of the Magazine, against the views there given of this passage. They are these. "1st, If the judg ment was confined wholly to this world, how could Paul, or any other person, appear before Christ's judgment seat, and receive in his body, according to that he had done, whether it was good or bad, if he was absent from the body, not living, when the judg ment arrived? 2d. If this judgment took place during the generation then on earth, and no other period is referred to in the context, but death and the resurrection, in what sense could Paul be absent from the body and present with the Lord, at the time of this judgment? The resurrection is not to be until the period called, 1 Cor. 1: 5, 24, the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, &c. If Paul did not speak of an intermediate state between death and the resurrec tion, why was he so anxious to depart? For although (as he told the Philippians) to him to live was Christ, yet to die he accounted gain.' He was even in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better,' Phil. 1: 21, 23. And here to the Corinthians, he says, 'whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord,' and 'we are confident, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.""

The first of these objections, has been answered by our remarks on 2 Tim. 4: 8, considered above. There it has been shown, that "at that day," the judgment-day of which this passage speaks, Paul received his crown of righteousness; nor did it make any difference whether he was then dead or alive. The Lord the righteous judge awarded him his crown. The passage before us does not say, as this objection seems to intimate, that Paul was to receive in his body according to that he had done. No; the

things were done in his body, for which he was to receive his reward, but it is not intimated that he was to be in the body to receive this reward. On the contrary, we have seen from verse 9, that he spoke as uncertain about it.

2d. It is asked, "if the judgment took place during the generation then on earth, and no other period of time is referred to in the context, but death and the resurrection, in what sense could Paul be absent from the body and present with the Lord, at the time of this judgment?" Answer. In my remarks in the Magazine, against which these objections are urged, I did not express myself perhaps with sufficient accuracy, in saying, no other period of time was referred to in the context but death and the resurrection, for I did go on to show, as I have done above, that another period besides these is referred to in the context. Paul as we have seen in verses 8-10, speaks as uncertain, whether he should be present or absent when this judgment took place. This very mode of speaking showed, that the judg ment he referred to, verse 10, was neither at his death or at the resurrection. "In what sense Paul could be absent from the body and present with the Lord, at the time of this judgment" we hope is sufficiently answered above and in our remarks on 2 Tim. 4: 8.

3d. It is asked "if Paul did not speak of an intermediate state between death and the resurrection, why was he so anxious to depart ?" &c. Answer. we have attempted to show in the preceding Essays, that Paul, nor no other sacred writer, taught an intermediate state, either of happiness or misery for the souls of men. In considering Phil. 1: 21, 23, and 2 Cor. 5: 1-9, we have attempted to account for Paul's language in these passages. On the last, in connexion with 1 Cor. 15, we think it was shown,

that Paul did not expect to be present with the Lord until mortality is swallowed up of life, or until the resurrection. This we think must be admitted. And if it is contended, that he taught an intermediate state, it ought to be admitted, that he contradicts, in his second letter to the Corinthians, what he taught in his first; yea, is at variance with himself in this very passage. Such is the way I briefly answer these objections, and refer the reader to the Magazine for a more enlarged consideration of these passages.

To conclude. Every reader must now perceive, that the words we have been considering, are used very often by the New Testament writers, and are variously rendered in the common version. The following facts deserve every man's sober consideration. The original writers of the New Testament, did not attach the same ideas to these words, as we do to the words damned and damnation, by which they are sometimes rendered by our translators. Nor did the translators themselves, for they use these words in their version when no one thinks they meant to convey the idea of punishment in a future state. See Rom. 13: 2. 1 Tim. 1: 12. Numerous as the texts are, where the words we have considered occur, there is only one place, where the inspired writers join any of them with hell, or a place of future punishment, according to orthodox views of it. The passage is Matt. 23: 33. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" But I have shown in my First Inquiry, that this text, has no reference to the orthodox hell, but to the temporal miseries which came on the Jewish nation at the close of their dispensation. The sacred writers, not connecting these words with hell or any place of future punishment, not only corroborates the views given in the Inquiry, but what I have

stated in this Essay, that they never express a judgment or punishment beyond death, by the use of these terms. Nothing is easier than to quote texts in proof of future punishment, where the words judge, judgment, condemnation, damned, and damnation are used. But every man ought to be on his guard, and demand of him who quotes them, to show, that the judgment or damnation refers to punishment beyond death. Many good people take this for granted, and in this way impose upon themselves and others. Heb. 9: 27, is the only text in the Bible which speaks of a judgment after death, and we leave it with every candid man to say, if we have not shown, that it has no reference to punishment in a future state.

That the apostles and first Christians looked for Christ's coming in their day, and expected a judgment should take place when he came, is indisputable. The whole New Testament shows this to be a fact. But the grand mistake of Mr. Hudson and many others is, he applies the passages which speak of this judgment, to one in another state of existence. Something has been done in this Essay, to correct this mistaken application of them, and more would have been done, had my limits permitted. Should Mr. Hudson return to the defence of his system from those passages, we have no fear for the issue, for the subject is not yet exhausted. But if he abandons

them, where will he find any texts better fitted to answer his purpose? It would be foolish to suppose he had not brought forward the strongest he could find. But if he has not, we earnestly beseech him to produce them, and if we cannot accede to his views we shall show reasons for our own opinions.

26*

1

REMARKS

ON

MR. HUDSON'S LETTERS.

MR. HUDSON, addressing Mr. Ballou, says: "I propose in these letters to offer such remarks upon your system as occurs to my mind; state my own views upon the subject of future punishment, and adduce such evidence from Scripture and reason as has inclined me to believe, that, although all misery will be of limited duration, it will not be bounded by

the death of the body," p. 5. I propose to follow

Mr. Hudson in this course he has stated, with a few brief remarks on his letters, so far as they are not answered in the three preceding Essays.

Letter 1st. In this letter, Mr. Hudson professes great love and respect for Mr. Ballou. He addresses him as his reverend and dear brother; believes him to be "a sincere inquirer after truth, and a friend to manly discussion; and declares he has every assurance of his candor and friendship. He confesses his talents have rendered him eminent, and that he has been in the ministry more years than he has been in existence. He allows, that Mr. Ballou has done much to extend the cause of liberal Christianity; has been eminently successful in rectifying false notions relative to the character of God and the destinies of mankind; and is encouraged to write, by the consideration of his candor and Christian affection," p. 5. Such are the gracious words which