have led me from Universalism, and induced me to leave a ministry to which I have devoted twelve years of the best part of my life. In doing this, I respond

to the call of the defenders of Universalism, and perform a work which they have professed themselves earnestly desirous to have performed. They invite, nay, challenge inquiry. They are confident that Universalism is opposed because it is not understood; they complain that their expositions of Scripture are unnoticed; that their arguments in defense of Universalism are either not examined at all, or lightly passed over; that doctrines are attributed to them, which they

have never received, and which they disavow; and that those who speak of the moral tendency of Universalism, know not of what they affirm.

"My acquaintance with Universalism enables me to speak advisedly in relation to its practical tendency. An experience of years with the system and its friends, a settlement over one of the largest congregations of Universalists in the country, and an extensive acquaintance with the preachers of the system in all parts of the country, fit me to bear an intelligent testimony as to that system, and to state what I know and have seen." pp. 3, 4.

The first lecture gives an account of the author's religious experience, and of his life so far as is necessary to elucidate that experience. The second gives reasons for renouncing Universalism, arising from the difficulties that attend its defense; such as the character of its doctrines, striking at the root of all Christian faith and piety; the irreligious character of its ministers and their congregations; the want of confidence, both of preachers and hearers, in their own system, and their public use of arguments the sophistry of which they privately acknowledge; the number and character respectively of those who reject and those who defend it; its recent date; and its want of sanctions wherewith to enforce the duties of life. The third gives reasons for renouncing Universalism, drawn from the threatenings of the Bible. The fourth and fifth give reasons for renouncing the system, drawn from the entire insufficiency and fallacy of the arguments adduced for its support from the Bible, reason, and the light of nature.

The sixth gives reasons for renouncing it drawn from its moral tendencies and results. The seventh gives the argument against Universalism, drawn from future judgment.

We value the work chiefly for two reasons. The first, is its exhibition of the grace of God in reclaiming and converting one far gone in error, and of the means and process by which this was accomplished. The narrative of Mr. Smith's religious experience; the effect which the observation of the evil results of Universalism had upon his mindone of great natural sensibility; his mental conflict-the conflict between attachment to his theory and his aversion to its effects, and the happy conclusion with which divine grace crowned that conflict, must affect the hearts of God's people. We have read it with much emotion, even with tears. The second reason is, the testimony here given as to the dreadful moral influence and results of Universalism, by one who knows them from experience and thorough observation. We have always argued from the fixed principles of the depraved heart, that a system which takes off from that heart all restraint derived from the eternal world, which throws loose the reins on the neck of human passion, which cries to the conscience of the wicked "peace, peace," which promises to men eternal happiness live in this world as they list, which, in short, abolishes the sanctions of God's law and the whole influence of God's government in their bearing on human conduct, must be most disastrous in its effects on moral character. We have seen also something of the results of Universalism on society. We have known that a large part of professed Universalists, are among the dregs of the community, anxious for full license to sin. We have occasionally seen a congregation of Universalists, and been struck with the apparent symptoms of moral degra

dation, and could not repress the thought that an answer to the question," who hath redness of eyes?" was very obvious. We have known something of the intimate connexion between their place of meeting and the grog-shop and bar-room. But here is a witness from the very center of the Universalist camp, who has seen all its stations from that center to its outposts, who has observed all the host from its leaders to its lowest subaltern, who reveals the whole of what we had seen but a part, and, testifying to the utter corruption and rottenness of the system, more than confirms our observation, and fully substantiates our reasonings from the nature of the case. Mr. Smith has taken us into the "chambers of imagery" of Universalism. He has shown to us the interior life of its ministry and their hearers. He has proved to us by demonstration that Universalism, which outwardly is by no means a whited and beautiful sepulcher, is surely "full of all uncleanness" within. His testimony is that of one who entered on his ministerial office with enthusiasm, and performed its duties with great popularity, but by the moral results of the faith, was disappointed, disgusted, shocked, till sensibility and conscience could endure no longer.

We shall therefore, in our review of Mr. Smith's work, dwell principally on these two points.

It is a fact well worthy of our notice, that Mr. Smith did not become a Universalist in opposition to early religious instruction, to all those associations which cluster around the family altar, and to the sacred and undying influences which parental fidelity implants in the heart. Universalism was the religion of his childhood. He says

"I never enjoyed early religious instruction. In my father's house there was no family altar; no voice of prayer was there heard; no reading of the Bible as an act of worship. I never enjoyed the benefit of Sabbath school instruction;

no friend told me of God; no one instructed me to lisp his name, or fear his law. I have no recollection of having ever passed a night in my life, till I was more than twenty years of age, in a house in which there was family prayer, or the reading of the Bible, as an act of religious worship.

"My earliest recollections as to religion, are identified with Universalism." When I was six years of age, my father embraced the doctrine of Universalism, and became a preacher of the system. Nearly all that I heard upon the subject of religion, was favorable to Universalism; nearly all my relatives were of that faith; and almost all my acquaintances received the same sentiments. Very early I imbibed a hatred toward all systems that differed from this. So soon were the seeds of error planted in my heart." pp. 7, 8.

When he was sixteen years of age, his attention was turned to the subject of personal religion. A seriousness prevailed among his associates, the influence of which he felt. He thought his life was not what it should be, and that his heart was not right in the sight of God. His feelings were enlisted, and in some measure changed, so that he read the Bible with pleasure, and in some small meetings urged his fellow men to repentance. But unfortunately, being in a community far from evangelical, and falling in with teachers of Universalism, and being assured that Universalism and personal piety could harmonize, his religious interest was turned into that evil channel. He adopted the system of Universalism, began preparation for its ministry, and preached his first sermon in Medway, Mass., when between seventeen and eighteen years of age. About a year after, in December, 1829, he removed to Vermont, to take charge of two Universalist societies, one in Brattleboro' and the other in Guilford. Having unbounded confidence in the system which he had adopted, he had no doubt that it would work a great moral change in society, and used every exertion to spread that system, preaching with all the ardor of youth and all

the fervor of sincerity. How his expectations were answered, he thus informs us.

"At the very outset, I was mortified at the results of my ministry, and pained with what I saw in those who were

the loudest in their professions of regard for the blessed doctrine,' as Universalism was usually called. I saw none of that reform which I expected would attend my preaching; no moral reformation, though none needed it more than my personal friends; no change for the better, though I saw many changes for

the worse." "I was praised in the bar rooms, and my health drank in almost every tavern in the county. On the Sabbath, my congregation came direct from the tavern to my meeting, and went as directly back to the tavern after the meeting. The intermission was usually passed in discussing the merits of the sermon, not always in the most decorous terms; and in drinking my health, with their best wishes for my successful vindication of the salvation of all men."

"While those who attended upon my ministry were called the liberal party, knew that most of them were profane men; a large portion were open disbelievers in the inspiration of the Bible; and nearly all had been peculiar for their habits of Sabbath violation, passing the day in business or in pleasure. In all things, save an attendance upon my preaching, they remained professedly and really the same. Men came together, but not to be made better. They seemed to desire that their hands might be strengthened in sin; and thought the end of preaching to be, to prove that all retribution was limited to this life, and that all men would finally be saved. When occasionally I urged upon my hearers the duties of life, and lightly reproved their vices, I was told that such preaching was decidedly illiberal, and very much like the orthodox. Nor were profaneness, gambling, Sabbath-breaking, or infidelity, regarded as in any respect inconsistent with a profession of Universalism. One of the officers of my society in Guilford, was in the habit of going into the adjoining towns to hear me preach; and I have known him repeatedly to pass nearly the whole Saturday night in gambling with young men at a tavern-young men whom he had invited to accompany him to meeting. And at the same time this individual was engaged in a controversy in a secular paper with a Methodist clergyman, upon the moral tendency of Universalism!"

"One uniform tendency accompanied Universalism in all places. One class of men hailed the doctrine, and wished the preacher abundant success.' "Often

כי

have I been complimented with oaths; heard the scoffer and the vile hope the good work would go on; and been wished success in language too foul and offensive to be repeated. When I saw a man in my congregation of an intelligent appearance, I presumed him to be an infidel, and never in this respect was I mistaken." pp. 10, 11, 12.

"Often," he says, "in the solitude of my study, such questions as these, searching and painful, would arise. 'Does good attend your preaching? Do profaneness, Sabbath-breaking, intemperance, licentiousness, fly at the approach of liness, holiness, distinguish its reyour faith? Do religious fear, godception among men?"" flections, though they made him unhappy, did not yet shake his faith in his system. He consoled himself with the thought, that the fault was not in Universalism, but in its professors.

These re

In the year 1832, he accepted an invitation to take charge of the Universalist society in Hartford. There he attracted a large congregation, and was highly esteemed and well supported by his society. But no good moral results attended his ministry. The founders and chief supporters of the society, its clerk, a majority of its committee, and seven eighths of the pew-holders, were undisguised infidels.

"But," he says, "the absence of good moral results was not the only evil with which I was called to contend. I not only turned no sinner from the error of his ways; called back no soul from the road of death; but I saw positive evils attending my labors. Many who attended my ministry were grossly immoral, and more were waxing worse and worse.

"One fact that transpired among others, made me very unhappy. On Sabbath evenings my church was usually crowded with young men. Many of these would leave the bar-rooms and dram-shops in the vicinity of my meeting-house, attend my lecture, and then retire again, at its close, to those places of infamy, and there pass nearly the whole night. They would drink my health, and praise me and my sermons in the awful words of profaneness and blasphemy." pp. 16, 17.

Oppressed beyond measure by

these facts; not willing to do his fellow men an injury, yet knowing that many could justly accuse him as the author of their ruin; morti fied and appalled at the contrast between the character and spirit of the orthodox community and that of his own community, and between the results of orthodox preaching and those of his own; harassed by doubts, and worn down by anxiety and incessant labor, his health and reason gave way. During his mental alienation, his whole theme was Universalism, its tendency, and the insufficiency of the proof adduced for its support. On this subject he had conversations at that time with two of the pastors of that city, in which he revealed what was passing in his mind.

After he had partially recovered his health, feeling that he could remain no longer in Hartford, he resigned his charge, resolved to seek another field of labor. Compelled to reject ultra Universalism, he adopted the doctrine of limited future punishment. Distressed at the immoralities of his denomination, he determined to preach less against the faith of other sects, and more against the sins of his own society; less upon the certainty of the salvation of all men, and more upon the duties of life. He was soon settled over a Universalist society in Salem. There his congregation was one of the largest in the city; but the practical results of his ministry were the same as before. He could not rest in the doctrine, which by an ascending step he had adopt ed, of limited future punishment. Its effect was much the same as that of ultra Universalism, and moreover he could find in the Bible no evidence of any limit to future punishment, and the same reasons by which he proved any punishment hereafter, demanded its perpetuity. Yet, unable to give up his faith in the ultimate salvation of all men, determined to cling to that, he was greatly

Once in or

distressed, and could find no peace unless by a great effort he banished the whole subject from his mind, and turned his attention to something else. He wrote and preached often under the influence of doubts almost overwhelming. der to remove his doubts, he wrote a sermon in which he presented in the strongest form all the arguments he could think of in defense of Universalism. He preached the sermon but once, and though his people requested it for the press, he committed it to the flames. When he conversed with his ministerial asso ciates for relief, he did not experience it, but often found them in deeper difficulty than himself. He resolved at length to dismiss the subject of man's destiny altogether from his sermons, and to preach on moral subjects and the practical duties of life, without saying any thing in respect to the final salvation of all men.

"This change," he says, "in the subjects of my sermons was soon noticed, and complained of. Some desired a lit tle more doctrine. Others thought the youth ought to be indoctrinated, and that the minister ought to do it. From vari ous sources, I would hear that strangers who entered my church could not tell considered it a reproach, that men could what my views were; and my society hear a Universalist preach, and not know whether or not he believed that all men would be saved. While others, out of

regard to my health and ease, desired me to preach some of my old sermons-the design being to obtain the doctrine which those sermons were known to contain." p. 28.

But notwithstanding this farther change, his mind was not at rest. He had dismissed the subject of man's final destiny from his preaching, but he could not dismiss it from his thoughts. And though he did not yet give up his faith in the ultimate salvation of all men, he felt that as an honest man he could no longer represent a system which was plainly at war with the interests of his race. He therefore wrote a letter to the committee of the Uni

versalist society, in which among other things, he said:

"If I could serve the society without acting in concert or being identified with the denomination of Universalists, I should be ready and happy so to do.

"If, however, the society should insist upón such a concert of action, I shall hold myself ready, cheerfully, and with the kindest feelings, forthwith to tender my resignation of the office of pastor, and with it all the duties, trials, and responsibilities of that trust." p. 30.

The committee to whom this letter was sent, called upon him to induce him to take it back-expressed their surprise-thought he was committing a suicidal act, and assured him that if he would take back the letter and continue his labors, they would pledge him their honors that no mortal should ever know that it had been written. He told them that the sentiments he had expressed remained unchanged, and that he could not eat the bread of dishonesty-resigned his office, and from that hour has had no official connexion with Universalism.

Impelled by his increasing doubts about the ultimate salvation of all men, he resolved thoroughly and faithfully to review and weigh all the arguments for and against that doctrine. The result of this review was his full conviction, "that Universalism is as false in theory as it is destructive in practice." But the same gracious Spirit who had led him to reject that false system, still urged him on, and pressed the inquiry, "What is truth?" For the system denominated orthodoxy he had by early association and long habit the most perfect contempt and abhorrence. Still, he was constrained to look at religion as a personal concern, and to consider the question, whether he had met with that change and formed that character which the Bible declares to be essential to salvation.

"I felt," says he, "that there was a reality in religion, which I had never known, a power that I had never enjoy ed. I longed for something that would

take hold of my own heart, and allow me to speak to the hearts of my fellow men. I was now, in a measure, afloat. I had no settled opinions upon religion. On what side soever I turned, I found difficulties; and on all sides, the horizon was black indeed." "I had no religious acquaintance, to whom I could unburden my mind. My sufferings were great; my anguish more exquisite than language can paint. I did not know where to go, or to whom I could speak; and it seemed to me literally, that no man cared for my soul.' I would have given all I possessed, to have found some friend to whom I could have unbosomed myself; who would have said some kind thing, or bid me hope in God. But I did not dare trust even my own family. Though it seemed to me that every man I met read my feelings in my countenance, I kept them to myself till I was carried almost into my grave."

"A complaint which, from my childhood, has been the bane of my existence, and which in Hartford had led to temporary derangement, threatened to return. I was admonished that it was time to seek medical advice." pp. 33, 34.

Finding that he could not otherwise answer necessary questions, he unburdened his mind to his physician, who warmly sympathized with him, and urged him not to incur the great hazard of bearing this state of feeling alone, but to seek assistance from some religious teacher. Unwilling to commit himself by seeking sympathy or instruction from those near him, with a trembling spirit and great anxiety he wrote to Rev. Dr. Hawes, with whom he had some acquaintance, and communicated to him his difficulties. answer, which was sent immediately, was such as might have been expected in such circumstances, from such a source.

The