of August, 1828; at which time I was seventeen years and ten months old.

FIRST SETTLEMENT.

In the month of December, 1829, I removed to Vermont, to take charge of two Universalist societies; the one being situated in Brattleboro', the other in Guilford. Having the most unbounded confidence in my system, I had no doubt that it would work a great moral change in men, and soon cause the wilderness to blossom as the rose. I used every exertion to spread Universalism; and preached with all the ardor of youth, and the fervor of sincerity. Universalism was the only system that I ever embraced till my present views were adopted. By Universalists I was ordained; and never was my name enrolled among any other sect as a preacher, till my present connections were formed, in January, 1841.

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. Indeed, the practical tendencies of my preaching were not what I had expected to see. They were not what I saw attending the preaching of the gospel in the very vicinity in which I labored. 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. These meetings were a source of no mean profit to tavernkeepers in both towns in which I preached; and one of them, though not a Universalist, avowed himself to be "a liberal man," and contributed something to keep our meetings along.

The opposers of Universalism, who were made sad at my success, who trembled for the rising generation, and prayed that such sentiments might not prevail, I considered to be a bigoted and illiberal class of men. Yet I was compelled to allow that they embraced the sober, the intelligent, the religious portion of the community, that class of self-sacrificing men who upheld the sacred altar, kept the Sabbath holy, and feared God.

While those who attended upon my ministry were called the liberal party, I 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. came together, but not to be made better.

Men

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 of 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!

I was very much troubled by these considerations. My labors were not attended with the good results which I desired, and which I knew ought to follow a

system of truth. One uniform tendency accompanied Universalism in all places. One class of men hailed the doctrine, and wished the preacher abundant success. Whenever called to preach in a place which I had never visited, I knew what the character of my congregation would be before I saw it. Often 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.

I never supposed that religion was given to make men worse; nor to exert the negative influence of not doing any harm. That it was sent to make men better, and do for them what nothing else could do, I was convinced. That such reformations as I desired to see, did follow the preaching of the Savior and the apostles, and now attended the preaching of doctrines different from my own, I could not deny. How, then, could my faith be correct, and yet be followed by such fruits? For what purpose was a system, marked by such tendencies as mine, sent from heaven? Often, in the solitude of my study, such questions, searching and painful, would arise. A still, small voice would seem to inquire, "Does good attend your labors? Are men made better by them? Do profaneness, Sabbath-breaking, intemperance, licentiousness, fly at the approach of your faith, and cease when it spreads? Do religious fear, godliness, holiness, distinguish its reception among men? What good are you accomplishing? Who is made happier or better by your ministry?" These reflections troubled me, and made me unhappy. But they did not shake my faith in my system. I thought that to be good, but men to be bad. I consoled myself with the reflection, that the fault was in the professors of Universalism, and not in the system.

With such feelings I attended the Franklin Association of Universalists which met in Chesterfield, N. H., in the month of August, 1831. A minister

from New York preached what I then thought to be one of the greatest sermons I had ever heard. His avowed object was to clear Universalism from the charge of being a licentious system. The sermon was a word in season to me. It met my case, removed my difficulties, and enabled me to account for the moral results of my faith without calling its truth in question.

The argument of the sermon was this: - Love fulfils the law of God; and all men actuated by love will be obedient and happy—all who do evil are not under the influence of love, for love worketh no ill to his neighbor. From this the preacher drew the conclusion that Universalism is love; its preaching must be beneficial; and if men are immoral who profess that faith, it is because they do not practise what they profess. I thought the argument to be conclusive, and felt great joy that my difficulty was removed. I thought that the great hinderance to my defending the faith with satisfaction was now easily and forever taken out of the way.

But my joy was of short continuance. I left the meeting-house with two ministers; both of whom had preached Universalism many years, and are now among its most popular advocates. I mentioned to them the satisfaction I derived from the sermon. One of them replied, "But the argument is sophistical. The real objection has not been removed, nor touched; and Mr. S. knew it. No one doubts but love will do all that he says it will. But the point to be proved is this: Does the preaching of Universalism produce this love? And that point the preacher has evaded."