ing: About three years ago, his work on the pa rables fell into my hands; and, although I read it with a sort of indescribable feeling, composed partly of solicitude, surprise and disgust, I am not able to give his own words concerning the angels, nor can I refer to the particular page, not having seen the book since. Sometime since, the "Christian Spectator," a New Haven work fell in my way. This publication, contains among other matters, (vol. v. No. 11. page 82.) the following words, on the authority of which, rather than memory, I made the statement: "All that the bible seems to tell us of angels, fallen and rebellious, and of angels, holy ministering spirits, these men (the Universalists) explain away."And for proof, the reader is referred to “Whittemore on the Parables, Boston, 1832, pp. 50, 51, 47, 259." Here Sir, is my authority for saying what I did. Please tell us what the other false things are, that you and your correspondent allude to, that I may have the opportunity of correcting them, or proving that they are correct. If you do not produce them, the charge of falsehood will naturally fall upon your own head. I am in search of truth, and my object is to search out falsehood, and then discard it.

Yours, &c. JOSEPH M'KEE.

LETTER No. XII.

Baltimore, March. 10, 1835.

To Rev. Joseph McKee:

Dear Sir.-Although in this discussion, I have

frequently held up to the reader's gaze and denounced in strong language, your oft repeated charges of "miserable subterfuges," "straws at which a drowning man grasps," "criticisms of which every scholar should be ashamed," "forgeries," and attempts to "deceive the unlearned," I am not conscious of having said a syllable in reply to your arguments, that can be construed by the most fastidious into a violation of the rules of controversial courtesy. It is true, I have exposed, and have endeavoured to set in their true light, your outrageously unfair quotations from Lexicons and Maclaine's note in Mosheim; but the peculiar enormity of these cases, and the interests of truth, required this at my hands. I had hoped from the somewhat manly tone of your tenth letter, that you had exhausted your spirit of denunciation, and seen the folly of such a course. It seems however, that I was mistaken, and that you are determined, while you wield the pen against Universalism, to show, by every form of denunciation, and every variety of abuse, the contempt with which you regard the doctrine. You are welcome, sir, to all the glory and aid of such a measure; and having found that neither "soft words" nor "sharp rebukes" will check this predominant spirit of your nature, I would now rather incur the charge of making my letters too tame, than waste time in even repeating the charges with which yours abound.

You commence your present letter by saying, that my 7th, in reply to your 'twelve objections,' "contains a large portion of extraneous matter, interlarded with bold assertions and self-confi

dent declamation;" and by affirming, that I “have given no satisfactory answer to any one of your twelve objections." Now sir, I am unable to see any extraneous matter in that letter-you alluded to twelve texts of scripture; and those it was necessary for me to explain, which in most cases is done in the very language of some orthodox commentator. This you call "extraneous matter." As it respects my "bold assertions," I will only say, I did assert unequivocally, that you assumed your application of almost every text in your 7th letter, and if the words assume, assumed and assumption are used as frequently as you say, the fault is chargeable upon yourself. If you did not assume your application of those texs, why not prove that my "bold assertions are false?" Why sir, look at your mode of treating your proof texts. On the parable of the wheat and chaff you say: 1: “The wheat and chaff are metaphors intended to point out the condition of the righteous and the wicked in this world. 2. The disposition which was made of them, that is the gathering of the wheat &c. shows the disposition which shall be made of the righteous and the wicked at the day of judgment." Now if this be not assumption, then I know not what is. You have not given a single argument, to show that you are correct. You have relied entirely on the education and prejudice of your readers. But is this the way to learn the truth? According to this, I am combatting popular prejudice, and not argument. Clarke says, the wheat and chaff represent the Christians and the Jews in the days of the apostles, the gathering of the wheat and burning the

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 correct? And yet, you complain of me, because 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 our 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: