did you not drop it in your present publication? I hope you will then have done with it, should you write again. It would not, indeed, Sir, be manly or honorable to publish evil surmises, but the first question to be settled is-are they so? You do not deny their truth, and I can give names of men for their truth, whose testimony I credit in preference to your statements to the contrary. I was not wielding daggers in the dark, but in the light of their testimony; and if you insist upon names being given, I stand ready to produce them. But there is no occasion for this, until you explicitly deny my charges. I put the question to your conscience-did you not know but Mr. Ballou holds all the sentiments you have imputed to him? To rid yourself, Sir, of this charge, you must say something different, than "I disdain to take any notice of it," and accuse me of "wielding daggers in the dark."

But the second charge is, that you gave only a caricature of Mr. Ballou's sentiments." Yes, Sir, and how do you clear yourself of the accusation? Why-by asking "how does Mr. B. know that this accusation is true?" I answer, Sir, explicitly yes; and the evidence on which I believe it follows.

1st,

I believe it on the testimony of men, who have read Mr. Ballou's writings, are familiar with his opinions, and some of them differ from me, and agree with you on the subject of future punishment. What I have read myself confirms their testimony. 2d. I believe it on the testimony of my own senses. I have heard Mr. Ballou repeatedly preach, have conversed with him, and from this I know your statement of his sentiments to be false. 3d. There are too many intelligent men who statedly hear him preach, to believe your account correct. I must either believe it incorrect or consider them fools or fanatics, who can sit to hear the opinions you impute to him. I prefer

But 4th.

thinking you misrepresented his opinions. Public opinion is against your statements. If Mr. Ballou held such opinions, long ere this time, he must have sunk into disgrace in the city of Boston. This would have saved you much time and trouble. What man could publish the sentiments you charge him with, and in such a community be patronised by a large and respectable society? You mistake, Sir, in thinking Boston folks are so full of notions; and that all correct discernment of Mr. Ballou's opinions have departed to Westminster. They will smile at your attempt to teach them what the man's sentiments are, whom they have heard so often, and with whom they have daily intercourse. But 5th. If you had an old grudge in your mind against Mr. Ballou, which you do not deny, it confirms all the above evidence, that I was not far from being correct, when I said, "you gave only a caricature of Mr. Ballou's sentiments." But you tell me "this could be ascertained only by examining Mr. Ballou's writings." Indeed. If you choose to caricature and burlesque a man's sentiments, must I travel over all his writings to refute your statements? This is a new and easy method to make a reading community. All we have got to do, is to caricature a writer's opinions, and people must either read all he has written, or admit the caricature to be a correct likeness of them. Your caricature of Mr. Ballou's opinions, was too "hideous a monster," for any man in Boston or its vicinity to believe a true likeness, unless the man is his inveterate enemy. If I am correctly informed, you have not been able to make people in the country believe it. Indeed, wherever your books go, the simplest man will suspect at the first glance, it is a monster of your own drawing.

But in justification of yourself, you allude p. 14, to a piece published, called the "Declaration."

If

you refer to the famous Declaration and Appeal, in which you had a hand, it was generally condemned by Universalists. It was an ill-timed, ill-managed, and ill-betided affair, for those concerned in it. It only injured those from whom it proceeded. Is it any proof that Mr. Ballou or his friends, allowed the sentiments you imputed to him were correct, because they did not contradict and refute them? If it is, then the charges I have brought against you are correct, seeing you have not denied them. You allow he did not admit the inferences drawn from the statement of the system." Well, to use your own words, "is it manly or honorable," to draw inferences from a man's sentiments, which he does not admit, but rejects with abhorrence? This is seldom done except where a predisposition to find fault exists.

But you say, p. 19, "there is one thing in Mr. B's book which I did not anticipate. It is this-he bas in several instances, (p. 307. 309. 359,) stated what passed between us in private conversation." Well, Sir, did I misrepresent what passed in these conversations? No; you do not even insinuate this. But if I am given to misrepresentation, why let such an excellent opportunity escape me, where I might have done it without the possibility of detection by the public? But passing this, I ask, were there any secrets, or injunctions to secresy, respecting these conversations? No; for you declare yourself" nothing was said but what I am perfectly willing the world. should know." Why then be offended, that they are told it? And wherein does my crime consist? You inform us "still I regard it as ungentlemanly to publish private conversations unless the nature of the subject requires it, which was not the case here." But about this, Sir, I differ from you in opinion. The subject did require it, for your book was deficient in information, and I supplied from our private conver

sation, all the light I had from you on the subject.But as I had no suspicion, that this could possibly give you offence, I beg pardon, assuring you it was unintentional.

To conclude my remarks on this division of your book. In the following Letters, I shall oppose some of the doctrines you advance, but I assure you, it will afford me the highest pleasure to hear that you "go and be reconciled to your brother." Who, Sir, can die in peace, with hostile feelings towards even a brute? And if your doctrine be true, it is a fearful thing to die, with such feelings towards the man you call your dear Christian brother. What I have said in his defence, will be none of the sins, which after death will give me painful reflections.

LETTER II.

SIR,

You call the second division of your Book, a "statement and examination of Mr. Balfour's system." But this is a very partial examination. You said, p. 5, "in reviewing this production, I shall confine myself principally to those parts which relate to the subject of a future retribution." If you meant to answer my Essays, you ought first to have proved that man has an immortal soul, to suffer your retribution in a disembodied state. But you call the soul immortal, assert its suffering in this state without proving that such a state, or such a soul exists. You thought it best to assume the main questions in debate. But this, Sir, will not answer. I am not such

a fool, or your readers such simpletons to be thus imposed on. Assuming these things, looks very suspicious. But these things must be satisfactorily prov ed, for if they are not, your system falls to the ground. You have not, nor can you produce a single text, in which the soul is called immortal. Nor have you shown from one text, that any soul went to hell at death, or is in hell suffering after it.

But I proceed to your "statement and examination" of my system such as it is. Your statement is very brief, and is not strictly correct so far as it goes. I was explicit in stating, as the Bible does, that the spirit or life at death "returns to God who gave it." But your first words are- -“ Mr. B. holds that the soul of man is mortal." This, Sir, is something very dif ferent. Man at death returns to his original condition, the body to the dust, and the spirit to God who gave it. But again, you say-" he further holds, that at some future unknown period all men will be raised from the dead to a state of immortal happiness." Yes, and you might have added, "will be raised immortal to enjoy it." You state further, that I believe"all punishment or misery must be confined to this world." Yes, Sir, and for a good reason, because the Scriptures do not teach any beyond it. Your purgatorial punishment after death I consider of heathen origin. Such, Sir, is your very brief statement of my system; and is, what you call, stating other people's views in a logical form. This may suit the object you have in view, and the conclusions at which you wish to arrive. What these conclusions are, we shall see by attending to what you call your "examination" of my system.

It ought to be distinctly kept in view, that your principal object is to establish a future retribution. In order to this, it is essential to have immortal souls to punish and reform after death. Your labor in this