coming when God will give both the righteous and the wicked according to the works of their hands.

Another passage which your preachers and authors frequently quote to prove your peculiar doctrine, is found in Ps. 22: 27. "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."

Does this passage prove that there is no judgment to come? Nothing of the kind is intimated here. This text is a practical declaration of the progress and triumphs of the gospel "in the world." It says nothing of the present condition or final destruction of those who have gone out "of the world" before they "remember and turn unto the Lord." Do all men "remember and turn unto the Lord" before death, judging from your own observation? This you will not pretend. Will all men in the future world "remember and turn unto the Lord?” Admit this, and your doctrine of no-future punishment falls to the ground. For if you admit that any turn to the Lord in eternity, then it follows as a matter of course, that they enter the eternal world, laden with guilt, and alienated from their Creator. And if guilt and consequent condemnation once pass into eternity, what becomes of your favorite doctrine?— Yea-more; if sin and condemnation pass the threshold of eternity, what fearful significance does the thought impart to those passages which assure us that they "who know not God, and obey not the gospel of his Son, shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."

The Lord willing, you shall hear from me again soon.
Yours as ever.

LETTER X.

My Dear Sir:

Having in my last examined the most important Scriptural evidences of your doctrine which your preachers and writers adduce from the Old Testament, I now propose to call your attention to an examination of those passages which are brought forward for the same purpose from the New. You are probably well aware that the most intelligent Universalists do not even pretend that there is a single passage, which affirms in so many words, that all men are equitably and fully rewarded

in this life, or that there is no judgment to come.

But there

are some passages which are supposed to imply your doctrine. Let us examine them.

Much dependence is placed on that class of texts which teach the universality of the atonement. As for instance."Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time." 1 Tim. 2: 6. See also, 1 John, 2: 2. 4: 10.

But what does this class of texts prove? That all men are rewarded and punished in this world according to their character? No! That death will break down all distinctions between the righteous and the wicked?-between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not? No; this class of texts simply affirms the fact, that in the sacrificial death of the Son of God, (a sacrifice in which, by the way, the Universalists have no faith at all,) provisions are made for all men.And if we believe the Word of God, this circumstance, so far from screening the sinner from condemnation, who lives and dies in rebellion against God, it will greatly aggravate his final ruin. The most bitter drug in the sinner's cup of condemnation, I apprehend, will be found in the solemn fact, that " light came into the world" and shone around him, and that "he loved darkness rather than light, because his deeds were evil;" —that he has trampled upon the atoning blood of the Lamb of God," done despite to the spirit of grace; that while God in all sincerity, and with full provisions of grace, has called, he has refused. The Apostle Paul tells us that this gospel of the grace of God so richly and impartially provided for all, will prove to some a savor of life unto life," and to others of" death unto death;" 2 Cor. 2: 15, 16. As to the design and final result of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, hear the Divine teacher himself. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3: 14, 16. Here you learn from the lips of Christ, that universal provisions of grace are made, not that saints and sinners, Christians and Infidels, may equally and unconditionally have eternal life, but that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him (none others,) should not perish, but have everlasting life." The provisions are free and are for all, but they are conditional. They are rendered "a savor of life unto life to whosoever believeth." This class of texts then, affords your system no support.

:

You also place great dependence upon Matthew 22:23-30. "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now, there were with us seven brethren and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased; and having no issue, left his wife unto his brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Because our Saviour says that in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like unto the angels in heaven, your writers and preachers infer that all men, the just and the unjust, will be made not only immortal, but hcly, consequently ineffably and equally happy, in the world to come. Let us examine this inference. Will it bear the touch of sound criticism? I trow not.

ness.

1. I protest against the Universalist construction of this passage, because Christ did not say that all in the resurrection would be like unto the angels of God, in holiness or in happiHe was not speaking upon the subject of holiness or happiness, but upon the subject of marriage. The objection which labored in the minds of his Sadducean auditors against the resurrection of the dead, was not a supposed difficulty as to moral character, but as to conjugal connections. The Saviour, as an honest and faithful teacher, spoke to the point.He told them that they did err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but (on the subject of marriage,) are as the angels in heaven." This is true of all the inhabitants of the spiritual world, the good and the bad, the angels in heaven and the devils in hell.

2. But I object to the Universalist exposition of this text again, because according to St. Luke, our Saviour made such qualifications as most clearly indicate that he referred to the "first resurrection," "the resurrection of the just," the "resurrection of life." The language is so qualified as to imply conditions. "But they which shall be ACCOUNTED WORTHY, &c." Here none are represented as obtaining that world which Christ had in mind where they are to be like

unto the angels of God, except those who "shall be accounted worthy." Do you say all men will be accounted worthy? This would make the Saviour utter nonsense, Why is this qualifying phrase thrown in, if there is to obtain no distinction in the resurrection? If the most God-dishonoring, and heavendaring guilt will not in the least degree disqualify the soul for the society and employments of the heavenly world, why do we hear the Saviour talking about those, who shall be accounted worthy? Can you tell? Do you ever hear your preachers use such qualifying expressions when they speak of heaven? Never.

See Luke 20:27-39. 1 Thes. 4: 14-17. Rev. 20: 46. Phil. 3:9-11.

3. Another circumstance which to my mind seriously militates against your exposition of Matthew 22: 23-27, is this, --the Sadducees raised a question in relation to the future conjugal conditions of a family of pious Jews, as they understood it, and not in relation to any of the wicked. The wife and her seven husbands were not Infidels nor pagans, but pious Jews. Moses has said, "If any man's brother die, having a wife, and hee without children, that his brother should take his wife,

e up seed unto his brother." In this case the wife and ands obeyed Moses, and hence would be regarded both

adducees and Pharisees as pious Jews, and hence be accounted worthy to have a part in the "resurrection of the just," if ever raised from the dead. Well, now Christ took the case just as they presented it, and removed the difficulty which they supposed the case involved. They presented the case of a pious woman, a daughter of Abraham, who had seven pious Jewish husbands, and asked how they could be united together in "the resurrection of the just." Christ took up the case as it was presented, and replied, "They that shall be ACCOUNTED WORTHY to obtain that world, &c."

4. If you contend that the word resurrection, means the resurrection of all men, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and that the holiness and happiness of all are promised here because it is said in Luke, "they they are children of God, being the children of the resurrection," I answer, Universalists believe that all men are the children of God in this world, and not unfrequently labor to prove this. But does the fact that all men are the children of God here, prove that all men in this world are holy and happy?

5. I further deny that this passage teaches your doctrine of no future retribution, because Christ was not so understood by

those who were present and heard him. From the context it appears the audience was a mixed multitude of Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians and disciples. None of his hearers believed in the doctrine of Universalism. The Sadducees did not believe in any future existence. The Pharisee, as you may learn from Josephus, believed in the resurrection of the dead, and eternal punishment of the wicked. They were now present, Luke tells us, that "they might TAKE HOLD OF HIS WORDS." Now if Christ in answering the inquiry of the Sadducees, preached Universalism, his eagle-eyed opposers, the Pharisees, who were present "to take hold of his words," would have perceived it at once; and they would have raised an outcry against him for preaching this then unknown and unheard of doctrine. Did they raise this cry? Were they dissatisfied with what Christ taught upon the resurrection. on this occasion? No-on this point the Scribes and Pharisees, who your own authors freely admit, believed in a future, eternal judgment, fully accorded with what they heard from the Saviour's lips. Hear them.

"Then certain of the scribes answering said, "MASTER, THOU HAST WELL SAID." Luke 10: 39.Here then we learn what our Saviour said on the subject of the resurrection in his reply to the Sadducees, so far accorded with the views of the Pharisees then present who heard it, that immediately after he finished his discourse, they advanced to him and pronounced their commendation, "MASTER, THOU HAST WELL SAID."-If he had preached Universalism, why did they not understand it? and if they understood, how could they have commended a discourse, which directly overturned their long cherished sentiments?

Please to consider these facts and considerations, and believe me as ever, Yours.

My Dear Sir:

LETTER XI.

I will now proceed to examine a few more of those passages which you regard as the proof texts of your system.— Perhaps there is no text more frequently quoted or more confidently relied upon than Acts 3:21.

"Whom the heavens must receive until the times of resti