66

66

66

66

societies and bodies of men. If the representations we "have given of the doctrine be true, we should conclude "that it would not build up devout and permanent socie"ties. And how is the fact in this case? We see from the ultra papers that scores of societies have arisen annually in New England for the last ten years. And what "is the present standing of these societies? I cannot speak concerning them all from personal knowledge. "But having had a personal knowledge of the situation, "the rise and fall of many, I can speak with confidence, "and what I shall state is known to all who have any knowledge on the subject. I say then, that more than three-fourths of the societies which have arisen within the "last ten years, have already perished. I do not mean that they have entirely ceased to be, but that they have relaxed their efforts, and now almost a total indifference "prevails: Take this as an example. A society is form"ed in a certain town; and fifty or sixty male members "come forward and unite with the society. Let these men "be amply sufficient in worldly means to employ a preach"er one half of the time with a fair salary, without taking "upon themselves a burden greater than what is borne by "the great mass of the people. Now what is the subsequent history of such a society. For the first year they may have preaching one third of the time, for the second year a quarter, for the third one-sixth, and in four or "five years they have no preaching at all. Or perhaps they may have a day or two in the year, if a person hap"pens to come along and offer his services, Now this is a ‘fair representation of at least nine-tenths of the universalist societies which have been formed for the last ten years.— "Some of them may have been a little more prosperous, "and others have fallen as much below the example given. "I could name scores of societies as examples. Take the "country societies as they exist at the present time, and it "would require the joint effort, such as they would be

46

66

66

66

66

'disposed to make, of ten or a dozen societies to give one "preacher constant employ. A much less number might 'employ a man for a single year, but take five years to“gether, and it would require ten societies. I do not say “that this is all they are able to do, but I say that it is all "that they do do, or will do.

66

66

66

ure.

'Now a question naturally arises as to the cause of failThe friends of modern universalism tell us with great assurance, that no cause progresses so fast. This "in one sense is true, and it is equally true that no cause "dwindles so fast. There is not a sect in the land of "the same numbers and ability, that does so little."Three-fourths of the societies are destitute of a preach66 er, and take no active means to obtain one. Socie"ties rise like Jonah's gourd, and like that frail plant they wither away. And how is this? To what cause "must we ascribe this decline in almost every society? "This has sometimes been ascribed to the want of "preachers, but the truth has always been that they have "had as many preachers as could obtain support. This falling off cannot be ascribed to the operation of any of "our laws, for the laws have operated as favourable to them 66 as to others. It cannot be ascribed to the fact that the "doctrine was new and unpopular, for this would always operate the most powerfully at first; and if men would "break the fetters of popularity and form themselves into a society, they would not be deterred from pursuing this subject from motives of popularity.

66

66

66

"To what cause then is this failure to be ascribed? We "say to the natural tendency of the doctrine. That we may see this tendency let us give a specimen. A society "is formed and a preacher is employed for a day. He commences his labours or exercises. His attack upon "the orthodox begins and ends the discourse. It is de"livered with that kind of temerity which would make a "moderate man shudder, but this passes for great talents

66

.6

"with many. His disoourse is filled with low wit, and se"verity, which exeites laughter in the assembly. The “ service closes, and what is the impression that is left “upon the assembly. They are highly gratified for "the most part, and are eager to engage the preacher again. But what is the moral impression? It is manifestly bad. Every low and unprincipled man will "extol it. And some will express their approbation "with an oath. "He is a smart man," says one.""He gave it to the orthodox good," says another.

66

66

66 66

66

He's no hypocrite," says a third, "He expresses my opinion exactly," says an infidel, "he dont hold to ma"king a fuss and whining about religion." Such remarks "will be made by the hearers, and you may judge of the "moral effect. The preacher comes again and pursues "the same course, with the same effect. They then em"ploy a restorationist of a Sabbath. He preaches the final "reconciliation of all things to God; but he maintains that men must be saved by faith and repentance, that they are accountable beings, and will be dealt with according "to their characters. He uses no wit, excites no laughter, "and labours to make his hearers virtuous and devout.

66

66

66

"But how is this received by the assembly? Why it "produces more frowns than smiles. I had rather hear "the orthodox,” says one; “he has no independence," says another; "I want to hear a man come to the point," says a third. The deist scolds, the dissolute swears, "and multitudes tell the Committee that they have had enough of him. Now brethren, as fanciful as the repre"sentation is, that is a fair representation of what frequently takes place. But what is the subsequent history of "this society? They have a preacher of their own liking occasionally, but in a year or two, they care but little "about any preaching. They think and judge correctly "from what they have heard, that preaching does but little "good; and that the Bible is like a fiddle, it can be made

"to play any tune.. I allow that there are some excep "tions to this representation. I can say with pleasure "that there are some individuals whose feelings are hurt "by such preaching, and who wish to hear something that "is sober and practical, but such persons are generally a "minority, and they have to give way to the more noisy "part of the society. This society in a few years dies away; they may retain their legal existence, but this is "about all.

66

"You are now able to answer these questions, why their "societies are no more permanent. In the first place, "they are composed in a great degree of men who have no

religious feelings, and many of them have no faith in đi"vine revelation; and instead of improving, they generally 66 grow worse. As far as my observation has extended, "and it has not been very limited, having visited scores of

66

66

societies, it is my firm opinion that more than two-thirds "of the males who are warmly attached to the doctrine of "no future retribution, are not believers in the essential "facts of divine revelation. I have also been present at "conventions, and heard discourses preached on ordina"tion occasions too, which were clearly of an irreligious "tendency, discourses which excited more levity than piety, and went more directly to subvert than to build up religious institutions. And these discourses came from those who were grey with age, who were held up as a "model for others! These statements are painful, but "are nevertheless true. Now is it surprising that religious "societies should wither and die under such preaching? "Brethren, I shall leave you with this painful recital. Re"mark is unnecessary. Yours, &c. C. H."

66

In reply to an article, which came out in a universalist 'paper of New-York on the Renunciation, I referred to a letter recently received from Rev. Paul Dean, of Boston, and declared that Mr. Dean acknowledged the things in the Renunciation were generally true. Mr. Dean was

many years a very popular preacher among the universalists, (the first I ever heard, and who charmed me to the doctrine,) but being disgusted with the leyity and impiety, of the sect, he came out in company with some others, and organized an association upon a very different foundation; and called themselves "restorationists." Mr. Whittemore of the "Trumpet," noticing it, came out with an article pretending to doubt whether Mr. Dean had written me any such thing.

Mr. Dean lived in his city, and he might easily have asked him, if he had any doubts on the subject; but that would not do so well as to say,

Will Lewis C. Todd endeavour to screen himself from the suspicion of having misrepresented Mr. Dean, by publishing that gentleman's letter in full ?"

Why did not this editor wait till Mr. Dean complained of being misrepresented? But where must I publish his letter in full? At that time I was not an editor. Could I trust it to be sent to my persecutors for publication? And how did he know but the letter contained many things totally improper for publication? Yet he would lay me under the obligation to get this private letter published, or be considered a liar in the fullness of his overflowing charity. I 'do not know as Mr. Dean will forgive the publication of the following extract from his letter. But I think it contains nothing he need be ashamed of.

66

"Be assured, sir, that I honour most of the feelings you express, and for one, doubt not your sincerity. Many have "had trials similar to yours as to the fruits and tendency of "the doctrine, as defined in modern times, by Messrs. Bal"lou, Balfour, and Whittemore, &c. They have seen "with grief the lightness of its preachers, the levity of "manners in the desk, the bitterness of their spirit to all "who differ from themselves. They have been satisfied "of the inefficiency of the sentiment, especially where as"sociated with fatality, materialism, and no future punish