piety. God has made us free moral agents, and he has made us capable of obtaining a supply of worldly comforts, by the due improvement of our faculties, and of being measurably happy; but without the improvement of these faculties, we cannot secure even the common comforts of this world. So I think the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to expect our future condition will be according to the character we form. This gives to virtue its best encouragement and brightest hopes, and to vice its most powerful restraint. It attaches the most solemn sanction to the laws of God, and binds in the strongest chains the dearest interests of men. And when we reflect that many men will break over all restraints-will neither regard the laws of honour, or humanity, the holy affections of kindred beings, the tears of the innocent, nor the love of God, the hopes of heaven nor the terrours of hell, who would wish to diminish the means of restraining the wicked?

The love of God has much in it to interest and affect the heart of a christian, but it cannot act where it is not. We might go to the pirate, or any cold, malicious, conscienceseared wretch, and preach the love of God to him, and he would still laugh, and whet the murdering knife for another victim.

make men good.—

For this the apos-
For this the mar-

The grand object of all religion is to For this Jesus came on earth and died. tles laboured and offered up their lives. tyrs bled. And to cherish any religion which has not this effect is to strike a fatal blow at the best interests of our race.

Sincerely and deliberately believing that such is the effect of the universalian doctrine,' I appeal to the heart searching God for the purity of my motives, while I hereby publickly renounce the doctrine as unscriptural and of pernicious tendency; and I withdraw from all ecclessiastical connexion with the people called universalists.

LEWIS C. TODD.

Jamestown, May 25, 1833.

CHAPTER II.

The Notices and Aspersions of Universalist Editors and Preachers examined and repelled.

Notice of the Renunciation in the “ Magazine and Advocate," of Utica. By the junior Editor.

"He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him."-Prov. xviii. 17.

I do not expect to reply to any more of the aspersions of universalist editors than to vindicate myself, and my Renunciation. Having done this, I shall leave them with the publick, who have generally knowledge enough of their veracity to appreciate their statements, without much effort on my part to repel them. I did not intend to come out in any hostile form against professed universalists. And I will not say a word against any that are really friends to Christ, but I shall in this work declare many truths about a proportion of the professors of that system, especially some of its teachers. I do it from a sense of duty to myself, to God, and to mankind. Some of these men have long enjoyed the privilege of publishing to the world, every thing which a perverted understanding, and an imagination trained to the trade of sophistry could devise, about the subject of this review. And some might not be able fully to understand them without my assistance. It is now my turn to be heard in my defence.

The universalist paper at Utica is owned by Rev. D. Skinner; but he has a man by the name of A. B. Grosh in his employ as junior editor of the paper, It would seem, that this man is hired, for the purpose of writing such articles as the design of the paper requires, but which are too scurrilous for the editor. This Grosh first opened the subject of my Renunciation in that paper, thus:

"Renunciation of Universalism!-Under the above title, Lewis C. Todd, editor of the Genius of Liberty, published at Jamestown, Chautauque Co. in this state, renounces his profession of universalism. This is what I have for some time partially expected, save that he now inclines to believe partialism, and I expected he would have come out as he once before had done for skepticism."

66

This reverend scribbler seems to have expected, for some time, that I should "now come out as I once before had done for skepticism." A small mistake-I never did come out once before for skepticism." Ionce, when young, entertained some doubts of the revelation of the Bible, and expressed those doubts. But I never came out as an advocate of those doubts-I never contended for skepticism; I never professed to favour skepticism; but only expressed some doubts, which I hoped would be removed.

But what made him "partially expect" me to renounce universalism? This is the answer-I had for several months been publishing a defence of Divine Revelation in my paper. I had also written many articles against gambling, swearing, intemperance, &c. I had expressed a warm attachment to the Bible and the interests of christianity. This was what made him think I could not be sound in "the system." This alone had induced hundreds to anticipate my Renunciation. And it was predicted and dis coursed on before any other indications of it had gone from me. I doubt not that he tells the truth when he says, he expected my Renunciation. Such a course as I pursued in the last six months as editor, being devoted to religion and morality, would plainly indicate that I was getting off the ground. But did he really expect that I was "coming out for skepticism?" He says so. But he had no other evidence that I was becoming a skeptick, save that I was taking a decided stand in favour of the Bible and Religion! This seems to have aroused the apprehensions of many professed universalists. But this reverend editor would have us really believe, that he (sound reasoner) really

expected I was about coming out a skeptick, because I was fully and warmly vindicating the Bible and religion against infidelity and skepticism!!! But the Rev. gentleman says so, and we must believe him if we can. Again :

"He professes that his feelings have been singular for some time past, and his heart despondent; and on the whole, I had been expecting that he would again quit universalists, saying as before, he had no evidence there was a God, and if a God, that he was a good God."

Look at this. "He professes that his feelings," &e.. that is, in the Renunciation. He had seen no such professions before the Renunciation appeared! Yet these professions made him, "on the whole" expect me to renounce, before he saw them, and before they were made!!! He is like the old woman, somebody speaks of, who would always prophesy things after they happened!

I never said, I had no evidence there was a God. That is a fabrication. The circumstance, out of which, this editor, in the plenitude of that charity for which they boast, fangled up the idea shall be explained in its place. We wrote a reply and sent to Utica requesting its insertion in their paper, designed to correct some of his mistakes; but he would not publish my short reply (only one sheet) lest the publick should see things as they are! Yet, these boasted champions of liberality and fairness pretend to give their opponents a fair chance to defend their cause through their papers! He had made a personal attack on me, and then was so "liberal" that he would not suffer me to defend myself against his statements! But he said some of my letter was not to the point! So he judged, meaning it did not point out exactly what he wished his readers to see. In another place, they mourn pitiously that I have put them to the expense of publishing my Renunciation, &c. Do they think their readers are such blunderheads as not to know, that they get pay for all they publish from their subscribers? They accuse me of demanding them to pub lish, &c. Had they said nothing about me, I should have

made no demand on them; but having noticed me I thought it right they should publish my defence. Shame to their boasted benevolence and fairness. But he excused himself that I did not pay the postage on the letter! Then he is to make up a number of calumnious statements of me, and publish them, and will refuse to publish my answer unless postage paid! That is (he thinks,) a fair specimen of universalist liberality; and declares it to have been one of my own editorial rules! If I was a universalist, I never was bad enough to adopt any such editorial rule. I required correspondents to pay their postage, but never refused to publish any man's reply to my personal remarks on him, because the postage was unpaid. But the poor creature of an editor did not wish his readers to see exactly that way. He, however, has the goodness to tell his readers that he received a letter from me; and to tell them that it contained certain things, which he wished them to suppose it did contain. We extract, thus,

"He says (meaning in my letter) no man can leave our denomination, without an effort on our part to injure him in publick estimation. Br. Smith's remarks on Mr. Todd's former desertion of universalism is an answer to this. What the common custom of universalists may be, I can hardly tell, it is so very seldom that any leave us."

By reading Mr. Smith's "Opinion" of me in the sequel, it will be seen that he means, that I once deserted universalism and became an infidel; and they did not abuse me for it! I did not mean that they abuse their brethren for becoming infidels, but for becoming attached to any other religious sect. No doubt more than ninety-nine hundredths of their proselytes become infidels more or less openly, soon after their conversion to universalism, yet the editors have always " charity" for them. There is a truly noble philanthropy in such cases—a tender sympathy. Indeed it was true that none of the professed universalists blamed me for my doubts, though some of them did for letting those doubts interfere with my profession of univer