and, therefore, would pay nothing from religious principle. That though most such men would now pay liberally to support universalism, because they thought it instrumental in overthrowing religious denominations, that they would not pay a cent after this object should be accomplished. I told him they supported universalism not as religion but as a means of putting down religion-as an opposition. I told him that I, or any other universalist preacher, who was able to preach down other orders, could get a rich support, so long as other orders were supported-but as our business was opposition, the moment we conquered the orthodox, our supporters would turn round and trample us under foot. I farther told him, that I had recently had several opportunities to settle myself as a preacher of the doctrine, but that I could not see good enough resulting from it to stimulate me to action. I told him I had a higher object in living than to get a living. That I did not wish to set myself up as a stage player, just to amuse infidels, because I could live by it. That I could be satisfied with little, accompanied with a consciousness of doing good, and without that no salary would satisfy me. All that and much more I told him, expressing in the most pointed terms, that I was dissatisfied and disappointed with the denomination, on account of their indifference to piety, the profanity, gambling, and other bad habits so common among them. I had made similar complaints to Mr. Stacy, more or less, I think, every opportunity I had enjoyed with him, since he moved into the country, for some years. He forgot, of course, to report all these things, but adds in a very gracefal manner,

"On the whole, I found his mind in a state of great disquietude, and it was clearly discoverable, that he felt as though he had been neglected-that he had not received the support and patronage which he deserved, which I have reason to fear was too true."

Now how was all this clearly discovered? He does not pretend that I said so, but admits that I assigned other rea

64

sons in abundance for my disquietude." Yet he discovers clearly, that such reasons as I assigned could not really be the true cause of any disquietude in the mind of a universalist preacher! And since my mind was disquieted, he 'clearly discovers" that I did not receive the support which I deserved!! He does not inform us whether he made this "clear discovery" with a telescope or a microscope; or whether he concluded, that, because I was a universalist preacher, therefore, I could not possibly care for any thing else, but " patronage and support." I do not mean "by any means to insinuate that" patronage and support are the sole end and aim of all his actions, and how he should make such clear discoveries about others, I cannot tell.

Men seem to have two objects in persuading their friends that my reasons for renouncing universalism are not what I allege. 1. This would counteract the effects of my Renunciation upon the honest and candid part of universalists; and 2. This would admonish them to give more, and support the rest of the preachers better. It may be "temerity," however, to insinuate that these heralds of “benevolence, and love, and charity, and good will" can possibly have any regard to their own interests, or even to "the recompense of reward." He adds,

"Br. Todd had conducted his paper with much ability and faithfulness, especially until the latter part of it."

Br. Stacy then was well pleased with the paper, until the latter part of it. Compare this with his remark in the same report, where speaking of the rumours that I had changed my views, he says, "but they at length assumed a cast, which, together with the evident change in the moral complexion of his paper, (the Genius of Liberty) entitled them to some notice." Now let us inquire what this evident change in the moral complexion of my paper" was? Why I had written and published a number of sermons and essays against profane swearing, gambling, intemperance, and other vicos; and had urged the necessity and im

portance of piety, ten times more for the last six months than formerly. Besides, I had been publishing "a vindication of religion" against infidelity. A few consciencious, sincere subscribers expressed much satisfaction with the “evident change in the moral complexion of the paper." But many subscribers were not pleased with it. And I am sorry Mr. Stacy has informed us, that "he conducted his paper with much ability and faithfulness, especially until the latter part of it." I think he must have been absent minded when he wrote that; for I cannot believe he really thought the latter part of the paper, after the "evident change" worse than before. To finish with Mr. Stacy, I think him a very good sort of a man. I think him blind with opinional zeal, so that he does not see the religious character of his party as dark as it really is. But I have conversed with him too much not to know that he has seen, acknowledged, and regretted, that they were not generally much like christians. I think he would like to see christianity, in his sense of it, prevail, with all its moral principles and blessings. Some say he has told in some places, that I have been employed to write for the methodists at a great salary. But I do not believe it possible, as he told me he had not a doubt of my honesty in this change, and he has told some others the same. Instance, Rev. Mr. Church, ehristian preacher.

Review of the Renunciation by Rev. D. Skinner, Editor of Magazine and Advocate, of Utica, (N. Y.) reviewed.--(See Mag. &c. Vol. 4, No. 32.)

"Because thy rage against me, and thy tumult is come up into mine ears, therefore, I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle to thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou eamest."-2 Kings, xix. 28.

IN examining such an article as Mr. Skinner's, I cannot well avoid making the author look sometimes rather disagreeable; but if the mirror is unpleasant to him, let him reflect, that he made it necessary, by an unprovoked attack. I shall take extracts from his review for my texts in his own words, and not what somebody says he said! He introduces his subject by giving a number of reasons why he has not remarked on the Renunciation before, one of which was, that they "wished to procure certain facts to communicate to the publick in connexion with their remarks-particularly a written statement from Br. Stacy of the conversation he had with Mr. Todd." This he "wished to procure!" This he waited for! what does this look like but the putting together of heads-the "mustering of the hosts for battle" the contriving for common defence. Hence we need not wonder at the unseemly birth after this agony of labour. We need not marvel at the "unsubstantial nothings" conjured into being the perfect abortion of "dreamy visions" with scarcely a "local habitation or a name. He then goes on to tell what he used to think of

me:

"With Mr. T. personally we were but little acquainted, having never seen him but once, and then at the time of his ordination, and having never heard him preach. We had, however, formed a very favourable opinion of him from the reports we heard, and particularly from his writings. We have always esteemed him a chaste, dignified and good writer; and been well pleased with the tone and management of his paper, till within a very few weeks of its close. We were, therefore, the more surprised at the unexpected appearance and the strange and unwonted style of his renunciation."

66

So much the good editor says of his views before the Renunciation. But by passing in review his review of the same, as briefly as is consistent with a notice of its most prominent characteristicks and statements," we shall see how vast a change that charitable Renunciation wrought in his mind.

He wastes his first paragraph by telling how zealous I represented myself to have been, and then accused universalists generally of being indifferent to their religion; and tauntingly asks, "was there never a sincere or real universalist but L. C. Todd?" Yes-without doubt, and no man can find the least insinuation in the Renunciation, that there are not other real and sincere universalists.When I speak of universalists generally, I mean all that take that name before the publick. Making a few exceptions, I still say, that I have all the evidence that such a case admits of, that a great majority of the called universalists are so unfriendly to religion, that they would do ten times more to destroy all religion than to support any.They will support universalism, but not as religion, nor for religion, but for the purpose of destroying religion, as it actually does, to a great extent wherever it prevails. Many of them have told me so. Mr. Skinner affected to marvel that I could have had inducements of a pecuniary kind, as a promulgator of universalism far greater than I can ever expect from any other connexion if they are so indifferent to religion. Strange indeed that there can be no inducements of that kind held out except by a religious people! There may be great pecuniary inducements now for atheistical works-are atheists, therefore, a very religious people? They are just as religious as this specimen of Mr. Skinner's wit is rational. There are some, very few, real universalists, who will pay from principle-there are, besides, Atheists, Deists, Gamblers, Drunkards, and most all the opposers of religion who are pleased with universalism, and take that name. All these will pay for it,