salism. Modern universalists and infidels seldom disagree; and when they do, it is more about the name they shall take than principle. Editors will marvel at this; but these assertions are such palpable truths, and so well known to the whole community, that I risk nothing by them.

That universalist ministers seldom leave them as a denomination, I admit. They usually become so prejudiced against true piety, that if they go off at all, it is into open infidelity. Many have gone that way; but as that was little more than changing their name, they were suffered to depart in peace from the bullies they left behind. But whenever a man of note-a preacher, has become sick of their farcical christianity, and turned to the plain and fair construction of scripture, and the promotion of piety, they have, in every case, done all they could do to injure both his feelings and his name. This their friends all know. I have known it ever since I have known the order; and every body knows it that knows them. Some years ago, a number of their preachers in Ohio came off, about the same time, assigning similar reasons to mine, and they were abused, and their motives questioned as mine have been; and a universalist preacher never did turn from them to any other religious sect, without being abused by them.

Remarks on the " gathering of the men of war" and Mr. Stacy's report. (See Mag, & Advocate, Vol. 4, No. 32.) "For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me. They have spoken against me with a lying tongue. They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause."-Psalm cix. 2, 3.

WHEN my Renunciation first appeared, Mr. Grosh gave it the little notice just referred to, and all was then silent thereabouts for some weeks. The Utica Magazine seemed

to be asleep-but we are not to suppose, that those managers had conlcuded to attend to their own business, and`let a dissenter go off peaceably without a severe flagellation. This would have been contrary to all precedent, as well as incompatible with that devotion to the growing monster, which was destined in the minds of many, to crush the christian religion forever. But the storm was gatheringthe elements were in motion. There seems to have been a council held-an assembling of the "companions in arms.” Mr. Stacy, universalist preacher of Columbus, Pa. was down at the time. Mr. Stacy was from the region of country where the Renunciation was made. He had conversed with its author an evening sometime previous to its appearance. This fact seemed to promise them some advantage. Mr. Smith, of Clinton, was acquainted with the author when young; and had some imperfect knowledge of his first introduction into the ministry. All these things were conceived important advantages, by which the author of the Renunciation might be traduced, and his publick influence diminished. They read the Renunciation, and supposing some remarks which referred to the wicked and profligate of no denomination, to allude to universalists, they verily thought it their privilege to assail the author in a spirit of malignity and persecution. The Renunciation was in fact so mild and tolerant that the orthodox generally conceived me yet a friend to universalists. And I actually was a friend to all good and candid universalists, and am yet. And I cannot but regret, that enlightened editors and preachers should have so mistaken the true interests of their cause, as to assail my motives and person instead of principles; so as to make it necessary for me to engage with them in a controversy about persons and motives instead of principles in which all are concerned. But as they would take this course, I am compelled, as Washington advised Braddock, to fight them in their own way.

That Mr. Stacy should visit with me, and hold a careless

and unguarded conversation with me, as between two friends, without taking any notes, or intimating any design to publish the conversation, should, after the lapse of some months, undertake to report a garbled statement of the conversation to the world from memory alone; that my words so reported might become the ground of inferences and conclusions against me, is a kind of tell tale business only fit to grace the court of an inquisition. I have no idea that Mr. Stacy could have been guilty of such a breach of good breeding, and all the laws of courtesy, which even savages regard, had he not been drawn into it by other members of the "fraternity." Such a course has so much of meanness in it, that the mind sickens and is ashamed to contemplate it. I must think he fell a victim to the arts of others, and to designs that Satan would blush to own. I forgive the ●rrour, as no doubt he is sorry for it.

The editors have got Mr. Stacy's signature to our reported conversation, of course hold up his veracity as above all question under any circumstances. Well-I have nothing to say against Mr. Stacy. I wish all his brethren were like him. I think he meant to be middling honest in his report, at least as far as he went with it. And who could expect him to report such parts as would prostrate the object of their labour? Was he not too some forgetful? Had he not the interests of his sect to sustain? Were there not around him a number of preachers and editors, whose "hearts burned within them" to avenge their injared craft? And was he not a little desirous that the report should favour the interests of their cause, and answer the purposes for which he knew they wanted it? And might not all these considerations make the report liable to some small imperfections, so as to be an improper ground to try and condemn me upon unheard? And that too when judge, jury, witness and executioner were all of the same party; having all a common interest at stake; and as is supposed, the Devil in court, as prosecuting attorney into

the bargain? They were not willing to take my own words voluntarily laid before the publick; and content themselves with garbling them into something that might militate against me; but they must get something more. Something that should come in a shape to suit their feelings better than any thing from my own pen! Now I admit that something very much like the report in words did pass between us. But there are some trifling variations in words, which make a wide variation in the sense and application of the report. Much he omitted; added a little; and altered a little. So that many things are made to look otherwise in the report than in the original. He represents the following dialogue to have passed between us, which I present as a specimen.

"Why, the universalists or those calling themselves such, in this town, (Jamestown) if they had the power, would rip me open and draw the last drop of blood from my heart. 'Why, Br. T. said I, what do you mean! you are crazy! The universalists here are your friends. No, he answered they are not. I know them, and what I know I know as well as any other man. I doubt not, said I, that you know what you know, as well as any man. But you do not know this. These are unreasonable suspicions- unfounded jealousies. Why do you suffer yourself to indulge such jealousies? to destroy your own peace and the peace of your friends? The universalists are your friends; they have patronized you, (just as if patronage was all the principle a man could have,) perhaps not so much as your merits deserved; but as much probably as they thought they were able. No said he, they are not my friends-they are mad with me for attempting to vindicate the christian religion."

To this extract from Mr. Stacy's report, I say, I did tell him there were men in Jamestown, called universalists, who would do as above if they dare. And distinctly told him that I judged so from the abuse I had received from them personally, and that I had been told that such persons were malicious enough to do it, (meaning only two or three) and all this for having written much recently and published in favour of religion and the Bible. I did not represent uni

All

versalists generally either in Jamestown or any where else as being desirous to murder me; as the editors would wish to have it supposed, so as to arouse the vengeance of all universalists against me. I did farther represent professed universalists generally, but not universally, as exasperated against me for vindicating divine revelation. » I told him that I had the fullest evidence of this, from numerous letters sent in from subscribers; from the verbal declarations of many; from the general murmur of dissatisfaction on that account through the country; and from the other numerous indications that I beheld. this I told him, in substance, though I do not pretend to have a memory to relate a familiar conversation, months afterwards, “in the very words," as he says of most of his report. I also told him, that when I became satisfied that universalism was to be identified with infidelity, I would renounce it, let them do what they would or call me what they would. That I would do it though death or flames might be the consequence; for I should consider it a duty I owed myself, my God, my children, and mankind. Again he reports,

"But still he complained that our societies were made up of deists; that our hearers were mostly deists and scoffers of religion-that this was the case with the societies in the order generally-that the common method of preaching in the order was rather calculated to brow beat orthodoxy than to promote piety, (every reader acquainted with them knows it is even so.) That they did not feel sufficiently interested to give a reasonable support to their preachers-that their main object in forming societies, supporting preaching, and attending meeting, was to oppose and break down other denominations; and he awfully feared that infidelity would overspread the whole christian world, &c. &c."

There is no mistake in the substance of the above only what consists in omitting what would have made it better understood. As to their "not feeling interested enough to support preaching, I told him a reason of it was, that most of its professors were really unbelievers in religion,