And is not this just as rational, and as Scriptural too, as to say, if a man died a noted liar, a drunken sot, or a bold blasphemer, he is to be raised in the same moral condition? What proof can you produce that the resurrection is to cure all the physical evils of the body, yet all the moral maladies of the mind remain? According to your system, the incorruption and glory of the resurrection state, is only to respect the body. If it respects both mind and body, the persons who died wicked, are only to be made incorrupt ible and glorious sinners both as to mind and body, for we shall see afterwards, you advocate immortality is to suffer. But is not this, and all similar reasoning introduced in support of a favorite theory, which you find lacks proof from Scripture? And may not the words of our Lord be here applied "ye do err not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God?"

On p. 27, you say, "but our essayist will probably say, that men are saved by being instructed after the resurrection." From this you proceed to p. 32, to make your readers believe, that I advocate men are to undergo a course of moral instruction after the resurrection. Such an idea, Sir, never entered my mind, and you must have been very scarce of proof, to draw such an inference from my words. You are aware this is your own inference, for you say "it is true he does not declare this in plain words, but he says that which necessarily involves it." You then give us five pages of your metaphysical reasoning, with the express purpose of involving me in this. But you upset the whole of it by saying, p. 32, "but Mr. B. attempts to support the idea that sinners will be instantaneously brought to penitence by the case of Saul." But, Sir, if I did this, how could I support all you have been attempting to fasten on me in the five preceding pages? As to what you say, respecting the case of Saul, p. 32-34, two

brief remarks are only necessary. 1st. I introduced the case of Saul to illustrate my subject, but you wish your readers to believe, that I introduced his case, and reasoned on your principle of analogy, and that I justify you in your use of it. But I must have been a fool to support your system. No reader of my Essays will readily believe this.

2d. Your object in all your labored reasonings respecting Saul, is very manifest. It was to give a plausible appearance to two essential points in your system. 1st. It took three days to convert Saul, and reasoning by analogy you tell us, "sinners at the resurrection may remain in anxiety and grief three days," or for a longer period of time. 2d. That immortality may suffer. Your system absolutely requires this, hence you say, p. 33, 34, "if an immortal being can suffer three days, he may three years, or three centuries; at least immortality will not prevent it." And why not say, he may suffer forever, for immortality so far from preventing it, will only fit him for enduring it? Immortality and endless misery, are as fitted for each other, as immortality and endless happiness. And why not also say, the immortal God may suffer, for at least "immortality will not prevent it." But all this goes on the assumption, that Saul when he suffered was an immortal being, a thing said of no man, until raised immortal in the resurrection. If you reason by analogy from his case about future suffering, you must make it of short duration. But by your own account, the persons who perished in the flood, have been suffering in hell for nearly four thousand years. Perhaps about this, you reckon in the prophetic style, in putting one day for a thousand years. But even on this view, some of those who have gone to hell, ought to have been released a thousand years ago.

In closing your remarks on this division of your

book, you apologise for your reasonings to your readers, that they will think them-" too nice and critical, too abstruse and metaphysical." Such an apology is very necessary, for it may be doubted if you understood some of them yourself. But you caution us not to be violently opposed to them, for this is only to show our 66 ignorance and indolence." If we are so ignorant and foolish as to find fault with them, we are told "the fault is chargeable upon the system I have been examining. That system has recourse to so many intricate windings that it cannot be justly exposed without following it to its hiding places." But if all this should be admitted as true, of what use are you to your readers, if in dragging my system forth. to the light, you envelope yourself in the mist of "nice, critical, metaphysical reasonings ?" When my system, right or wrong, requires me to pursue such a course, I shall strongly suspect it unscriptural, and of no consequence to mankind.

In closing my remarks on this division of your book permit me to say, 1st. All the world, the uttermost parts of the earth were the boundaries of the apostles' parish. Their commission did not extend to hell, either to hades or gehenna. But according to your system, their sound is not only to go into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world, but it is even to be heard in hell. If it is not, the salvation of the damned is hopeless, from your "consideration and reflection."

2d. If damned souls do not sin in hades and gehenna, will you be kind enough to inform us, what prevents their sinning there as well as here, and why they may not sin as much as they suffer and so their sinning and suffering be of endless duration. Some of the most intelligent orthodox men now, predicate endless punishment on the ground of endless sinning.

3d. But admitting your system in all its parts to

be infallibly correct, would it not be well for you to be brought to "consideration and reflection" in this world? Should you happen to die with an old grudge in your mind against Mr. Ballou, it is certain you must go to hell by your own showing. This, Sir, ought to alarm you, for you do not pretend to say, how long time it may take in hell, to purge this single old grudge out of you, by "consideration and reflection." Get rid of it, yea, receive an adequate punishment for all your other sins, for hell is your inevitable portion if you do not, by your own statements.In one word, I advise you to keep out of hell. Should you once get there, perhaps you may have misgivings of heart respecting the truth of your own doctrine. The bitterest ingredient in your cup of misery there, may probably be the horrible thought, that you shall never drink the last of it.

4th. The question in debate between you and me is, not about the duration of future misery. No, Sir, I deny that God ever threatened men with a punishment for either soul or body after death. First find your immortal souls to punish after death. Second, find your hell to punish them in. When these questions are settled, it will be time enough to discuss the question, how long shall their punishment last?

LETTER III.

SIR,

I SHALL now notice the third division of your book, styled "Rules of Interpretation." You set out by observing "in the first place it will be impor

tant to adopt just rules of interpretation in order rightly to understand the Scriptures." Certainly. But after quoting, p. 47 of my First Inquiry, in proof of this, you add, "Mr. B. has two rules of interpretation to which he is in a great measure indebted for his whole system." These are

1st. "Etymology." You discuss this from p. 37— 41. But, so far from essentially differing from you, I almost entirely agree to your statements. You quote from me, what I quoted from Dr. Campbell, on the word anastasis rendered resurrection, to show our mutual agreement. All the exception I make is the following. Concluding your remarks on the word anastasis, you say "this shows that the primitive meaning of a term cannot determine its sense, especially in the Scriptures." Instead of the word especially in this sentence, I would use the word always. I am at a loss to perceive, why" the prímitive meaning of a term, cannot determine its sense" in the Scriptures, as well as in any other writings. Etymology is not a certain rule, always to determine the sense of a term either in the Scriptures or any other writings, but what man, yourself not excepted, does not avail himself of it? From what you say, one might conclude, you rejected this rule altogether.But to show that I place too great dependance on "the primitive meaning of words," you quote p. 68 of my First Inquiry thus: "Since neither sheol nor hades, nor even the word hell, in English, originally signified a place of endless misery, we ask, is it not a perversion of the divine oracles, to. quote any of the texts in which sheol or hades occurs to prove it?" But Sir, was this conclusion made on the ground of the mere etymology of those words? No; the sixtyseven preceding pages show, that I drew my conclusion, not relying on the etymology of those words, but their Scripture usage. This conclusion was drawn in