own words! But how often you yourself must have heard the same
language from the pulpit!"

What could I reply to this? I could neither deny the fact, nor evade
the conclusion--namely, that such is at present the popular belief.
Yes--I at length rejoined--I have heard this language from the
pulpit, and more than once from men who in any other place would
explain it away into something so very different from the literal
sense of their words as closely to resemble the contrary. And this,
indeed, is the peculiar character of the doctrine, that you cannot
diminish or qualify but you reverse it. I have heard this language
from men who knew as well as myself that the best and most orthodox
divines have in effect disclaimed the doctrine, inasmuch as they
confess it cannot be extended to the words of the sacred writers, or
the particular import--that therefore the doctrine does not mean all
that the usual wording of it expresses, though what it does mean, and
why they continue to sanction this hyperbolical wording, I have
sought to learn from them in vain. But let a thousand orators blazon
it at public meetings, and let as many pulpits echo it, surely it
behoves you to inquire whether you cannot be a Christian on your own
faith; and it cannot but be beneath a wise man to be an Infidel on
the score of what other men think fit to include in their
Christianity!

Now suppose--and, believe me, the supposition will vary little from
the fact--that in consequence of these views the sceptic's mind had
gradually opened to the reception of all the truths enumerated in my
first Letter. Suppose that the Scriptures themselves from this time
had continued to rise in his esteem and affection--the better
understood, the more dear; as in the countenance of one, whom through