tation be brought in support of error, so far as it has influence, truth must suffer by it;" and that truth stands more securely without such palpable insults to the understanding of your readers. By what means you determine that Judas is the Son of perdition, we have yet to be informed.

As to what "some Universalists affirm," respecting Judas, so far as respects his repentance, it certainly stands on as tenable ground as your assertion.— The marks of true repentance are precisely such as are considered conclusive evidence of sincerity in your church, though it is well known that few exhibit their repentance in so strong a point of light. But I need not long insist, that testimony which clashes in any material point, is utterly futile. That the common versions of these two passages entirely disagree in relating the manner of the death of Judas, is too clear a point to urge, and of course, as far as the translation is concerned, your conclusion is completely neutralized. For further light on this subject, we will now refer to the Greek, to which your attention has already been called.--My object is to show, that in neither of the places in which the death of Judas is mentioned, do the inspired writers use the term which signifies hanged. In the first instance, Matt. 27: 5, the word is apegxato, definition, suffocated. And in Acts 1: 18, the word is prenes, translated, falling headlong. But an examination of Acts 5: 30, will show that kremasantes is the word correctly rendered hanged or suspended. Thus, neither the account in Matthew, nor that in Acts, give the least colour to the assertion that Judas committed suicide.

But, as you seem to dwell on this case with considerable confidence, to quote what you say further on the subject, with accompanying remarks, may not be

amiss.

"Wo to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had never been born. How can this be true if universalism is not false? If all men are to be saved, it can be truly said of no one of our race, it had been good for him never to have been born. For whatever he may endure for a season, whether in this or in the life to come, the eternal happiness of heaven will infinitely outweigh it, and render existence to him an infinite blessing. Is Judas in heaven? Will he ever be there and dwell there for ever? How then is he lost-how then had it been good for him never to have been born? How would nonexistence be a blessing to him who is to be eternally happy in heaven?"

Because Christ said, Wo to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed, are we to infer that an endless state of suffering must be his lot? A prophet says, Wo is me, for I am a man of unclean lips, and Jesus denounced a wo upon women who should be with child, and those who should give suck in the time when Jerusalem should be destroyed; and well he might, when he described the distress which should then happen, as greater than any which had occurred, or which should happen. But does this imply endless misery, either here or in any other place? Among all the dreadful woes prophetically denounced in the Apocalypse, not one allusion is made to endless misery. Nor does the expression, "Good were it for that man if he had NOT been born," either directly or indirectly intimate a state of being beyond the grave, and much less a state of ceaseless misery. If you object to NOT in the room of NEVER, you will be pleased to inquire whether ouk is properly translated never. If you sometimes appear to dread a logomachy, it may fairly be imputed less to the subject, than to the effect which a close examination of the use of words will produce on the cause you have espoused.

But you deliberately ask, "how can this be true, If universalism is not false?" If so, though you evidently did not expect a reply, you shall receive it.— And first-nothing in the connexion intimates that the birth of which Jesus spoke was a natural birth, any more than in his discourse with Nicodemus; nor is it seen how he could be a man, to receive either good or ill, without the natural birth. To be the recipient of good, he must evidently have existence, and capability of enjoyment. If the birth to which Christ here alluded were spiritual, the mystery is no longer a secret. John, speaking of Jesus, says, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on his name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Whether Judas was thus born, we shall see in the sequel.

No man will dispute that Judas was one of the twelve. This fact is beyond dispute, but not more so, than the evidence that he was an accepted disciple, and that he executed the commission given him by Christ, Mat. 10: with the other disciples, when he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of diseases." Judas was specially named, and sent out with the others " as SHEEP in the midst of wolves." Matthew and Mark inform us, not only that Christ brake the bread, and gave the cup, but that "they all drank of it ;" and Jesus is represented by John as saying-Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." If this is not as good evidence of salvation for Judas, as for the other disciples, it is sincerely hoped that we may learn wherein.-But why not condemn Peter to remediless wo? See the testimony in his case, and then say how you can more consistently condemn the one than the other. Peter

denied Christ with an oath, and the words of Christ are- "He that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God." If this strong language points to a state of interminable suffering, where is your hope for Peter, or indeed for any of the disciples? Not an intimation is given, that an iota shall be taken from this denunciation on account of weeping bitterly; why not then include all in the common condemnation?-But, perhaps, it may still be urged, how could the want of this new birth have tended to the good of Judas? Ans. "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." It is then very obvious that this idea of the subject perfectly corresponds with the words of Christ, while the idea of good received by a nonentity is utterly preposterous. Your question respecting Judas-"How then is he lost, predicated on the supposition that he will ultimately enjoy the smiles of heaven, is perfectly absurd. Not an iota of evidence have you brought forward, to show the loss of Judas, more than that of every other human intelligence. Was he lost in any other sense than all of the Adamic family? All who wander from God are lost, and for the purpose of restoring these lost souls to the true fold, was Christ manifested; for he came to seek and to save that which was lost. Paul says, that this is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. But we have a more direct testimony than this, "He that confesseth and forsaketh his sins, shall obtain mercy." Judas confessed his sin-he made

all the reparation in his power; he returned, and boldly and honestly defended the innocence of his master, and every circumstance serves to confirm the proposition, that "finding all his efforts to save his master inffectual, he died-his feelings overpowered him he fell a victim to his returned affection, and was suffocated with his grief." Much other testimony could be adduced, but the present is deemed more than sufficient to answer your question. Numerous instances of a similar nature are on record, and he who doubts that the strength of mental feelings, has in many instances deprived people of life, is prepared to doubt the most evident physical facts, and the most demonstrable proposition.-Your last question on the case of Judas argues an inconsistency in your own ideas on the subject, which will be briefly noticed. You ask, "How would non-existence be a blessing to him who is to be eternally happy in heaven?" The discrepancy of this paradoxical query with common sense, is a result flowing from the incorrect understanding of the language of Christ. The idea of a blessing conferred on non-existence, by its being suffered to remain a non-entity, is a proposition of your own, and remains for you to solve. The light in which I have viewed the words of Christ, lead to no absurdity in the conclusion. Good cannot be enjoyed by a lifeless clod of earth, and that which is capable of feeling must have existence. But the weakness of your question requires no further argumentsit is palpable to a very moderate understanding. If a system requires a perversion of the words of Christ, which renders them ridiculously absurd, those who are so wedded to sentiment as to approve such a course, answer well to the description of the imbecile of whom Solomon says, though he be brayed in a mortar with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him. Yours, CANDIDUS.