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 " at times soļextremely unhappy as almost to wish for death." Such he describes the state of his mind to have been for years."

was

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

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 them 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 inankind" and fled from them with horrour. How does your twisting and fangling look now Mr. Skinner? And so far from "preaching aud 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 souly" And yet this same doubter has been all this time palming himself off upon the publick as a sincere believer in universalism."

Awful! This is worse than

Seventeen years ago, I wrote a letter to my father, in which I referred to my unsettled state of mind on the subject of religion. And as a jest upon myself quoted an expression, which I had heard of a certain general making in reference to his own mind. The expression was some like the one above referred to. the story of the "three black crows." Now what charitable, sweet little souls these co-workers must possess, who have reiterated that matter over so much before the world! Their appetite for such things is even equal to that of the famished hyena, who digs into the grave, that it may feed on corruption and death. So this editor and his fellow labourers plunge through the lapse of seventeen years, and seize upon that expression-they drag it from the grave of oblivion, and gaze upon it with frantick exultation! After partially cooking up the precious morsel among themselves, they devour it a number of times over, and then send it out, to be eaten by their hungry readers, as something entirely fresh and new! The people are cautioned against such food; for though it may not produce the cholera, it is evidently infected strongly with hydrophobia. By this means they make me out not to know certain that there was a God or soul; but believed both so much as to pray to one for the salvation of the other! What an awful thing! A pitty all do not believe enough to induce them to pray! They also would have me "all this time palming himself off as a sincere believer in universalism," and yet they make the same deceiver all the time telling of his doubts! They make out a very honest deceiver after all; even when they enjoy the privilege to make the whole concern themselves! He adds:

66

Yes, and with all this array of facts and confessions, on his part, he has the unblushing effrontery to accuse universalists, (on whom he has so long been imposing) of using the Bible "as a kind of popular mantle in which to dress up a system of palpable infidelity."

There are two things in relation to this that alter its com

plexion, some. 1. There is no such array of facts and cofessions against me; but only the contemptible fabrications of men, who had the "unblushing effrontery" to, make them; whose very trade is misrepresentation; whose interest is falsehood; whose tools are sophistry and slander; and whose object seems to be to destroy religion, and bring the blessings of infidelity upon our country. 2. I did not accuse the universalists "of only using the Bible as a kind of popular mantle," &c. I said "I certainly think it would be fairer for them to say that they do not regard the unvarnished sense of the Bible at all, and only used it,” &o. But I accused them of no deception. They scarcely pretend to believe any thing more of the Bible than its varnished sense. Many parts of it must be varnished over with many "reasonings" before their sense of them will begin to appear. As to their using it as a popular mantle for their principles, I did think it would be fairer for them to say so; for certainly men might come to the same conclusions and find out the same principles more directly by reading Thomas Paine, and other infidel writers.

They seem to be very sensitive on the subject of sincerity. In the Renunciation, I admitted their honesty, because I believed some of them to be so and did not wish to question that of any. I declared that I would not speak harshly of them-that I only wished to speak of the general effects of their doctrine. Yet they claim to have been accused of insincerity! Have they mistaken the accusations of conscience for something they fancied they saw in my Renunciation? Perhaps I appear to them in the midst of their horrible dreams, and accuse them of insincerity! Well, I cannot help their dreams, only to refer them to the words of Christ, "come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' " Speaking of Dr. Stedman and myself, he says,

"As one extreme follows another it is no marvel that they should both emigrate nearly at the same time, (about three

years apart,) from the cold and frosty regions of infidelity, to the torrid zone of enthusiasm and fanaticism."

This, indeed, Mr. Skinner said, in the plenitude of that unbounded charity, which his sort of people (thank God) only enjoy.

What does Mr. Skinner know of Dr. Stedman which makes him take him for an enthusiast and fanatick? Why only this he has experienced religion and become a methodist preacher! Every one therefore, who experiences religion and becomes a methodist preacher, must be, in Mr. Skinner's opinion, an enthusiast and fanatick! Then, Wesley, Fletcher, Watson, Coke, Benson, Clarke, and others, venerated for learning, piety, philanthropy and devotion to the improvement and well being of mankind, were nothing more than enthusiasts and fanaticks! How these men of accredited genius and worth sink down into pigmies before the superiour splendours of this effulgent Skinner! They are as grasshoppers before this "shining and burning light" of the nineteenth century. Who could have the unblushing effrontery" to doubt the piety of a man, who believed every methodist preacher a fanatick and enthasiast?

I might here dismiss this paragon of universalist piety and charity, as I have exploded the whole foundation of his review; but lest he consider himself slighted-and think me unmindful of his popularity and worth in the fraternity, I shall indulge him with a little farther notice. He went to my Renunciation as he seems to go to the Bible. 1. Determined what he wished it to say.

2. Mutilated and interpolated it till he made it say so, and

3. Gave it, so fitted up, such interpretation as would best serve his cause, and that of his royal master. And all his wit, sarcasm, and burlesque are founded upon such false assumptions and interpolations. He says,

"If Mr. Todd knows not of any who have been made bat