assassinations too numerous and too horrid to relate are the dreadful concomitants of this belief in that church. Centuries have witnessed her violations of every principle of honour, humanity, and virtue-her own historians acknowledge it, and the Protestant church has long resounded with anathemas on her head as the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth. No proof is here needed, nor will a professed Protestant utter a dissenting voice, unless it be to the deductions.

But some eminent and excellent members of that church, give a faint relief to the dreadful picture.With these exceptions, a whole church stands as a beacon to others professing the same fundamental doctrine. But, heart-chilling as is the picture of this church, the same features are distinguishable in the Protestant. From her own history, and the acknowledgments of her children, will the facts in support of my_argument be drawn.

To begin with a celebrated Reformer, from whom your denomination claims its origin. He was a bigoted, intolerant, persecutor and murderer. Mr. Benedict, the Baptist historian-a Trinitarian Calvinist, thus writes:

"A multitude of testimonies go to prove that Calvin

was at the head of this murderous affair.” [The burning of Servetus, as an anti-Trinitarian.] But omitting all others, I will transcribe part of a letter to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre. "Honour, glory, and riches, shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus, the Spaniard."

I am fully aware that it will be objected, this was a solitary instance. It is not necessary to prove that

every believer in endless torments is a murderer and a persecutor, nor that the Protestant church has drunk the blood of saints and martyrs to the same extent as the mother church; but if it be evident that the same spirit of persecution has reigned to the present time, and that circumstances have in some measure prevented its baleful effects, the object is accomplished.

Stupidly, and obstinately perverse must that man be, who doubts that the reign of the Protestant queen Elizabeth, was equally as sanguinary as that of "bloody Mary," the Catholic. As many Catholics, perhaps, did not suffer martyrdom under her auspices, as under those of Mary; but the spirit of persecution was as relentless, as intolerant.

But, nearer to our own times, what was the state of religious toleration, even in England? Did not our fathers flee from Protestant persecution, and did they not become persecutors of Catholics, Episcopalians, Quakers, Baptists, Adamites, and all who did not adopt their faith, the moment they had power ?— These facts are too notorious to need proof, or to require a protracted comment. Perhaps, however, an avenue to escape from the conclusions may be devised; though I see not the manner of effecting it, unless it be, by justifying Protestant persecution, as "easier and pleasanter" than Popish.

Let us now look at the confessions of the primitive Reformers, respecting the general influence of a change from popery. Luther."We see, that, through the malice of the devil, men are now more avaricious, more cruel, more disorderly, more insolent, and much more wicked, than they were under popery." Again, "I am burnt with the flames of my untamed flesh; I am mad almost with the rage of lust. ***** I who ought to be fervent in spirit, am fervent in impurity. **** I yield not in pride, either

to the emperor, prince, or devil." But a fair judg ment can be made of the morality of the times, when Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and five others, gave permission to the prince of Hesse Cassel, to have a plurality of wives!

Musculus. "It is clearer than the light of day, that never were pagans more vicious and disorderly, than those professors of the gospel."

Melancthon. "The thing speaks for itself. In this country, among the reformed, their whole time is devoted to intemperance-sunk into barbarity and ignorance."

Stubbs, speaking of England, says; "I found a general decay of good works; or rather a plain defection, or falling away from God-who sees not that they (the papists) were far before us, and we far behind them?"

Capito. "I acknowledge the great evils we have occasioned in the church."

Bishop Burnet, speaking of the state of morality in England, in the reign of Edward VI. says; "The sins of England did, at that time, call down from heaven heavy curses."

Much more might be cited to the same purpose, proving incontestibly, that a reform in name is not always a reform in fact, and exhibiting in vivid colours, the persecutions, tumults, murders, perjuries, and other most flagitious conduct, of the most noted opposers of Universal Salvation. It would probably be said in extenuation, that these things occurred under a less degree of light than is enjoyed at the present day. True, but is the doctrine of endless torment calculated to produce this light, and gradually reform the heart? If so, it is very inefficient, for its spirit has done more disservice to the cause of humanity, than all other causes put together. The spirit which the detestable doctrine genders, hardens the heart, and

makes man the enemy of man. That persecution is less prevalent now than formerly, is dependent on causes very different from the mildness of an orthodox spirit. It is accompanied by the same vices, so far as they are not restrained by the civil law, and the jealously between rival sects, which may undoubtedly lead to a greater degree of watchfulness over them. selves. This proposition is so notorious, from the Narratives of the state of religion in the bounds of different Presbyteries and Synods, that a recapitulation can be hardly necessary. Among the evils deplored, are Sabbath-breaking, intemperance, fraud, and the et cetera of general immoralities; and these are distinctly charged on professing christians, communicants of your order; nor does it seem to present any relief to the eye, when we view those of other denominations, of congenial sentiments. The Episcopal power in England, still rules the Catholics in the British empire with a rod of iron. In Switzerland, "an orthodox, but inefficient faith," persecutes to exile and to death, and sufficient evidence is at hand, to satisfy the rational mind, that if the tenet of endless misery do not at present exercise its power with the same relentless fury, which has been its concomitant, it is because the civil law has shorn it of its strength, and the fist of wickedness is bound, that it cannot smite.

But the subject is too abundantly fertile in the most condemning facts, to be closed in the present number; it will be continued in the next.

Yours,

CANDIDUS.

NO. 4.

To Rev. Joel Hawes,-Hartford.

SIR-In the preceding number of this Review, your descriptions of the audience, and of the doctrine taught by preachers of Universalism, were in part examined. In protesting against your portraiture, an appeal to the good sense of the community, was deemed an insuperable barrier to the truth of your statements, whether relating to the hearers or preachers. It was considered an outrage on civilized society, to designate a large congregation as chiefly, if not exclusively, composed of the most abandoned of the human race; it was shown, by your own words, that this was your evident meaning; and, as no reservation was made in favour of any particular place, it was fairly inferred that none was intended. Such an unqualified assertion, in the face of the most unyielding facts, sufficiently indicates your unrelenting hostility to the doctrine, and that no compunctious visitings of conscience for a moment deterred you in the choice of weapons for a crusade against it. But it was due to the understanding of your readers-to the purity of the christian name, and to your own character-that some facts should support these assertions, or that they should not be made. These facts have not been detailed, nor has any thing in the form of evidence been thought necessary. Like the Papal Inquisition, you appear to consider the accusation as sufficient proof for conviction and condemnation.

You must be aware that few cases occur, in which the accused is bound to prove a negative. To furnish evidence, clear and unequivocal, is the business of the accuser; in default of which, his accusation is considered of no avail, and in certain cases, he is