avowed himself a Congregationalist. Still he failed to secure that position which he thought his talents ought to command. He soon left the Congregationalists, and announced himself a Baptist. But his standing among the Baptists was not what he wished; and he left them in a short time. He next became a Puritan Baptist, celebrated the communion every Sabbath, and washed his disciples" feet. Making a hurried descent through Unitarianism and Restorationism, he came down to Universalism; and was embraced by Universalists as one of the greatest and most learned of men.

Before he avowed himself to be a Universalist, Mr. Balfour addressed a series of anonymous letters to Rev. Prof. Stuart, professing to be in doubt upon some of the great doctrines of the gospel, and asking for light. These letters appearing in a Universalist print, endorsed by no responsible name, and bearing internal evidence that the writer was a confirmed Universalist, as no doubt he was, they received no attention from Prof. Stuart.

Indeed, no one supposed, at the time, that the writer expected any notice from the distinguished person whom he addressed; the whole being evidently intended for effect. He then threw off his disguise, and addressed Prof. Stuart over his own name. But he commanded less attention, if possible, when known, than when engaged as an anonymous writer. All by whom he desired to be noticed, knew the man too well to waste upon him either intellect or ink. He gained his object, however. He came to Univer

salists as a mighty man; as one whom his former brethren dare not attack, and whom Prof. Stuart could not answer.

Claiming to be a learned man, as indeed he was, in comparison with his present associates, Mr. Balfour gave a new aspect to Universalism; and so changed it, that, when it came from his hands, it retained but little of the form it had received from Mr. Murray, the father of the system.

Mr. Balfour contended that no such place as hell ever existed. The being of Satan he expunged from the Bible. The immortality of the soul he denied. He taught that all punishment was limited to this life, that all consciousness ceased with the death of the body, and that men would know nothing after death, till the general resurrection, when they would be created over again.

When I began my public life, the views of Mr. Balfour were generally received by the sect to which I belonged. The divinity of Christ was a theme of ridicule. Future retribution was laughed at as a relic of heathenism. The immortality of the soul was a thing that existed only in the imagination. The Bible was allowed to be an inspired book, provided it taught Universalism; while it was a common remark from the pulpit, that it would be unworthy of confidence if it contained any sentiment inconsistent with the salvation of all men.

I embraced the form of Universalism then prevalent. I was a Humanitarian. The immortality of the soul, the native depravity of man, the apostasy and the ruin of our race, the plenary inspiration of the Bible,

and future punishment, were all set aside by my teachers, and were rejected by myself. There were. parts of the Bible that seemed to teach doctrines different from those which I had espoused. But I relieved my mind with the supposition that all systems had their difficulties, and that mine had fewer than others.

ment.

In the course of my ministry, as I became familiar with men and opinions, I could not but be impressed with the fact that a great many wise and good men received the doctrines which I rejected. Many of them stood high as men of sense and sound discernThese men would be confided in, as to other matters. How, then, could they receive doctrines which, to my mind, were so contrary to reason? How could they discover their faith in the Bible, when I knew it taught no such thing? I thought much, read much, and was much perplexed upon this subject. Some parts of the Bible seemed to be built upon the fact that the soul is immortal. Other parts seemed to assert the divinity of the Redeemer. There was much, too, that intimated that this life is one of trial, and that its actions will decide the endless destiny of man.

Though the principles of interpretation which I brought to the Bible helped me to get over these difficulties in a great measure, yet in all cases I could not satisfy myself. And, besides, those principles obliterated some of the most obvious truths. The same reasoning that blotted from the Bible eternal death, also blotted out endless life. When I extinguished the fires of hell, I put out, at the same time, the light of

heaven. When I had proved that Satan had no existence, the same arguments would annihilate the being of God, and make atheism the true faith.

From this perplexity I sought and found relief in the following manner: Some years ago, I had presented to me a book, containing the studies pursued at the Andover Theological Seminary, together with the doctrines there taught, and a reference to the works in which each doctrine was explained and defended.

Taking the book one day from my library, I resolved to investigate this subject, and see what the advocates of Orthodoxy could say in its defence. I had access to a very valuable theological library, and availed myself of its ample stores to obtain information as to those doctrines which have so long composed the faith of the church of Christ. I had no design or desire to embrace the creed I was about to examine. But the world seemed full of ideas about the fall of angels and men, and of the doctrines of depravity, atonement, regeneration, and eternal judgment. It was my desire to know upon what these and kindred doctrines were based; to inform myself in respect to the amount of evidence derived from the Bible in their support.

For some time I was engaged in this work. As I proceeded, I was astonished to find how grossly caricatured the doctrines of grace had been, and how much reason and Scripture were on their side. I often found those despised sentiments sustained by an amount of evidence which I was unable to remove.

As the result of this inquiry, my views on most of the important doctrines of the gospel were materially changed. Indeed, from the commencement of my

ministry, my views had undergone a gradual and imperceptible change, till the grace of God led me to embrace fully the doctrines of the cross.

II. DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM THE IRRELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATIONS.

Among those who composed the societies of Universalists, I have ever found a general dislike to religious duties and serious things. This seemed to be the uniting bond. To cast off fear, and to restrain prayer, was the great thing to be gained by a profession of Universalism. In the congregations with which I have had an acquaintance, I never found a family that observed the reading of the Bible as an act of devotion, or had regular family worship. And I have never found settled religious principle among those calling themselves Universalists. Not only have I never found devout reverence springing from the system, but none can live in it. I have observed it a fact invariably occurring, that, when a Universalist becomes serious and thoughtful, he will at once leave the Universalist meeting. And when a pious man embraces that system, he will abandon his habits of devotion in changing his faith. Men peculiar for their habits of private and family prayer, and for a serious study of the Bible, if they embrace Universalism, become at once as peculiar for the neglect of these religious duties.

The great purpose of those who unite in Universalist societies, is not to make themselves better, and to throw around themselves new restraints; it is not that