The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1864-04-29
MR.. NYE TO MR.. WEBSTER,
LETTER ".

DEAR Sir Your attempt to SHOW
that Matt. 7. | 4 J; I. 32,or l2, affirm
exclusion from heaven has signally failed.
You applied Matt. To- 30 TO general
judgment, and the parable Of the tares
to the end OF the material world. But
when proof is asked, you are silent.
You cain that Matt: 81, 32.--
proves one objectionable sin. With
out liberal construction il does not, and
a liberal construction proves too much
viz that one sin shaH not be forgiven
while every other sin shall be. Will you
admit that =? H
You seem so bent on making point that
you will not pause to look at the proper
import Of this text and do not seem to
care into what absurd tiles you plunge, il
happily you can show that somebody must
be endessly damned.
But mark s,ys, "is in danger of eter-
nal damnation." /. The very words
in danger of, imply a possibility of es'
cape. And the possibility granted, your
argument is lost. 2. The aionion PRIEST
hood Of Aaron, long since ceased. May
not a,oAion condemnation end ?
Dr.. Clarks's opinion was cited, not as
suthorty, but because, while a believer
in endless misery he admits this text does
not prove that point, tbs presumed that
his testimony will have Us much weigl t
in yoar chuyrh, as the hasty cnmmeuy
you have given. Bishop fEwroN. Bsh-
op PEARcE. Dr.. WnlrBy, and GILpIN, =
orthodox critics-all concur with D :.
CLARK that there is no unpdrdonabie sm
You think Matt: rs, 80 ''iorclbly rep
resents" the fnal punishment OF bad men?
| could easily quote score Of tex,s, and
say, chow forcibly they represent" uni
versal salvation ; or, "please explain" OF
chow norsencical your" Methodist "doc-
lrine, in view of such-texts," but would
you call that pro2fs An intelligent man
should quit such rant.
You refer, without argument, Mark
l6: l6, to the future state. Does the
text say, che that believes in this world
shall be saved in the nert ?" or "he that
beeiveth not in this world shall be for
ever damned in the next ?"
You quote our Lords words upon Ju
das assuming them to be used in literal,
not a prope'dial sense. ltmay grieve you
to hear SO soon again from DR.. Clark, but
the Dr., has shown that this was "a pro.
verbal form of speech among the Jews,
when any great calamity, befel man."
and that it does not refer to his future
destiny at all. And Dr.. Clark says,
"7Aers is no positive evidence of The final
damnation Of Judas in tie sacred kerl.,'
Having thus nsgatived all your mega
tive-texts,' let me now protest that they
do not belong to this part of our discussion
at all. r...tt ........
Under the first proposition, I am to af
firm universal salvation. Under the
second, you are to affirm endless punish
ment, You are arguing the second pro-
position under the first. "Your negative
texts" are simply proof texts with anoth-
er name. Is it your object to compel me
to give so much attention to those texts
that shall not have full space to affirm
my point?
l. / have shown that the conflict in
the moral world must end in the triumph
of Evil or Good and that, If God is su
preme. Good must conquer and Evil die.
You allow that the conflict will end. and
goodness triumph. ..ls-
Bat goodness often triumphs by the
destruction not the reformation of the
evil docr." You have not defined that
word destruction yet. But a definition