editor unjustly accused Candidus of writing in a very wrong spirit. Whether Mr. Rand was innocently erroneous in publishing that groundless censure, or by beholding himself in his Mirror, mistook and thought it was Candidus, or what could be the cause of so palpable an error of opinion, we are not fully satisfied; but are disposed to decide in the most charitable manner. Finding his intentions misrepresented, Candidus again addressed the editor in the most fraternal and humble terms, assuring him of his mistake, and expressing an earnest desire, that his former article might be published, and others judge of the spirit by which it was dictated. But humiliation and entreaties have no influence on him, who expects to be made happy in heaven, by looking down on the ceaseless misery of reprobate Candidus, and he coldly informed him that "the reasons why this communication cannot appear, will be given in the next number." The candid reader will decide for himself, after perusing the following article, and reply, whether it merited that contemptuous and censorious treatment which it received from the editor. If Mr. Rand proceeds in this way, and rejects and censures every communication which exposes his errors, and the fallacious reasoning of his correspondents, doubtless some of his readers will consider him an all-victorious disputant.-EDITOR.

For the Christian Mirror.

Mr. EDITOR-I have perused the communication from Quaero," published in the last "Mirror," [No. 24,] and as a candid and inquiring reader, beg the privilege of expressing, through the same medium, my views of the subject, both for his benefit and that of your numerous readers. It is not my design to crowd your columns with prolix essays in defence of Universalism, but to show your friend and others, wherein he has misunderstood and misrepresented the doctrine which he wished to refute; and every candid reader must be sensible, that such an attack upon any doctrine is im

proper, but more particularly so, if it be erroneous. It is the truth which must needs be misrepresented to be rejected by good men, while error by the same means, might be rendered more acceptable. Perhaps your correspondent would esteem it a kindness to have his mistakes rectified, and to have the subject set before him in such a form, as will enable him to make just and conclusive remarks. If "Quoro" is a Christian, as we would wish to consider him, he will endeavor to refute Universalism on the same fair and proper ground, that he would have others occupy, in an exchange of circumstances; and I conceive you would be no less happy, Mr. Editor, in doing equal justice to both sides, though one is so unfortunate as to embrace a false doctrine. I would not be understood as attributing any sinister motive to your correspondent, provided he produces his authority for his unequivocal assertion, that Universalists contend for the explanation of the passage of scripture which he advances, or will have the candor to acknowledge his error, if he has committed one. Neither shall I think unfavorably of the editor for inserting the communication, if he avail himself of the first opportunity to correct any misstatement of other men's sentiments, which he may have inadvertently published. But I feel convinced, Sir, that a public de-. sirous of fairness and justice between the advocates for different doctrines, would not countenance an author or editor, who should publish statements concerning any particular doctrine, and not admit into the same columns such candid remarks, as shall tend to correct errors, and present subjects in their proper light.

Omitting many things which appear to me exceptionable, I will proceed to state the most important mistakes into which "Quoro" has unhappily fallen, in attempting to give the views of "Universalists, in relation to Luke 16th chapter."

1. "Universalists" do not, as he asserts, "contend that our Lord merely descants on the temporary prosperity, and consequent bad fortune of the rich man, and

the outward misery but spiritual consolation of the beggar." We ask him to produce the author, volume, and page, which contains such arguments. No writer that we have seen, gives that explanation. "On this construction," he says, "one thing is compared with itself and not with another," &c.But he must remember the construction is his own, unless he proves that he learned it from some Universalist author.

2. There are as many Universalists who do not limit the parable to this world, as there are who do. Then why should Quæro, first, give the passage a construction which no Universalist has contended for, and, secondly, pretend they are agreed in laying the scene wholly in this world? If he is acquainted with their arguments, why not present them as they are; if not, would it not be as well to say nothing about them?

Now I ask "Quoro" to produce his authors among Universalists, in support of his assertions; or, if they are not to be found, I ask permission to present your readers with a true statement of the subject; to which you will be at full liberty to reply, and which I hope you will refute, if their views be erroneous.

In relation to your "remarks" Mr. Editor, on Quoero's communication, I have a word to observe, which I hope you will hear with candor.

You acknowledge you know of no exposition of the parable, on the principle on which your friend founded his observations, and yet you attempt to make his "meaning a little more plain," and enlarge on the same unauthorised exposition, deeming his arguments conclusive. Connecting this with your Notice in the preceding Mirror, that you approved of Quoero's remarks, but would wish to alter "the form of his communication, to make it suit the course pursued in your paper, in combatting error," I am involved in some perplexity. Several inquiries arise in the mind, such as these.-Does the Editor of the Mirror mean to countenance a refutation of an exposition of a parable, while he does not pretend that such an exposition has been

offered by the abettors of the doctrine he opposes? Does the Mirror combat error, by pursuing a course of misrepresentations? Why should the Editor make remarks in addition to those, which were founded on a spurious exposition? Does the truth require the use of such means? And I have concluded, Sir, that the manner in which you dispose of this information concerning facts, and, these sincere inquiries, will be a good key, with which to unlock those mysteries. I hope you will publish this, and comply with my request.

CANDIDUS.

P. S. Would you be willing to publish answers to your questions, viz. "We ask then, what does the parable teach? What subject does it resemble and illustrate?" 1 should be happy to answer you in my illiter

ate and feeble manner.

"CANDIDUS" is received. We would inform him, that our remarks in the last Mirror were grounded on the credit we gave to our correspondent Quaero, that he had seen a parabolic exposition, which we had not. We have since seen an article which calls the passage in Luke 16th a parable, and confines its application to the present life. It is written in such a dark and confused manner, that we do not wonder Quero took the impression he did. We perceive, however, on close inspection, that there is an attempt to give the parable a different application, which appears to us even more absurd than the other. Candidus cannot be admitted, till he writes in a very different spirit, and with a more manifest desire to search humbly for the meaning of scripture, without attempting violent contortions of common language.-Christian Mirror.

REMARKS.

From the above concession that "Quoro" was mistaken in "the exposition" which he attributed to Universalists, it is evident that he has done nothing towards refuting their doctrine; because the proposition which he attempted to support was, that, "One evidence of the incorrectness of the doctrine of Universal salvation, is found in the forced and inconsistent construction, of

ten given by its advocates to passages of scripture." Consequently, as no Universalist has ever given "the construction," which he opposed, he has failed in producing "one evinence" against their doctrine. And even had Quæro been so fortunate as to have given the general views of Universalists, in relation to the passage in Luke 16th, and succeeded in proving that their explanations were inconsistent, it would not prove but that another exposition might be given, which would favor their doctrine, and be irrefutable. Calvinists entertain different opinions on many passages of scripture; but does that circumstance evince the inconsistency of their doctrine? That Quoro is extremely ignorant on doctrinal and controversial subjects, is not only evident from the editor's being at the trouble of writing over his communications, but also, from his misunderstanding almost every point on which he writes.

He represents Universalists as arguing that the 16th chapter of Luke, affords no evidence of future and final misery, on the assumption, that it is a parable. But he does not understand himself; for we all allow that the doctrine might as well be taught in parables as any thing else. We simply contend that with so many express passages in support of our doctrine, it is manifestly improper to explain parables, so as to turn the truth of God into a lie, and the salvation of the world into their endless misery. But Quero is informed that the Andover divines consider that passage a parable; and even the Reverend gentleman to whom Mr. Rand looks for religious instruction, delivered a discourse in the Episcopal Church in this town, in which he treated it as a parable, and even called it such, several times. We hope this information will prevent our opposers from harping any more on the parabolic construction of this text. As no argument has been offered to show that the passage supported the doctrine of endless misery, we can only say, when they appear we shall be ready to answer them, and prove beyond refutation, that no such doctrine is taught in this, or any other passage

divine revelation.

in