my concluding remarks, after having examined all the texts in the Bible where these words are used, and it was found no sacred writer expressed by them a place of future punishment for the wicked. If your cause be the cause of truth, why accuse me of resting my cause merely on etymology, when every man who has read my First Inquiry, knows it to be utterly false? But do you tell us, what was the primitive meaning of sheol and hades or our English word hell? And can you tell us when the primitive sense of these words was laid aside, and made to express your place of punishment in a future state? And if this was not the primitive meaning of these terms, will you be kind enough to tell us what the name of your hell was, before their sense was changed to express it? Who was the first Scripture writer, Sir, who applied them in this new sense? Answer these questions if you

can?

2d. Scripture usage." Yes, Sir, I rely on this. rule. Let us see what you say concerning it. 1st. You say, p. 41, 42, "when he relies upon Scripture usage he gives up the etymology of words, and when he relies upon etymology, he gives up Scripture`usage. Those rules in many cases are in direct opposition to each other. Now surely implicit confidence cannot be placed in two rules which are frequently at war with each other." On this it may be observed, 1st. As this is a mere group of assertions, without the slightest attempt at proof, it deserves no notice. It is too late in the day, Sir, for assertions to pass for truth. 2d. As to the first of your assertions, my whole writings prove the reverse of it is the truth. I am surprised you risked such an assertion which is so easily detected by my readers. The very instance you refer to, respecting sheol, hades, and hell, shows it false. Do I give up either etymology or Scripture usage in remarking on these words? What

reader of my book will believe your assertion? Y do not believe it yourself. 3d. It is not to be doub ed, that could you have found one instance in m writings, in proof of your assertion, it would hav been produced. I demand of you to produce suc an example, or take back this assertion as counterfe coin in controversy. As to your other assertions they do no particularly concern me. It may howev er be remarked, when a man makes such sweeping assertions concerning rules of interpretation, it be comes him at least to illustrate them by some exam ples. But perhaps examples were not easily found. to prove, that etymology and Scripture usage are "frequently at war with each other." You ought to be ashamed of such assertions, for if I relied on the etymology of the words rendered hell, and gave up Scripture usage, why did I introduce the passages where these words occur? But are they not all introduced and considered? And if I relied on Scripture usage, why did I introduce etymology? Are not both these rules introduced, and on the same subject? What can I think of the man who makes such statements?

You say p. 42, "but what is this Scripture usage. of which he makes so much account? Why, it is counting the number of times a word occurs in the Scriptures, and if it can be shown that it is used in a certain sense in a majority of instances. it is concluded that it must always have this sense. For instance, a word occurs twenty times, eleven times it is used literally, hence in the other nine instances, it is used literally, whether the context or subject admit it or not. This is literally determining truth by vote! And should there be no majority, there could be no decision." Here again you give us a longer string of assertions. All I have to do is to assert, that they are all and individually false. But 1 do more; I pledge myself to relinquish the cause I advocate into

66

Mr. Hudson's hands, if he will take his oath, that he believes his own assertions to be true; or will find one man in ten who ever read my books, that will say his assertions are correct. What man, Sir, of the least candor will say, that I determine truth by vote, or the number of times a word occurs in Scripture? I have no occasion to thank you, for not adducing examples from my writings, to expose my ridiculous practice. No; could one example have been found, it would have been exposed, and dwelt on for the amusement of the reader. I am happy that such an example you could not find. Let my readers then judge, what sort of antagonist I have to deal with, who asserts what he cannot prove, but what my writings disprove. But you say against this rule of interpretation we have many objections." So have I; but you only mention two. 1st. "This rule as well as the other just noticed, entirely overlooks the context." On p. 43 you add, "but Mr. B's Scripture usage sets all these principles at defiance. According to that rule, the subject, the context, and scope of the writer, have nothing to do with the subject, and consequently there is no impropriety in dissecting a passage and mutilating the sacred Scriptures." Your second objection is, "if Scripture usage must always determine the sense of terms, then no writer can advance any thing which has not been taught before." On these objections I have to remark, 1st. A man may by attending to Scripture usage overlook the context, but the question is-have I done it? Could you have proved this by examples from my books, it would have saved you all said in p. 44, 45, respecting "John the Baptist," and that "the greater part of the Scriptures apply to this world." But either your powers failed here, or my books furnished no materials for them to work on.

You assert and insinuate, but produce no examples that this is my mode of interpreting Scripture.

2d. As an honorable man, show where I have said, that "Scripture usage must always determine the sense of terms," without any other rule of interpretation being taken into view. I demand of you, to produce an example from my writings, where Scripture usage is made my rule, to the neglect of the context, subject, or scope of the writer; and as you assert, "sets all these principles at defiance." Your honor and integrity are here implicated. What intelligent man, when system is out of view, does not avail himself of Scripture usage? You know how to avail yourself of this rule, when you deem it in your favor.

ter.

3d. In looking over my books, I have not been able to find an instance, where I have interpreted a text in violation of the context and scope of the wriBut before I have done, I shall notice one or two instances, where I have not sufficiently used these rules of interpretation to my advantage, which probably may create a wish, that you had not said I set "all these principles at defiance." By the use of these principles, I can increase the evidence in support of my opinions, but I have noticed little or nothing I would correct by them.

4th. In your second objection you say, "if Scripture usage must always determine the sense of terms, then no writer can advance any thing which has not been taught before." Strange! If this was true, a word used in ten texts in the same sense, is only repeating ten times the same thing, without any additional information. Very few writers would put their reputation at hazard, by risking such an assertion. To conclude. If I had only two rules of interpretation, etymology and Scripture usage, and in my use of them perverted the Scriptures, it was incumbent on you to show this by examples, and not palm

on your readers such assertions. When our readers have read our books they can judge for themselves on which side this perversion lies.

LETTER IV.

SIR, THE fourth division of your book is styled "state of the dead." You commence 'by saying, "Mr. B's first Essay is designed to prove that man has no immortal soul," and, "that there is no existence between death and the resurrection." Well, do you proceed to prove that man has an immortal soul? No Sir, though this may be called the soul of your system, and though you often call the soul immortal, yet you neither have, nor can you produce proof of it from Scripture. So far from this, you only promise to "take a brief view" of my arguments in support of my position.

On p. 48, you merely refer to what I said in my Essays, p. 14, 15, where "the dead, whether good or bad, are said to go to their fathers' or to sleep with their fathers.?? But let the reader turn to those pages, where he will see, that this is said of all without distinction, yea, of whole generations. In the margin of several of the texts referred to, it is, "to lie down with their fathers." But, Sir, are all immortal souls gathered together, and do they lie down together in a future state? No, according to your system, they are separated at death; good souls you send to heaven, and wicked souls you send to the prison of hell to be reformed by "consideration and reflection."