most tenacious for the doctrine of endless misery, have also been the only wilful and wicked persecutors of others. And at this time, we find the same spirit, in a high degree, among those who call themselves Orthodox, and others by the names, Libertines, Unitarians or Universalists.

[We do not publish the following letter as a mark of disrespect for our Methodist friends, generally, or because we suppose they would descend to such scurrility as it opposes. But as the writer of the letter was once a Methodist preacher and is frequently attacked by them in an unfair manner, we owe the publication to him as a manly defence. The Editor takes no part in the subject, and is wholly unacquainted with Mr. Shaw and the people of his circuit. We have reason to believe the letter substantially correct, till it is contradicted and disproved. We hope it will be a warning to others, to desist from unfair abuse of a doctrine they do not understand.]

LETTER TO REV. MR. SHAW.

DEAR SIR-I had the pleasure of attending your meeting on Sabbath evening, the 3d instant, and was much surprised to hear your statements made against those, that profess to believe in the final salvation of all men, without bringing to your aid any passages of Sacred Writ, to support assertions, made in a very bold and uncharitable, not to say, in an unchristianlike, spirit. When we hear a person, and especially, one who professes to be a preacher of that gospel which brings glad tidings of great joy to all people, condemn any system of doctrine, taught amongst men, we expect he will back his declarations by the scriptures of divine truth; and when he tells us that the doctrine of the final restoration of all things, "spoken by the mouth of all God's holy prophets since the world began," sprung from the bottomless pit; that it opens the floodgates of wickedness and all manner of sin and iniquity, without any qualification or explanation whatever, we must conclude that he is wholly unacquainted with the doctrine he condemns, or does it out of prejudice, and is vain enough to suppose that his hearers will take his words for truth. "Search the scriptures," is an injunction of him "who spake as never man spake." And what do they tell us? "Judge not, lest ye be judged," is the language of the Saviour of the world, and he came not to condemn, but to save the

world. He told his disciples to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature ;" and, by the gospel, we understand, GOOD NEWS-such as was preached by the angel to the shepherds. "Fear not, for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to ALL PEOPLE: for, unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." But the gospel has altered much since that day, if you preach it correctly; for you will have it to mean the eternal misery of at least one half of the human family. But you say, the doctrine of Universal Salvation is bad, because the most wicked and abominable profess to believe it! If all who profess to be christians, were really such, you might bring your argument to bear upon the doctrine of Universal Salvation. But did you never see or hear of a man, whom you thought to be bad, that did not profess to believe that doctrine? If not, have the candor to inform me for what purpose you have societymeetings, when nearly one half of the neighborhood are called together, to accuse or acquit a member? For what purpose are some of your quarterly meeting Conferences held, where letter after letter is read, deposition after deposition brought forward, from one to twenty or more witnesses called and examined, to accuse or acquit-who? why a preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America! And for what are some of your brethren, not to say sisters, publicly read out of your society? For my part I have reason to suppose that all this is done on account of disorderly life and conversation, in those that are so dealt with. And if so, the Methodist doctrine sprung from the bottomless pit, according to your own theory, which you say is correct. You also observed that the wicked have no hope; but only an expectation. But for my part, I cannot conceive the difference between them, and had you have taken pains to have read the chapter following your text, you would have there found that they have a hope. But because their hope of happiness once disappoints them, does it follow of a certainty that it always will? even after they are brought to act from a different motive? If so, what encouragement have you to pray or preach? You prayed to God to convert souls the evening I heard you; and I hope you prayed in faith, for what is

not of faith is sin. But I presume there was none converted that night. Will you now give up, and say, I will pray no more. No, I am persuaded it is far from you so to think; but like Abraham of old, "who against hope believed in hope," still continue to pray for them. And I will appeal to the experience of every christian, if they did not once expect and hope for happiness in the things of the world and in sin; but they were disappointed; and if your reasoning is just, they are not christians now, and even you yourself must plunge the fiery gulf of eternal woe. If you are careful to examine, you will find that Solomon (whom you think to be a wise man in many respects) uses the words hope and expectation, as applied to both the righteous and the wicked. You also observed that it was a bad doctrine, for you never knew of a reformation under the preachers of it.' Now, sir, I would candidly ask you, what you understand, or would have your hearers understand, by a reformation? Is it to come together to worship God, with a zeal without knowledge? to make his house a place of confusion, and to conduct in such a manner as would put modesty to the blush? Is it to profess that religion which is "pure and peaceable," and at the same time, be engaged in quarrels and disputes? Is it to profess that religion which "thinketh no evil," and, at the same time, speak against, and tell every thing to hurt and defame those that are their professed brethren? Is it to profess that religion which "forgives the faults of others," and, at the same time, exaggerate them in every manner? Is it to profess that religion which teaches us "to love our enemies," and at the same time, evince to the world by our actions and words, that we hate, even, our brethren? Is it to profess that religion, which teaches us to pray to God in faith "for all men, that they may come to the knowledge of the truth," and, at the same time, to send, as far as in our power, a part of the human family to endless pain? If that is what you call a reformation, I believe you, when you say, you "never heard of one under a preacher of Universal Salvation," and I hope in God we may never have one of that description amongst us! I should be extremely sorry to have the time of our preachers spent, as well as that of others, in endeavoring to settle and adjust the difficulties

that have generally, grown out of what many have considered reformations; such difficulties as make every sincere follower of Jesus Christ, weep. In proof of this assertion look at the Circuit on which you now are;* ask those that now belong to the Methodist Society, and have for years, what they have to boast of, in all their reformations. They may perhaps tell you, that they have some lasting monuments of it left behind, composed of hate, dissembling and discord; and one might with a degree of propriety suppose, (if he judged by their actions) that the people were Ishmaelites; for their hands are against every man, and every man's hand is against them; and they most certainly fulfil the following scripture, literally, which saith, "the father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughterin-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." This is too generally the picture presented us after what is commonly called a reformation. You likewise observed that the doctrine was not true, for the Psalmist said, "that the wicked should be turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God." Now, sir, if you will have the goodness to examine and see whom the Psalmist considered wickedalso, into what hell they were to be turned, you will find the passage very far from disproving Universalism. He expressly says, all are wicked, and that he was delivered from the lowest hell. If he was so delivered, can you say, the blood of Christ shall not cleanse from all sin? I think you cannot prove that the belief that "God is good to all, and his tender mercies over all his works," will make any of its professors worse than they were previous to believing It is an established principle among Methodists, and all other Christians, " that love begets love ;" and if it is correct, the more love we discover in God, the more we love him; which is in unison with the words of Jesus Christ, that who had much forgiven, loved much; and the Scriptures inform us that "God is love." "And he that dwelleth in God dwelleth in love." But are we not deficient in that? do we always "reprove with all long-suffering,' and search carefully for the beam that is in our own eye,

it.

* Livermore.

:

before we attempt to pluck a mote from the eye of our brother? And now, dear sir, I suggest for your consideration, whether Jesus requires of his followers to forgive, and even pray for their enemies? If so, will he wreak vengeance on his, to all eternity? He requires us to be like him but in this case, we should be quite different. Are we not required, as preachers of the gospel of Christ, to preach him, and him only? "to know nothing save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Reflect for a moment, that we are the professed ambassadors of Jesus, and it is our business to persuade men to be reconciled to God. Then, sir, do not condemn others for believing that for which you pray daily; nor think that the Universalists "are sinners above all that dwell in" the Methodist Church.

I am yours in the bonds of the gospel. Rev. Mr. Shaw.

Paris, Feb. 4, 1822.

ASA BARTON.

DOCTOR PAYSON AND MR. STREETER. "Woe unto you

** * for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men ;-neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

SAVIOUR.

"Stand by thyself, come not near to ME; for I am holier than thou." HYPOCRITES. "These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day." JEHOVAH.

"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saitk THE LORD.

At a public meeting, for the avowed purpose of uniting Christians of all denominations, called the "Union Prayermeeting," the writer went to a pew, in which he had previously been requested to take a seat, whenever he came to Dr. Payson's meeting, and as he was opening the door, a man from within suddenly reached forth his hand, and closed it, and, in a low voice, forbid his entering. On observing more closely he was found to be the Rev. Dr. Payson. Seeing there were but two in the pew, the writer thought he must have made a mistake; and after looking a minute, asked the Dr. if that was Mr. K's. pew; meaning, as every one must know, the pew which he occupied. Dr. Payson said, it was not. But it was the pew of which Mr.