Those whose minds are enlightened to see what the true supper of the Lord is, and what Christ's supper with his disciples was designed to typify, and really to partake of the life and spirit of Christ will feel no disposition to contend about shadows and signs, and in this strife, to bear manifestly, the most bitter animosity towards each other. All this has been the result of theological controversies managed by blind guides, who instead of "promoting brotherly kindness, christian charity, and heavenly love," lead the people to cruel hatred, blood and slaughter. What is called the Lord's Supper has been a prolific source of the most destructive evils. It is, therefore, inconsistent to suppose that Christ established an institution directly calculated to render alien to each other, those who ought to be connected by the bands of perpetual friendship. The bickerings among many denominations about close communion and open communion, might be avoided if they were of one heart and one soul; if the rich and the poor met at one table, and cheerfully partook of one common blessing, mutually sharing in each other's comforts and afflictions. This is partaking of the Lord's Supper in very deed, according to the manner of the primitive church. Instead of contending about nothing, professed Christians would act more consistently to come out of Babylon, and joyfully enter the gates of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, and thus enjoy that communion that can be obtained from no other source.

I see nothing but inconsistency in the anti-christian world. Whilst they make a pompous display of the bread and the wine, they totally disregard a real institution of the Saviour, which he enjoined by precept and example. "Supper being ended, Jesus rose from the table and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded himself. After that, he poureth the water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel, wherewith he was girded. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you? Ye call me Master and Lord-and ye say well; for so I am. If I, then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet: for I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." How could there be a more positive injunction than this? Why then is the practice of washing each other's feet totally neglected. Whilst the sacrament of eating bread and drinking wine, is punctiliously regarded? The fact is, one is a humiliating exercise, whilst the other better comports with pride and vanity.

By this example, Christ teaches us a weighty lesson, a lesson of humility, and no one could condescend to wash another's feet without measurably feeling this virtue in exercise. Some contend that Christ did not enjoin a literal performance of this ceremony; but there is sufficient evidence that it was practiced by the early Christians. Paul required it of widows as a condition of admittance to the communion of the church; "If she have washed the saints' feet."

There is something consistent with true dignity in the condescension of the Saviour. How exactly did his conduct on that occasion, comport with the principles of his doctrine. What could be better calculated to impress on the minds of his disciples, the divine virtue of humility? Here is a glorious pattern for imitation. May we both be instructed by such a heavenly precept, and cordially reduce to practice so precious an example.

B. I heartily unite with you in considering the circumstance of Christ's washing the disciple's feet, one of the most impressive instances of true humility recorded in the scriptures. It is forcibly inculcated both by the precept and example of Christ. I can see no propriety in neglecting this ceremony, whilst that of eating bread and drinking wine, is looked upon as indispensable. I must say that your remarks on baptism and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are altogether satisfactory to my mind. But as you have let fall a number of expressions which imply a belief in a progressive state of improvement in the invisible world, I should like to hear your views on that important subject.

M. I hope that an opportunity will soon present itself favorable to such an object. In the meantime, you will please to receive my best wishes for your highest happiness, both in this world and that which is to come. Farewell.

DIALOGUE XIV.

B. I have waited, with some degree of impatience, for an opportunity to hear your views on the subject which was proposed in our last interview. There are some passages of scripture which appear to clash with the belief of any alteration in the moral condition of mankind in a future world. The first text that I shall quote, you may find in Ecc. ixth ch. and 10th verse. "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest." The letter of this scripture appears to purport that the general destiny of mankind is fixed at death. Almost every denomination have adopted this sentiment; and it is very strange that this should be the case, if there were not the most convincing proof from the scriptures of its correctness.

M. The letter of the passage you have quoted, if it prove any thing in regard to a future state, establishes the doctrine of annihilation, inasmuch as it is impossible to exist without knowing it. It is said there is no knowledge in the grave. This being the case, there can be neither happiness nor misery in a future world, for can a person be happy and not know it; or can there be any positive misery where there is no knowledge? Let those who contend that this scripture refers to the state of immortal spirits beyond the grave,-answer this question.

It is probable that Solomon, or whoever wrote this passage, was a Sadducee, and did not believe in a future existence. He says, verse 5, "For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is perished." If we admit this to be inspiration, the writer directly contradicts a sentiment, which most professed Christians hold very essential; for in addition to the dead being destitute of either knowledge or wisdom, he directly affirms that "they have no more a reward.”

The writer was doubtless reasoning on the state of the dead, showing that it is impossible for such, either to devise or execute any measure for the benefit of mankind. Verse 4th, "For a living dog is better than a dead lion;" "for to him that is joined to all the living, there is hope." The sentiment appears to be this,-If we can do but little to improve

our own condition and that of others, let us do it with our might, or let us work while the day lasts; for the night of death approaches, wherein no man can work. We have but a short time allotted us; it is, therefore, necessary that every moment should be usefully employed. When dead we become entirely inactive, and are not capable of doing either good or hurt. This is the only sentiment conveyed in the passage you have quoted. Although this is admitted to be the state of the dead, yet according to the declaration or promise of Christ, all the dead shall hear his voice and come forth, where there is device, knowledge and wisdom, which plainly proves that their state is not fixed.

B. There are many that go out of the world blaspheming God, some in the very act of the foulest crimes, and others die in a state of intoxication. There does not appear to be any reasonable ground of hope, that ever the condition of these will be altered for the better. At least, this is a sentiment that almost generally prevails concerning the final condition of these characters.

case.

M. I will allow that a great many go out of the world in the condition you have described. It is deeply to be lamented that this is the But still, if it can be proved that there is no change that can possibly take place beyond the grave, the person who dies in a state of intoxication must remain drunk to all eternity. A person may blaspheme the name of God at one time, and at another become so changed as to tender to Him the most devout thanksgiving and praise. I know of no evidence from the Bible that the work of regeneration does not progress in a future world as well as in this. Besides, the dictates of enlightened reason utterly condemn the opposite sentiment, notwithstanding it is as you say, the common received opinion. What hope can we have of Solomon, who if we credit his biographers, was one of the greatest libertines that ever lived; and thus he passed off the stage of action. And even David died under the influence of the passion of revenge. Do you think he still retains that passion? This is the case, if there is no alteration in him. Such a sentiment involves even greater absurdities. Infants will be blanks in Heaven. The whole heathen world comprising nineteen thirtieths of the human family, will forever be ignorant of Christ and his gospel, who, from the very circumstance of their being, could not believe in Him of whom they never heard in this life. The first philosophers of antiquity will forever be ingulphed in midnight darkness! A Socrates, a Seneca, à Plato, a Diogenes, and a Confucius, notwithstanding they shone so bright in their day, instead of tuning their harps to the high praises of heaven's eternal King, now people the dark regions of despair, and experience a measure of the bitter agonies of eternal death. All these absurdities and many more that might be mentioned, arise from the supposition, that divine light is not communicated to the human soul beyond the tomb.

B. There is another passage on which I wish to hear your comments. "If the tree fall toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be." This scripture is supposed to confirm the belief that the condition of mankind is fixed according to their respective characters at death.

thority. This spurious coin passes current among many congregations that "pin their faith on their minister's sleeve." But when people undertake to make scripture, they should be sure to have it more consistent with the sentiment which it is their object to sustain. Now I would ask, whether a person is alive or dead when death leaves him?

B. I cannot give you a consistent answer unless I say it leaves him alive.

M. Then it is evident that judgment finds the person alive. Amidst all the blunders of a blundering priesthood, they have blundered into one truth. For it is a bible doctrine that, "Now is the judgment of this world." The day that God hath appointed in which to judge this world by that man whom he hath ordained, has already commenced. In reference to the day or dispensation of Christ's second appearing, it was positively declared that "the saints should judge the world." There is no contradiction in the divine testimony on this subject, as it has been demonstrated to you that Christ appears in the saints. This is the judg ment seat of Christ; and to this, mankind must, sooner or later, come.

As the common view of the judgment robs the Almighty of the attribute of mercy, it also exhibits the greatest inequality in the ways of God. All have not the same opportunity to make a choice. As before observed, nineteen thirtieths of mankind are pagans. There remain eleven parts, six of which are Mahometans. Only five thirtieths of the human race are called Christian nations. Now is there any equality in arraigning twenty-five thirtieths of the human family before the judgment, on purpose to pass on them the sentence of unending woe, and that too in consequence of their not believing in Christ and receiving his gospel?

Again, mankind are taken out of the world at every age; and it is supposed that the decision at the judgment will be according to character. Now, we will suppose there are two children struck with the electric fluid and immediately die. One perhaps has purloined an apple, or a pin, or perhaps told a fib. The other has not been guilty of these or any other improprieties. No alteration after death. They are both brought before the judgment. The one is received to glory, whilst the other is consigned to remediless woe! There is neither mercy nor impartiality in such a retribution as this. It is altogether repugnant to reason; and the scriptures, when correctly understood give no countenance to such a groundless hypothesis. This sentiment must have originated from the lowest depths of profound darkness.

There are many who live in the unrestrained indulgence of every sinful propensity to a very advanced period of life. They then repent, and are supposed to be acquitted in the general judgment. Others, not having their lives protracted to such an advanced period, receive the sentence of condemnation at the same time. Is it not easy to perceive that each, at least, should have an equal time of probation? And yet, God hath said, “Are not my ways equal, are not your ways unequal ?" View this subject in what light you will, the evidence is overwhelming, in favor of a future state of progressive improvement.

Solomon, in the connection of the passage you have quoted, urged the necessity of deeds of charity. "Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days"-" Give a portion to seven and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth." We are apprised of the impossibility of officiating in these kind offices after

we are cut down by death. This is the substance of what he meant to convey; and yet this scripture is pressed into the service of those who hold that probation ends with this state of being!

B. I would now cite you to the declaration of Christ himself, recorded in John 8: 21. "Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come." Notwithstanding you have made your views appear reasonable, yet if they are condemned by Christ, it would be exceedingly hazardous to adopt them.

M. You have assumed as a truth, what is the main point in dispute. The words of Christ by no means contradict my argument. In order to sustain the sentiment, that there is no renovation after the dissolution of the body, the passage has been misquoted-" And if ye die in your sins, where I go, ye can never come." The words if and never, they have supplied. The Saviour mentioned no if. His discourse was directed to the Jews, and he denounced on them a judgment contained in the divine law. But you would do well to notice, that natural death is not implied. Moral death was threatened as the sure consequence of their obduracy and impiety. Jesus unquestionably had his mind on a passage recorded in Ezekiel, "And in their trespasses which they have trespassed, and in their sins which they have sinned, in them shall they die." But immediately afterwards he says, "If they repent and return, they shall live, they shall not die." But according to the common explanation of the passage you have quoted, the condition of those who die in sin is irreversibly fixed. This is an error, or there is the grossest inconsistency in the language of the prophet, that is almost literally quoted by Christ.

B. But admitting you are correct in this, and I believe you are, the closing part of the passage quoted is very plain and forcible. "Whither I go ye cannot come." I will allow there is a wide difference between "cannot come" and "can never come;" but still if they cannot come to Christ, their condition must be fixed in sin, and consequently misery.

M. I am willing to give an opponent's argument every consideration it merits, and therefore I am ready to meet you in your own citadel. It is an established principle in logic, that an "argument that proves too much, proves nothing to the point.” I mistake if you do not soon find yourself in this dilemma. Do you believe that the followers of Jesus will ever go where Christ is ?

B. I certainly do ; and besides, there are none who make the least pretensions to Christianity will deny this.

M. You will please to read the 33d verse of the 13th chapter of John B. "Little children, yet a little while I am with you; ye shall seek me, and as I said unto the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come : so now I say to you."

M. You perceive that the language is as strong in the one case as the other. If it be argued that Jesus, in answer to Peter, said, "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards;" I answer, there are promises equally as conclusive and strong in relation to the Jews. The fact is, the disciples all forsook Christ in the trying hour; and Peter among the rest. There was but one door of entrance into the celestial city; and the disciples appeared to be as ig norant of the way of salvation, as the Jews themselves. The time was