though its author may have greatly mistaken the path of truth. But when I see rash and adventurous criticisms thrown out before the public, which are evidently the offspring neither of patient investigation, nor yet of a serious desire to know what the Bible has decided, but intended only to remove the difficulties which the scriptures throw in the way of opinions entertained by the authors of such criticisms, and to lull the consciences of men who are uneasy about the subject of future punishment, I feel constrained at least to make an effort, to bring before the public a full investigation of the meaning of the words in question, and to afford them, if it be in my power, more easy and ample means of judging in regard to the criticisms above named, than is afforded by any of the popular works now generally read.'

Am I the person, whose writings are alluded to in the above quotation? If I am not, it is a pity you was not more definite in your allusions. Admitting I am not, still the importance of the subject, and your general censures of Universalists, demand they should not be silent on the present occasion. That I am here alluded to, I presume will not be denied.

After reading these unqualified denunciations, some persons may be disposed to ask, 1st. If what Mr Stuart here says be true, why did he not select a few of these 'rash and adventurous criticisms,' and expose them? Why condemn in the gross, which is easily done, yet afford not a single specimen, in proof of his sweeping condemnation? He is not even fair enough, to inform his readers, in what books such adventurous criticisms are to be found, nor does he deign to name the man who was foolish enough to make them. Does Mr Stuart suppose, that his mere ipse dixit is to determine what is truth-who has, or has not adopted correct 'rules of scripture interpretation?' and, that we have not so much sense, as to see through all this disguise? He attacked Dr Miller openly; and he has attacked Dr Channing more than once openly. He attacked E. S. G. openly; and repeats his attack on the same writer openly, in this very book. Why all this shyness, then, openly to attack books which he so severely condemns? He must have some strange partiality for the feelings of their author, or some concealed reason, for pursuing so different a course on the present occasion.

2d. Some may also ask-Does Mr Stuart believe what he so strongly affirms in the above quotation? If he does; why stoop so low as to write a book to counteract the influence of such palpably erroneous criticisms? Why turn aside from his official duties, to oppose openly, or covertly, rash and adventurous criticisms,' so widely departing from the sober rules of legitimate interpretation?" They were altogether below his notice, in any way whatever. Their own absurdity was a sufficient exposure of them. But it seems, Hercules must leave business of the greatest importance, to kill a fly. We remember, Mr Stuart, among other reasons, urged his official duties, as an excuse, for refusing the author of these criticisms an explanation of some of his own criticisms, in his letters to Dr Channing. Had such an explanation been given, it might have saved him from being a Universalist, yea, from everlasting misery, according to Mr Stuart's doctrine.

*

But such, sir, is the way you have sunk my writings; and it is proper in this connexion, to notice, how highly

* To some readers, the allusion here, needs the following explanation. It was in reading Mr Stuart's Letters to Dr Channing, in the year 1819, doubts were first created in my mind, that the doctrine of endless misery might be false. They were created by his comments on Philip. ii. 10, 11, and Rev. v. 8-14. See Mr Stuart's Letters, p. 101, 102, 2d edition. Being unable to reconcile his comments on these texts, with the doctrine of endless punishment, I laid before him my difficulties, in a series of letters, published in the Universalist Magazine, 1820, signed 'An Inquirer after Truth.' In these letters, I urged Mr Stuart, in an earnest and respectful manner, to relieve my difficulties, by reconciling his comments with this doctrine. But this he declined, and urged among other things, his official duties as his excuse. See his letter published in Mag. 1821. Finding he would not relieve my difficulties, which his comments had unintentionally created, I had no other alternative left me, but to examine the subject more fully for myself. My books are before the public, which are the result of that examination, and are the writings Mr Stuart covertly attacks in his present publication. Regret is unavailing; but I do regret, and Mr Stuart ought to regret it, that if universal salvation be an error, he did not give me the needed explanation. If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, an ounce then might have prevented me from being a Universalist; for all my prejudices and habits of thinking, were in favor of endless punishment. But unfortunately, Mr Stuart's patient is now in a different stage of this disorder and mere simples will not probably remove his complaints. However, if my own heart does not greatly deceive me, I stand ready calmly and candidly to examine the evidence he may produce to show me my error.

you raise your present publication, designed as an antidote to my rash and adventurous criticisms.' Your first essay appeared, some time ago, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims. In your letter to the editor, you said—' Yet a critical, radical, philological, and exegetical investigation of the important words Aion, and Aionios, is at least not commonly to be met with; and if it is to be found, (I mean, in such a shape as is satisfactory to an earnest inquirer, who lays aside attachment to system and seeks for simple truth,) it is not within my knowledge of books.' On p. 61, 62, you add;— But if there be any critical and hermeneutical essay of this nature, which goes the full length of the subject, it is unknown to me; and I have merely followed my own plan in the above researches, and made all my investigations, without the aid of any lexicons or commentators.' I regret seeing these statements for your own sake. Some will say, they savor of egotism and literary vanity. But they are not strictly true; for you repeatedly quote lexicons, and spend from ten to twelve pages in animadverting on those which did not accord with your views;-p. 62-72. Commentators, as we shall see afterwards, were also consulted. And it is certain, you have not gone the full length of the subject,' for you have not laid before your readers, all, but only a few examples of the usage of oulm in the old Testament. Your task is not done until this is accomplished; and yet you call what you have done,' a severe task.' p. 16.

But it seems, 'an earnest inquirer, who seeks for simple truth,' could not find a correct and full investigation of this subject, until you favored the world with your essay. It is sufficiently loaded with the titles critical, radical, philological, exegetical, and hermeneutical;' but they do not add to its value, in the eyes of one who seeks for simple truth.' These splendid titles aside, and I see nothing in it to make me ashamed of an essay in the same subject in my second inquiry. But let us proceed

to

'Sect. I. Importance of the subject.' Here you employ about ten pages in assuming and asserting the immortality of man's soul, its existence in a disembodied state, and that in this slate it is to suffer or enjoy. It is very obvious, that these assumed doctrines form the basis of your whole system of future punishment. I therefore spend more

time than was desirable, in noticing this part of your book. If this part of it is false, you have been building without any solid foundation. You must commence another de novo examination.' It is on this ground you must examine the subject with me ; for it is my honest opinion, the whole doctrine of future punishment, whether limited or endless, depends on this,-Is the soul immortal? and is it capable of suffering or enjoyment in an intermediate state? And all this is done, without the slightest reference to the Bible, in proof of what you advance. In your very first paragraph you say—To a being endued with a spirit which can never cease to exist, and who can live at most but a few years in the present world, the question, What is to be his future condition? is the most important question that can possibly be agitated. Will his condition after death be unchangeable? Will his probation be at an end, when his present life shall cease? And if so, on what does the happiness or misery of his future state depend?' Here, the whole ground of debate is assumed at the very outset; for if man has not such a spirit, your ten pages at once fall to the ground. Some of these questions appear strange, if you believe man is to be changed from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality, in the resurrection. If you do why ask-Will his condition after death be unchangeable?' And unless you can find in the Bible, that men are to be raised immortal sinners, where do you find your subjects for endless punishment? Even on your own assumed principles, the question ought to be, Will his retribution be at an end when his present life shall cease?

In your second paragraph, you say-An instinctive desire of happiness and dread of misery, form an elementary part of the nature which man possesses. They are interwoven with the very being of his soul, and must be immortal as the spirit from which they spring. At the prospect of happiness, he is filled with delightful anticipations, which make existence a blessing, and cause the soul to exult in the possession of its powers and capacities; at the prospect of misery without relief and without end, an instinctive horror closes every avenue of pleasure, and the soul loathes its own existence, and would fain resign the possession of it.' Yes, sir- at the prospect of misery, without relief and without end, an instinctive horror

6

Your

closes every avenue of pleasure, and the soul loathes its own existence,' for some have resigned it by suicide, or dragged out a miserable existence in a mad-house. statement is verified by abundant examples in the present day. Yet, with these examples before their eyes, many preach misery without relief and without end,' without much examination, is this doctrine true? It is high time it was examined, that we may know, whether we ought to be filled with delightful anticipations, exult in the possession of our powers and capacities, or be filled with instinctive horror, loathe our own existence, and curse the day in which we were born. But I ask, Have not brutes an 'instinctive desire of happiness and dread. of misery,' as well as man? If so, they are immortal, according to your argument. By the soul, here, you cannot mean the life; for this can be, and is often, resigned. No; you mean, what is called the immortal soul,' which, though a man would fain resign the possession of it,'. you say in your next paragraph, cannot be done.

thus write;

You

'This however it cannot do. He who made us, in his own image, made us immortal like himself; immortal in regard to the powers and faculties, as well as the existence, of the soul; the immortal subjects, therefore, of happiness or misery in the future state. We can no more cease to be the subjects of the one or of the other, than we can cease to be what we are-rational, sentient beings, whose very constitution, whose essential nature, necessarily involves with its existence the experience of either happiness or misery.' Is not this, sir, assuming the whole ground of discussion, and precludes all debate, about the terms Aion and Aionios expressing, the endless duration of punishment? If he who made us, made us 'the immortal subjects of happiness or misery in the future state,' our immortality in happiness or misery, is certain from our creation. But, where do you find it said in scripture, that God created us immortal? Was there immortal misery as well as happiness in God; for you say he made us in his own image?' And if God 'made us immortal like himself; immortal in regard to the powers and faculties, as well as the existence of the soul,' how do you make it appear, that life and inmortality are brought to light in the Gospel? We shall see