that the very best of men are, less or more, the creatures of prejudice. But the shackles of "tyrant custom," and prejudice, imposed by priestcraft, are wearing off, and will utterly give way before the force of Scripture, Truth, and Reason. But a few centuries ago, it would have been reckoned blasphemy to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, and now even the most zealous catholic is half ashamed to avow it. And but half a century ago, the salvation of all who die in infancy, was but partially believed, or at least avowed." None but the elect children," said they" can be saved." Now, where will you find one, who is not devoted to bigotry and prejudice, who will hesitate to pronounce all such to belong, to the Kingdom of Heaven. The march of true knowledge is advancing; and prejudice will, by and by, as ashamed, hide its face. I have no doubt, that in a century hence, the doctrine of eternal torments will be as little believed in, as either transubstantiation or the damnation of infants are at the present day. So true it is, that in nothing have mankind ever been so much misled, as in their opinions about religion, as the history of the world abundantly showeth.

Were prejudice, superstition, and bigotry, banished from amongst mankind, as becometh saints, then farewell to the dominion of the clergy, and to all national establishments of christianity. Then would men, with the scriptures in their hands, with God and a good conscience before their eyes, under the influence of Scripture, Truth, and Reason, look every subject fairly and candidly in the face. Then would men only act a rational part, when they should begin to think and act for themselves, unassisted by Priestcraft, and uninfluenced by prejudice. This day is upon the wing, and will arrive. Then shall the Minister, or Preacher, be no longer the bond of union among christian societies, their bond of union will be love, for the truth's sake. There shall then be a real "unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,"

October 29.-You told us from the pulpit, this day, after reciting that passage, that "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," that "all mankind are the subjects of his mediation;" and that "he will vindicate his mediatorial authority, over sinners, in raising them to condemnation." And you referred to that passage, "That as sin hath reigned unto natural death, over all Adam's posterity, so would grace reign, through righteousness, unto eternal life, in that all shall be raised to life through Jesus Christ." So,

then, according to your view of the subject, this is the benefit they all are to enjoy (who are not of the elect) from Christ's mediation and atonement, namely, to be made eternally alive, in order to be eternally miserable!!! Much better had it been, for at least nine tenths of the human race, who arrive at maturity, had Christ never interfered in their behalf at all, nor died for them, as you are pleased to say he did. In this case, the language of the Saviour, when he shall come to deliver up the kingdom to the Father, will behove to be such as the following"I have done what I could to save the whole human race whom I died to redeem, but I found their natures so corrupted by Adam's fall, and their appetites and passions so vitiated, and the devil so artful and cunning, in suiting his temptations to their corrupt appetites and passions, that I was at length obliged to come to a compromise with him, and give him up nine tenths of the human race, to recover one tenth." And well might the Devil triumph over the Saviour and say "Here are the millions you fondly imagined you could rescue from my power;-for them you left the bosom of your Father; for them you assumed the human form ;-for them you suffered many hardships and indignities; for them you shed your blood ..on the cross; but after all this, behold! they are mine eternally;-you tried to save them, but you could not.". As one justly asks-"Is this the triumphant victory the Savour of mankind was to gain over the powers of darkness! Is it all to terminate in peopling the infernal regions with those very beings, who the Father of mercies wished and intended should be eternally happy ?" Where then the triumphant exclamation,-" O death where is thy sting, O grave' where is thy victory ?" Where then the boasting. that "for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil?" I shall now, in borrowed language, ask you one question, according to your doctrine, “who has ultimately the greatest cause to triumph-God, or Man, or Devil ?"

To conclude:-I recollect you said to me one day, when speaking about the subject of universal reconciliation, that you wished. the doctrine were true. This is truly a benevolent wish, and such a wish as every good man must secretly have, whether he may express it or not. I think it was the pious Philip Dodridge, whose benevolence, shuddering at the common doctrine of eternal tor

ments, involuntarily exclaimed,—" Well! if even the Devil is to be damned to all eternity, I shall be sorry for it." And elsewhere he says "of all things credible to me, the doctrine of endless damnation appears the most incredible.". He shuddered at it, and secretly dissented, though he never publicly renounced the popular belief. Now, let me candidly ask you, and do you candidly answer the question.—Whence, do you think, does this wish of your's -of Philip Dodridge's, and of all good men, proceed?. Does it proceed from a truly christian-like temper of mind, and heavenly principles; or, does it proceed from an unregenerated mind, and from hellish principles ? Whether can such a wish be ranked amongst the "fruits of the spirit," or "the works of the flesh?" I think I need not put the question. Well then, if such are the fruits of the spirit, how do you think that He, "with whom is the residue of the spirit," can be less benevolent than you are, or than he enjoins us to be, as imitators and followers of him? Do not, I beseech you, make the Almighty Father of our spirits, of "the spirits of all flesh," less benevolent and merciful than you are your self. This would be arrogating to yourself a perfection which, according to your representation, is not to be found in God. Let you-let popular opinion-let what is called orthodoxy—let all, or any who will think so,-for my part I cannot-I dare not.

Agreeably to your desire, I sit down to make a few remarks on a written communication, which you' u have thought it necessary to submit to my consideration. Had you thought proper to discuss the subject in a conversational way, I should have been more happy, as an epistolary correspondence be..tween individuals, situated as you and me, indicates a want of confidence, which does not exist, at least on my part.

A categorical reply to the communication, in question, suits neither my time, nor inclination. I shall, however, in the first place, notice a few passages in it, and then confine myself to some general observations.

In regard to what concerns myself, I certainly have no pleasure

in declaiming on the future misery of the ungodly; but it is my duty to warn them to flee from the wrath to come, and to do so in the language which God employs for that purpose, without endeavouring to fritter it down to a sense less awful than its obvious import. As to the inconsistencies and contradictions betwixt my sermons and letters, they are of no consequence to the point in question,that must be determined by the word of God, independent of any sermons or letters of mine. You seem horrified at the idea of God having pleasure in the punishment of the wicked; and certainly I rejoice to know, that he has no delight in punishment, for its own sake; but if it be a righteous thing in God to recompense tribulation to his enemies,-the righteous Lord must love righteousness, and must of course have pleasure in the punishment of the incorrigible, for the vindication of the honour of his government; just as a wise and good magistrate, who, while he deprecates the necessity of punishment, nevertheless has pleasure in the execution of the laws, for the sake of the benefits thence resulting to society. It was in this sense, I used the expression so obnoxious to you; but I presume, no candid hearer of mine, would require an explanation, although a person disposed to quibble, perhaps might.

Again-The worm that dieth not, and the fire that never shall be quenched, are, in your opinion, parallel with the magnificent phraseology of Isaiah. I beg you, however, to recollect, that hẻ writes in the hyperbolical style of eastern poetry; and our Lord, and his apostles, deal only in plain prose. From the former, we must expect high-coloured figures, from the latter; nothing but blunt truth. My offence consists in repeating the passage in Mark, as I found it, in saying that the wicked shall remain for ever, under the operation of the deathless worm, and quenchless fire. Here you retort upon me by saying," Is it necessary for me to tell you, that not the sufferings, but the agents, are here said to be eternal." So then, you admit that the agents shall be eternal! Permit me to inquire, for what purpose? I think this admission fatal to your argument.

-

Farther-You confess you do not know the process, nor the discipline, by which those who die in unbelief, shall be reclaimed. Now, I do know the process, and discipline, the only process, or discipline, by which God reconciles rebels to himself. It is by the death of his Son, and by faith in that death. Of course, I conclude, that he who does not now feel himself reconciled to God, by this all

powerful means,-has no reason to believe, that he shall ever be reclaimed by any other process, or discipline, whatever. He who will not be persuaded to relinquish his sins, though one rose from the dead, is (I conceive), not very likely to become better disposed by dying himself.

Again-You ask me, whether I do not devoutly desire the general restoration, for which you plead, and inferring my answer in the affirmative,—you thence adduce an argument in favour of your hypothesis. Now, unless you are a thorough-paced disciple of Swanston, and believe sin and misery to be very agreeable to the will of God, consequently both very good of their kind, I say, if this is not your opinion, then were I to ask you,—“ do you not desire that sin and misery had never existed?" You would reply, certainly I do. Now, supposing I were from thence to adduce an argument, in favour of their non-existence, would you not pronounce it the consummation of absurdity? You would; yet it

would not be more absurd, than is the one in question, which you have adopted.

Lastly-The universality of the atonement, furnishes, in your opinion, irrefragable proof of the certainty of universal restoration. To this I reply, first

Did men resemble degenerate vegetables, or disordered machines, proper culture, and mere physical force, would insure favourable results; but this is not the case. Man is a free and a moral agent, and can be restored to holiness and happiness, only by moral means; and those employed by his Maker, in the gospel, are admirably adapted to that end. But, should they fail, no physical force whatever, either on earth or in hell, will be employed to conquer the obstinacy of his nature; and that they do fail, in innumerable instances, the scriptures sufficiently assure us. God's people shall be willing in this the day of his power; but his enemies, who will not that he should reign over them, are to be slain before him. So, at least, says the Lord Jesus, but adds no hint of a resurrection from the second death.. But, secondly

The Saviour says, of many of those for whom the heavenly feast was prepared (of course for whom he died), but who despised his gracious invitation to the banquet, that none of the men, who were bidden, should taste of his supper. How they shall be excluded, from the marriage supper of the Lamb, and yet be ultimately restored to holiness, and happiness, I leave you to determine.