served the blackness of darkness for ever; the devil that deceived them shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever; and these shall go away into everlasting punishment."

By a recurrence to the preceding number, the reader will perceive that all the strength of these passages which is predicated on the words everlasting, for ever, and for ever and ever, is perfect impotence. That the term hell does not convey the idea of endless misery has also been shown in part, from the most unquestionable authority. Every careful reader of his Bible even in our vague and sometimes very imperfect translation, must see that this cannot be the meaning of this word, or certainly, not its uniform meaning. If he examines the use of the term damnation, he will find that equally indefinite. No scholar of credit will deny that the same word which is translated damnation, is also rendered judgment. To ascertain how much importance is attached to the use of this word in the original, and how much people are deceived by the signification generally attached to it, a few examples are annexed.

"For judgment I am come into this world." John 9: 39. Read "for damnation," and let your own ear judge. "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God." 1 Pet. 4: 17. Now say, damnation must begin at the house of God, and make your own commentary. Let every reader of the Bible carefully attend to the passages in which judgment and damnation are found, and further illustion will be unnecessary.

Without entering at the present time more fully into the value or understanding of any of those quotations which prove, extra controversia, that, either with or without intent, you have handled the word of God

deceitfully, the subject will be left with a pledge, that when you or any other person, will attempt to prove by any one citation, that the system of endless mysery is true, the subject shall receive the most respectful attention.

Passing in silence over a vast number of tortured quotations, and much disgraceful sophistry and false assertion, I come to the case of Judas-a case which seems sufficient to glut the omniverous appetite of even an Edwards. In dwelling In dwelling on this theme, it seems that the ears of the orthodox are almost ravished with the yells of the damned, and that their eyes are feasted in imagination, with the sight of one at least, who is placed in a state of torment from which can be no release, and to whom hope can never come. A short quotation from Letter VI. will serve as a specimen of what you say respecting him, and Universalits.

"Before I close the testimony from scripture, let me request you to consider attentively the case of Judas who was denominated by our Saviour, the son of perdition, and who having betrayed his Lord, was driven by remorse, not by true repentance, as some Universalists affirm, to hang himself that he might go to his own place."

Among other misrepresentations noticed in the Inquirer, two years ago, this is one; and you seem to come under the denomination of those, who, being often reproved, and hardening the neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. The following is a transcript from the piece to which I allude: "Judas, alas! poor Judas, the strong case in proof of endless misery, also came in for his share of abuse. Besides being fixed in hell for ever (or endlessly) he was also misquoted. Now as it is not said that he hanged himself and went to his own place," in the scriptures, we will just inquire whether he hanged

himself at all. It is hoped Mr. H. will examine his Greek Testament in this instance." As you utterly rejected the hint here given, and others which were offered with a view to set you right, every reader has a right to conclude, that truth is not your object.Were you as fully disposed to know and propagate the truth, as you are to dissemminate error by its falsification, we should not witness the repetition of a misstatement, which must revert on your own head. If you know no better, your ignorance is equalled only by the insolence with which you reiterate an assertion, for which you have already been rebuked by a layman, possessing not a fiftieth part of your opportu nity for a knowledge of the Greek. I profess not a general acquaintance with the language; but, as far as the present subject is concerned, I fear not an appeal to the literary public.

That the criticism relating to Judas may come before us in the most unambiguous manner, the only two places which speak of his death will be given and compared. That found in Mat. 27: 3, 4, 5, in the common version, reads as follows:

"Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, what is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

It is obvious that the translators here say that he hanged himself. In Acts. 1: 18, 19, the account stands thus :

"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch

as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood."

Admitting this to be all that we could know on the subject, still your deduction would be a palpable absurdity. How an evident conclusion can be drawn from two statements so manifestly different, is not easy to imagine, and far less can we determine that Judas "was driven by remorse, not by true repentance," to return the wages of iniquity. As to his repentance, I think few will be found either in or out of churches, whose actions more clearly demonstrate the sincerity of their regret for an act which has resulted in evil. As to the terms remorse and repentance, you have made a distinction without a material difference. If remorse is the pain of guilt, it is most obviously sorrow for sin, and the first step towards newness of life. We may be said to regret the doing of wrong, though it were committed in ignorance, while repentance for transgression of a known rule of right, must evidently be accompanied by remorse. But the malversation is too obvious to escape any rational mind, not fettered down to ignorance by the thraldom of tradition.

Perhaps a careful survey of the conduct of the disciples will tend to remove some prejudices from the minds of those who are not "willingly ignorant."-They were all perjured. After affirming with much confidence that they would sooner perish with Jesus than forsake him, they all forsook him and fled, Christ called Peter Satan, and Judas a devil. True. Peter "went out and wept bitterly," and Judas returned the money, which was most certainly as true a mark of sincerity as was displayed by Peter. If he wept bitterly, why not place him with Judas, and insist, that instead of being true repentance, the weeping was occasioned by remorse! But besides this, Judas is said to have repented himself, of which not a word is said respecting Peter. But, do you really

believe that Christ's friends will be rejected, and consigned to remediless wo? Christ calls Judas friend, at the moment when he was betrayed. But how is it possible that one should be so deceived, or attempt so to deceive others, with the Bible in his hand, as to assert, or intimate, that Judas, who was dead, and the apostle who was to be chosen as his successor, were identically the same being? To awaken your apprehension on this point, Acts 1: 20 to 25 inclusive, will here be inserted :

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and, his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore, of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

I have cited thus much, that no man can rationally doubt the fairness of the quotation. That the he, who might go to his own place, alluded to the man upon whom the lot should fall, is too evident to controvert. Judas did not live to see the crucifixion of Christ, and the 3d verse of this chapter furnishes evidence that not less than forty days had elapsed since the resurrection, before the eleven determined to choose an apostle in the room of Judas. What then had the choice of an apostle to do with Judas? Was he detained by the election of a successor, from going to his own place? Depend upon it, that "if a misquo