ment will be banished, and we may pathetically exclaim with Virgil: —

. . . En quo discordia cives

Perduxit miseros!

This, however, will not injure the sincere affection for yourself and Mrs. B. which warms the bosom of

Your friend, Eben. Hazard.

BELKNAP TO HAZARD.

Dec. 19,1782.

My Dear Sir, — A fourth parcel of Mr. Aitken's magazines, as far as July, 1776, came to hand by the last post, and I am afraid by one expression in your letter that it is the last; you say the "remainder'' I wish, at least, he had finished the story of Crespel's Shipwreck. Rivington, I believe, is for once, at least, mistaken in saying that the America was hurt in launching. Two attempts, indeed, were made before she could be got off. During the first, I was an eye-witness, being on the island,* and very near the ship, the whole time. The reason of her not going off was, in the carpenter's phrase, that she was too strait-laced (as you are a bachelor, you '11 doubtless understand that). They had taken so much care to keep her from falling, that she could not move but about twelve feet, and all the hawsers, tackles, and screws that could be used were ineffectual. At the second attempt she was launched, and I have been assured by those who saw it (being myself then at Boston) that she went off as easily and gently as a canoe, which was owing chiefly to her having but little declivity in her position; this was, indeed, so little, that some people imagined she would never have run at all.

The paragraph in the Constitution on which you remark ought to have been better expressed. I suppose the meaning may be "that a majority of the members shall be a quorum for doing business. Provided, that when (a majority consisting of) less than two-thirds of the representatives elected shall be present, the assent of twothirds of the members (composing that majority) shall be necessary to render their acts valid."

The Freemason is not to be blamed for revealing secrets. Your friend, the Plain Doctor, was the person from whom I had the information; and, by his own confession, he was the primum mobile of the whole tricky which, as you say, happily for you, was an innocent one.

Ben Town, I see, has begun in his paper of November 25th to give us the journal of a vessel lost among the ice. Since I began this letter, I have received another packet of papers from you as late as December 4th (such kind attention deserves my warmest thanks); and, as I do not find the continuation of the journal, I suspect he is at his qjd game. However, if he should happen to print the rest, I hope I shall have it.

Pray who are the " Skunk Association" and the "Priest of Cloacina"? What strange names you have in your papers! I should have suspected Major Philip Pancake and Captain Forepan to be nicknames, if they had not been signed to an address to your militia general among other officers. The theory of English sirnames would be a curious object, and a proper appendix to the noble science of heraldry. I once began a collection of odd names, and ranged them under different heads, but other matters of more importance diverted me from pursuing the subject.

Can you tell me any of the circumstances of General Lee's death? and can you pick up any anecdotes of his life worthy of being preserved? I know he was ait odd character, and a remarkable one, and he must be noticed in the Biographia Americana.

Having despatched these lesser matters, I now come to that which I propose to make the main subject of this letter. The Deductions are the work of a Mrs. Stevens, of Cape Ann, a sensible lady, and of an amiable character, but so thoroughly dipped in Murrayism as to be a mere Priscilla. Her book is as good an epitome of his preaching as he could give himself.* The other pamphlet is the work of Mr. Clarke, colleague with Dr. Chauncy, who wrote the preface to it. The design of emitting this piece was good; but I am not altogether pleased with its execution, because it seems to be an attempt to recommend the doctrine by the force of human authority. There is a piece in one of your Bailey's papers which gives a better reason for at, and I believe the writer was honest in saying what he does. However, the truth of the case is this: The doctrine of universal restitution has long been kept as a secret among learned men. Murray has published some undeniable truths concerning it, mixed with a jargon of absurdity; and one Winchester among you has followed his example. Many serious minds were unsettled, observing that the Scriptures contain very universal expressions respecting the redemption and reconciliation of the world, which are eagerly laid hold of by Murray, and yet not being able to give into his forced allegories and mystical nonsense; while, on the other hand, libertines swallow all at once, and deny any future state of punishment, and from thence take occasion to " continue in sin that grace may abound." This view of things occasioned very earnest and repeated applications to a venerable gentleman, whom I have already mentioned, — who has had for some years prepared for the press a very laboured, judicious, and strongly argumentative, as well as deeply critical, treatise upon the subject, — that he would publish to the world the true state of the doctrine, as supported by Scripture, and void of all mystical trash. In consequence thereof, the above pamphlet, entitled "Salvation for all Men," came forth as a forlorn hope, or, rather, as a scouting party, to make discoveries and try the temper of the public. The consequence has been that some serious minds are disgusted, some are agog for further discoveries, some are vexed beyond measure, &c. Dr. Mather has wrote a weak but well-meant pamphlet, which he calls an answer to it, and I hear there is to be a reproof administered to him. All this I am sorry for: it does no good; it is only the skirmishing of light infantry, while the main body lies still, and nothing decisive will come of it. The passions of the contending parties will be embittered, and 1 am afraid that such prejudices will be raised against the doctrine that, if it should be properly published, it will not be so generally received, at least in the present day. There are several reasons given for not printing the large work yet, one of which is the want of Greek and Hebrew types, of which there are none in Boston.* The last time 1 heard any thing about it, I was told that a printer had gone to Philadelphia to see if any such could be had there; but I know not whether he met with success. Pray can you tell me whether there be any.

As to the doctrine itself, of which you desire my opinion, I frankly own to you that I have for several years been growing in my acquaintance with it and my regard to it. I washed it might be true, long before I saw any just reason to conclude it was so. I once, however, set myself to oppose it in a sermon, but was brought to a stand by that text where Paul says, " I have hope towards God that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both just and unjust" My query here was, Why should the resurrexion of the unjust be an object of hope to a benevolent mind, if that resurrexion should be the beginning of not only a never ending, but perpetually increasing, state of misery? I applied to one of the most celebrated divines in this eastern world, Mr. Hemmenway of Wells, for a solution of the difficulty. He exhausted his ingenuity and learning for my satisfaction, but in vain. I went on with my enquiries, and at last found that valuable MS. which I just now mentioned, which afforded me more satisfaction than any thing I had before seen; and I wish most heartily it may be published to the wrorld, that, if an answer can be fairly and candidly made to it, it may be done; and, if such an one should appear, I think I should receive it with thankfulness, for I am open to conviction, and always desire to be so, but at present' I do not see how the doctrine can be disproved, if the Scripture be allowed to speak for itself, and the expressions therein used be understood in their natural sense, without any systematical or synodical comments. I wish you was here at my elbow, instead of three or four hundred miles off: I would then talk with you till midnight upon the subject. Corresponding at this distance is a dull way of communicating ideas, especially when they flow so fast as mine do upon this darling theme. Adieu, my dear friend, for the present. If you have any questions to ask upon the subject, I shall most readily do my best endeavours to satisfy you. In the mean time, rest assured that my attachment to you is increased by an apprehension which your last letter suggests, that you are a friend to the