and still laboured to show that his views were erroneous, and confined the benefits of the gospel to the present state. But where is the impropriety in this? Must we be uncivil to a man, because we think him in error? Mr. B. addresses

the believers in endless misery by the appellation of brethren, and yet he denounces their conduct and system as, cheat, a soul-saving trade, a contemptible money-spunging system, in which they have no sincerity, and of which they ought to be ashamed. See pp. 99, 100, 123, 209. Now the charges which Mr. B. in his great mercy, has bestowed upon me, fall upon his own head; and he may extenuate the crime, or rest under the aggravated burden.

Mr. B. says, p. 310, "We pointed out in the last letter a gross, and we must think, a wilful misrepresentation of Mr. Ballou's sentiments. After it, we have no great faith in Mr. Hudson's fairness or candour in giving a full and fair account of Mr. Ballou's religious opinions." Here then is a charge of a very serious nature-a charge of wilful misrepresentation-a misrepresentation so heightened by the nature of the case, as to destroy my reputation for either candour or fairness. Mr. B. has laboured hard to make it appear, that I was severe upon Mr. Ballou in my Letters; but in no instance did I accuse him of any thing like wilful misrepresentation. But let us now inquire in what this wilful misrepresentation consists. It consists in my saying that Mr. Ballou's system limits the benefits of the gospel to this world. Now instead of pleading

by the language they used. Our desire is, that the truth of God may be made manifest, whether our views of the above texts be right or wrong; and shall listen to any thing which can be advanced, showing that we have misunderstood them, I shall be happy, if I am in error, to see it pointed out." Again, he tells us, p. 332, "that his object in writing is not to defend himself, or any other man, but to keep to the question at issue." From this we might naturally expect that his book would betray no desire of victory, no artful attempt at evasion, no personal attack upon his opponent. But a perusal of his Essays and Remarks may perhaps lead to the conclusion, that his pure devotion to the cause of truth is no greater than other men's, and that he has not kept entirely clear from personal reflections. Though Mr. B. has assured us that he writes to defend no man, he has laboured in his Essays to defend himself, and has added to his Essays more than fifty pages, a great part of which is to defend himself and Mr. Ballou from what was advanced in my Letters. Yes-he enters into Mr. Ballou's defence with no small degree of warmth. He says, p. 307, "One of three things must be certain. 1. Mr. Hudson's views of what constitutes a Christian must be extremely vague. 2. Or Mr. H. acts the hypocrite. 3. Or he grossly misrepresents Mr. Ballou's sentiments." Now what occasion for all this severity? From what circumstance does he draw his inferences with so much assurance? Why, because I addressed Mr. Balloy with the common title of "dear brother,"

and still laboured to show that his views were erroneous, and confined the benefits of the gospel to the present state. But where is the impropriety in this? Must we be uncivil to a man, because we think him in error? Mr. B. addresses the believers in endless misery by the appellation of brethren, and yet he denounces their conduct and system as, cheat, a soul-saving trade, a contemptible money-spunging system, in which they have no sincerity, and of which they ought to be ashamed. See pp. 99, 100, 123, 209. Now the charges which Mr. B. in his great mercy, has bestowed upon me, fall upon his own head; and he may extenuate the crime, or rest under the aggravated burden.

Mr. B. says, p. 310, "We pointed out in the last letter a gross, and we must think, a wilful misrepresentation of Mr. Ballou's sentiments. After it, we have no great faith in Mr. Hudson's fairness or candour in giving a full and fair account of Mr. Ballou's religious opinions." Here then is a charge of a very serious nature-a charge of wilful misrepresentation-a misrepre sentation so heightened by the nature of the case, as to destroy my reputation for either candour or fairness. Mr. B. has laboured hard to make it appear, that I was severe upon Mr. Ballou in my Letters; but in no instance did I accuse him of any thing like wilful misrepresentation. But let us now inquire in what this wilful misrepresentation consists. It consists in my saying that Mr. Ballou's system limits the benefits of the gospel to this world. Now instead of pleading

guilty to this charge, I insist that this was no misrepresentation of Mr. Ballou's system. He maintains in his writings, that all sin arises from the fleshly, formed nature of man, and that salvation consists in being brought back from the formed, to the created state. See Atonement, pp. 31— 141. It was shown in my 2d Letter, that on Mr. Ballou's system, men were saved by death, and consequently not by Christ. Thus it appears that Mr. Ballou's system does limit the benefits of the gospel to this world. In fact, it is a common remark with those of his sentiment, that Christ does not save men in a future state. Mr. Ballon says himself, "That Christ came into this world, to save us in another, is contrary to all the representations which are found in the Scriptures," Lectures, p. 14. This quotation was made in my Letters, as Mr. B. might have seen, p. 279. Now if Christ does not save men in a future state, is not the benefit of the gospel confined to this world? Thus we see it is no misrepresentation to say that Mr. Ballou's system confines the benefits of the gospel to this world. But Mr. B. will probably say that Mr. Ballou contends that men will be raised by Christ, and consequently the benefits of his mission extend beyond death. But this is only making Mr. Ballou's system a mere ignis fatuus, one thing at one time, and another at anothersomething which we may view in any light we please. If Mr. Ballou's system is contradictory with itself, this is not our fault.

But Mr. B. fixes this charge of wilful misrepresentation upon another quotation from my Letters

He quotes me as saying 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," p. 307. In reply to this, I say that Mr. B. has misrepresented the sentence he professed to quote. I did not say to Mr. Ballou that his system was only a negation, and his faith disbelief. I had been labouring to show that Mr. Ballou had a positive as well as the Restorationists, and concluded the argument as follows: "But, sir, the doctrine which bounds all punishment by temporal death, for which you contend, must be either a positive or a negative. Is it a negative? Then it is incapable of proof;-then your system is only a negation, and your faith disbelief-a creed which would better become a sceptic than a professed Christian."-Letters, p. 15. Every person will see, by taking this in its connexion, that I did not tell Mr. Ballou, that his faith was only disbelief. I was reasoning with him upon the statement of the question, and said to him in sentiment, that if he should take the ground that his system was a negative, it would then follow that his system was only a negation, and his faith disbelief. 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. But Mr. B. would make his readers believe that I said directly and plainly, that Mr. Ballou's faith was only disbelief. I will not say that he wilfully misrepresented my language; but it is a matter of surprise that he did not discover his