believe the Bible, will ever suppose it designed to teach the certain salvation of all men at death. The Bible offers salvation upon condition of faith and repentance, so clearly, that very few can read without perceiving it. Most that pretend to believe in universalism and found it on the scriptures, seem only to believe so much of the Bible as will seem to favour them, and secretly they believe not and care not what it does teach. Now to waste time and money to convince such people, what the Bible teaches, would be idle. We need only teach them to respect the Bible, and universalism is down; or if it can live with the belief of the Bible, byt it live. But I only wish to oppose universalism, so far as the defence of the Bible, and the banishment of infidelity will oppose it. I fear nothing at all from universalism where the christian religion prevails. 2. Another reason I did not go into a defence of my "new views" was, that I was not conceited enough to suppose I could defend them better than had been done by others. 3. I had not time to devote to the work then, and wished to take time to prepare, to do it more thoroughly if I ever should undertake, than I could then. And 4. I doubted whether I could write my "new views” any plainer than they stand in the Bible. And I shall never expect to write so that Mr. Skinner and Co. can understand me. For they have been so long in the habit of finding a meaning in language, that the writers never imagined, that they could not understand me any better than they do the Bible.*

For the present, now, I must bid farewell to Mr. Skinner.

*Many universalists have expressed astonishment, that I did not quote a single text of scripture, in the Renunciation, to disprove universalism. The object of the Renunciation was solely to inform the publick that I did not believe any evidence urged for that doctrine to be conclusive evidence-not to disprove the doctrine.— Now did they expect me to quote scripture to prove that I did not believe in universalism? The Bible says nothing about me, nor my opinions! Had I entered into a discussion of the evidence of universalism, then they might have expected me to quote scripBut I conceived no more necessity, for quoting scripture to prove that I renounced universalism, than there would be for quoting scripture to prove General Jackson President of the Union.

ture.

2

He says in his conclusion that he is not my enemy—that he has been as charitable as he could be, and that he pities me, &c. It is immaterial whether he is my enemy or not, since he has treated me like one. It is of no consequence to me that he "endeavoured to exercise as much charity towards me as was possible," since he did not succeed in the exercise of any thing but gall and bitterness. And I care not for his pity, since it seems to be of that kind, which the assassin feels as he stabs the victim who happens to stand in the way of his interest. Let Mr. S. therefore, if he is capable of generous pity, turn it towards the multitudes of weeping wives and hungry children, whose husbands and fathers have become dissipated with the full assurance, drawn from the "Advocate," that drunk or sober, all will be saved. And to the fathers and mothers, who see with agony their sons, already swearing that all will be saved, while they drink, and gamble, and revel along under the smiles of the " Advocate," to the awful plunge from whence they never rise. But one word to Mr. Skinner before we part. Does not conscience sometimes carry forward your mind, to a dying scene; when human ambition and the love of party, shall flit away; and the thousands of this age, and of ages to come, who have become loose and abandoned by supposing heaven certain to all, will throng in horrible phantoms upon your troubled brain-and the thought strike your soul as an arrow from the dark abyss before you.

If the Bible be not a fable-if there be a "worm that never dies—a fire that never shall be quenched-where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”*

*Since the body of this work was written, we perceive Mr. Skinner has noticed our proposal to publish this Defence, and says "it is evident that we are seeking to obtain, if possible, considerable notoriety in the world." They first complained and boasted that we did not attempt to sustain our "new views," and insinuated that we were dishonest because we did not do it; now when they learn that we attempt it, they assert that our object is notoriety! So we must be wrong if we will not fight them, and certainly wrong if we do! When they drag us before the publick,

Rev. S. R. Smith's "Opinion" of the author considered. "His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate."-Psalms, vii: 16.

No matter how eminent the man as a gentleman or universalist preacher; if he uses his influence and his name to abuse an individual without provocation, that individual has the right of nature's law to repel the calumny. I shall extract as much of Mr. Smith's "opinion," as seems worthy of notice, but would not willingly hurt a hair of his head; for I never loved a man more than him. And deeply regret that sectarian views and feelings should find a harbour in his heart. He says,

"Mr. Todd commenced his ministry in the vicinity of his present residence, in Chautauque county, in the fall of 1817. Why, in his renunciation, he should have chosen to date the commencement of his ministerial career only

and give us a notoriety which we sought not, and previously misrepresent us to the world, they think we can have no other motive in self-defence than "notoriety!" Have they no other object in defending their views, but "to obtain considerable notoriety in the world?" We have never sought notoriety. For the sake of obscurity and peace, we intended never to become distinguished by any publication or theological controversy, after our Renunciation. But they would not allow us to rest-and the whole of this publication is the result of their ungentlemanly and unchristian abuse. I despise the sarcastick and malignant imaginations of the misjudging world; and consider its admiration almost equally worthless. And have long desired to be indulged in the enjoyment of blessed retirement, from all the discord of conflicting interests and feelings, where I may breathe the sweet air of humble obscurity, and let the angry world fight on, and wrong and devour each other, without any participation in their everlasting contentions.

He also tells the publick that some "excellent friend" wrote him from Erie, Pa. that I had preached in that place, and preached nothing that any christian denomination would find any fault with yet he goes on to find fault, that "it was hard work for him to preach," that "he would get into his former style, and then would stammer and spit, and try to get on to his new ground," &c. Ohhorrible!!! It was rather hard work for me to preach that evening. For years I have been troubled with weak lungs, so that I thought it doubtful whether I could stand circuit preaching a year, and the forenoon of that day, had preached two hours, and rede all the afternoon, and arrived in Erie only in time to commence meeting; and was so tired that I could not finish out my discourse. My style of preaching is precisely the same that it used to be. I did not

eight years back, instead of sixteen, we have yet to learn. Yet in all he has said in that long article, there is not one direct reference to a single incident which would give a stranger the most distant idea of the real duration of his past publick life."

We have remarked on this in another place. We will add, that we did not conceive that there was any thing in the incidents of "his past publick life," that had any connexion with the subject of the renunciation. The renunciation was made mainly for my subscribers, who knew generally all these things, who lived in the very country where they happened. There was no more occasion for writing out all those incidents than there was for writing the history of the world. He adds,

"Soon after he commenced his publick labours as a minister of the reconciliation--in a few weeks, or at most a few months, he renounced both the doctrine of universalism,

know before, that one must change his style, because his views on some points alter. As to the matter of the discourse, it had no connexion with any sectarian notions, and I was not conscious of making a single mistake, or advancing a single thought, that I would wish to alter. Sometimes, after a long sentence, I have long been in the habit of pausing a moment to respire easy and recover strength; especially when tired. I did so then, and might have spit once or twice in the course of the sermon. What an awful thing! worthy to be published in a universalist paper, and sent out for liberal, and noble, and humane, and philanthropick people to feed on!

He talks that I should have been more acceptable among universalists, had I vindicated religion then, instead of secretly cherishing hostility to it. Now this insinuation is founded on falsehood. I was never secretly hostile to religion. I always spoke my real sentiments. But universalists never complained, that I did not preach religion enough-but during the latter part of my ministry, they are well known to have complained, that I preached too much. Besides, my vindication of religion against skepticism in this book, is the same, I published in the "Genius of Liberty," which so aroused their wrath. It is just here to say, that some of my universalist friends were pleased with the vindication. If ever I was distinguished among universalist preachers, it was for preaching more religion than many of them do. And I affirm that I have always been too independent, to preach one thing and believe another; or to be secretly hostile to what I publickly advocate. I always would express my opinions though they were to vary twice a day. I never used an argument which I did not think sound, nor applied a text of scripture differently from my real belief of its truc sense, in my whole life.

and the belief of a divine revelation together. It appeared, during his continuance in this state of mind, that his difficulties originated in the want of correct views respecting the moral and physical government of the universe. He saw much evil and much suffering, both natural and moral, and inferred that if God was good, they would have been prevented. He therefore preferred to disbelieve the being of a God, to a belief in the existence of one that was not good."

Here he makes me to have been, when quite young, an Atheist. When I read it, I concluded that it must be that there was something of that kind in my mind because S. R. Smith said it, though I could recollect no such thing. The truth is this. In the fall of 1817 I first came into Chautauque county, young, inexperienced, and very ignorant of the world. I found S. R. Smith there, a universalist preacher, itinerating about the country. I had imbibed that sentiment, and was full of love and admiration for the preacher. He learned my mind, and was informed that I had some thoughts of studying for the ministry. He urged me to commence preaching immediately, and study as I had opportunity. I told him I was not qualified, nor prepared. But I was about much with him; and his constant and ardent pursuasions prevailed. After much urging and pursuasion, I consented to try to preach. Previous, however, to commencing, as we were walking together, and he was talking, that God was good, and therefore must will to save all men from all evil; and was omnipotent, and therefore, must be able to do it, and hence it would be done; I asked him why the same goodness and the same power did not prevent the present existence of all evil? He told me that he could not answer that question, and I should never find any body that could, who admitted a Deity.* This conversation, by the way, is the evidence, and the only evidence, he had for suspecting that I was an Atheist. But if I must have been an Atheist to ask such a question, what must have been the man who answered it? Yet he urged

*This was the substance of a more protracted conversation.