To do this, the rule named is trampled under foot, as all will
see, by the following comment upon these texts, from the
" Guide to Universalism," p. 156 :

*' John makes no record of our Lord's conversation with the
Sadducees on this subject at all. Now what shall we do ? We
find, that two or three Eyangelist^ who report this discourse,
make no mention of the qualification found in Luke. But what
then ? Are we, therefore, to say that what Luke reported is not
true ? No, certainly not. What we are after is the weight of
evidence as to the importance of that qualification. And that
weight is as two to one against the importance of the words in
question. We say against the importance, because had Mat-
thew and Mark considered them important, (as the objection we
are noticing certainly is,) it is hardly rational to conclude they
would have omitted them altogether. The most probable con-
clusion is, that, whatever we may understand by the words now,
Luke did not intend by his report to give a sense to the conver-
sation, which the other Evangelists did not receive or record.
They ought to be understood as harmonizing."

Here you have it, reader, with all its beauties. Sir. W.
would not say, that what Luke says is not true. No, that would
be showing the cloven foot of Infidelity too plainly. But he
makes a dust about the importance of the qualification, if pos-
sible, to destroy the force of the Saviour's words. But there
they stand faithfully recorded, and with mighty weight, too,
against the Universalist perversion of this passage. Mr. W.
