text from the Bible which declares that it does not teach any punishment in this world, or own the truth of my doctrine. In such a case, I should consider myself as absurdly unreasonable. But if a man did

deny this, would I be at any loss to prove from the Bible that it taught the doctrine of punishment in this world? None. And if your doctrine of "punishment beyond this world" was just as easily proved, why trouble yourself or your readers, with all you say about the statement of the question?

Respecting me you say, p. 85-"I have not in all his writings seen a single attempt to prove that all men are duly and equitably recompensed here." No Sir, and for very good reasons. You must tell me precisely what you mean by being " duly and equitably recompensed here." If you mean that every man receives a full punishment for all the sins he commits, or in other words, is punished into heaven, I tell you I believe no such doctrine. Tell me what you mean precisely, and I will tell you explicitly what I believe about it. But you say "we have already seen that he admits that St. Paul, as virtuous as he was, received far more misery than happiness in this state, even after he had become converted to Christianity." Please Sir state my opinions in my own words, and not in your logical form, for no such opinion was ever stated by me. Sceptic as I am, I have no such contemptible views of Christianity. I trust from what has been stated in former Letters, you can be at no loss now to understand my views of this subject.

On p. 86-88, you introduce a supposed case of A and B, relative to murder and the civil law. You admit, that if "A should assert, that by the laws of our country every murderer should be hung, and after that should endure one year's punishment, he must produce the statute which contained this penal

ty." You add "if he could produce a statute which only said that the murderer should hang till he was dead, would not every person say that he was defeated in his position?" Certainly. Let us then see, Sir, how you evade the force of this supposed case, in regard to your doctrine of punishment after death. You say -"the civil law consists only of a law and a penalty. But this is not true of the Scriptures; they treat of man in every situation, of his creation, character, duty and final destination. Here then is a striking difference. The one treats of all men in every situation, the other treats upon nothing but the punishment which must be inflicted in case of transgression; the latter is confined to this world, the former extends into the future." But what of all this parade of words and distinctions, for I ask you Sir, does not the divine law as well as the civil, contain a law and a penalty? And have you not told us yourself, that the penalties of Moses' law did not extend into a future state? If the Scriptures do-"treat of man in every situation of his creation, character, duty and final destination," how does all this alter the case, as to your extending the penalty of the divine law beyond death? Instead of this making a striking difference," it makes no difference at all; for still the question is, what is the penalty of the divine law? If you say it extends beyond death, you must produce the statute which contains such a penalty, just as A must do in the case you suppose, and consider correct, If the divine law treats of " all men in every situation," so does the civil law, for it condemns all to death for murder without regard to their situation in life. You really seem to write sometimes without thinking. You positively assert in the above quotation, that the civil law treats upon nothing but the punishment which must be inflicted in case of transgression," yet set out by telling us

66

"the civil law consists of a law and a penalty." But what does it signify if the divine law treats of a thousand things the civil law does not, if the divine law does not treat of your future punishment? If the civil law" is confined to this world," it still remains to be proved, that the threatenings of the divine law "extend into the future."

But from your preceding reasonings you draw the following conclusions, p. 88. "Now as the Bible treats upon salvation and final happiness, nay as this is the great doctrine to which all things else are subservient, we may naturally expect that this doctrine will be taught in the clearest manner. As many die in the perpetration of some horrid crime, it appears certain that they must be punished after death. But if this is not the case, we have a right to ask for proof; and if no proof can be produced, we feel justified in saying that such an one will be obnoxious to punishment after death." Answer. Who ever disputed "that final happiness is taught in the clearest manner" in the Bible? Or who disputes that this is "the great doctrine to which all things else are subservient?" The point in dispute is, is your punishment after death taught in the Bible in the clearest manner? If it was, you had no occasion to beg the question in the above quotation. I may ask also, is it taught in the clearest manner in the Bible, that your future punishment and salvation in hell is one of the "all things" which is made subservient to "final happiness?" But in begging the question, you tell us some "must be punished after death." Well, who are they? They are those who "die in the perpetration of some horrid crime." But, is this certain? Yes, you tell us "as many die in the prepetration of some horrid crime it appears certain that they must be punished after death." About this kind of sinners you seem certain that they must be punished. And

But

why not also all who die in the perpetration of little sins? Why single out horrid sinners, and send them. to hell to be punished after death, and yet send Christian little sinners to heaven? If all are not sent to final happiness on the ground of God's grace, and not on the difference of crime, farewell salvation to us all. There is not a principle in your book, which I hold in more heartfelt detestation than the one here advocated; and I am certain, either your views or mine are radically wrong as it respects the ground on which future existence and happiness rests. I ask, from what does "it appear certain, that any are to be punished after death?" I defy any man to point out the thing from which you draw such a conclusion, except that the persons "die in the perpetration of some horrid crime." This is all the premises from which you draw your certain and must be conclusion. But one thing I suggest for your sober and serious consideration. It is this. The Scriptures relate cases of persons who died in the perpetration of very horrid crimes. But no Scripture writer says what you here say about such persons. Either then they were very ignorant, not to know this thing about which you are so certain, or if they knew it, were not so faithful as you are in declaring it to mankind. If they knew it, what apology can you make for their unfaithfulness? If they did not, how came you to be so certain about it? If you are correct, Annanias and Sapphira, with many other Christians, went from this world to hell, and so far as I can learn from your system, are still there. Very horrid sinners you send to hell, but on Luke 23: 43 above, you sent the man to heaven who died on the cross for his overt acts of iniquity. A few hours punishment settled his whole account. When shall we arrive at the end of your contradictions?

SIR,

LETTER VI.

I PROCEED to examine the sixth division of your book called "a future judgment." Your first sentence is extraordinary; you say "let it be observed here, that the Scriptures were addressed to those who believed in a future judgment." Most people imagine it is by the Scriptures alone we can know whether there is or is not to be a future judgment. But it seems they are mistaken, for the faith of those to whom the Scriptures were addressed anticipated divine revelation, and we should think superseded its necessity on this subject. Permit me to ask, how such persons came by their belief before the Scriptures were addressed to them? Should you say it originated in a divine revelation which is now lost, please inform us, who revealed this to you, or show that such a revelation ever existed.

It was very sagacious in you to take this ground, for if the Scriptures do not teach your "future judgment," the doctrine is secure without them. It is certain from your own showing, p. 70 of your Letters, that Moses in his law did not teach it. This part of Scripture then, does not--" use language which seems naturally to teach this doctrine," and as all your proofs are drawn from the New Testament, I conclude it is your opinion, "a future judgment" is not taught in all the Old Testament. If it is, no doubt but you would have resorted to it for proof. But were the Old Testament writers all believers in a future judgment, addressed their revelations to such as believed in it, and yet as silent as the grave about it? The man, Sir, who can believe this, must have an old propensity for believing. It would be sinful to