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 scen, 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, christian 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 camest."-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 introdu ces 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

66

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 ease 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 ean 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,

as the surest way to do away religion. Most of the support, received by universalist preachers, is not paid them for the purpose of promoting religion in the world; but for the purpose of smoothly and imperceptibly overthrowing the christian religion. Professed universalists generally know these remarks true; and the candid of them will own it. For this reason the scattered number of talented universalist preachers may do well in a pecuniary sense, notwithstanding the universally known indifference of professed universalists to religion. He begins his second paragraph,

"Some years ago, his ardour cooled, his zeal diminished, he lost his faith or the most of it, became skeptical; his mind was awfully contaminated with the sweeping and ruinous principles of Frances Wright. He "had only a cold, dark and inefficient faith in any" religion; and "was at times so extremely unhappy as almost to wish for death." Euch he describes the state of his mind to have been for years."

This is a palpable perversion of my words, by mixing up parts of sentences, and putting together, and adding as oecasion required. This is a fair specimen of that charity for which these men claim such pre-eminent distinction.

66

I did not say that my ardour cooled, and that I lost my faith or the most of it some years ago." But "some years since, I occasionally reflected that although the doctrine had spread much faster than I had anticipated, it did not seem to produce the effects I had expected." That is what I said took place some years ago. That circumstance and not infidelity cooled my ardour, so that for some years I cared not whether I preached much or not. Yet I had not lost my faith nor the most of it." No, all this existed for years before I lost any part of my faith. But it was "in this state of mind" at a certain time that "I was much inclined to doubt divine revelation." It is true, I thought universalism the bible doctrine, and thought universalism did little or no good; and therefore for a little

time felt my confidence in revelation shaken. It was then that I read some of the infidel writings of New-York; and by reading did not begin to doubt the existence of a God, (indeed they wrote but little on that point) but to doubt the necessity and worth of religion. It was the same time that " "at first my mind was awfully contaminated with the sweeping and ruinous principles" that I had only a cold, dark, and inefficient faith in any religion" that I was so extremely unhappy," &c. Of course when I wrote my Renunciation, "such was my state of mind about two years ago." Not for or during two or many years, as these clear headed editors can alone understand; but only for a few weeks instead of years! After a few weeks in this state of mind, as I said, "I saw the vortex into which such principles must inevitably draw mankind" and fled from them with horrour. How does your twisting and fangling look now Mr. Skinner? And so far from "preaching and imposing on an unsuspecting publick with a clear conscience so long," (as he says in the same paragraph,) I did not preach a single discourse during the whole of the time. And so far from imposing on any body, I always expressed as many doubts as existed. And never found professed universalists to love me any less for the expression of such doubts. No-Mr. Skinner, after all your serpent cunning to make me say what I never did say-and your affected sensibility on the subject of hypocrisy and skepticism-these are articles about which you should be still as possible. Had I been a skeptick and hypocrite I might now have been a professor of universalism, in the "full tide of successful experiment," not to say, like yourself. Again:

"Within a few days past we have learned that he wrote, some time since, to his friends in Salisbury (his former residence) that he had done preaching, but had not done praying; he prayed to God, if there was a God, to save his soul, if he had a soul!" And yet this same doubter has been all this time palming himself off upon the publick as a sincere believer in universalism."