by personal knowledge, demonstration, or by the higher degrees of probability." It is a maxim which daily observation verifies, and it is therefore I would press the inconsistency of your assertions home to the business and bosom of every one, who has a mind to understand, and a heart to feel. The quotation to which I allude is the following; "If the righteous and the wicked are to fare alike in the future world, why is salvation always promised conditionally?" "And on this principle, I must say that although those passages which either directly, or by implication, teach that future happiness is suspended on present conduct, and is to be attained only by compliance with certain specified conditions, appear to me entirely unmeaning and absurd." If, after what has already been advanced, any thing found in your letters should be able to furnish matter of astonishment, it is the utter incoherence of the present declarations, compared with others heretofore cited. That salvation is always promised conditionally, is precisely as consistent with your definition of the nature of salvation, and the signification of pardon, and forgiveness, as to say that the sun emits light and darkness, or that all the parts of a body are not equal to the whole. By your own rule of argument, it is absurd to speak of salvation, as being experienced by one who is not obnoxious to punishment; but is the law against the obedient? If man be obnoxious to punishment, and salvation be deliverance from punishment, or the curse of sin, then conditions must be out of the argument, or he saves himself by compliance, in which case deliverance of the guilty can have nothing to do with the subject. Any other conclusion renders language more vague than the Delphic Oracle. Whether the course which you have pursued, in the zigzag windings of modern or thodoxy, is intended to "darken counsel by words without knowledge," will be left to others to decide, when we have closed the subject. Yours, CANDIDUS. NO. 3. To Rev. Joel Hawes,-Hartford. SIR,-If you are fully persuaded that the chief support of your system rests on "profane and old wives fables," or the equally vague and fluctuating traditions of men, you have certainly exhibited a happy specimen of sincerity in the composition of your Letters. The course which you have taken testifies in a voice louder and more definite than words, that the scriptures are not considered as the first, or most important test of opinion. But, Sir, I will now inquire, if this be the touchstone to which protestants have at length returned? After abjuring the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, and professing to take the written word as the man of our counsel, and the unerring rule of faith and practice, have we merely changed masters? Whatever may be the inference, the fact is obvious, that the major part of your reasons, as they are termed, are drawn from sources entirely distinct from the Bible. Those who have read the subject of these remarks with care, know this to be the fact, and are at liberty to estimate the value of such extraneous testimony. On examining some of your dogmatical assumptions, a thought has occurred, which may be as well expressed here as in any other place. Each person accused of malefactions of the deepest die, is considered inno cent in the eye of the law, until the proof of his guilt shall not admit a rational doubt. Nor is this all his privilege; even when an overwhelming majority in the community has decided on his criminality, he has a right at his trial to challenge each person on his oath, and is allowed counsel, whose honour is pledged to use their best services in behalf of their client, under all these disadvantages, and in the very face of the popular current, whatever be its origin; and wo betide the court or jury who dare to infringe on his rights, or condemn him, until the allegations are proved. But these are the immunities granted by the world's people; ecclesiastical tribunals manage concerns in their province differently. A single man in these courts, usurps the offices of accuser, public prosecutor, jury, and judge; and the accused is never acquitted, for the precedings are entirely ex parte. One of these anomalies in judicial proceedings is found in your third letter, the purport of which is as follows: "If then we find that any system of doctrine is generally embraced by the wicked, and rejected by the righteous, we have strong presumptive evidences that the system is false." To clinch this "presumptive evidence" against Universalists, it is stated that "good men cannot oppose the plain doctrines of the Bible," and that the heresy of Universalism is "embraced chiefly, if not only, by those whom the Bible denominates the wickBut this charge appears rather too general for your purpose; hence you condescend to particularize a few of the minutia in the following words: ed." "The profane swearers in a town or city, together with those who are accustomed to neglect public worship and violate the Sabbath by business or amusements, will become diligent in their attendance upon the worship which is conducted by preachers of universal salvation. "If there are any persons in the community who are unfaithful in the conjugal relation, and who are accustomed to "drink stolen waters as sweeter than their own ;"-these are usually much pleased to hear that there is no hell, and that adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God. "I have noticed, also, that intemperate persons are generally very ready to turn out, when the doctrine of universal salvation is preached near them, and hear with much satisfaction, that the path of the drunkard leads as directly to heaven as the path of the just. "Another portion of the audience of a universalist preacher is commonly made up of young men and boys of loose habits. Those "whose fect," according to the Bible, "go down to death, and whose steps take hold on hell," delight to hear it proved that the Bible lies, and that fornicators shall inherit the kingdom of God." Here then are the allegations against us in extenso. Profane swearers, adulterers, the intemperate, and young men of loose habits, chiefly, if not exclusively, compose the audience of a Universalist preacher! And what do they hear in the place where "worship is conducted by preachers of universal salvation ?" By your account they hear "that there is no hell, and that adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God!" And further; "that the path of the drunkard leads as directly to heaven as the path of the just;" besides which the audience are "delighted to hear it proved [yes, proved!] that the Bible lies; and that fornicators shall inherit the kingdom of God!" These, are indeed, heavy charges, but as suspicion, or even declamation is proof in your estimation, we have nothing to do but suffer the irreversible sentence. You sink Universalists to a hell of inexpressible suffering in another world, and there on your hypothesis, the Bible leaves them." Truly, this is a laconic procedure, and as summary as could be desired by the most sanguinary court martial. But we shall offer a reason "why sentence should not be executed." The allegations are not proved. Your description of the audience and the preaching are not true. You have indeed said, that "Let the doctrine be preached in any populous place, and the following facts will be witnessed;" viz. the circumstances just enumerated. This, Sir, is one of the populous places where the doctrine of God's equal and universal goodness is promulgated, and here is the place in which you can commence proceedings against the monster Universalism, which, in the act of turning "the world upside down," has "come hither also." You are invited, nay, challenged, to maintain the above barefaced assertions, which you must either support, or submit to the odium of a false accuser. If the character of the audience is half as bad as you have represented, surely some of "those who, according to the Bible, give the best evidence of piety," will volunteer their testimony, in addition to your ipse dixit, which is given anonymously. But how is it possible, that in this land of steady habits, whose moral and religious character has been raised to the highest niche in the temple of fame through the instrumentality of your denomination, I say, how is it possible, that in a place of such pure morals, preaching is permitted, nay, encouraged, which is calculated to perpetuate such a catalogue of scandalous vices as you have imputed to the majority of the audience? Really, sir, you appear to have verified the truth of a certain poet : "Not one looks backward, onward still he goes, |