believers, can hardly be distinguished from the unbelief and disobedience of unbelievers.

3d. Another mistake of yours, and from which your proposed difficulty arises, is, what constitutes an adequate punishment of sin. You seem to allow, some are adequately punished for every sin they commit, in this world. But those who die in overt acts of sin,

yea,

all not adequately punished here, must be punished after death. But who is the best judge, God or Mr. Hudson, what is an adequate punishment for sin? No doubt you will answer, God. The inquiry then must be, what does God consider an adequate punishment of sin? The Scriptures, not our fancies or preconceived opinions, must determine this question. I begin then with Adam, the first man that sinned. What did God consider an adequate punishment of his sin? Was it a punishment in a future state? If it was, then the threatening, Gen. 2: 16, 17, involved a punishment after death, and all the difference between you and our orthodox brethren is, they say death included endless misery, you say, only limited punishment. But unless Adam went to hell for a limited time to be punished, the word of Jehovah failed. This seems unavoidable, unless you can show, that Adam received an adequate punishment here, or that he will receive no punishment after death. But how could the threatening involve punishment after death, if it might all be endured in this state of existence? But my dear Sir, the threatening could not involve a punishment after death, for the following obvious reasons. Adam knew nothing about a future state. He had no promise of life in it, hence could neither forfeit such a life, or incur a punishment in a state which was not revealed to him. Life and immortality are brought to light by the Gospel. So far as we can learn from his history, he knew nothing concerning your doctrines of an immortal

soul, an intermediate state of existence, and happiness or misery after death for souls in it. Now, Sir, if this be the fact of the case, as it certainly is, I demand of you to show, how his posterity came by their immortal souls, and what makes the sins of his posterity so enormous, that punishment after death must be inflicted upon them. If the father of our race did not, yea, could not by his sin incur such a punishment, on what account is it incurred by his sinful children? Does God treat them worse than he did him?

But let us pursue this subject. Did God alter his mind, and annex to his laws a penalty beyond death afterwards? This you cannot consistently advocate, for you have told us, that Moses' law does not even teach a future existence; and that it would be downright contradiction to say, the penalties of his law extended into a future state. I demand then, that you show, when, where, or by whom, God gave a law to the world, the penalties of which do extend into a future state. You must either produce this law, or your system of punishment in a future disembodied state, sinks to rise no more. By your own showing, such a law was not given by God through Moses to the Jews. It is certain no written law whatever was given by God to the Gentiles. And what Paul considered an adequate punishment of their superstitions and abominable vices, he thus states, Rom. 1: 32,They who commit such things are worthy of death." But where does he, or any sacred writer say, either of Jews or Gentiles, that they were worthy of a punishment beyond it ?* But if you will advocate, that men are worthy of punishment beyond.

See also Rev. 2: 22, 23, where the highest degree of punishment threatened the wicked in the Church of Thyatira is death 'Their crimes were similar to those of the Gentiles, Rom. 1, and their punishment is similar. No punishment is threatened beyond death to either of them. But why not, if it is true, for the heathen believed in punishment after death?

death for their crimes committed here, why not also advocate, that they are worthy of future immortal life for their virtues, and at once have done with God's grace and Jesus Christ in the affairs of salvation. But if virtue, good works, call it by what name you please, has any influence to procure for men an immortal endless life, infants, idiots, the heathen, all who die in unbelief, yea, all believers themselves, must be forever excluded from it. Has any of them, Sir, done more than what was their duty to do?

But, Sir, on the one hand I maintain, that no man by his belief or obedience, can procure for himself a future immortal life. On the other I maintain, that no man by his unbelief and disobedience can forfeit such a life, and subject himself either to a limited or endless punishment in a future state. No; all without exception were given to Christ of his father, and he is to raise them all up at the last day, John 6: 39. Matt. 11:27. He is appointed heir of all things, Heb. 1: 2. All things are put in subjection to him, Heb. 2: 6-9. And he is to reign until all are subdued and death is destroyed, 1 Cor. 15: 20-29. It is not being sons of God here by faith in Christ Jesus, but being "children of the resurrection, prevents men from dying any more, and which makes them equal unto the angels. On your system it is contended, all are raised immortal in the resurrection, and that immortality after this is to suffer. But you must Iso admit, that immortal infants, immortal idiots, immortal unbelievers, yea, immortal imperfect Christians must then exist, for you declare all are to be raised just as they died.

Pause and consider, that a future immortal life, is the very grace given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. 1: 9, 10. It was made manifest by his appearing, and neither the unbelief of the aged, the infantile weakness of the babe, or idiocy,

can disinherit them. The change from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality, fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body, and made equal unto the angels, will cure all evils whether moral or physical. Without this change, Sir, the best saint that ever lived, as well as the worst sinner, is unfit for the resurrection state. It is probable you may then ask, of what use is it for men to believe, seeing their immortality is certain? I answer this question by asking you another; and what answer you give to it will serve me. Of what use is it for a child to obey his parent, if it is certain he will not disinherit him? Or I may ask-of what use is it for a man to live a virtuous life, if he shall not end his days in the alms-house, the state prison, or on the gallows? It is just as certain that in the keeping of God's commandments there is a great reward, as that the ways of transgressors are hard. Nor is it the dread of either limited or endless punishment, which prevents the last or secures the first, but the hope of this immortal life. It is "every man who hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even as God is pure." If this hope fails to make men holy, in vain, Sir, do you at tempt to make them so, by the terrors of a future retribution.

But it is time, Sir, that I turn the tables upon you, to show, how your supposed difficulty against my system, seriously affects your own. You said above,

"he admits what our observation teaches us that all infants, idiots, the whole heathen world, and in fact all who do not believe in the resurrection so as to lead a holy life, are not saved in this state." If our observation teaches us all this, all such persons must be saved by death, saved in a future state, or not saved at all, by your own showing. That they are not saved by death you deny, and hence no time need be spent about this. Let us not forget the kind of

salvation your difficulty refers to. It is, as shown above, salvation "from sin and the course of this world." And this kind of salvation I said was effected by—“ faith in the resurrection of Jesus." With such a salvation, you say, "our observation teaches us that all infants, idiots, the whole heathen world, and in fact all who do not believe in the resurrection so as to lead a holy life, are not saved in this state." Agreed. Permit me then to ask

1st. Do you believe in infant damnation? How can you avoid this, unless you save them by death, a thing you deny. Where then do you save them? In hell? This cannot be, for they have never sinned nor walked after the course of this world so as to need such a salvation. Besides, your hell could be no hell to them, for it consists in painful mental reflections on bad deeds done in the body. And as they do not need to be purged from their sins in hell, so they are incapable of moral improvement, for at death their minds were as infantile as their bodies. Here then is a class of beings which do not need salvation from sin or the course of this world. But be it remembered, Sir, this gives them no title to a future immortal life. How then do you dispose of them? Do you confer it on them by an act of God's free grace? It cannot be grace, if their innocence or any thing else, was taken into view, as a consideration in the bestowment of it.

It

2d. I ask, do you believe in idiot damnation? Certainly. You have told us, that our observation teaches us that they are not saved in this state. is a fixed principle in your system, that souls or minds go into a future state just as the persons died. Well, idiots, such persons lived, idiots they died, and idiots they must forever remain, unless you have some process in a future state, by which you transform them into rational beings. It cannot be by any moral