Christ to be the Saviour of men? By this very denial, Mr. Ballou is for once orthodox, for orthodox people believe Christ did not come into this world to save men in another. But I ask you, do either of them mean by this, that the benefit of Christ's salvation does not extend beyond death? You know the contrary is true of them both. But I am not surprised you take offence at this sentence of Mr. Ballou's; for unless most people are saved in another world, they cannot be saved at all according to your system, as all not adequately punished for their sins and reformed here, you take to hell to save and reform there. That you advocate salvation in another world, is notorious, and so far as I can learn from your writings, it is not to be accomplished by Christ, by death, by the resurrection, but by their own "consideration and reflection." But if you can only prove, Sir, that men are to be saved in another world, and saved in this way, I will thank you to do it, for here I candidly confess ignorance. In your Letters and present Book, you are explicit enough, that men are to go to hell to be saved, but leave them there without any rational Scriptural means of salvation, unless they can save themselves by consideration and reflection.

But from p. 8-10, you maintain, that I misrepresented your meaning, when you said to Mr. Ballou, "your system is only a negation, and your faith disbelief-a creed which would better become a sceptic than a professed Christian." You say, p. 9-"what I said was a mere inference from a supposed position; and this inference would apply to myself, as much as to Mr. Ballou, if I assumed that position." Yes, Sir; but Mr. Ballou was the person who assumed the position-that he had no faith in a punishment beyond death. His faith about this was a negation, what you call disbelief. Nor did you restrict his scepticism to

this one point, but drew the broad and unqualified conclusion-"your system is only a negation, and your faith disbelief-a creed which would better become a sceptic than a professed Christian." But we shall see on p. 84, that you repeat the charge of infidelity, and it is repeated in a way, which leaves no room to doubt your meaning. But must we be branded by you as infidels, because we will not believe. your creed? And is it of the least consequence, whether you tell us this by inference, by a supposed position, or in plain language? Count us sceptics, call us sceptics, but only lay aside all hypocrisy and quibbling in the doing of it?

Another charge I made against you was, that you "quoted only a few sentences and scraps of sentences from Mr. Ballou's writings." You admit this charge true, but say, you quoted more of his writings than I did from your Letters. Can you deny, Sir, that I quoted your principal statements respecting your future punishment, in p. 315-325 of my Essays? Can you say half as much as this respecting your quotations of Mr. Ballou's views? You say "endeavored to give a fair representation of his views and arguments. Besides, when I quoted Mr. Ballou's arguments I stated them in a logical form so as to exhibit their whole strength." But, Sir, we have heard persons conversant with Mr. Ballou's writings, express a very different opinion. What you call stating the arguments of your opponents in a logical form, I call, stating them in the form best adapted to the reply you mean to give to them. It is the fairest way to state a man's arguments in his own words; and until you explicitly deny you wrote under the influence of an old grudge against Mr. Ballou, who will credit your assertion? Few writers will thank you for your generosity, in shaping their arguments after your own form, and calling this a logical form.

I am happy you own there is nothing of this kind of generosity in my Essays. No, Sir, I quoted all your principal statements respecting future punishment, and in your own words, presented what I deemed an answer, and left our readers to judge for themselves. It was also a charge of mine, that you made "no allowance for Mr. Ballou's change of opinions in the course of thirty years." In reply to this, you say, p. 10, "let it be observed-when a man publishes his opinions, the public have a right to consider them as his opinious, until he recalls them in a public manner, &c.". The public, Sir, have more candor and discretion. If you should next year, believe in no future punishment or in endless misery, if they learned this without your publishing a recantation of your belief in limited punishment, they would not consider this as your opinion still. But the question here is, not what the public had a right to consider, but what you ought to have considered if you was sincere in calling Mr. Ballou your reverend and dear Christian brother. The public had a right to expect something different from Mr. Hudson, who professes great friendship for Mr. Ballou. But after reading what you say of him, many will say "an enemy hath done this." Can they well avoid this? Joseph's brethren could not speak peaceably to him, and the reason was, they hated him. Had you sincerely loved Mr. Ballou, likely your Letters never would have been written; or if written, very different would have been their spirit and shape. Had you no suspicions in your own mind that Mr. Ballou had changed some of his opinions in the course of thirty years? You now tell us he has, and that he has noticed this in the last edition of his book on the Atonement.

66

But you say, p. 11, moreover had Mr. Ballou been in the habit of changing his opinions annually as Mr. Balfour has done of late, I should have been

more at a loss to know his opinions." I forgive you this personal reflection. When you made it, you did not reflect, how deeply it wounded some brethren who believe in future limited punishment. I can name some who were first believers in endless punishment. They then changed and became restorationists. They changed again, and became believers in no future punishment. But they changed once more, and are now believers in future punishment. This sets me at an immeasurable distance behind them, for all my changes are the following. I was brought up in the doctrines of the Church of Scotland, consequently a believer in endless misery. When I came to judge for myself, I became an Independent or Congregationalist, I then became a Bap .tist, and am now a Universalist, and one of those who have no faith in your future punishment. Such are my principal changes, and I am not ashamed of them. It remains for you to prove your personal reflec tion, that of late I have changed my "opinions annually." On the point in question, I have only made one change in my whole life time, and that is from a belief in endless punishment to a belief in no punishment after death. But what vexes you is, in chang ing from endless misery, I did not embrace your kind of Universalism. Had I done this, I would have been spared this personal reflection. Perhaps you will feel somewhat differently towards me, if I make my next annual change to your doctrine of future limited punishment. Why should you despair of this,. for surely if there be any force at all in your argu.. ments, such a yearly changeling is likely to be made a convert to your opinions. If it be your glory, that you have never changed your opinions, it is my glory that I have; and to my dying hour may it be my glory, to change my opinion when convinced I am in error. I envy no man who has never changed his religious opinions.

On p. 11, 12, you quote the following from my Essays, p. 310-"I am informed by persons well acquainted with Mr. Ballou's opinions, that Mr. Hudson knows he does not hold such sentiments as he imputes to him. Moreover, that even the quotations he makes from his various writings for thirty years, is rather a caricature than a just representation of the sentiments he ever held in any part of his life." In answer to this you say, that I am "disposed to publish every evil surmise that comes to my ears." It is rather amusing, Sir, to see how you get over these charges. You do not deny them. No, you say "Mr. B. is welcome to all the honor and his cause to all the support to be derived from such a course. You add, "the sentence I have quoted contains two distinct charges; one, that I knew that Mr. Ballou did not hold the sentiments I impute to him, and the other that I gave only a caricature of what he ever believed." Well, let us see how you clear yourself of these two charges. You say "as to the first charge, I disdain to take any notice of it; for I do not wish to contend with those who are disposed to wield their daggers in the dark. But in relation to Mr. B. the only person with whom I am now at issue, I would ask, is it manly or honorable in him to publish such evil surmises without giving the names of their authors? Is this the course which he would wish to have others pursue with him? I put these questions to his own conscience. Even if he knew it to be true, what has this to do with the question in dispute? We hardly expected this from him, especially after he had told us that he was determined to keep to the point at issue." Answer. I have kept you to the point at issue, and am determined to keep you to this point also. If this has nothing to do" with "the question in dispute," why did you introduce it in your Letters? And if you were tired of it, why