reason, as they will testify, that the scriptures led them. into it.

It has already been made evident that most of the people who believe in endless misery, have been taught it before they were able to read, and when they read the bible, they read it with this prepossession. Is it strange, then, allowing some ambiguous terms in relation to the duration of punishment, that many people, with a taught prepossession in favor of endless misery, should think they find it in the bible whenever they read it?

Tho these remarks are not designed to account for the origin of the doctrine of endless misery, they point out the means by which it is supported. Respecting the origin of this doctrine, I do not pretend to give a particular account; but I will introduce a parallel case, which both Mr. S. and myself believe to be untrue. In this, then, I remark, that both Jews and Christians believe in the scriptures of the Old Testament. Christians hold the Old Testament to be confirmation of the New. Notwithstanding, the Jews, tho they expected a Messiah, they did not believe in Christianity. In opposing Christianity, we say they opposed their own sacred writings, their interests, and their long and ancient expectations. I cannot but think this is as unaccountable as the belief of endless misery. And I am confident Mr. S. cannot complain that there is no analogy between the two cases. The Restorationer and the believer in endless misery both hold to the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and each endeavors to support their own peculiar sentiments by them. The Christian and the Jew both agree to hold to the Old Testament, while the one would support the New, and the other deny it, by the same authority.

Altho I do not believe the doctrine of endless misery, supportable by scripture, I am willing to acknow

ledge that there are some passages, which, when detached from their general connexion, appear to favor it.

The word everlasting is sometimes applied to punishment; and as the word in our language naturally signifies endless duration, it might be thought to have this meaning when thus applied. But that this is not its scriptural meaning in all cases, the learned of all denominations are ready to acknowledge. We see then, if the word may be limited in some cases, the promises of universal salvation manifest to our minds, that when applied to punishment, it must be limited. Another circumstance is not unworthy of notice in this place, that the bible which we use was translated into our language by believers in endless misery. Many ambiguous expressions, therefore, which would admit, may be supposed to be likely to favor that doctrine. I think I may say this, without incurring the charge of accusing the translators of knowingly perverting the sacred text.

Mr. S.'s remark on my observation, "that the opposition to our Savior's doctrine did not arise from any thing that was odious in the doctrine itself, even to wicked people," I think contains nothing that does away the truth of what I said. I did not write that wicked people loved the doctrine of Christ; but that they usually "allowed the beauty of virtue and holiness in theory, tho they do not love to practise the same. themselves."

Concerning what Mr. S. has written respecting Universalists experiencing repentance, I need make no remarks; for by his own concession, if we could prove what he requires on this subject, it "would by no means establish Universalism." It is not then a matter that belongs to this discussion.

In bringing this essay to a close, it is due to Mr. S. to acknowledge, that he has managed the subject of

endless misery, on the ground which he has adopted, with no small share of ingenuity and deliberation. Such of his remarks and arguments, as I thought had the greatest bearing in opposition to the faith of universal salvation, I have noticed, and endeavored to set in what I thought a proper point of view. Our readers, in examining his arguments and mine, it is hoped will weigh the subject, and determine it for themselves, according to its merits; for they are sensible that neither of us can be their judges.

Reading, Dec. 20, 1825.

S. C. LOVELAND.

For the Repository.

BR. SKINNER'S REPLY TO I. SMITH,

MR. EDITOR,

In the last No. of the Repository, I find a reply from Ithamar Smith to my communication of May last, which was published in No. 1 of the present Vol.

Mr. Smith considers a considerable part of that communication as amounting "to mere criticism," or as "founded on a most unaccountable mistake of his meaning." Nothing could be further from my intention, than "mere criticism ;" and if I was so unaccountably mistaken in his meaning, as he pretends, why did he not point out my mistake, and thereby give me an opportunity of making to him and the public a suitable acknowledgment? But whether I mistook the obvious meaning of those remarks which I noticed, or not, the public must judge.

I am not only accused of indulging in "mere criticism" of "an unaccountable mistake" of the writer's meaning, but also of incorrectness in point of fact, for, says Mr. Smith, "there never was a time when popery reigned triumphant over the whole Christian world, Under the various names of Waldenses, Albigenses,

Hussites, Wickliffites, &c, there always were considerable numbers who rejected the doctrines of the Romish church, and resisted her usurpations." Unfortunately for this writer, in the above statement, he "is not quite correct in point of fact," as I shall now proceed to show. The Waldenses were the first seceders from popery; and tho ecclesiastical writers are not perfectly agreed as to the time of their origin, yet none of them fix it at an earlier period than the year 1120. According to Mosheim, Peter Waldus, the founder of the sect, commenced his preaching about the year 1180. The Albigenses have been sometimes confounded with the Waldenses, but whether they were a branch of that sect, or a distinct and separate denomination, no traces of them are to be found in history until the twelfth century. Wickliffe was born in the year 1324, and Huss in 1376, consequently the "Hussites and Wickliffites" could not have existed till late in the fourteenth century. It appears from history that the attempts of the Waldenses, the first reformers from popery, "were neither employed nor designed to introduce new doctrines into the church, nor to propose new articles of faith to Christians. All they aimed at was, to reduce the form of ecclesiastical government, and the manners both of the clergy and people, to that amiable simplicity and primitive sanctity, that characterized the apostolic ages." Hence the ar gument of my opponent derives no support from these circumstances, even admitting that the Waldenses originated at a much earlier period, as it does not appear that they held any particular tenets, different from the Romish church.

With respect to the time of the establishment of popery, historians are not agreed; but that it was a long time previous to the separation of the Waldenses, is a fact, which is evident from church history. As early as the year 325, and immediately after the decisions of the

Council of Nice, Constantine the Great, in letters to the churches, says, "that now there was no more room left for dissension, or controversy concerning the faith, as the decision of three hundred bishops, who had been assembled on this occasion, must be the decision of God himself." Altho this cannot be considered the full establishment of popery, it seems to show the authority which was given to the church by the secular power at that early period. About the year 445, pope Leo I. procured from the emperor Valentinian II. a law, from which the following is extracted. "It is certain that the only safeguard of our empire is the favor of the Supreme Deity, which is secured by the Christian faith and true religion. Considering then that the merit of St. Peter, who was the prince of bishops, the dignity of the city of Rome, and the authority of the sacred synod, have established the supremacy of the apostolical See, let nothing be attempted against its authority; for then only will the peace of the churches be preserved, when the universe acknowledges its governor." From this time, appeals to Rome were made from all the churches, and the legates of the holy see were sent into all parts of the Christian world. In the year 606, Boniface III. procured a decree from the emperor Phocas, that the bishops of Rome alone, should from that time have the title of universal bishop. This last period is generally considered as the time of the complete establishment of the papal authority; and hence it appears that there was a period of at least five hundred years, during which "popery reigned triumphant over the whole Christian world." The public can now judge which of us, (Mr. Smith or myself) is nearest "correct in point of fact," and also, whether his "argument is unshaken" or not.

In the second and third paragraphs of my opponent's reply, he complains, that the facts which I stated, (and which he does not pretend are incorrect) "contain no