love of money, the love of popularity, &c. &c. But why did he expect this? Did conscience tell him he was obnoxious to those charges and justly deserved to be thus aceused? Did conscience whisper him that his character and motives would be rightly appreciated, if thus understood?"

I did not say "universalists will come out with a vengeance upon me." I said "they may" do it; and it has happened even so. I did not say that universalists would assail my motives, imputing to me a love of money, popularity, &c. No. This statement of his, as well as all his inferences from it about "conscience," &c. are only some of his troublesome dreams that seem to haunt his imagination. I did say, "those whose friendship is worth retaining will not be the less friendly because I pursue the course which my judgement dictates and my conscience approves.' Of course I did not expect to be assailed by universalists who were worthy of any notice; and admitted there were such. I did say, “From what I have already seen and heard, I have reason to expect my motives will be assailed." I was careful not to "forestall the feelings and conduct of universalists on this subject, much less to provoke their resentment, by attributing to them an uncharitable and porsecating spirit, before I knew how they would treat me," as Mr. Skinner accuses me in the same article. And I was careful to explain, what kind of men I expected such imputadons from, in the next words: "Those men, whose own motives are mercenary, will impute such to me." I did not say, neither did I expect that any candid, honest universalist would impute such motives to a man without good evidence; and especially against all evidence, as in my case, though I expected many men of no honour and no principle would do so. And has it turned out so?—I did say, "none will impute to me such motives of action, except such as know of no other motives of action-that have no principles-no affections-and that never dreamed of doing a thing because it was right." Now let me ask Mr. Skin

ner, in his own pretty words, "Did conscience tell him that" such description meant Limself and his brethren, and "provoked their resentment?" "Did conscience whisper him that his character and motives would be rightly” described by the above language? He asks, "What reason had he to expect such treatment at the hands of universalists?" We have already said, we did not say we expected it from universalists; but from "men of no principles-no affections-that despise the Bible—that hate religion," &c. Mr. Skinner will have it that these are universalists! I never supposed universalists to be all such men; and I will repel the calumny he is thus pouring out upon my old friends. Universalists I am sure are not generally so bad as that.—I never intimated that they were. Though I have said there was but little piety among them, and that their doctrine so far as it is distinguished from other doctrines was not among the causes of their goodness. I will not dispute with Mr. Skinner, to be sure, but it may be a proper description of him-he knows best; but the mass of people called universalists, were not meant in the above allusion, and he should not put the garment on them. I told him plainly what reason I had to expect that my motives would be assailed-" From what I have already seen and heard." I will now tell what it was, that I had seen and heard. For some months previous to my Renunciation, I was writing and publishing a "vindication of religion," in the "Genius of Liberty," that is, a proof of divine revelation. And also some articles in favour of temperance and piety, and against swearing, gambling, &c. This called out some personal abuse from some worthless fellows in the place, who accused me to my face, of being about to change my sentiments; and who acknowledged they cared nothing about universalism only that it was a good thing to break down orthodoxy with. Many reports also came to my ears from the country, that many thought, from the course of my paper, that I should shortly renounce universalism; and

that if so, it would be for some bad motive. I received many letters filled up with the grossest abuse, complaining bitterly of my course in defending the scriptures; and stating that my subscribers generally neither expected nor wanted any such thing; and predicted that I should come out a traitor to the liberals, &c. A young man then living in Jamestown, and seeing what was going on there, wrote an article on it, which I published in the "Genius of Liberty," 2 vol. p. 326. From this article I extract the following:

"You will recollect, Mr. Editor, that sometime last summer, while conversing with you on the subject of religion, a person remarked that "as your paper was a religious one, its object to enlighten and benefit mankind, would it not be better to teach less doctrinal and more practical religion? Would it not be better to learn men to be moral, than to tell them that they would all be eternally happy; as universalism taught that they would at all events, be rewarded according to the deeds done in the body." You replied that "it would, but added that it would not suit your subscribers as well; that many of them were deista and atheists, but assumed the title of universalists, from motives of policy, and would not like to have true christanity defended and urged upon their consideration."* with a praiseworthy independence, you have adopted that course-have proved the necessity and truth of revelation -have warned men to "cease to do evil and learn to do well"—have told the consequence of sin, that it was misery; of the blessings of virtue, that they were happiness and heaven. And what has been the result? Whythe serpents you had held in your bosom, have now darted their poisonous tongues at your vitals!†

Yet

"The infidels who had considered your doctrine a cloak for iniquity now declare their hostility, and show a spirit of enmity and revenge so bitter and malicious that it would have disgraced the days of inquisitorial vengeance."

The reader is requested to read the whole of that article if he can get it, and also an article from my own pen in the

* It seems I used to accuse folks of "only using the Bible as a kind of popular mantle to wrap up a system of infidelity," some time ago, but Mr. Skinner could bear it from a universalist.

The reader will recollect what I told Mr. Stacy about some being ferocious enough to take my heart's blood. This artielo throws some light on that also.

same vol. p. 343, and see if I had not "reason from what I had already seen and heard" without any accusations of conscience, to "expect my motives would be assailed."

I have never advanced the thought that no good man will impute mercenary motives to a fellow being. But that all good men will be careful not to do it without evidence, though they are liable to be mistaken in the evidence, through prejudice or other causes.

It is not pleasant to write of one's self, but such pains have been taken by the "fraternity" to misrepresent every circumstance, that I must go into some matters that I would rather not refer to.

He alludes to the circumstance that I had pretended to have had an opportunity to sell my list of subscribers names so as to make something on them at the end of the "Genius of Liberty," when they would be useless to me, but would not lest I should be instrumental in spreading universalism. In order to throw darkness and suspicion over this, he quotes from his "fellow labourer" the "Trumpet," of Boston, which states, that I offered my whole list to them for the sum of $44 53, which the editor avers I owed him for books, and he would not take them at that. This makes the "man of the Trumpet," Mr. Skinner, and some other "companions in arms" seem to doubt my ever having had any such proposals. Not that they ever did doubt it; for unquestionably they wrote at first and ascertained correctly about this. These are the facts. Some months before I had any objections to deal in universalist books and papers, though I had begun to doubt the utility of them, intending on that account to discontinue mine at the end of the current volume. I wrote a line to the man of the Trumpet" offering to let him have my names in the end for a quantity of books I had of his, not purchased, but taken to sell on commission. And for which I did not owe him as he dreamed.* He answer

*Some months since I wrote to Mr. Whittemore of the "Trum

ed, that my subscribers were so far off, he could not retain them, but would allow me seventy-five cents for every subscriber for whom I would be responsible. Here the matter rested, till I began to feel it improper to sell my names, when I received the two following letters, from which I will publish as much as this subject requires.

"Montrose, April 29th, 1833.

"Dear Sir and Brother-I discover by a notice in your 'paper that you contemplate discontinuing the "Genius "of Liberty" at the close of the present volume: this be"ing the case, I wish to make a few propositions-First, "what will you take for your subscription list by the hund"red? I mean such as might be considered responsible, "and might be prevailed on to take the "Herald."*"Second, if this inquiry is such as you do not feel disposed "to answer,-I will inquire-would it suit you to unite "your list with mine-publish it here-and yourself be

come a corresponding editor, and receive what might be "agreed on as a remuneration for your services. If sir, "you wish to retire from the field of Editorial labour, you "might perhaps with pleasure and profit become a corres"pondent. Will you, sir, under any considerations favour

66

me with your assistance, and your list of subscribers ?"Or, sir, if you had rather buy than sell, and would remove "to this place, I will sell. And after this year, will venture "to assure you four hundred dollars a year for preaching, "and names sufficient to support a paper. If you will con

pet," telling him, I would settle the matter of the books with any person or agent he might authorize, but as yet no person has applied for settlement. I offered long since to send back the books if he wished. Many of them were such as I never could have expected to sell, and I only let him send such as he pleased, because he wrote that I might pay for them, when I sold them. I have his letter.

Since the above was written I have been invited to an amicable settlement by his agent.

*A universalist paper published by him at Montrose, Pa.