proceedings. Here follow the preamble and resolutions which they passed:

"We the young men of this church and congregation, believing the doctrine of Universalism to be both a dangerous and fatal error; that its propagation can do no good, but much evil; that many (especially the young) have been, and still are, deluded by it, in consequence of which their salvation has been prevented, and many souls forever ruined; and believing that the lectures recently preached in this church against said doctrine by the Rev. Stephen Remington are calculated to counteract the influence of this delusive error, and, we hope, convince the unconvinced of its fallacy, and prevent inany from falling under its deceptive influence-Therefore,

Resolved, That we express our heartfelt gratitude to our beloved pastor for the original, lucid and scriptural refutation of the doctrine of Universalism preached to us in a course of lectures on the last three Sabbath evenings

Resolved, That in our opinion it is very desirable to have these lectures published, believing as we do that their publication would be a lasting benefit to the moral interests of mankind."

For the zeal and promptness of your young men in seconding so cordially your exertions against the insinuating and fatal error of Universalism, I feel high respect. Were there more of it in the religious world, I should not only be better pleased, but should be induced to yield a more ready credence to the professions of the advocates of endless misery. But the knowledge they exhibit in this preamble and these resolutions does not I presume equal their zeal. They talk of Universalism as though they were familiar with it, and yet it may be reasonably doubted if they know any thing more of it than you have communicated in these lectures. It may be reasonably doubted whether five of the whole number ever read a Universalist work, even the sermon which called forth your lectures, in their lives. Still they have no hesitation in expressing their belief that it has prevented the salvation of many, and ruined souls forever! They believe that the preaching of it can do no good, but much evil. But there is something almost amusing in the manner they speak of your “original, lucid and scriptural re

futation of the doctrine of Universalism." Very grateful no doubt it is to feel conscious of deserving such praise; but unmerited commendation looks tɔo much like flattery to be pleasing to an enlarged and noble mind.

I must in honesty confess, sir, that I have met in the perusal of your book with some painful disappointments. It has not fully answered my expectations, although I never indulged in those which bordered on the impossible or the extravagant. Your friends spoke of the originality of your arguments, and of your original refutation of Universalism. Had they read half as many works against Universalism, as I have found it in the way of my duty to do, they would probably have omitted this part of their commendation. Yet it would gratify me much to see an original argument against this doctrine. Truly refreshing would it be to my mind to be taxed with the exciting labor of examining some new view, or of solving some new difficulty. It is tiresome almost beyond expression to be under the necessity of answering again and again, not only for "seventy times seven," but for seven hundred times seventy, stale objections to the universality of grace and salvation through Jesus Christ. But so it is; and I must be indebted to the keener perception of your friends for the traces of originality in the lectures before me.

But if I have been disappointed in seeking for originality, I have not succeeded better in another respect. In your preface you tell us that "in preparing these lectures you have availed yourself of help from every source within your reach." The very announcement awoke expectation. Universalism has for the last twenty or thirty years been considerably discussed in the United States.Many volumes have appeared on both sides of the question, and are easily obtained. Some learning and much labor have been expended in assailing and defending the doctrine under consideration. These sources are within the reach of every one who will avail himself of their proffered aid. Judge of my astonishment then, when on reading your lectures, your boasted "help from every source within your reach," was discovered to be drawn, freely it is true, but exclusively from three or four solitary authors! And these, it may be observed, are all ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Whether Edwards, and Strong, and Fuller, and Stuart,

and Ely, and others of the same character are beyond your reach, I am unable to say, but of this I feel confident, that they have not contributed, directly at least, to the treasury of "things new and old" from which you have drawn. Perhaps the Calvinism of these authors unfitted them for rendering you any aid: perhaps, too, you were not so familiar with them as to make them easily serviceable. But it is vain to speculate. The fact I think will not be disputed, that Timothy Merritt, Dr. Fisk and Luther Lee, with a single sermon by O. Scott, constitute the only sources whence you have derived any considerable aid, or to whom you acknowledge yourself under obligations.

But if your reading was so limited on your own side of the question, it appears to have been still more so on the part of the doctrine which you attacked. I have read your work with due attention and care, and hitherto I have sought in vain for a single trace that would lead one to suspect that you had ever read more on the side of Universalism than one solitary sermon, "THE PENALTY OF SIN," so called, which was made the occasion, as well as, in a manner, the object of your late attack. This circumstance I regard as most unfortunate. When a man is about to write or preach against the opinions of any sect of christians or set of men, he is undoubtedly at liberty to "avail himself of help from every source within his reach," or to select one or two favorite authors, or to reject them all with contempt. One is under no obligations to borrow from his predecessors. But it seems to me he is not entirely free from obligation to make himself tolerably well acquainted with the opinions which he attempts to refute. The wise man hath

said, "he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him." It avails nothing to explode an opinion which no one holds. It is rank injustice, to misrepresent, either through culpable ignorance or ill design, the doctrines of a sect or the sentiments of an individual. Nor is it safe to rely ex licitly on the testimony of opposers for information on such a subject. I do not doubt that Mr. Merritt and Mr. Lee and Dr. Fisk are men of respectable talents and attainments; but I do very much doubt their qualifications for giving an impartial exposition of Universalism.— Yet it is to them you seem to be indebted for almost all you know on the subject. Of the writings of Universalists themselves you

have read indeed one sermon!

And this is the Ultima Thule, so far at least as your lectures give any token, of your investigations among the most legitimate sources. I would express my astonishment at such a proceeding, were it not a matter of so common occurrence with the opposers of the truth of God, that it has ceased to astonish. Were I to assail the doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church, you would probably think it incumbent on me first to acquaint myself with them-and that not by the means of common fame, nor from the representations of avowed opposers, but by consulting your own standard writers. The golden rule I leave you to apply yourself.

I am, sir,

Dear Sir-Your lectures appear to be a reply to a sermon writ ten by myself, and entitled 'THE PENALTY OF SIN.' I cannot therefore but feel some little surprise at the space you occupy, and still more at the method you adopt in order to refute the opinions advanced in that discourse. Is it indeed, sir, so difficult a task to prove the doctrine of endless misery? Does it require so much labor to refute a single argument of Universalism?

The Sermon to which you have offered a reply was certainly not designed to darken counsel, or to involve the subject on which it treated in difficulties. On the contrary, it was my earnest endeavor to present it in a plain and intelligible manner, and I flatter myself that my efforts were not altogether unsuccessful.

The text had just before been employed by the Rev. Mr. Hatfield for the purpose of proving that the penalty of sin was eternal death, or in other words, endless misery. Undoubtedly, if this doctrine makes a part of revelation, our text must be regarded as one of its chief supports. This seems to be conceded on all sides. If the Bible, then, teaches that the penalty of the divine law is eternal death, Romans vi. 23, must prove it. If this passage does not prove it, it cannot be proved from the volume of inspiration, and is therefore not entitled to our belief. The question, therefore, which was discussed in the sermon to which you have replied, seems to me a most weighty and important one, viz., Can the doctrine that

eternal death is the penalty of God's law be proved from Rom. vi. 23?

I indulged the hope that should any one attempt a refutation of that sermon, he would confine himself to the question at issue. If God has indeed threatened man with endless misery, it is to be presumed that it can be shown from the divine word. You ought to be able to place your finger on the passage which contains such an awful menace.

I am aware. and your lectures show that you are also aware, that this is not so easily done. You have not, and I presume that you dare not, hazard your cause by a simple and single appeal to the Scriptures. You know that you cannot prove the doctrine which you advocate, from the text that you have placed at the head of your lectures. Had it been otherwise, it would not have required such a volume as you have furnished us, to have refuted the plain and unsophisticated argument contained in my sermon. It would not have been necessary for you to have traversed the whole field of controversy between Universalists and Limitarians; you would not have found it convenient to discuss subjects so irrelevant as are many of those which help to make out your book.— The simple question is "Can you prove from Romans vi. 23, or any other passage or passages of the divine record, that eternal death is the penalty of sin?" If you can accomplish this, your work is done, and the controversy between Universalists and Limitarians is ended.

But what is the method which you were pleased to adopt? It is one very well calculated to mislead your auditors and readers, a method by which the main question-the only question, was carefully kept out of sight, while you were displaying your prowess in the miraculous defeat of all opposers in every other quarter. You abandoned the very citadel of Limitarianism, if any citadel it has, that you might carry a few of the most unimportant outworks of Universalism-outworks, too, which you could not retain when they were yours, and which were perfectly useless while in your possession. Such has been the success of your arms! But let us glance at the method of your argument.

In your first lecture you attempt to harmonize the existence of moral and natural evil with the administration of the moral gov