The 2d general particular is that of my preaching being misrepresented, and that in direct violation of my own declarations in the present correspondence. This misrepresentation I find in your letter in the following words: "I think, sir, your giving your hearers encouragement in your preaching that Christ will save them all whether they repent and believe the gospel or no, is of a dangerous nature." In the first place I call my whole congregation to witness against this misrepresentation. In the second place I call my own testimony in this correspondence which you had before you, to witness against this misrepresentation. The following are my own words verbatim:--"In the first place I wish to observe that I as much believe in those scriptures which speak of the necessity of repentance, as I do in any part of the sacred writings. The many scriptures which you have _judiciously_ quoted to prove the propriety of the doctrine of repentance are justly applied as I conceive, and I accord with you in their use and meaning as far as you have explained them. While a man is in a state of unbelief he is not in the enjoyment of the truth." These quotations, sir, are all in direct opposition to your representation of the subject of repentance. Here again I ought to observe, that I am far from accusing you of an _intentional fault_, or a wilful misrepresentation; though in order to suppose you clear from such a fault, I must charitably suppose that the _perturbations_ of your mind were such that you did not give my letter a careful examination. I proved by plain and positive scripture that _repentance_ is as much a gift of Christ as the forgiveness of sins, which is, with the passage quoted from my letter, sufficient to convince any man, who is not "improperly biased by tradition," that I do not exclude the necessity of repentance. 3d. I find questions proposed for my discussion, which renders it necessary that you should receive an answer, as I was in hope of obtaining to the questions which I stated to you. These questions are in the following words: "I would ask you, if, when I am writing a letter or an epistle to Mr. Hosea Ballou, it would be proper for me to apply what I wrote in particular to you concerning your affairs, or circumstances, to the whole world? Who does our Lord mean when he says, 'If the world hate you it hated me before it hated you,' &c." To the first of these questions I answer, should you state in a letter to me that _no man_ ought to preach the doctrine which I preach, I should suppose that your observation would apply to the whole world of mankind as well as to me; or if I should say in a letter to the Rev. Joseph Walton, _no man_ ought to _presume_ his _friend_ to be guilty of _wilful mistakes_, and _misapplications_ of scripture without the _best possible evidence_ I believe you would see the propriety of applying my observation to all men, even if you should feel yourself particularly admonished by it.