Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

dark, and inefficient faith in any. At times I was extremely unhappy, so much so as almost to wish for death.* The conversion of Dr. Stedman, of Mayville, has been a subject with me of much reflection. I knew his former business

* Universalist_editors have attempted to prove from this paragraph, that I was an atheist for two years or more previous to my Renunciation. They wish to make this out, because they have always pretended that no universalist ever changed his views. Although hundreds who were once considered universalists-who professed to be, and were as much so to all appearance as any body, have been known to renounce the scheme, yet it is at once declared that they never were universalists. There can be no doubt, if Hozea Ballou, the very father of modern universalism, were to renounce his sentiments on this point, the whole phalanx of universalist editors would make it out clearly that he never was a universalist. Many there are, who have been heard to say "Mr. Todd is the best universalist preacher I ever heard. He proves his doctrine by such clear and convincing arguments. He does not blackguard so much as some of them. And he preaches so much practice as well as doctrine, that nobody can find any fault with many of his discourses." And now the same persons have been heard to say, "Mr. Todd never was a real universalist. He never understood the doctrine. I always knew he was dishonest, though I used to stand up for him," &c. Others say, "he was so destitute of the true principles of universalism, it is no wonder his writings and preaching should do no good." The same persons say again, "his writings stand as a bulwark around universalism which he can never overthrow." Dr. Danforth of Laona, wrote me thus, "the universalists of this county have long flattered themselves, that they had one, who was able to defend their cause against all opposition! But now how fallen! How has the mighty fallen!" &c. It is a great pity any body should fall; but from the account universalists give of themselves, I should think them the last people in the world to trample upon one because he had been so unfortunate as to fall. Many other wild, contradictory, and absurd things have been said; and all in consequence of one man's opinion on one question! I had no idea before of the vast importance that could be attached to my ideas! I find my words are watched; and my most trifling expressions-even some that I never make, are reported to universalist editors for publication.Nay, if I happen to spit, it is published! (See note page 74.)

I did not say in the Renunciation that I had been an atheist. The infidels of New-York were atheists or nearly so; but the question whether there be a God was not the principal question discussed in their writings. They generally wrote on political and philosophical principles; and their discussions were such as tended to draw the mind from the religion of the Bible-to weaken our faith, and embitter our feelings toward the teachers of piety. So far, "my mind was contaminated with her ruinous principles," but I never got so far as to be an atheist. One would suppose, by their being so sure that I was an atheist, that they considered athe

was very lucrative, and I persuaded myself that he had become externally religious for the sake of still increasing his pecuniary business. For he was such a strong and enlightened infidel that I was persuaded nothing but God could really convert him to christianity, and I doubted whether God would interpose for any such purpose. But last summer when I found that same man had abandoned all his lucrative business, and gone into the world to preach -that he had left wealth and affluence and all earthly comforts behind him-when I reflected that he had been avaricious and worldly and skeptical as any other man; and that he was now liberal and kind, and his whole soul now devoted to religion, and was even willing to be a methodist; all this satisfied me that he was indeed converted by the invisible agency of the Holy Spirit. This, together with some other things not necessary to be named, made some peculiarly serious impressions upon my mind. I began to look with renewed and deeper attention upon the system of universalism as I professed it. I had seen it rise and spread in all directions. At first I knew of only two or three advocates of the system, now there were hundreds. Thousands were becoming its friends, and I thought it indicated an ultimate triumph over all other systems. So its friends generally seem to believe.

This often induced me to look forward to future generations, and contemplate them and their condition as though they were to be my children. Something would seem to ask, "what will be their social, moral, and religious state? Are the effects of the doctrine now (so far as they are visible to observation from the multitude that profess it) such as to promise any substantial and lasting good to future

ism a common failing in the fraternity. Be that as it may, I never was an atheist, and never professed to be; and do not recollect that I ever had a doubt of the existence of a Supreme Being in my life. Theoretical atheism I consider proof of mental aberration. I think it the result of an intense effort to comprehend what is incomprehensible.

Are men

ages, when it comes to be ultimately universal? more apt to be honest, benevolent, social, kind, humble, tolerant, and pious, in consequence of being converted to universalism? Are such abandoned and black-hearted. wretches, as love to trample in scorn upon every thing sacred, made to tremble and stand abashed by this doctrine ? Are the wicked reformed or restrained by its powerful influence?" Such like questions often crowded upon my mind with such affecting and overwhelming energy, that I looked around with deep solicitude to see its good effects. I began earnestly to review the course generally pursued by universalists, with a view to judge of the common effects of the doctrine. I ardently desired to see the boasted good, which I and others had ascribed to it. But the more I looked the more I must confess I discovered a moral waste.*

* Moral waste here might seem to convey a different idea from that intended. My meaning (as may be seen from other parts of the Renunciation,) was not that universalists were immoral; but that however moral they might be, I had no evidence that universalism made them so. Men might be moral, and yet believe the moon to be a great cheese! But that would not prove the doctrine, that the moon is a great cheese, tends to promote morality. The plain sense of the words is, that I could see no moral good whatever in the effects of the doctrine; though I might find many good people who believed it. Is it not known, that men may be moral, although they believe many things that have no moral effect on them whatever? I have known many moral men become universalists and continue moral. And I have known many very immoral persons, who had no principles or religion, who had neglected the subject, till their attention became aroused to universalism. They have believed, but not reformed! When persons of good morality continue so after embracing universalism, it is reasonable to conclude, that habit or other things produce the good effect. But let universalism be preached to vicious and immoral persons in all the forms that it admits of-though they may easily be made to believe it, their habits will not alter in consequence of being convinced. I never did know a vicious person reformed and made better by becoming a universalist. And from good authority, I shall show in this book, that universalism has done no more good in other hands than in mine. To my own knowledge, and that of the community, universalism, in places where "our venerable Br. Stacy" has laboured for two or three years past, has reformed not the drinking, the gambling, the profane or the vicious, in the least. The editors have poured out their vials of " charity" upon me like torrents for persecuting universalists, calling them immoral, &c. in the Renunciation. But where do they find it? I challenge the whole corps of

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 unprinciple 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 finally 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

« AnteriorContinua »