5. All the commentators that I have consulted on the meaning of this epistle agree m referring the principal transactions of it to the judgment of the great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest by Jesus Christ.

You say, "we are aware that Paul used the word aionion or everlasting, but this is applied to hills, mountains, covenants, priesthoods, and a great variety of things, limited in their nature." I confess, sir, that I have read this sentence with perfect astonishment. Was it written with a design to deceive the unlearned? I absolutely deny that the word aionion was ever used by any inspired writer to signify the duration of a hill, mountain or priesthood, except the priesthood of Christ. 1 challenge you to produce one instance of it. If you show me one instance of it I here promise to give up the argument so far as the word aionios is concerned. You may expect to hear from me before long concerning the words aion and aionios.

Yours, in the bonds of a peaceful Gospel,
JOSEPH MCKEE.

LETTER NO. I.

BALTIMORE, Oct. 24, 1834.

To Rev. Joseph McKee:

Dear Sir-In our zeal to sustain a favorite theory, we often attach a high importance to circumstances of a trifling nature, and to arguments that have no connexion with our subject.

Such I consider to be the case, with your remarks on the difference of opinion among Universalists; for none who consider the nature of the human mind and the result of controversy, can expect a perfect uniformity in faith, among a people, who think and judge for themselves. Such a uniformity exists among no scct in christendom. Besides, if your argument is good, it can be wielded with irresistible power, against all Protestants; yea, against all religion.

But what is this mighty difference to which you attach such great importance? To make it imposing as possible, you have drawn lines of distinction, where no difference exists; you have ascribed to us sentiments, in which we have no faith; and you have christened as Universalism, that which wars against our very name. What is the real difference between the first and second systems, which you ascribe to Universalists? Where did you learn, that they expect to get to Heaven on the ground of right, independent of the mercy of God? And where did you learn that some Universalists advocate the annihilation of the wicked? As annihilation is not salvation, you do violence to language, in saying, that some Universalists, hold that the wicked will be annihilated. Your question, whether I support the five systems en masse, even if Universalists believed them, should never have been penned. However, the judgment will be upon your own head.

There is but a trifling difference among Universalists. All believe that punishment is designed to reform, and that it will in no case be continued after reformation is produced. None believe that it is salvation, that it entitles to

salvation, or that it is the only means of salvation. The difference then is simply in regard to the duration of punishment. Some think it all confined to this world. Others, that it extends to the future. This latter is my opinion.

Here then are only shades of difference. But look at the conflicting systems of partialism, and you will observe differences of the greatest magnitude. By one, we are taught, that an eternal decree of God, passed for his own glory and pleasure, drives some down to the gates of endless ruin. By another, that God is not arbitrary, and that endless misery is a punishment, of our voluntary transgressions. This latter teaches, that sin is infinite, and that we shall be endlessly punished, for the sins of this life; while another teaches, that we shall be endlessly miserable, not because our sins are infinite, but because we shall sin eternally.One system teaches, that hell is paved with infant skulls, and another, that all infants will be happy. One teaches, that all the heathen will be lost, and another, that a part, at least, will be saved. In vain then, do we look to partialism, for those beautiful proportions, and that union, perfection and agreement, which are the distinguishing glories of the temple of truth

Indeed, such is the wide difference of opinion, that we hear continually, both from the master builders and the workmen, on these modern babels, the noise of war and the confusion of tongues. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him.

I admit that Paul's silence respecting Gehenna, is not positive proof that punishment is li

mited; but I find it impossible to reconcile his silence, admitting an endless punishment, with his declaration, that he declared the whole counsel of God. Still, if you can prove your doctrine from other inspired writers, you refute Universalism, but you do not answer the question which you attempted. Do you intend to perplex me with much proof like the following: "Neither Paul or any other inspired writer taught that punishment would come to an end. Nearly all have declared, either directly or indirectly, that it will not come to an end. Whether am I to believe the infallible word of God or the word of fallen man"? Who desired you to believe the word of man? Surely Universalists have made no such repuest. But when you, as in the words above, give us your ipse dixit concerning what the Apostles did and did not teach, we are left to infer, that you would wish us to take your word, rather than that of God.

Your remarks on Gehenna, require but a few words. I shall not consider your proof texts, until you give your reasons for applying them as you have. Neither will we argue the question, whether Christ is better authority than Paul, for I consider both good, but we will consider the fact, that while Jesus spoke of Gehenna, Paul was silent respecting it. Now if Gehenna in Paul's day, was the common word to designate a place of endless misery, and if Jesus used it in this sense, how shall we account for the fact, that Gehenna is not to be found in all the preaching and writing of Paul?

The new positions taken in your second letter, compel me to propose this question, as they

bring up an entire new subject for discussion. The original question, had no relation to the meaning of Gehenna, but it referred entirely to the fact, that Paul never used it. Hence the propriety of my remark, that Paul, to justify the preaching of the present age, should have been continually thundering about Gehenna &c. Therefore you have perverted my meaning, in saying, I admit, that had Paul used Gehenna, it would have justified the popular preaching about hell. I admitted nothing of the kind.

I was simply considering the circumstance of Paul's not using Gehenna, without any reference to its meaning, which was agreeable to the original question. But now, as you have abandoned the first question, and adopted one in relation to the meaning of Gehenna, I shall expect your particular attention to the question proposed, and to your proofs for applying Gehenna as you have.

In considering what you have said respecting 2. Thes. 1. 9. I shall pass in silence your charge of "perversion of scripture" and want of "sense," for they are entirely gratuitous, and can do me no injury, and you no service.

To your 1st proposition I reply: It matters not of whom the church at Thessalonica were composed, or whether they were interested in the affairs of the Jewish nation, since they were troubled and persecuted on every hand by the Jews. See Acts xvii. 13. where you will find an explanation of the phrase, "you who are troubled rest with us." These persecutions, gave the Thessalonians a thrilling interest in the question, when the Jewish government was to be abolished? Hence the language, rest with