Page images
PDF
EPUB

I will propose you a few plain questions, which if you will answer fairly, and with decency, I will consent to continue the correspondence. I shall not at this time propose any particular passages of scripture; I wish, if possible, to understand the ground-work of your system, and I ask the following questions for this purpose:

1st. What in your opinion was the curse of the divine law?

2d. Are any or all of mankind delivered from this curse? If so, by what means?

3d. Do you believe an infinite atonement necessary, in order for God to be just in the pardon of sin?

You tell me in your letter, that you think some of mankind may be subject to some future punishment. I ask

4th. For what reason is this punishment inflicted? Is the sinner, who is subject to this punishment, made better by it, and finally brought to repentance; or, does he suffer all that God in justice could demand of him?

A candid answer to these questions would give me great satisfaction.

Yours,

Mr. SAMUEL C. LOVELAND.

JOSEPH LABEREE.

NOTE....Mr. Laberee, having received from the pube lisher his Answer to Mr. Haynes' Sermon, sent it back with the preceding letter, with the following written upon a blank page:

MR. LOVELAND,

1 know of nothing which I can send you, better calculated to convince a candid and unprejudiced mind of the weakness and corrupt tendency of the doctrine you preach, than this answer to Mr. H's sermon. I would advise you to review it. But for what purpose you sent it to me I am not able to guess.

J. L.

DEAR SIR,

LETTER VI.

TO REV. JOSEPH LABEREE.

Barnard, January 29, 1816.

I received the pamphlet I sent you, accompanied with a short letter, last Saturday evening. If it were a burden to you I am glad you used the freedom to return it. But I would remark, that you vary considerably in your instructions. You formerly pointed me to some passages of scripture to correct me: but now you "know of nothing which "you "can send" me, "better calculated to convince a candid, unprejudiced mind of the weakness and corrupt tendency of the doctrine" I "preach, than" my "Answer to Mr. H's Sermon." If you had a weapon against Universalism in your opinion full equal, if not better, than the scriptures, why did you not keep it for that purpose, and refer your friend to one of the same kind already in his session?

pos

One important reason why I sent it you, was in consequence of a personal agreement between you and me in Judge Brownson's house. It is possible the Judge and some of his family may recollect it. Why I should fulfil this agreement, it seems you are not able to guess. It is marvellous to you that a Universalist could be so honest.

The circumstances that introduced our correspondence, I remember to be the following: At the funeral of the aged Mr. Brownson, we were both present, and each took a part of the public exercise. After exercise, it being very rainy, we tarried in the desk, at which time you proposed a number of questions on my sentiments; some of which I briefly answered; but at length observed, I thought the present was not a proper time to canvass the subject; yet remarked, that at a convenient opportunity, I was willing to converse or to write. You then proposed to hold a cerrespon. dence by writing, which I accepted. You introduced the

conversation, and you proposed the correspondence yourself. Now if you are willing to admit these facts, I will not differ with you about calling it a challenge from me; but will grant you the liberty of terming it what you please. You say you "expected something, which at least bore the semblance of argument" but who can discover in all your writing to me, even one attempt to argument, except to show the absurdity of not considering texts in counexion with their contexts?

Now you tell me when you received my first letter, you concluded I intended it only as a sort of a feint, to throw you off your guard, that I might fill you with surprise at another assault; but before, you said you were pleased with my apparent candour, although you disapproved of my sentiments. It remains for you to show how much appearance of candour there would be in that which is concluded to be a snare to assault.

You beg leave "to repeat," saying, "In my opinion, you have not advanced a single inch towards making out your system from this word." Dear sir, you may "repeat" two or three times more, and if you do not accompany them with an attempt of argument, I will call them "vain repetitions."

Your denying my statement, and blaming me for continuing to maintain them, betrays as much inconsistency as to tie a man's legs and then tell him to run.

Your questions I consider rather out of the line of the ar gument begun; but I am willing to gratify you with dl

rect answers.

1st. I believe the curse of the divine law is, its pointing out to the transgressor the heinousness of sin, and that sentence of coudemnation which its just demerit requires.

2d. I believe all mankind will be delivered from this curse by the only name given whereby men can be saved. 3d. I do not believe an infinite atonement necessary in order for God to be just in the pardon of sin.

I believe

4th. I believe a future punishment is inflicted for the same purpose as punishment in the present life. the sinner who is subject to this punishment, with other means, is made better and brought to repentance.

As to a continuance of the correspondence, I cannot say that it is my desire; but if you choose to continue it, I had rather you would do it as a matter of obligation; obligation to your God, and to your conscience; for should you happen to get into so merciful a mode, as to wish to confer upon your friend "a matter of favour," as you now have, he might find you again accusing him of "low witticism, scurrility, play upon words, and whining."

Your friend and well wisher,

SAMUEL C. LOVELAND.

Rev. JOSEPH LABEREK

MR. LOVELAND,

LETTER VII.

To SAMUEL C. LOVELAND.

Jerico, March 18, 1816.

I received your letter some two or three weeks since, which was an answer to my last, and which contained some answers to questions which I proposed to you; but my avocations have been such, that I have not been able to pay any attention to the subject till now. You complain in your letter, "that you can discern in all I have written to you, no attempts at argument." I acknowledge the assertion is well founded: I made no attempts because I saw nothing to argue against. To attempt to reason with a man who in the very outset, assumes by way of what he calls a statement, the sole point about which we contend, and supposes. he bas established that point by the introduction of only two texts of scripture, which had no reference to the subject of controversy, appeared to me perfectly idle. When you have proved from scripture that it is the design of God to bring all mankind to a state of endless felicity, there is no more room for debate between us. But you could not suppose this point settled by the two texts which you quot ed from St. John; nothing like it. You can prove that it is the design of God to "raise all mankind from their defectible state," only by one of two ways; either by bringing a positive declaration of scripture, that this is God's design, or by establishing the point by the general tenor of his word. The first you will not attempt; and I do not know, whether you will acknowledge you have at tempted the last. If you have, I believe you will agree with me, that you have not made much progress in accomplishing your undertaking. For this reason, Sir, I did not think it necessary to attempt reasoning. But in your an swer to my question, you have given me some knowledge of the foundation of your plan.

« PreviousContinue »