tendency of this doctrine on Christians is very manifest; for Christ's resurrection from the dead is seldom preached or talked of among them. The soul, the precious immortal soul, is the constant theme among both preachers and hearers. To have it saved, and prepared to go to heaven at death, is the sole concern of both. But I must be stupidly blind, if this was the theme of apostolic preaching, or the concern of Christians in apostolic times. If they preached to men the hope of future immortal life in being raised from the dead, and this founded on the fact of Christ's resurrection, we ought to remonstrate against any doctrine which eclipses it, or tends to hide it from the eyes of mankind.

7th, If the immortality of the soul is admitted, let us cease to wonder that men become infidels. Say deists, "You err, and are involved in a gross inconsistency, to tell us life and immortality are brought to light in the Gospel, for by your own showing, it is brought to light by the immortality of our souls. If our souls are immortal, a future endless life is certain to us, and what need is there, pray, to believe in Christianity? As to your endless hell torments, with which you threaten us, we know this to be a mere heathen notion, and if our souls are immortal, we have no fear but God will do well by us in a future state." In vain do Christians urge on deists the evidences of Christianity, having taught them the soul is immortal, for this makes it unnecessary. But if life and immortality are only brought to light in the Gospel of Christ,

deists and all others are left without the shadow of hope beyond death, except what is derived from it. This gives importance to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and I must be greatly mistaken if this is not the grand doctrine of the New Testament.

If the inquiry is made-What is Mr. Hudson's immortal soul, which he intends to punish in a disembodied state? He answers, it is the "mind." But how he is to punish mind without a body he does not inform us. I am just as incapable of conceiving how mind can suffer without body, as how body can suffer without mind. There is no evidence of this from experience or observation, and I think I may defy any man to prove from Scripture that the mind thinks or suffers after its union with the body is dissolved. The ancients did not think the soul could suffer after. death without a body, hence provided it with .one. "Aquinas infers the soul's capability of purgatorial pains from its being the substantial form of the body." Des Cartes wrote to confute the doctrine of substantial forms, and his book was condemned by the Inquisition of Rome. Why? Because the Catholic church perceived that if his system was admitted, the soul was immaterial, and could not suffer purgatorial pains. This was sapping the foundation of the Catholic church and ruining the revenue of the clergy. Probably Mr. Hudson perceived the difficulty of punishing the immortal soul without a body, hence, on p. 68, he says it is clothed with some "vehicle" after death.

If the subjects of discussion between me and Mr. Hudson are unworthy of investigation, then there are no subjects of religion which demand a moment's notice. No subjects can more deeply interest us as individuals; for every man has, or has not, an immortal soul, which does, or does not, at death enter into a state of happiness or misery. If Mr. Hudson's opinions are Scriptural, a new era ought to commence among Universalists, in their zeal and exertions for the salvation of immortal souls. No sect in the community acts so inconsistently as they do, if his opinions are true. What domestic or foreign missions are they engaged in for the salvation of men's immortal souls? But why not engage in them with great zeal, unless some thousand years punishment in Mr. Hudson's hell is all a farce? Religion out of the question, common humanity sayssave them from so many years mental misery, if money, zeal and exertion can effect it.

My first eight letters are a reply to Mr. Hudson's book; and he will admit I have overlooked nothing material in it, or slightly passed over what he deems his strongest proof texts and arguments. I have followed him in his course from its commencement to its conclusion. Of the suc

cess of my labors the reader must judge. I am sorry to say he pursued a different course with my Essays. To the five additional letters I solicit the reader's careful attention; particularly to the tenth and eleventh. The doctrines of the immortality of the soul, and a future retribution are not taught in the Old Testament, by Mr.

Hudson's own showing; and in these two letters we think it proved they had their origin in heathenism. He contends they had their origin in revelations now lost, without affording any proof that they ever existed. On the contrary we think it is shown by a profusion of evidence, that such opinions arose from the vain speculations of heathen philosophers; were imbibed by the Jews in their intercourse with them; were early introduced into the Christian church, by converts from Judaism and heathenism; and have been transmitted to us as a part of Christianity ever since. It is shown in the eleventh letter, that Luther held the opinions for which I contend.

This controversy was first begun by Mr. Hud

son.

It now remains with him whether it shall here end. I never wished to provoke a controversy among Universalists, and I have no desire to continue it. Should he choose to reply, or any one else, I request that proof be adduced from Scripture that the soul is immortal, and has a conscious existence in a disembodied state. Until this is settled, it is useless to discuss-is it to suffer in this state? Or what is to be the nature or duration of its punishment? To the Scriptures I appeal to decide this question, and trust we shall hear no more about lost revelations to support it. We have given the history of the soul's immortality and its punishment after death, but this is done merely to show that Mr. Hudson's opinions are of heathen origin. Let it be shown from the Bible that they are not.

LETTER I.

SIR, IN concluding my remarks on your Letters (Essays, p. 359) I said "as we did not begin, we have no desire to prolong this controversy, and therefore leave Mr. Hudson to his own choice concerning it." You have chosen to prolong this controversy, and your present performance, the result of that choice, shall now receive attention. It is divided into eight parts, to each of which I shall devote one Letter.

I am sorry you did not deem it proper, to leave all minor topics out of the discussion, and confine yourself entirely to the grand points at issue. It is also to be regretted, that personal reflections should be indulged. If I gave you any just occasion for this, I regret it. I am conscious I never wished to give you offence, and am convinced the cause of truth can never be promoted, by provoking language or personal reflections.

I published my First and Second Inquiries, without any reference to you, or your opinions. I intended to do the same with my Essays. It was the appearance of your Letters, which hastened their publication, and in some degree changed the shape of them.