"talked about, and which was to pay $6489 26; but which "could pay only about twenty cents on the dollar of the "amount. By this statement it will be seen that after all "that the "conference fund" could do, the preachers did "not, on an average, receive from both circuit and confer"ence, but about three-fourths of their small allowance; "that is, a single man received about seventy-five dollars, "and a man with a wife, one hundred and fifty dollars for a "year's service; while these very men, or at least the most "of them, left business worth from $300 to $1200 per an"num, for the sake of preaching the gospel in the capacity "of itinerant methodist preachers.

"I could add many remarks from my own experience "and observations, but comments are unnecessary: these "facts speak for themselves.

"Rev. L. C. Todd."

"Respectfully yours,

"A. BRUNSON.

But whether methodist travelling preachers receive great salaries or small ones, was a matter of little concern to me. I have long desired most anxiously to enjoy retired life, and only went into the itineracy to discharge what appeared my duty, in hopes that I should feel satisfied after a little time; and intended, as soon as I had done what I felt bound to do for the publick, to go into private life.* Mr. Skinner says,

"We cannot but remark, and we think every attentive reader must have noticed, the entire silence of Mr. T. on the subject of scripture testimony." And again:

*I will here add that protestant preachers of no sect have any object to preach for money solely. Some, of splendid talents get good salaries; but such could get more in many other callings. Very few preachers of any sect in our country get more than is necessary to meet their expenses. The men who complain much of priestcraft generally pay ten times more for grog bills, law suits, fiddler's bills and other similar concerns, than the pious pay to support a gospel ministry. In going on to a circuit, I thought it doubtful, at the time, whether my lungs would admit of preaching six months.And considered it of little consequence about the salary,

"But alas! Mr. T. has no proof-he would gladly have brought it forward if he had."*

Did 1 attempt to discuss the question whether all men would be saved or not? No-not at all. Then why does ho conclude I had no proof, and who told him I would gladly have brought it forward if I had? Must a man go to work and prove every thing he believes in every article ha writes, if he can prove it? The question was never systematically discussed by the apostles, and I think never should be by their followers if they can reasonably avoid it. I wished to be understood, that I did not think the chief design of the gospel either to teach universal salvation or endless mieery; but that all men should turn to God by a holy life; and as many as would do this should be saved and the rest should be lost. Then the question how many would turn to God, being a matter of prophesy and implication and being a thing which our disputes can never alter, I conceived my business to let it be for idlers to dispute about, while I should preach the gospel, offer Christ to such as will aecept him, and expose infidelity.

it

My grand object, as I said before, was not to dispute about universalism; but to oppose infidelity, caring very little about the different views that believers may have on minor points, so that they were christians. If they believed all would repent and be saved, I would not quarrel with them about that; but am satisfied that very few, who really

*These men knowing nothing but war, seem to take for granted that others must be like themselves; and the only reason, I did not sher into being half a dozen volumes to confute all their notions in a single moment of time, they conclude was, because I had no proof!! Must a man fight these bullies or be called a coward! And because he does not confute all they have said for years, in a moment, is it certain proof that he cannot do it? It reminds me of a drunkard, I saw at training once, who insisted that the whole regiment were afraid of him, because they did not knock him down! Preachers generally suppose, that it is as much as they can attend to, to show that the pious and good will be saved, and to persuade people to become christians. They think the Bible teaches enough of the misery of the impenitent and wicked for believers in the Bible; and it is of no use to convince such as reject its authority that it toaches future retribution.

believe the Bible, will ever suppose it designed to teach the eertain 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, let 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.*

66

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 scripture. But I conceived no more necessity, for quoting scripture to prove that I renounced universalism, than there would be for quodag scripture to prove General Jackson President of the Union.

1

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 aud 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. Oh horrible!!! 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 rode 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