laws of Nero, which were indeed written, but posted so high, that to read them was impossible. I have now closed the argument on this text for the present; and so far am I from finding any support for your doctrine, that I glory in it, as one which precisely suits my purpose, by establishing the doctrine of Universal Šalvation. By your own concession, I am entitled to your pity and your prayers-but, as I deny that the quotation alludes to your idea of a future judg ment---you will not of course, again attempt to convince me. If this is the strongest point, as you intimate, of what avail are those which are inferior? In the next, I purpose to examine the remaining passage already quoted from your 8th Letter. Wishing you more prudence and better conduct, I remain, your well wisher, CANDIDUS. NO. 10. To Rev. Joel Hawes,-Hartford, In the ninth number, the first of those texts which you quote "to establish the fact and the time of a general judgment," was fairly examined. The investigation exhibited that passage as speaking a language, and pointing to a subject, entirely diverse from that under contemplation, and therefore is utterly destitute of power to strengthen that which will now be examined. Whether the remaining text is capable of sustaining the whole weight of your declaration re. specting both in connexion, is the question before us. But I should do injustice to the subject, by failing to notice, that this is also dissociated from its connexion, commencing as did the former, in the midst of a sen tence. This is not a speculation-a mere opinion; it is so obvious, that no person who can read his Bible need be ignorant of the fact. How then, you can stand justified, in calling these two passages plain and decisive, while they are presented to the public in this garbled state, is a question for others to answer. "Crude Imposition's like a Bow that's bent, To twang an Arrow with an ill intent, Rebounds it back, and wounds the marksman's heart." "The hour The following is your misquotation. is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of llfe, and they that have done evil unto the ressurrection of damnation." A fair and convincing method of testing the worth of an argument, is to reduce it to practice, and thus bring it home to our business and bosoms. When a court or jury can be found, who will decide a case on the force of testimony as inconclusive, and as partial as that under consideration, we shall consider the example, and inquire into the reasons of the decision. You evidently look at this text in what may be termed its literal sense, and in this sense it will be examined, completely isolated from its connexion. If, in granting it this latitude, it come short of your purpose, or prove too much, it must certainly be relinquished. The time, then, is the general resurrection. They that have done good, rise to life; life implies existence, without including the idea of pleasure or pain, happiness or misery. They live, and our information concerning them extends no further. They that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. Allowing your idea of damnation, and we are utterly at a loss, who are the damned. You may answer, they that have done evil. Granted; but who Ans. have done evil? "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." But you object to this sweeping clause. Some, you will urge, have repented. True, but had they not done evil, they needed not to repent. To repent is to return, and those cannot return, who never strayed. If this passage be plain and decisive, all who have done evil are the subjects of damnation, for no salvo is found in the text. Nothing is said regarding the finally impenitent, (a class about which the Bible is silent) nor is a word said about the grace of God, nor yet about those who are to be saved in their sins, by being pardoned, and exonerated from the miseries to which their transgressions have made them liable. Have you, or any of your friends, DONE EVIL? then does this plain, this decisive text, fix your state beyond the pale of mercy, where hope never comes; and remember, "there the Bible leaves you!" Thus, according to your understanding of this passage, universal damnation is as surely supported, as the damnation of a single soul. They that have done evil-not a portion of them, are the subjects of damnation. But I anticipate an objection in this place. You would agree that the fair understanding of the passage is, that those who may be termed virtuous, in contradistinction from the vicious, will not be the victims of this damnation; or in other words, that the balance of good or evil in an account current, must be the criterion of decision. On this ground, an imperceptible line, an imaginary barrier, a single fault, endlessly divides two persons, whose lots, agreeable to your theory, are infinitely different. One is destined to enjoy all the felicity which God can bestow, and the other to suffer all which he can inflict. Is this exaggeration? if so, inform me wherein. Is this the equal "retribution of eternity?" But how does this reward according to works (if such it may be called) agree with another part of your system? You persist in saving some, who have done little else but evil, with all their sins in full array against them, through the pardon of God; which is to save them in their sins, and from their deserts. How can both be true? Does the damnation of those who have done evil, without the shadow of redeeming mercy, accord with this sentiment? In your eagerness to prevent the salvation of all, you have most certainly committed yourself and your system. When deprecating the "slang of Universalists," did you contemplate the medley of absurdities to which your zeal was giving currency? It is possible, however, that in the face of all these self-evident contradictions, you will maintain the literal meaning of this isolated passage. You will therefore represent the passage as the words of Christ, and insist that condemnation awaited him who should wrest these words to any other than a literal sense. Be it so. On this ground let us try how the language of the succeeding chapter, (John 6) will support the Catholic and Lutherean doctrine of transubstantiation. 66 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven." And no wonder they murmured, for they understood him literally. Did he undeceive them? No, he confirmed them by adding "I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat." As the Jews still understood him in a literal sense, no wonder they asked the question, "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" But what was the reply? Read for yourself. "Then Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread shall live forever." That this strong, and increasingly literal language was understood by the apostles in the same sense in which the Jews understood it, is evident from the context: " Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, this is an hard saying, who can hear it?" ask, now, in what manner you will avoid the conclusion, that the real presence is in the eucharist, or the conclusion that all who have lived since the days of Christ have utterly perished? Look at the strength of the language, and see how much the subject is magnified by Christ, after the expression of astonishment by the Jews. Now look the Bible through, and find, if you can, such a concatenation of testimonies for the doctrine of unending misery. Still this is far from all which can easily be produced on the subject. And yet, you dispute the Catholics, and by a |