man intelligencies in heaven, that will not be in Christ. But the text does not say some of all things, but all things in heaven and on earth.

Professor Stuart, of Andover College, Mass. says: Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers, for the universe.' See his letters to Dr. Channing on Unitarianism. The correctness of this remark is unquestionable, and therefore, we can say, with the Revelator, that 'every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, shall sing, blessing and honor, glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the lamb forever and ever.' There are but two answers, which I have ever heard given to this text. The first is, that it proves too much, and the second that every creature in heaven, &c. saw John, singing this song, and not that John saw every creature! And why not say this, as well as to say, that ‘all things' means 'a part,' and that when Paul says, ‘every knee shall bow,' he means, some knees shall bow?

Thus sir, I have considered your assertions, and I think fully sustained my application of the four texts contained in letter No. 7. I have but a short space for remarks on what you have said concerning my 8th letter. And but a few remarks are necessary; for you have not attacked a single position which I there took concerning Gehenna.

You charge me with scurrility in speaking of

Whitfield. Be it remembered, that I have not said a word for or against him. I merely quoted his happy apology for rambling in one of his sermons, to justify my departure from the subject in discussion,

Your proofs that Origen was the first Universalist, next claim our attention. 1. You deny that the Basilidians, Carpocratians, and Valentinians believed in the restoration of all men. But not a word have you given to prove this denial. To say 'I maintain,' 'I deny,' and 'I assert' is quite easy, but no man who has proof will deal in such things in a controversy like this. In the Ancient History of Universalism, a work of undisputed authority and unrivalled merit, p. 45, we read, "The Carpocratians, who arose at the same time with the Basilidians agreed with them in the final salvation of all souls.' On pp. 42 and 47 the same views are ascribed to the Valentinians.

That these sects were fanatical, I admit, tho' Lardner says, 'that as bad things were said of the primitive christians, as were ever said of them.' Slandering opposing sects has been the besetting sin of Christians in all ages. Look at the vile things said of Methodists, at their first organization. But what if these sects were impious and fanatical, does that prove the doctrine of the restoration false? In all that the fathers said against them, we find not a word of complaint on this ground, which_is indisputable proof, that the doctrine of the Restoration was the common sentiment of that day (A. D. 120.) If it had not been, they would have condemned them for this.

Were I disposed to flourish about honourable authority, as you have done, I could remind you that the Hebrews had no faith in endless wo, until their acquaintance with heathens, and I could show that this barbarous tenet has the same parentage with necromancy, witchcraft, idolatry and all the fooleries and mumery of Pagan temples. Honourable authority! yea honourable origin! might I exclaim, but this is foreign from our discussion.

2. The Sibyline Oracles. All your quotations respeeting these may be true, and yet they teach Universalism. The fact in relation to these oracles is: They are the pretended prophecies of ancient sibyls, which were supposed to be prophetessess of extraordinary inspiration among the Romans and Greeks; and their books were only consulted on emergencies, and by order of the government. The great veneration in which these were held among the vulgar, induced some zealots to fabricate, under the name of the sibyls, and in the form of ancient predictions, a narrative of the most striking events of what was then considered the Christian faith. This was sent out into the world to convert the heathens, by the pretended testimony of their own prophetesses. The plan was seized with avidity by orthodox Christians in general; and Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch and Clemens Alexandrinus, quote it as genuine, and urged its testimonies as indubitable evidence. What then, though these books were 'brought forth in iniquity,' they are valuable, inasmuch as they show the sentiments of the Christians at that time. They were forged, according to Cave, A. D. 130, to Ďu Pin

150, and to Lardner 169 or 190. In book 11. p. 212, Edit. Apropoei, Paris, 1607, we find the following, relative to mankind after the judgment, "The omnipotent incorruptible God, shall confer another favour on his worshippers, when they shall ask him he shall save mankind from the pernicious fire and immortal agonies. This will he do," &c. Here sir, is Universalism before Origen.

8. Clemens Alexandrinus, who was bishop of Alexandria, and teacher of Origen, was a Universalist. Daille, an orthodox writer says, "It is manifest, throughout his works, that Clemens thought all the punishments which God inflicts upon men are salutary, and executed by him only for the purpose of instruction and reformation. Of this kind he reckons the torments which the damned in hell will suffer. * * * From which we discover, that Clemens was of the same opinion as his scholar Origen, who every where teaches, that all the punishments of those in hell are purgatorial, that they are not endless,' &c. Dallei De Usu Patrum. Lib. 11. cap. IV. Archbishop Potter teaches the same respecting Clemens.

*

4. Sparks, in his Inquiry, page 351, says: "Universalism was a favourite tenet with the great and learned Origen; and it is frequently mentioned in the writings both of the earlier and later Christian fathers. Some avow it to be their faith, and others introduce such allusions as to show that it was a tenet common to many Christians at the time they wrote.'

Thus sir, I think I have shown to the satisfaction of all that Universalism did exist before the

days of Origen. And now, I desire to know from whence it was derived? Not from the Jews for they believed in endless misery; and not from the Heathens for they also believed this. It must therefore have been derived from the Savior and his apostles.

Respecting Origen's excommunication, I must offer a few words, though you have given no reply to what was said on this, in letter No. vIII. where I have shown that he was not excommunicated for heresy. Eusebius says, "Demetrius seeing him doing well, great and illustrious and celebrated among all, was overcome by human infirmity, and wrote against him to the bishops thoughout the world, and attempted to traduce what he had done as a most absurd act, (referring to his practical application of Matt. 19. 12.) Then as the most distinguished bishops of Palestine, and those of Cesarea and Jerusalem, judged Origen worthy of the first and highest honor, they ordained him to the presbytery by the imposition of hands. He advanced, therefore at this time to great reputation, and obtained a celebrity among all men, and no little renown for his virtue and wisdom: but Demetrius, though he had no other charge to urge than that act, which was done while but a boy, raised a violent accusation against him. He attempted, also, to involve those in his accusations, who had elevated him to the presbytery. Cruse's Eusebius pp. 226, 227.

Your quotation from Mosheim stating that Origen's excommunication met the approval of the bishops, is unfair in the extreme; for the very next words which follow, Mosheim says, 'the