Your direct attack, on me and others, occasioned this alteration. You will not affirm, that this attack was made under the exercise of the most kind Christian feelings, or was free from personal remark and irritating language. Your present Book is not less exceptionable in these respects. Considering, that I am a man of like passions with yourself, it is not the easiest thing in the world, to reply to such publications, without some degree of retaliation. Complaints from you about this, come with an ill grace, seeing you first gave the provocation. Certainly I never gave you just cause to attack me, and if you deemed my opinions unscriptural, why not correct my errors in the spirit and language of a Christian? Should I then give you attic salt for Roman wormwood, you have no right to complain, for it is hardly a righteous retribution. But I shall study to overcome evil with good.

On p. 5, 6, you complain of my want of candor, fairness, and the spirit of my performance. But of this our readers can judge, and no doubt have judged already, as our books have been for some time before the public. I leave them also to judge, whether I deserve your censure, p. 6, for defending myself and Mr. Ballou against your unprovoked attack. I am not aware, that either of us gave you any provocation, and surely you might have published your sentiments, without any direct attack on us. No surprise would have been excited, had this been done by a believer in endless misery, but done by you, a professed Universalist, does not indicate the most friendly feelings, and is calculated to stir up strife among brethren.

The first division of your book, termed your "introduction," is taken up in noticing several charges I brought against you. My most serious charge, is stated in the following words, p. 311 of my Essays.

"5th. This goes to confirm what many believe, that Mr. Hudson wrote his book more to gratify an old grudge against Mr. Ballou, than any interest he felt in the doctrine he comes forward to defend. We doubt at least, if he would be willing to take his oath that this had no influence in his mind while writing his Letters." Such, Sir, is my charge; but how do you rid yourself of it? Do you own the charge as just, and justify yourself in entertaining a grudge against Mr. Ballou? No. Do you repel it by declaring it false? No. Do you deny it had any influence in your mind while writing your Letters? No. How then do you clear yourself of it? Why-by saying "I will not spend time in remarking on this subject," p. 19. A short mode indeed, of getting rid of such a serious charge. But if you spent time about any thing, it ought to have been spent here. If no such grudge ever existed, or now exists against Mr. Ballou, why not repel my charge? Why not say-“ I can take my oath that no such grudge against him ever existed, or influenced me in writing my Letters, and that this charge is utterly false." The charge, Sir, is not denied by yourself. If it is false, why not explicitly deny it, and remove all misapprehension on this subject? But the connection in which I stated this charge, showed it was not made at random. I stated, on what I then deemed, and still deem, good authority that your statement of Mr. Ballou's sentiments was rather a caricature than a true likeness of them. And in p. 306 of your Letters you declared you wrote in the dark as to the ground on which he based his scheme. Your re-quoting the whole connection, and what you say, p. 16-18, shows you labor in vain to get rid of my charge. You never supposed, Sir, that I charged you with misrepresenting every part of Mr. Ballou's system. No, Sir, I only said your statement was a caricature of it. And after

seeing your confession, p. 306, that you wrote in the dark, I made the following apology for you (Essays p. 311.) "In the course of reading Mr. Hudson's Letters we concluded this caricature of Mr. Ballou's sentiments was drawn designedly, but when we came to this, it somewhat accounted for it in another way. Few painters could take a very good likeness of a man to draw it in the dark. We are truly sorry Mr. Hudson should undertake to write against any man's sentiments until he understands them." What you quote inclosed in brackets, which for brevity's sake I omitted, does not mend this matter. No, Šir; your words are, "I am still in the dark relative to the ground on which you base your scheme." Whether "the purity of the soul, divine instruction, the resurrection, or something else" was the base of Mr. Ballou's scheme, you were in the dark about it when you wrote your Letters, and still continue in the dark about it.But permit me to ask, was it like a loving brother, to write against Mr. Ballou, until you understood the ground on which he based his scheme? And especially when an explanation from him might have been easily obtained? Is this the course true friendship dictates? Granting your love of truth exceeded your love to him, still love to Mr. Ballou would have led you to put the best construction on his language, for love thinketh no evil. If his explanation, confirmed your suspicions of his false sentiments, even then to expose them ought to have been a matter of sorrow not of severity; not to make him ridiculous before men, but to turn him from his errors. Your confession that you wrote in the dark, was understood by others, as I stated in my Essays. In fact, Sir, I have never heard it disputed that your Letters were written to gratify an old grudge against Mr. Ballou. That such a grudge existed, influenced you in writing your Letters, and still remains, may be considered indis

You see

putable, for it is not denied by yourself. then, that I continue of the same mind, though you tell me, p. 18, that it is at the risk of my "judgment or integrity." I put both these, Sir, at hazard, and you are welcome to take them from me if I lose this game.

Another charge I brought against you, is thus stated, Essays, p. 307: "One of three things must be certain: 1st, Mr. Hudson's views of what constitutes a Christian must be extremely vague. He calls Mr. Ballou his reverend and dear Christian brother, and with the same breath tells him, he limits the benefits of the Gospel to this state of existence; that his system is only a negation and his faith disbelief. Who then is not a Christian if Mr. Ballou is one? 2d, Or Mr. Hudson acts the hypocrite. If he does not believe Mr. Ballou to be a Christian, why does he address him as such? If he does, why such inconsistent statements? 3d, Or he grossly misrepresents Mr. Ballou's sentiments." See the whole paragraph. But how do you manage with this? You ask me "Must we be uncivil to a man because we think him in error?" 1 answer no. But I ask you in turn, was it being civil to Mr. Ballou to call him your reverend and dear Christian brother, and with the same breath tell him, he "limits the benefits of the Gospel to this state of existence," and "your system is only a negation, and your faith disbelief-a creed which would better become a sceptic than a professed Christian?" I must be very ignorant, Sir, of what constitutes civility, if this deserves the name. But to get rid of this inconsistency, you tell me, that I addressed "believers in endless misery" by the term "brethren," yet denounced "their conduct and system as a cheat, a soul-saving trade." Yes, Sir; but did I brand them as infidels? If I had, I should not have called them "reverend and dear Christian brethren :" and more es

pecially, if I entertained an old grudge against them. This would be adding insult to injury. You may then take your choice of admitting that your "views of what constitutes a Christian are extremely vague," or, that there is something in all this treatment of Mr. Ballou which looks very like "hypocrisy." You see then this charge "falls on your head" without " tenuation," and with "the aggravated burden" of incivility towards Mr. Ballou.

ex

On p. 310 of my Essays, I called your statement of Mr. Ballou's system quoted from p. 10, 15, of your Letters, "a gross" and "wilful misrepresentation of his sentiments." Well; do you admit the truth of this charge? No. Do you allow you might have misunderstood him? No. Do you concede your language was rash, not to say harsh, in saying he "limited the benefits of the Gospel to this state of existence," and that "his system is only a negation, and his faith disbelief-a creed which would better become a sceptic than a professed Christian?" No. So far from this, you say "Now instead of pleading guilty to this charge, I insist that this was no misrepresentation of Mr. Ballou's system," p. 7, 8. You even proceed to confirm the correctness of your statements by an attempt at proof. But for you to assert in your Letters, and again assert here, that he maintains men are saved by death and not by Christ, is an outrage on the understandings of all who statedly or occasionally hear him preach. They know this, Sir, to be grossly false. Even your own statement of his sentiments, partial as it is, sufficiently refutes you. Quoting from his Lectures, p. 14, you say, Mr. Ballou 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." Does not the very denial, that Christ came into this world to save us in another, plainly imply, that he believed