fices to send the gospel to the destitute. I know it is said, that those who go, do it that they may receive the praise of men: But universalists, it will not be denied, love the praise of men as well as others,-and why cannot some one be found, that shall, even for that motive, expose his health and life, and leave his friends and home to carry the Gospel to the destitute.Which has the best claim to be considered as actuated by the spirit of Christ and of Paulthe denominations who are planting their missions all over the heathen world, or that one which stays at home, and opposes this work?

In connexion with this part of our subject, it ought also to be remarked, that almost every other denomination, who call themselves Christians, have erected various foundations of charity. They have their associations for the relief of the poor, their charity schools, and their seminaries of learning. But where is there a foundation of charity got up and established by universalists? Where are their societies for the relief of the poor? Where has any thing been done by a body of universalists, which shows that their system has exerted an influence to render them benevolent? Can universalism

be the true religion?

IV. That system, which maintains the doctrine of eternal punishment, often reclaims men from vicious habits, and from a life of sin; but Universalism does

not.

The Methodist missionaries among the Indians in Canada, inform us, that of an extensive tribe, where drunkenness prevailed universally, almost the whole of the people have been led, through the influence of the Gospel, to abandon altogether the use of intoxicating liquors.

This change has been produced within a few
years; but has universalism one such trophy by
which it can be shown to have exerted a hap-
py moral iufluence? The missionaries at the
Sandwich Islands found the habit of intoxica-
tion universal; infanticide was common, and
the most shameless prostitution prevailed.-
Within a few years, intoxication has nearly
ceased, laws have been enacted against the vi-
ces above refered to, and a large share of the
inhabitants are actually becoming acquainted
with the rudiments of a Christian education.-
In our own country, it is not uncommon for the
Gospel to exert such an influence upon a village
or town as to change its whole character for the
better, within a few years.
But who ever saw
a neighborhood, or village, or town, improved
in its moral character, by the introduction of
universalism?

We have also often seen individuals, who have been zealous Universalists, converted to the belief of the opposite system, and on this change taking place, we have seen a happy change in their lives.

It is not a strange thing to see a man renounce Universalism, and commence a life of prayer at the same time. Probably we have all seen some of the fairest characters among Universalists plainly improved by renouncing their own, and heartily embracing the opposite system. But the reverse of this I will venture to assert, never takes place. You cannot find an instance, in which a devout and humble Presbyterian, or Baptist, or Methodist, has become more pious and heavenly minded by becoming a Universalist. On the contrary you may observe, in most cases, where professors of reli

gion of these denominations become Universalists, they abandon their habits of piety, as a preparation for Universalism.

Are

The process is commonly something like this, -first they give up secret prayer, then family prayer, then leave the communion table, then fall into some vices, and then become Universalists. I appeal to the slightest observers of the changes that take place in moral character if this process is not perfectly common? not very many of those who once made a credible profession of piety, but who have since apostatized, are not very many of them avowedly Universalists? But where do you find the same process in the change from Universalism to the opposite system? You cannot find one instance where a man was evidently pious, while a Universalist, but where he first forsook his closet of devotion, and then abandoned family prayer, and then left the communion of the church, and then fell into vice, and then became a Presbyterian, and continued vicious. You will often hear it said of an individual that a few years ago it was thought he experienced religion. He prayed and exhorted others, and joined the church; but since then he has become vicious, and has been excommunicated from the church, and now he is a Universalist. But you never hear the reverse of this, with respect to any one. You never hear it said of any individual, that a few years ago it was thought he experienced religion-he prayed and exhorted others, and appeared very devout, and joined the Universalist church; but since then he has become vicious, and been excommunicated from the Universalist church, and has finally fallen into Presbyterianism. The amount of

the contrast is this; When men change their religious belief from Universalism to the opposite system, it is not uncommon that their whole moral and religious character is at once changed for the better; but the moral and religious characters of men are never improved by the contrary change, that is, by giving up a belief in eternal punishment, and embracing the doctrine of universal salvation.

Again, men often fall into universalism, as the last step in a process of moral defection; but they never fall into the opposite system by the same process. Can there be any doubt which is the true religion, after looking at the contrast of these facts?

V. That system, which holds the doctrine of eternal punishment, never occasions distress in a dying hour; but Universalism frequently leads to the most distressing apprehensions on a death-bed.

That you may see clearly the points of contrast on this topic, which bear on the case, just observe, that it is not denied, that universalists may sometimes die in peace. Men who have been ardently attached to a theory,like those who are attached to their country, may die bravely in its defence; and the universalist may have strong hopes eyen upon a death-bed.

Nor is it pretended, that all who embrace the opposite system, die happily.

The point to which I wish to call your attention especially, is this. When the universalist dies unhappily, he charges his distressing apprehensions upon the character of his religious system; but when the believer in the opposite system dies unhappily, he charges his distressing apprehensions, not to the character of his religious system, but to a want of conformity

to its principles. Thus, you may often find an universalist, upon his death-bed crying out, in bitter lamentations; declaring that he is going to hell, and warning his friends not to embrace the system which has ruined his soul In such cases you will find a distinct disavowal of the doctrine, with the repeated declaration, that it cannot, that it will not abide the trials of a dying hour. Turn now from this scene, to the deathbed of one who has acknowledged his desert of eternal punishment and fled to the Lord Jesus Christ, as the refuge of his soul. See the sweet, the heavenly peace that rests upon his countenance, in the prospect of death. But now a cloud passes over his mind. His Saviour is concealed from his view; he seems ready to pass through the swellings of Jordan alone; the promises of God minister no consolation; despair settles upon his countenance; he is forsaken, as his Master once was, while passing through a similar struggle. He, too, like the universalist, is led to exclaim, I am going to hell. But does he disavow the doctrines which he formerly embraced? Does he say, This false and dangerous system has ruined my soul? No such thing. He only complains that his life has not been conformed to his principles.

Thus if both die alike unhappily, this difference always exists. In the honesty of a dying hour, the Universalist, who dies unhappily, confesses that his system has effected his ruin; while the believer in the opposite system, though he be left to what he supposes a foretaste of the pangs of damnation, testifies with his dying breath, that his system of faith has done him no harm-that his speculative views have been