I am a prolix writer, and took four hundred and forty-five octavo pages, to define four words. I make a great show of Hebrew and Greek learning, but my criticisms are from other writers. My own, are mere criticisms on words, which any novice might do. And to add no more, my writings show more learning than judgment." For all these kind, civil, and obliging remarks, I make a respectful bow to Mr. Hudson, and merely remark, it must have been great condescension in him to notice such contemptible publications. If he had only let them alone, they must have soon sunk into oblivion from their own insignificance. But, he seems to fret himself not a little, that some persons were foolish and ignorant enough, to express a favorable opinion of them and to counteract this, says "it will probably be gratifying to the reader to subjoin a brief account of the nature and merits of his works."

But it is very natural to ask, what could have roused Mr. Hudson's feelings so much against me and my works? Seeing that he is not a believer in the doctrine of endless misery. I solemnly assure the public, I never had an unpleasant word with him in my life, and in all our occasional intercourse, the best of feelings have always existed. It must then be the books I have written, not myself, which has excited him so much. The cause must be sought here, and it is easily found. Mr. Hudson tells us,

that I am "more desirous of pulling down than of building up." Now, if I pulled down any thing, it was the orthodox endless hell. But, if I had only pulled it down, and left him a snug hell or penitentiary for his limited punishment, he would have rejoiced at my labors. But it so happened, that in pulling it down, his hell came down with it, for they are the same: the only difference between them is, orthodox people inscribe on their hell," endless mise

ry is suffered here." No, says Mr. Hudson, it ought to be,"limited punishment is only suffered here." I confess, while attacking the orthodox endless hell, I strongly suspected they were one and the same, and that the hell which he advocates must fall with it. But I saw no occasion, why I should break my heart if it did, or cease from my attack, to preserve it. If he chose to make the orthodox endless hell his penitentiary for reforming sinners in after death, it was his business not mine to look out for its safety, and if it was demolished he must provide some other place for them. If he, or any others are displeased at me on this account, I must bear their displeasure the best way I can, and endeavor to overcome evil with good. I have only room, to assign two or three of my reasons for thinking this was the true cause of his displeasure against my publications.

1st. There was not the least ground of personal difference between us, to beget a suspicion, as in the case of Mr. Ballou, that an old grudge led him to this attack. 2d. Mr. Hudson, was the first man who volunteered his services, to assure our orthodox brethren, that their endless hell was perfectly safe from my attack upon it. If he had no interest in its safety, being his penitentiary, as a Universalist he would have at least been silent, and let them find out this at their leisure. But he was the first to cry, "all is well," after my attack, which showed his hell was identified with theirs. 3d. Mr. Hudson says, p. 168,"hell is not a term on which we rely to support a future retribution. It is not a term on which the learned rely for the support of endless misery." He affects to make people believe, that although all I have said about hell in the Inquiry was granted me, his future retribution and endless misery are not affected in the least. But we are not so sure, that Mr. Hudson will get people easily to believe all this.

Some perhaps will say, if what Mr. Hudson says be true, what could disturb him so much about the Inquiry? And if he says the truth, the clergy in time past have been imposing on the people, and perverting the Scriptures which speak about hell. Have not they laid great stress upon it, in alarming men concerning their perilous condition? And does Mr. Hudson think us so ignorant as to believe him, that learned men in past ages have not laid any stress on the word hell? 4th. Mr. Hudson's own actions. Does his actions correspond to these fine professions? Far from it. We shall see presently, that he is very careful to pick up all the wreck of the old orthodox hell, he could think to his purpose, and goes to work to build him a place of limited punishment in another state of existence. Matt. 10: 28. Luke 12: 4, 5, is all he thinks of use to him, and we shall see he clings to these texts, as if they were his last hope of safety. But why all this, if he was sincere in his professions above, that "all was well;" and that he nor the learned placed no dependance on hell in support of endless misery or a future retribution? 5th. Mr. Hudson does not attempt to state the facts and arguments of my book, and like an honorable antagonist meet and refute them. No, he first gives the book a bad name, then proceeds to misrepresent it as could be easily shown, and ridicules what he does not attempt to answer. But, there was no occasion at all for this course, if hell was safe from my attack, or if he could have answered the facts and arguments I adduced. Besides, there was no occasion for making such a fuss, and being fretful at a book, which neither had, nor was likely to injure the common hell of Mr. Hudson and our orthodox brethren.

I would only add, if I am mistaken, in imputing what Mr. Hudson has said to a wrong cause, I have

this request to make. Let him gird himself to the task of refuting my book by an appeal to Scripture and argument. On these grounds I pledge myself to meet him, but if he declines this, he must permit me to think he feels what he is unable to refute.

Letter 6th. In this letter Mr. Hudson discusses the texts which he thinks "teach the doctrine of a future retribution." They are John 5: 28, 29. 1 Pet. 3: 18-20. Heb. 10: 28, 29. Matt. 18: 6. Luke 23: 43, which have been considered in the preceding Essays. The only other texts which remain to be noticed are the following:

Matt. 10: 28, and Luke 12: 4, 5, were passages I considered in my First Inquiry. It was there frankly stated that they presented some difficulty to my views of gehenna or hell punishment; and I stated also what occurred to me to obviate that difficulty. When Mr. Sabine attempted to answer the Inquiry, these were the only two texts relating to gehenna, on which he fixed to establish a future retribution. Mr. Hudson it seems could find no more, and he might have saved himself the trouble of writing, by either copying what Mr. Sabine had said, or referring to his Lectures, as he has advanced nothing new on the subject. In my Reply to Mr. Sabine, these texts were again considered, but Mr. Hudson takes no notice of either my facts or arguments, nor has he the candor to say that any thing I advanced formed any objection to his views. I could easily show that what he notices he misrepresents; but my object in writing, is not to defend myself or any other man, but to keep his attention to the question at issue. I shall therefore pass by every other topic of remark, and proceed to this question. It is very obvious that he strains every nerve to establish from these texts that "God, after he hath killed the body, hath power to cast the soul, or after the resurrection, is able to cast

both soul and body into hell," p. 197. Yet this same individual told us, p. 168, "hell is not a term on which we rely to support a future rctribution. It is not a term on which the learned rely for support of endless misery." Why then did he bring forward these texts if he did not rely on them? It is evident he holds on to these texts with a deathlike grasp, as the anchor of safety to his system. If it is something else than the word hell in these texts, on which he relies, we now intend to be at the bottom of this whole business. Let us then

1st, Inquire what he ought to have proved in order to establish his doctrine as laid down in the quotation above, from p. 197. Mr. Hudson himself will allow, that he ought first to prove that the word psuhe, rendered soul, in these texts, is used in some parts of Scripture to designate an immortal soul in man, which is to exist after death to be punished. But he does not attempt this, but takes it for granted. From what I have said in the First Essay, I think he will find it impossible to do this. The very foundation principle of his system, being false and unscriptural, of what use then was it for him to say, p. 197, that men "cannot afflict the soul after death," but God can and will do it, until he first proved that men have souls which exist after death to be afflicted. This was beginning to build without a foundation. He calls the soul immortal; now I ask him, how happened it that the sacred writers never say the soul is immortal, if they believed as he does about it? But again, he ought to have proved that gehenna or hell, is a place or state of punishment after death. But here again, he takes this for granted, and in opposition to the Scripture usage of the term gehenna, or hell, and also to two sections of facts in my First Inquiry, showing that this could not be its meaning. If he will not be offended, I shall ask him a question