صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

this doctrine be false," says a judicious writer, "we should naturally expect that Christ would have offered something directly against it; or if he had not thought proper to have done this, he would have avoided the use of expressions, which are calculated by their natural import to support the doctrine." But 3d. Mr. Hudson's wholesome rule supposes, that the writers of the New Testament, spoke in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, and not in the words which the Holy Spirit teacheth. In this he differs from Paul, 1 Cor. 2: 13. Does any sacred writer intimate, that we ought to study the heathen opinions, in order to understand the New Testament?

The question will then be asked me, by what dictionary is the language of the New Testament writers to be interpreted? I answer, without fear of refutation, the writings of the Old Testament, the same dictionary according to which they used their language. They spoke in the words which the Holy Spirit had taught there. There is a public standard dictionary to all nations, and to all generations. How many Christians have the opportunity to consult Mr. Hudson's dictionary? Not one in a thousand. But every man who has got a Bible, can consult mine. I am sorry he should send us to the popular opinions of the heathen, or Dr. Tappan's unrevealed revelations, to understand the language of the New Testament. But is there not a cause for this? My dictionary would not have suited his purpose. He wished to establish his views of a future judgment and retribution, from the language of the New Testament, but he found the Old Testament writers did not give the definitions he wanted. my friend Hudson has recourse to Dr. Tappan's revelations not revealed, or the popular opinions of the heathen nations. Dr. Campbell, and others


show, that the popular opinions which prevailed among the Jews, were imbibed from their intercourse with the heathen nations. Mr. Hudson, p. 127, thinks the public will bear him witness, that his Universalist brethren, opposed to his views, enter into labored comments on the passages which speak of judgment. Yes, and they will also bear him witness, that he enters into labored comments on the passages which speak of everlasting punishment. And why are these labored comments necessary by either of us? Is it not because we believe a sense has been attached to those passages, which the original writers never meant to convey by them? Physicians, heal then yourselves, before you attempt to cure others. And we again return him his own words, quoted from Mr. Loveland; "well, if the public are liable to be led astray by the natural import of such passages now, were they in a better situation in the days of Christ?" You are

then in the same difficulty, and we leave you to extricate yourselves at your leisure. We happen to know a better way of getting out of it than this, and without adopting such a mode of reasoning.

In a note, p. 145, Mr. H. said, "For the character of Mr. Balfour's works, see a postscript to this letter." We now come to his postscript, and find he gives them rather a bag character. He can hardly speak of me or my works with patience or common civility. The mixture of honey, is only to make the gall the more disagreeable. My First Inquiry, it seems, "was written without any definite object. I am more desirous of pulling down than of building up. I shift from one thing to another. I involve myself in inconsistencies. My reply to Mr. Sabine abounds with severity and personal reflections, hardly worthy of the Christian or the gentleman. I became vain by newspaper encomiums on my works.

I am a prolix writer, and took four hundred and forty-five octavo pages, to define four words. I make a great show of Hebrew and Greek learning, but my criticisms are from other writers. My own, are mere criticisms on words, which any novice might do. And to add no more, my writings show more learning than judgment." For all these kind, civil, and obliging remarks, I make a respectful bow to Mr. Hudson, and merely remark, it must have been great condescension in him to notice such contemptible publications. If he had only let them alone, they must have soon sunk into oblivion from their own insignificance. But, he seems to fret himself not a little, that some persons were foolish and ignorant enough, to express a favorable opinion of them and to counteract this, says "it will probably be gratifying to the reader to subjoin a brief account of the nature and merits of his works."

But it is very natural to ask, what could have roused Mr. Hudson's feelings so much against me and my works? Seeing that he is not a believer in the doctrine of endless misery. I solemnly assure the public, I never had an unpleasant word with him in my life, and in all our occasional intercourse, the best of feelings have always existed. It must then be the books I have written, not myself, which has excited him so much. The cause must be sought here, and it is easily found. Mr. Hudson tells us, that I 66 am more desirous of pulling down than of building up." Now, if I pulled down any thing, it was the orthodox endless hell. But, if I had only pulled it down, and left him a snug hell or penitentiary for his limited punishment, he would have rejoiced at my labors. But it so happened, that in pulling it down, his hell came down with it, for they are the same: the only difference between them is, orthodox people inscribe on their hell, “ endless mise

ry is suffered here." No, says Mr. Hudson, it ought to be, limited punishment is only suffered here." I confess, while attacking the orthodox endless hell, I strongly suspected they were one and the same, and that the hell which he advocates must fall with it. But I saw no occasion, why I should break my heart if it did, or cease from my attack, to preserve it. If he chose to make the orthodox endless hell his penitentiary for reforming sinners in after death, it was his business not mine to look out for its safety, and if it was demolished he must provide some other place for them. If he, or any others are displeased at me on this account, I must bear their displeasure the best way I can, and endeavor to overcome evil with good. I have only room, to assign two or three of my reasons for thinking this was the true cause of his displeasure against my publications.

1st. There was not the least ground of personal difference between us, to beget a suspicion, as in the case of Mr. Ballou, that an old grudge led him to this attack. 2d. Mr. Hudson, was the first man who volunteered his services, to assure our orthodox brethren, that their endless hell was perfectly safe from my attack upon it. If he had no interest in its safety, being his penitentiary, as a Universalist he would have at least been silent, and let them find out this at their leisure. But he was the first to cry, "all is well," after my attack, which showed his hell was identified with theirs. 3d. Mr. Hudson says, p. 168,"hell is not a term on which we rely to support a future retribution. It is not a term on which the learned rely for the support of endless misery." He affects to make people believe, that although all I have said about hell in the Inquiry was granted me, his future retribution and endless misery are not affected in the least. But we are not so sure, that Mr. Hudson will get people easily to believe all this.

Some perhaps will say, if what Mr. Hudson says be true, what could disturb him so much about the Inquiry? And if he says the truth, the clergy in time past have been imposing on the people, and perverting the Scriptures which speak about hell. Have not they laid great stress upon it, in alarming men concerning their perilous condition? And does Mr. Hudson think us so ignorant as to believe him, that learned men in past ages have not laid any stress on the word hell? 4th. Mr. Hudson's own actions. Does his actions correspond to these fine professions? Far from it. We shall see presently, that he is very careful to pick up all the wreck of the old orthodox hell, he could think to his purpose, and goes to work to build him a place of limited punishment in another state of existence. Matt. 10: 28. Luke 12: 4, 5, is all he thinks of use to him, and we shall see he clings to these texts, as if they were his last hope of safety. But why all this, if he was sincere in his professions above, that "all was well;" and that he nor the learned placed no dependance on hell in support of endless misery or a future retribution? 5th. Mr. Hudson does not attempt to state the facts and arguments of my book, and like an honorable antagonist meet and refute them. No, he first gives the book a bad name, then proceeds to misrepresent it as could be easily shown, and ridicules what he does not attempt to answer. But, there was no occasion at all for this course, if hell was safe from my attack, or if he could have answered the facts and arguments I adduced. Besides, there was no occasion for making such a fuss, and being fretful at a book, which neither had, nor was likely to injure the common hell of Mr. Hudson and our orthodox brethren.

I would only add, if I am mistaken, in imputing what Mr. Hudson has said to a wrong cause, I have

« السابقةمتابعة »