and purify the stomach, throw off the elements of disease, and restore the patient. The ignorant and conceited quack gives the same medicine in such quantities, and at such times, as to kill the patient! Yet who will condemn the medicine on that account? Surgeons in our country are in the habit of performing many painful operations, which generally eventuate favourably; but when unskilful operators undertake they often kill the patient. And indeed the best of surgeons, sometimes, from the peculiar nature of the case, are known to destroy life. On this account, there is a set of quacks in our country, that declaim bitterly against all surgical operations! So there is a kind of religious quackery in the land, which affects great sympathy for the occasional evils connected with the doctrine of future retribution, but has no sympathy for the sufferings resulting from the vices, which that doctrine would suppress-has no tender heart to "wither" over the dissipation, the licentiousness, the crimes, the murders, the blasted hopes of parents, the sighs of heart broken wives and busbands, the anguish and misery of children beggared and orphaned in the appalling career of vice, the agony, and tears, and shame which mark the footsteps of sin, and which every where increase and spread with the increase and spread of universalism and infidelity. I say universalism and infidelity, because one is the general precursor of the other. Again says the editor,

"If in some instances they (the universalists) do not do this, (live pious) the fault is not in the doctrine, but in its professors."

So we have said. We never pretended the doctrine was immoral and impious, but only its professors, and not even quite all of them. We have never said there was any thing in the doctrine which made folks sinful. We have only accused the doctrine of not preventing sin. Mr. Skinner has imputed to me the idea that universalism produces sin, as he has many other things not found in my writings.Other things tend to corrupt the heart. Man is constantly

exposed to the contamination of circumstances and places; and universalism possesses not the power to counteract that contamination. Universalism is a kind of philosophy which entirely overlooks the real nature of man. It may be compared to a harmless, powerless medicine, which a sick man takes. His disease continues and increases. He trusts to the medicine, repeats the dose, and takes no other. At last he dies. I come forward and say, "the medicine produced no effect; it was good for nothing, and far worse; for had it not been for this he would have taken something effectual." Oh-says the quack that prescribed it, "the sickness was not in the medicine but in the patient-the medicine had no contagion in it, but that was in the person that took it!! If the patient had only got well, that medicine would have done just as well as any other, as you must allow !" Now this argument of the quack would be just like the quackery of Mr. Skinner in his "review." Man has the element of sin in him; and he will sin more or less, believe what he will. No doctrine is the direct cause of sin, but any doctrine is pernicious which shuts out others, and does no good itself, by restraining wickedness. I complain not of universalism because it makes any body bad; but because it makes no body good, who would not be good without any doctrine, having, therefore, about the same bearing on morality that any other species of infidelity would have. But hear him again :

"The views and feelings and spirit harboured by Mr. T. previous to his Renunciation, by his own account, were entirely foreign from those of the true universalist. For he says his "prejudices were so strong against the orthodox generally, that he misapprehended many of their sentiments, and believed them all either very ignorant, or unprincipled hypocrites-he had certainly supposed that presbyterian clergymen were the most unprincipled men in the world, though from their superiour literary attainments, he did not hold them in such perfect contempt as he did the methodist clergy." No wonder if such were his feelings and such the spirit he indulged towards other denominations, that conscience reproved him when he learned his error;

for he was not only in the gall of bitterness but in the bonds of iniquity! and harboured a spirit directly contrary to that of universalism; which of all doctrines and principles requires the most charity, and inculcates it as the bond of perfectness, as the main principle which assimilates us to God, and produces peace on earth and good will to man."

All this is finely said. Let us look at it. When young and ignorant I became a universalist. Universalist teachers and books soon assimilated my spirit to theirs. They made me too prejudiced to read much else, or to get aequainted much with my religious opponents. Hence I formed my notions of the orthodox, principally from the writings and representations of universalists. This is the reason exactly why I supposed most of the orthodox were very ignorant, especially in religious matters; and that many of their more knowing ones were hypocritical and unprincipled. Such are the representations given them by universalists generally, as all the world knows. Yesand Mr. Skinner's paper (with all his "bond of perfectness") is full as bad as any of them. This same opinion, feelings, and spirit, bad as they are, were the result of a universalist education; and they are spread out in bold relief in almost every work published by the sect through the country. This is a fact so well known to the whole community, that there are but few among universalists themselves, so abandoned to all sense of truth as to deny it.Nay, did not this very Skinner, in the very article now under consideration, attribute all the persecution in the world to the doctrine of his opponents? Did he not also let out his contempt toward the methodist clergy by insinuating that they are all in the "torrid zone of enthusiasm and fanaticism?" Is it not his very business, by which he makes his thousands a year, to caricature the friends of religion, and hold them up to publick contempt; and with ruthless hand, to assail every effort of the christian community, to sustain and spread its energies in the land? Yet he now talks prettily about "feelings towards other denominations!"' Just as if he, forsooth, had feelings of charity towards ether

46

denominations! How sweetly this charitable creature prates about "feelings towards other denominations," and charity," and the "bond of perfectness ;" and all that, in an article written for the express purpose of perverting a man's words and making him look ridiculous, for the sole crime of changing his sentiments! It is like the story of the pirate, strutting upon deck, in the midst of blood and death, and his saber smoking in his hand, bawling out -MERCY! What merciful feelings we pirates have!

He seems to think it no wonder that my preaching did not make men better as I indulged such a spirit towards other denominations. The publick where I laboured will bear witness that I was generally called much more mild in my preaching towards other denominations, than most other universalist preachers. This was frequently said, especially for a number of the last years of my ministry. Indeed many will testify that some universalists occasionally found fault, that I was not severe enough upon the orthodox; and preached too much on practice. Many have told me of hearing such remarks from them. I have been reproved to my face for preaching against intemperance; and told, that they wanted me to preach against the orthodox, and not on such subjects. But my writings were generally doctrinal, and far more uncharitable than my preaching. My views and spirit towards other denominations were frequently and fully given in my writings before they were acknowledged in the Renunciation. Mr. Skinner has had these writings, and in relation to them he says, 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." So it seems all my uncharitable spirit, so "foreign from that of the true universalist” pleased him well; and gave him a very favourable opinion of me, until he saw the con

fession of it in the Renunciation!

Does not this show

that it was not the sin, but the confession which offends

him?

Let these men boast of their charity; I know the doctrine they profess requires the exercise of charity-so does christianity in all its forms. But I have read ten periodical universalist papers, for two years; and the sarcasm and malignity running through those papers, against every thing but their own interests, had a powerful tendency in opening my eyes, and convincing me, that there was little or no religion among them. I admit there are exceptions in part among them, "but as there are only exceptions," to use the language of one of their scribes, these men should bo the last in the world to take the sacred name of charity into their lips.

Alluding to my reference to Professor Stuart's work on the original words applied in the Bible to rewards and punishments, he says,

"But why does he go to Professor Stuart, instead of the Bible, for this information? Ah! the reason is obvious— the Bible does not contain any such information!"

Every one, who reads the Renunciation, knows that I referred to Stuart's work for proof, that the original words in the Bible do teach the equal duration of future rewards and punishments. The same as Mr. Skinner or any body else quotes the authority of authors for proof of the mearing of words in the Bible. But this miserable perversion of my words is but another specimen of his forgetfulness of candour and truth. Can such a man interpret the Bible? Has it come to this, that those who cannot review a short plain article, without perverting its whole import and spirit, are now to stand up before the world, as the only true interpreters of Christ and the Apostles? Again

hear him.

"He expects universalists will come out with a vengeance upon him for saying so much,' that they will 'assail his motives,' imputing mercenary motives to him, the