chaff, the separation between the Christians and the Jews, at the destruction of Jerusalem.

In your 10th letter, you have pursued precisely the same course. On Matt. xxv. 30, you say, "this text shows, what will be done with the wicked at the time time their characters shall be investigated by the Supreme Judge, and as this is represented to us as the final state of men, it is irreconcilable with Universalism." Now do you not here assume your application of this text? Do you give a single argument to show that you are because correct? And yet, you complain of me, I denounce these things as assumptions! Sir, if the word assumption sounds so unpleasanrly in your ears, give me argument, and I will use it no

more.

But what have you done in your present letter, towards showing by "sound and incontrovertible arguments," that your twelve texts in letter No. VII. were correctly applied? Why, you have lain down four propositions, which you have backed up by assertions, and assertions only!Proof you have not given; and further, proof, I believe, you cannot give. If you can, why all this taking shelter behind the strong ramparts of popular prejudice? Why this continual going round and round the subject? Here, as in your 7th letter, you assume, that the wheat and chaff represent the righteous and wicked, their separation the judgment of the world, and the burning of the chaff the endless wo of the wicked. Now why not prove this? Why not give one argument to sustain your opinion? You have indeed said "to refer this to temporal death, is to destroy all beauty and force in the passage." But

I cannot see this: and even if it did, it does not affect the explanation given in my 7th letter. There it is referred to the judgment, which came upon the Jews at the destruction of their city, and at the abolishment of their dispensation. You . may say that this 'palpably contradicts' the sacred text; but your word is no proof. Besides, I consider Clarke much better authority than Mr. M'Kee, and what you call a palpable contradiction of the text, Clarke calls its true meaning.

You say, 'I appear to lay great stress on the opinions of orthodox critics on your twelve texts.' You are right sir: I do, and for the very best of reasons. These men believed in the eternity of misery-their education taught them to believe this-all their prepossessions and prejudices were in favour of this sentiment. And yet, when they examined the texts on which you rely to prove the doctrine, they differ from you entirely-and thus, they become witnesses in cur favour-and the best of witnesses too. Hence we can show the truth of Universalism, 'our enemies themselves being judges.' You express great surprise that I have given commentators by the wholesale, as being in favour of Universalism, when they all believed in endless misery. Now, sir, I have not done this. I have only said, that they explained most of the texts usually brought to prove endless misery, as Universalists do. Consequently you have misrepresented me.

It is unnecessary for me to explain again the 'twelve texts' of your 7th letter; for you have not attempted a refutation of what I have said on them. You have simply quoted on each, a few sentences from Wesley, or Henry or Clarke:

sentences that contain merely the opinion and assertion of these men. Whereas in my 7th letter, you will find the arguments, as well as the opinions of orthodox commentators. Besides, suppose in my application of scripture, I should merely give the opinion of our writers-would not every discerning reader say I must be hard pushed on the field of debate? I might quote. Murray, Winchester, Ballou, Balfour, Rayner, Streeter and Whittemore, and show what they have said but though I esteem the works of these men highly, and consider them unanswera ble, they are not the kind of authority which 1 want in this discussion. They are, however, as good for me, as your writers are for you. I shall therefore pay no attention to your quotations from Henry and Wesley.

As I made several extracts from Clarke, and as you have agreed to abide by his decision,' I will observe, that Clarke explains your first, second, third and fourth objections in accordance with Universalism. Now sir, have you the candour to abide by his decision? If so, acknowledge your error in regard to these texts. The fifth, sixth, and seventh texts of your letter, Clarke thinks have a double meaning, and refer primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem.' I will not stop to show the extreme absurdity of his notion, concerning the double meaning of scripture, but I will merely inquire, whether you will abide his decision on these?

When you will answer this in the affirmative, I am prepared to discuss the notion of the double meaning of these texts! But this you cannot do,

for you have feigned to believe it absurd, to refer such texts, to temporal calamities.

I deny the charge of distorting the views of Clarke on your fifth objection-I have given the very language where he speaks of its primary meaning.

Your ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth objections are fully answered in my 7th letter; and when you will point out the incorrectness of these answers, 1 will consider what you have said.— But to assume your application in the first place, and then to reply to my explanations by quotations from your own commentators, is more than I can permit. And unless you refute what has been said on these texts, I shall take for granted that you are unable to do it.

You say, I appealed to Clarke. I did, and in every instance in which I did, he sustained my views. I appealed also to Whitby, Grotius, Macknight, Hammond, Pearce, Lightfoot, and Cappe, and they also sustained my views. But I did not say that Clarke agrees with Universalists on all of your twelve texts, and when you intimate that I did, you intimate what every unbiassed reader knows is false. As far then as I appealed to Clarke, he justifies my explanations, and unless you falsify your word, you will admit this. It must be mortifying for you to know that all your proof texts are explained by orthodox critics, as we explain them. But so it is, and it shows the great weakness of your cause.

From the foregoing remarks, it will be seen, that you have attempted no reply to that part of my 7th letter, in which I examine your twelve

texts. Every explanation is passed in silence. My arguments therefore remain in their full force.

I will now consider what you have said, in answer to the four texts, with which I concluded that letter. John, xii. 32. 'And if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.' Without producing a single argument against my application of this, you assert, that these words are no proof against the eternity of misery, and that no man, unless blinded by a false creed, and basely interested in the establishment of a false doctrine, could think they did!' candor and charity! whither have ye fled?

You also assert that they only teach, that the means of salvation are put into the hands of Jews and Gentiles, but if to 'put the means of salvation in the hands of Jews and Gentiles,' is drawing ALL MEN to Christ, then it is requisite, that we should have a new dictionary, for none but a 'profound scholar' could ever discover this. "Clarke says, that there is probably an allusion in this text, to a fable among the ancients. Jupiter, they said 'had a chain of gold, which he could at any time, let down from heaven, and by it, draw the earth and all its inhabitants to himself. By this chain, the poets pointed out the union between heaven and earth; or in other words, the government of the universe by the extensive chain of causes and effects. It was termed golden to point out, not only the beneficence of the Divine Providence; but also that infinite philanthrophy of God, by which he influences and attracts all mankind to himself.' Love then, is the golden chain by which Jesus will