threats of punishment, of which you consider the Bible so full, are mere "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

I shall now introduce to your notice a whole paragraph from your ninth letter.

I am aware of the quibble of Universalists respecting the meaning of the term salvation. They would have us understand that salvation means, only deliverance from the power, not from the curse of sin. According to them, there is no forgiveness with God. Every man who sins is punished to the full extent of his guilt. And if he is saved, it is not from the penalty of the law, which takes its course with every offender, but from the dominion of a sinful temper or a depraved heart. But what says the Bible? Does that explain salvation to mean, simply, deliverance from the power of sin? Is all that it says of justification, of forgiveness, of pardon, of remission of sin, without meaning? Do the scriptures, after all that has been said and sung on the Heavenly theme, give us no idea of a pardoning, forgiving, justifying God? I forbear to give a formal definition of these terms. I feel that it would be insulting your understanding. Their true meaning is understood by every child who is capable of reading his Bible. Forgiveness is remission of penalty; pardon is deliverance of the guilty from the due punishment of their sins; and to explain these terms, as do the Universalists, to denote only freedom from the power of sin, furnishes a notable example of the facility with which they wrest scripture, and pervert the plainest words of the language.

As

66 to be so well you appear aware of the quibble of Universalists, respecting the meaning of the term salvation," it might have done no harm to the cause of truth, had you quoted a passage from Matthew, containing the foundation of this quibble.

"Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people FROM THEIR SINS." Is this quibbling? or rather is it not quibbling to hold forth the terrors of a future hell for the promotion of love to God, and virtuous actions here, while you aver that the saved are absolved from the very sufferings which you have denounced? It is certainly a little remarkable, that one who apparently triumphs in scripture authority for his assertions, and vauntingly inquires, "But what says the Bible?" should, after all, forget to quote a single word from it in support of his bare, his barren assertions. In so long a paragraph, containing so many assumptions, surely a small mixture of Bible, even if it were mutilated, might be fairly expected. But not one word of this appears. Your extreme sensibility prevents you from giving "a formal definition of these terms. "I feel that it would be insulting your understanding? Their true meaning is understood by every child who is capable of reading his Bible." I ask now in my turn, "But what says the Bible?" Ans. "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God; speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.”—Isa. 40: 1, 2.

Now, sir, if you can read your Bible, will you be pleased to answer the question to yourself, Is pardon "deliverance of the guilty from the due punishment of their sins?" Should you wish to learn further what the Bible says, it shall be at your service. Let the community judge who perverts "the plainest words in the language."

In examining your second letter, I find so much generalizing, so much indefinite and common-place assertion, with no small share of the leaven of sophistry, that it may with propriety be considered as a

mong the incurables. I shall now notice but one expression.

"As to the doctrine being opposed by the prejudices of men, this is so far from true, that it is every way adapted to please and gratify the desires of the natural heart."

Do you really believe, that when Mr. Murray was stoned in Boston for delivering his message of Peace on earth, and good will towards men, a total destitution of prejudice was the cause? If so, the aggressors had most unnatural hearts.

Speaking of the consequences of the doctrine, you

say;

"It denies the mercy of God, and sinks the grace of the gospel into an empty parade of high sounding words. It is asserted by Universalists that the "wicked receive a punishment proportioned to their crimes, that all the hell there is, is inevitably certain to the wicked,"" their portion in the lake of fire and brimstone, in the sorrows of death and pains of hell, is and ever will be in exact ratio to the measure and magnitude of sin."

We are pretty uniformly accused of granting too much mercy to the Creator. But we understand mercy as perfectly consistent with justice, and not opposed to it.

"Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth MERCY-forthou renderest to every man according to his work." Do we deny the mercy of God, in the afflictive dispensations of his Providence, intended to promote our good, and bring us back from the wilderness of error, to the paths of virtue and peace? If we do, the prophets and apostles are most deeply implicated in the charge, and you are at liberty to consider them "either incapable or dishonest," as you deem other Universalists.

We do say, indeed, that the "wicked receive a punishment proportioned to their crimes ;" and Jesus Christ, and his apostles, taught the same doctrine.— Christ informs us, that with what measure we mete, it shall be measured to overflowing, and that the measure shall be rendered by men into our bosoms. Nor are the writings of the apostles silent on the subject. We learn of them, that every man shall be recompensed, without respect of persons; and that he who soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption -not incorruptible fire and brimstone. If what we sow we shall reap, where shall we reap it-in the field where it is sown, or in a distant region where we have not sown, and what we have not sown? But perhaps I am perverting "the plainest words in our language."

I shall now transcribe a small paragraph from your third letter, in the way of comparison. It is not brought merely to exhibit the tissue of contradictory assertions with which your Letters abound, though that is sufficiently obvious, but to give another conclusive proof, that error and inconsistency are cause and consequence.

"Those persons who have been awakened to a sense of their guilt and danger, and as often relapsed into a stupid, or irreligious state, and who are annoyed always and irritated by the doctrines of grace, are much inclined to seek rest at the universalist's meeting, and there get their consciences quieted by hearing that there is no day of judgment, AND NO PUNISHMENT for the wicked."

"Doctrines of grace",—Yes; and yet, come what will in the future world, it will be well with the righteous, though, according to the doctrines of grace, "if they are not elected, they must indeed perish." But doctrines of grace, and day of judgment-punishment for the wicked-all-all in the same paragraph? tru

ly this is astonishing. Is it true, to the non-elect the entrance into life is blocked up, and that they were reprobated "from all eternity," and yet must they suffer as wicked, when they were predestined, not merely to sin, but forced to sin" that they might justly be punished!" Leaving this absurdity, let us try for once, to find a point to your declamatory paragraph. You assert that some "get their consciences quieted by hearing that there is no day of judgment, and no punishment for sinners," and all this at a universalist meeting house! Perhaps you can name the place, or the speaker, where, and of whom, this is true, but it looks too much like an attempt to throw the odium of inconsistency upon Universalists, which shall be written in capitals on your production. We do not deny a day of judgment, but we speak of it as being simultaneous with the preaching of the gospel. Judgment is decision, a judicial sentence, and when this occurs, it is that man's day of judgment who is judged, or punished. If we do really hold the doctrine that there is "no punishment for the wicked," it is a little singular, that you should dwell so long on the impossibility of saving one who has been sufficiently punished. It is certainly a singular charge to bring against us, that we deny punishment for sin, while you say that those only, who are not punished, can be saved; while the recipients of salvation, who have not been punished in this world, may justly be in the coming world! Such appears to be your zeal in contradicting Universal Salvation, that you have run into the opposite extreme of universal damnation.

To you, who are so perfectly familiar with inconsistency in theory, it may not be necessary to make an apology, but I feel myself in duty bound to render a reason for obtruding another badge of error' upon the reader's notice. Mr. Scott, the commentator, says, "A very small proportion of men's actions is directed