division of your Book is merely preparing the way for this final object. My system stands in your way, and something must be done, either to remove it, or make it appear to be a mass of senseless absurdity and contradiction. The last you chose, because it was no doubt the easiest task.

After stating my system as above, you say, p. 21, "let us now inquire in what he makes salvation consist? If men are saved, they must be saved from something; and what is this something from which men are saved? Mr. B. shall answer-from sin, ignorance, idolatry, the course of this world, and from the condemnation in which sin involves us here, and at last from death and the grave: see p. 112, 113. 162. 207, 208. 297. It appears then, that salvation on his plan consists in being delivered from the troubles of this world, and from the grave. Let us examine these positions separately? How are men saved from sin and the course of this world?" From this you go on reasoning, and on p. 23, draw the conclusion, "our author then is drawn to this conclusion; men must be saved by death, or else come short of salvation." Well, how do you arrive at such a conclusion? Your own statement of the question about salvation is, "how are men saved from sin and the course of this world?" But who could ever learn from my writings, that men are saved from these by death, or else must come short of salvation? You clear me of this yourself; for in stating what I say about salvation from sin and the course of this world, you declare "Mr. B. says by preaching Christ and the resurrection." The difficulty about salvation on my system, you state thus, p. 22-"Now I would gladly inquire, how are the heathen, who never hear of the Gospel, and those in Christian lands, who do not believe the Gospel, or obey its requirements to be saved? Mr. B. tells us that they cannot be saved without faith in the resur

rection; and this faith the heathen do not possess; consequently they are not saved at all. 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; p. 113. 236. 238. The greater part of mankind, then, are not saved from sin or its consequences; or in other words are not saved at all." The whole difficulty about salvation, is then before us; and it must surely be stated in a logical form, seeing it is stated at length and in your own words. If it is incorrectly stated, you have yourself to blame.

And

Well, it seems we both admit-" 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." Now let it be distinctly kept in view, what these persons are not saved from in this state. By your own statement of the question it is— "how are men saved from sin and the course of this world?" You declare that I must either save them by death from this, or they are not saved at all. why? Because I oppose your notion of saving them after death in hell. Let us look at this question in all its bearings "how are men saved from sin and the course of this world?" 1st. You will admit, what our observation teaches us, that death puts an end to, or saves men from sinning in this state of existence.— About this there can be no difference of opinion. If a man sins any after death it must of course be in some other world than this. But 2d. So far as I can learn from your books, you do not advocate, that men will sin any after death in a future state of existence. Until you do advocate this, I have a right to conclude, that you believe death saves men from sinning both here and hereafter. Or in other words, it

puts a final end to their sinning, both in time and eternity. I am here admitting for argument's sake, that your intermediate state exists, and that men have immortal souls, which at death go into it. On such a supposition, it is impossible sin can be committed there by an indulgence of the fleshly lusts, for the flesh is not there to be indulged. If sin is committed in the intermediate state, it must be by gratifying the lusts of the mind or soul, for this is all that goes into this state by your own showing. The reason why you do not advocate that the soul will sin there probably is, if you did, it might be difficult for you to show why it might not sin forever, and its suffering in hell be of endless duration. In fact, it might come to pass, that it sinned more than it suffered, and the pains of hell not only be endless, but forever on the increase. It is incumbent on you to show, why a soul cannot sin as well as suffer in hell without a body. You tell us, p. 66, that Paul makes "the man complete without the body, as complete as an individual is without the house in which he resides." If he can suffer, Sir, in hell, after he goes out of his house, the body, what is to prevent his sinning also? In fact he must sin, unless you have adopted the opinion, which you blamed Mr. Ballou for, that all sin originates in, and ends in the fleshly nature of man. But I take you on your own ground, that men will not sin after death, and inquire

3d. How are men saved from the love of sin if they die in unbelief and impenitence? Saved from the love of sin where? It must be in a future state, for death saves them, or puts an end both to the love and practice of sin in this world. If you contend, the love of sin is carried into a future state, why not also contend, that men will practice what they love there? If you deny sin will be practised there, how do you know it will be loved? If sin is loved in hell,

will it not be difficult to keep damned souls from its practice, for what is loved is generally practised every where.

4th. The only other possible sense, in which your question can be considered, is-how are men saved from the punishment of their sins, if they die in a state of unbelief and impenitence? You think, that on my system they must be saved by death, or they are not saved at all. Accordingly you advocate, that all not adequately punished for their sins in this world must be punished in a future state. This is the grand point for which you contend. And you think it presents a serious difficulty to my system. But, Sir, was you not aware it presented no difficulty at all to it, as I shall now show.

1st. Your difficulty wholly arises, from assuming several things which you well know I do not admit. I have been reasoning with you, for the sake of argument, on the ground that there is an intermediate state; that men have immortal souls; and that at death, they go into it just as they died. But have you forgot that I have no faith in any of these opinions? Are not these the very chief points of dispute between us? But you assume these things as true, and admitted by me, yea, as if I had no right to question their truth. But, Sir, until these points are satisfactorily proved, or are at least admitted by me as true, they present not the least difficulty to my views.Your whole difficulty arises from your unfounded assumptions. On my system the question is not, how do men die, but in what state are they raised at the resurrection in the last day? Prove, Sir, that men are raised sinners, or will sin after this, and then talk of a difficulty to my system. I deny that the soul is immortal. I deny your intermediate state has any existence except in the imaginations of men. And I hope to show before I have done, that these, and the

sufferings of the soul in a disembodied state, are opinions which originated in heathenism. Before you talk to me about an intermediate state, first prove such a state exists? Before you ask me how men that die in unbelief and impenitence are to be saved from the love, practice, or punishment of sin, you must first prove they have got immortal souls, which need be saved from these, either by death or after it in a disembodied state. If any believe in the doctrine of immortal souls, and take them all to heaven at death, I leave you to settle this difficulty with them at your leisure. It is no concern of mine.

2d. Your difficulty is predicated on this, that many die in a state of unbelief and impenitence; they never lived a holy life in this world, and consequently you take them to hell to bring them to faith and penitence there. You seem to intimate, as if I granted, that faith and obedience here, are absolutely necessary to partaking of the immortal life by Jesus Christ beyond death and the grave. But here lies another of your mistaken assumptions. If I believed this, I should exclude all infants, idiots, the heathen, and all who die in unbelief, from it. I maintain that faith and obedience are absolutely necessary to a participation of the privileges and blessings of Christ's kingdom on earth, and the enjoyment of the hope of future immortality in this life. But it is not faith and obedience, Sir, but being raised immortal in the resurrection, equal unto the angels of God, which fits men for the resurrection state. It is being children of the resurrection, not sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, prepares men for this state of things. Without this, the believer is no more fitted for it than the unbeliever. And if faith and obedience here, be absolutely necessary, pray what degree of these entitle them to it? For the faith and obedience of some