your present opinions. Very good reasons can be assigned why I did not make criticisms on the original in treating on Christ's resurrection. The pas

sages did not appear to me requiring any. Our translators were not under any bias respecting the texts which treat of the resurrection, but that they were on the texts in dispute, and many others, I presume you will not deny.

But as

2d. Moral influence. This you discuss, p. 205-208. You begin by saying "what remains to be noticed is the moral tendency of the two systems. this subject was considered at considerable length in my Letters, I shall refer the reader to what was there offered. See p. 285-304." Well as this subject was replied to at considerable length in my Essays, I shall refer the reader to what was there offered. But you immediately add-" in its moral tendency, Mr. B's system is no different from the one examined in my Letters; and what was there said will apply to the system before us. If there is no

motive to serve God but what is drawn from the retributions of this world, then Christianity in its moral influence is no different from atheism." Mark this, reader, and then look at the following, from p. 70 of Mr. Hudson's Letters. "The law of Moses did not even teach a future state of existence, and it would be downright contradiction to admit that the law was enforced by penalties extending into a future state, when the law did not reveal such a state." By Mr. Hudson's own positive statements, Moses' law "in its moral influence is no different from atheism."Bad then as you view my system, it is better than the atheistical system of Judaism, for it holds up "the prospect of future happiness" to "stimulate men to virtue." Neither future rewards or punishments in Moses' law could influence the Jews to a moral life,

by your own statements.

It is too bad, Sir, to tell us Moses' law "is no different from atheism."

On p. 206, 207, you proceed to repel what I said against the moral tendency of your future retribution; that," the heathen believed in a future retribution, and still were very corrupt." You say, 1st. "The Jews and the heathen might be vicious from the influence of some other principle than that of a future retribution." Vicious, Sir, from the influence of a future retribution! I never supposed that this influenced them to be vicious. What I urged was, and what you have got still to account for is, why a future retribution did not restrain them from their vicious habits, seeing you advocate its wonderful moral tendency on mankind. You look on it as the grand specific to cure the vice of a wicked world. I never advocated as you state, the "mortality of the soul," and if I had, I never asserted what you did concerning your future retribution, its wonderful moral tendency on the world. All I did say, was to check your invidious boasting about the superior moral tendency of your system.

2d. You say "it is unjust to compare the morals of men in the dark ages of the world with men in enlightened times, or men in pagan nations with those who live in civilized countries under the light of science and the gospel." After going on to illustrate this, you add, "if Mr. B. wishes to make the comparison, let him compare those in the same age with each other." Agreed. But you are careful not to enter into this comparison between the morality of those in any age who did, and those who did not, believe in your future retribution. No, Sir, in your present book you make no invidious comparisons between the morals of believers in your limited future punishment and those whose "system is only a negation and their faith disbelief; a creed which would

better become a sceptic than a professed Christian." Either the morals of we "sceptics and not Christians" are turning better, or yours have become worse since you wrote your Letters..

3d. Concluding remarks. Your concluding remarks are brief. I shall simply go over what you have said, and wherein I differ from you, will be easily perceived by comparing your two last paragraphs with what I say. As I am about drawing my direct remarks on Mr. Hudson's book to a close, I request our readers to examine with care and attention the passages of Scripture in debate between us. Let them remember that the question is not what these texts have been made to mean in ages past, but what did the Scripture writers mean to convey by them?. What would they naturally teach to those who believed the only hope of future life to man was by a resurrection from the dead? In order to judge correctly in this case, let them weigh all the arguments, and determine from all the texts brought forward, and take into view the rise and progress of Mr. Hudson's opinions detailed in succeeding Letters. If in examining this subject any reader should find his own heart and feelings remonstrate against the doctrine I have advanced, he ought to consider, that this is just what might be expected admitting it true, for the writer felt what many of his readers must also feel, all his prejudices and previous teaching opposed to it. When Paul taught and reasoned on the hope of future life by a resurrection from the dead, the Athenians mocked at it. For this hope he was bound with a chain, and for it he at last suffered death. No wonder then that a doctrine so opposed to heathen opinions, which were early incorporated with Christianity, and still are popular in the nineteenth centu-ry, should be opposed by Mr. Hudson and many well meaning people.

I will simply say, in conclusion, that I shall not imitate Mr. Hudson, for I do challenge a confutation of my opinions. Though I have no disposition to continue this controversy, unless it can be made profitable to the reader, I must say it ought to be continued, for all that is valuable to man in religion is involved in it. And so far from being convinced of the incorrectness of my views, I can say the more I examine the subject the more I am convinced of their truth. The subject is now submitted to the candor and judgment of an impartial public, believing that by reading, as well as by many running to and fro, knowledge will increase and truth prevail.

LETTER IX.

SIR, I HAVE now finished my examination of your book. In addition to what is advanced in the preceding pages against your doctrines and in favor of my own opinions, a few more letters must be added to the present discussion. In this letter I shall examine the question-was Adam created an immortal being? Let us

1st. Notice some popular opinions concerning Adam's original condition. And 1st. It has been generally believed that Adam was created a perfect being. The Bible says-" God made man upright," but there is an essential difference between uprightness and perfection, as could be easily shown. Adam was created upright, or innocent, but he was not created so perfect but that he might sin as the event showed.

If he was capable of choosing good, he was also liable to be tempted to evil. Though he was not created a sinner, he was created so imperfect that he might become one. Had not this been the case he

never would have sinned.

2d. It has also been generally believed, it was God's design in creating Adam, that he and all his posterity should continue forever upright, sinless creatures. But the event showed this could not be God's design, for if it was, he was frustrated in it. It would also follow that all God has done, or promises to do for man by Jesus Christ, was an after thought, an expedient resorted to, having been disappointed in his original design. Man never was designed to continue innocent or to spend his life in paradise. His expulsion from it was in perfect agreement with what God said to him at his creation. He was to multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it. He was to have dominion over this lower creation. He was to till the ground, and by its produce was he to be supported. But all this could not be done in the garden.

3d. It has also been generally believed that had Adam continued innocent, after a long life of happiness in Eden, God would have translated him to an endless life in heaven. The Bible affords no evidence of this. Adam had no promise of life beyond the life he enjoyed. Besides, life and immortality are brought to light only in the gospel. As Adam had no need of a Saviour before he sinned, so he had no need for a revelation about salvation in his innocent condition.

4th. It has also been generally believed Adam's original condition was a very happy one. Hence many have deplored the wretched condition into which Adam has brought his posterity. Adam's fall has been a subject of long and loud lamentation, and