this point I have examined Prof. Stewart's learned work on those original terms which define the duration of future happiness and future misery, and I think he clearly shows that the rewards and punishments of a future world are parallel and of equal duration. I know that most of universalists deny the existence of even any punishment in a future state. But I should cer tainly think it much fairer for them to say at once, that they did not regard the unvarnished sense of the Bible at all, and only used it as a kind of popular mantle in which to dress up a system of palpable infidelity. They may come

*I do not pretend here to accuse all universalists, who deny future punishment, of dishonesty; but that they do not believe in the scriptures in their plain natural unvarnished sense. To bring people to their system, their principal business is to varnish over the scriptures so as to give them the appearance of teaching what common readers would never have suspected from the words.The system, in my opinion, is so near deism, as to be precisely the same in its moral effects. There are many good moral deists.Those men, who would be moral without any religious restraint, would be good moral deists; and so with this system. But such is not the moral constitution of all men. And as all ought to support the laws necessary to restrain the vicious, so all ought to support religion necessary to the security and execution of those laws. Such