2. But if we should admit that St. Peter is the only writer who has mentioned this fact, it would not invalidate the passage. One divine asseveration is entitled to our confidence. And it would be a singular kind of reasoning, to contend that what is said by Peter must be false, because the same thing is not mentioned by Paul. Would such evidence as this be admitted in a court of justice? No; it is an acknowledged principle that the testimony of one man is not weakened, by the other witnesses testifying that they did not see what he declares he did. Suppose A is arraigned before a civil tribunal, and B testifies that he saw A commit larceny, would any person attempt to procure his acquittal by producing witnesses who would testify that they did not see him commit the crime? No; any counsel would be ashamed to set up such a defence. But a defence like this would be quite as consistent as your argument in the case in question. For none of the sacred writers assert that they did not know that Christ preached to the spirits in prison.

We find many instances in the scriptures in which a remarkable circumstance is mentioned by one writer, and omitted by all the others. The resurrection of Lazarus is one of the most striking miracles performed by our Lord, and still it is recorded by John only; Matthew, Mark, and Luke being perfectly silent upon this subject. But will you refuse your credence to this important miracle, because it is mentioned by one writer only? You will not. Christ's resignation of his kingdom to the Father, is an important doctrine, and still is mentioned by one writer only: and he has mentioned it but once. But notwithstanding this, you believe the declaration, and make great use of that passage. In this manner you acknowledge the weakness of your objection in the case before us.-But you inform us that St. Peter, when he speaks of Christ's preaching to the spi

rits in prison, "only throws an allusion to it, while laboring on another subject."-So much the more to our purpose; for it shows that this opinion was nothing new to those to whom his epistle was addressed, Had this doctrine been something which was not generally believed, St. Peter would in all probability have labored it more at large. But as he brought this in to illustrate and enforce another point, it teaches us most conclusively, not only that Peter himself believed this doctrine, but that it was generally admitted among the brethren in his day. Thus does your objection strengthen our interpretation, rather than otherwise.

Again, you object to the exposition we have given, in the following language :-"If the opinion disproved, be allowed, how shall we account for this particularizing the people who lived in the days of Noah ?" To meet this objection, we remark,-1. If this consideration has any weight, it opposes your interpretation, as much as it does mine. For on your interpretation, you confess that the gospel was preached to a people similar to those in the days of Noah. And I can ask with as much propriety as you can, "how shall we account for this particularizing the people in the days of Noah ?" 2. There is not the least difficulty as I can see in the case. Though you suggest that the passage would imply that those who lived in the days of Noah were the only ones who enjoyed this preaching, on the interpretation here contended for, I should infer the very reverse. For as God is no respecter of persons, if Christ went and preached to the antediluvians, it would be natural to conclude that he preached to others also. You interpret the text to mean that the gospel was preached to the Gentiles, whose characters were similar to those who lived in Noah's day. But does this imply that the Gentiles in relation to moral character, would compare with no other corrupt people than those who lived in the old

world? You will not pretend this. So in fact you acknowledge your objection to be frivolous. Peter in the passage in question, alluded to the old world only as an example, or specimen. As this is what you yourself must contend for, I trust you will not object to it. As the same apostle in another place,* mentions the old world, together with Sodom, as examples, in regard to punishment, there is the utmost propriety in mentioning the old world as an example with regard to blessings.

Before we dismiss this subject, we will notice one objection more. After quoting Wakefield's rendering of the passage, you say, "In this translation there is nothing hinted of Christ's preaching to the spirits of those who lived in Noah's time." Since you lay so much stress upon this translation, I will transcribe it, and mark the italic words, as I find them in his Testament, that the reader may see what he has added to the original text. "Because even Christ once suffered for sin, a righteous man, for unrighteous men, that he might bring us unto God; being killed in body, but made alive by the spirit; in which indeed he went and preached to the minds of men in prison; who were also hard to be convinced in former times; as when the patience of God continued waiting in the days of Noah, whilst the ark was a preparing." The reader is informed that all the words in the above passage which are printed in italics, are not found in the original, but were added by Mr. Wakefield himself, and marked by him, as you here find them, to show that they were not of divine authority. By reading this rendering of the passage, and omitting the supplied words, we have the same sense, as is conveyed in the common rendering of the text. Thus, Sir, does this translation yield you no assistance. We will also notice Wakefield's rendering the parallel passage in the next chapter. Verse 6th-"For this indeed was the 2 Peter, ii. 5, 6.

+ U. Magazine, Vol. IV. p. 47.

effect of the preaching of the gospel to the dead, that some will be punished as carnal men, but others lead a spiritual life unto God." This passage, as it stands, would favor your ideas of the subject. But let us see what authority he offers for this strange rendering. Whoever is acquainted with his New Testament, knows that when he deviates from the Received Text, he does not rest it upon his bare assertion, if any authority can be produced. This will be seen by his elaborate Notes, which are appended to his Testament. But let us see what authority be produces in justification of his rendering of the passages before us. We will give it in his own words. "By the living, I understand Christians; and by the dead, the unconverted Gentiles; and upon this idea have attempted to give some meaning to a passage, which is, to me, at least, otherwise unintelligible.' Thus we see that Wakefield can offer no authority for his novel translation. He justifies it only by saying "that otherwise the passage to him would be unintelligible." Mr. Wakefield, I believe, was a Destructionist, and probably a Materialist, and consequently he could not admit with any consistency, that the gospel was preached to men between death and the resurrection. So we can no longer wonder why the passage would be unintelligible to him, without his unauthorized variation from the common rendering. Thus we see that Wakefield in translating these passages, was governed not by the Greek text, but by his own preconceived opinion. Now, Sir, I think your scheme must be in distress to call such a translation to its aid. The above remarks are designed to apply not to Wakefield's translation in general, but only to his rendering of the passages in question.

I have now noticed all the principal objections which you urge against the interpretation here contended for,

* See Notes on 3d and 4th of Peter, p. 156.

and I think their force is entirely obviated. Our interpretation therefore stands on a permanent basis. St. Peter expressly declares that Christ after his passion, went and preached the gospel to those who had long before departed this life. This passage then goes directly to prove a future retribution. The spirits to whom he preached were in prison; they were unhappy, otherwise they would not have needed this gospel. Besides, it was preached to them, "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh." This implies that they might be punished even after the gospel was made known to them. And further, it was preached to them, that they might repent, might "live according to God in the spirit." And this implies that they were then impenitent, and consequently miserable. This passage therefore, furnishes us with a good argument in favor of a future punishment; and it is not in your power to reconcile this scripture with your sentiment, unless you adopt the principle of Wakefield, and decidedly contradict the apostle to favor your own opinion; or to use your own language, unless you are determined "to learn the scriptures how to talk."

Before we close this Letter, we will notice several other passages which strongly imply a punishment beyond death, and so confirm the doctrine for which we plead. St. Paul says, "He that despised Moses' law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace."*-This passage asserts that those who despised the law of Moses were put to death; they suffered death without mercy. And he informs us that those who despise the gospel, shall receive a sorer

*Heb. x. 28, 29.