books published, I have attempted to show this.* It is further my belief, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and its existence in an intermediate state, are both unscriptural; and are notions derived from the ancient heathen, and brought into the Christian church, when they renounced heathenism and embraced Christianity. To the same source may be traced most of the corruptions of it. But the immortality of the soul, an intermediate state, and endless or even limited punishment in it, are the grand pillars on which Babylon the great has been built. Protestants have prayed, and laboured to pull it down, but have, with all their might, upheld the pillars on which it stood. The whole game of Romish imposition, played upon the people for ages, has been carried on by these three things. To save immortal souls, has been the great business of the priesthood, whether Catholic or Protestant. The chief difference between them has been, the last renounced the trade of saving souls after death, at the Reformation, but the first continued it as usual. But I must hasten to remark, farther, that I believe the only ground on which man can hope for any future life, is by a resurrection from the dead: and this entirely rests in the fact, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. Hence, life as well as incorruption are brought to light by the gospel. It is vain to hope for any future life, if Christ is not risen (1 Cor. xv). As the whole hope of man depends on this fact, no fact since the world began, is attested by such a body of evidence. Preaching this fact of Christ's resurrection, and through him, a resurrection from the dead, was the grand subject of Apostolic preaching. The heathens believed in a future life, but this was on the ground that the soul was immortal. No Apostle gave countenance to this opinion. On the contrary, Paul declares (Eph. ii. 12, 1 Thes. iv. 13) that they were just as certainly without hope as that they were without God in the world. The doctrine of future

* Were I furnished with all the books I require, it would be no very difficult task to show, that what texts some orthodox commentators apply to a punishment beyond death, others of them have much more rationally explained, as applying to punishments in this world. But from previous habits of thinking, the moment many hear the word hell, or read a text in the Bible which speaks of destruction, punishment, perish, damned, damnation, &c. their thoughts dart into a future state of existSuch a pre-disposition of mind is very unfavourable to a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

ence.

life by a resurrection from the dead, was deemed by them incredible, and was laughed at when Paul preached it at Athens (Acts xxvi. 8, and xvii. 32).*

The pernicious effects of the above heathen opinions on Christians, are but too apparent even in our day. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the hope of future life to man, by his being raised by Jesus, are seldom preached. The great object with priest and people, is, to get the immortal soul saved from hell, and properly prepared to go to heaven at death. But, alas! how very few at death have very bright or solid hope of this? To most, it is an entire leap in the dark. The cause is obvious: the people's minds have been devoted to a wrong ground of hope, nor will they ever have this uncertainty removed, until their minds are directed to the true source of hope and consolation in death, revealed in the Gospel. The great object of missions, whether foreign or domestic, is to save men's immortal souls from endless misery. Every engine is set in motion to accomplish this. But I ask, in what part of the New Testament shall I find that the Apostles had any such object in view, such work to accomplish, or prescribed so many money-raising schemes to accomplish it? They preached to all, the hope of future immortal life through Jesus' resurrection. Such as believed, obtained the present advantage of it; but such as remained in unbelief, were never threatened that they must go to hell at death for their rejection of it. All are given to Christ to be raised by him in the last day (John vi. 39, 40). Nor is the best saint that ever lived, fit for the future immortal state, until he is changed and fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body.

I have not attempted to give you, nor was it possible to give you, in the limits of this letter, the Scripture grounds for my opinions. These have been detailed at some length in the books I have published, of which, in closing, it may be proper to give you a brief account. The first thing I published, was my first Inquiry, relating

* The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, is held by some Deists. It deserves sober consideration, if this doctrine, held by Christians, does not tend to confirm them in their infidelity, and set aside the gospel of Christ? No Scripture writer calls the soul immortal-not one of them sanctions this heathen opinion; but Paul declares, that if Christ was not risen from the dead, those who had fallen asleep in Christ are perished. But if man's soul is immortal, it never could die, if Christ had slept an endless sleep in the grave.

The

to the terms rendered hell in the common version. Some persons, unknown to me, called on the clergy here to come forward, and either disprove my opinions, or allow they had been imposing on the people. This was done in the public papers of the day. The clergy preached against my book, and on several occasions, sat and heard myself and book railed at and condemned. Report said for some time, that Professor Stuart was preparing an answer to it, but it turned out to be false. At last, Mr. Sabine, a congregational minister, announced in the papers his intention to refute my book, in a course of sermons. His own place of worship being small, he advertised for the loan of some of the other places of worship in the city of Boston. The Methodists granted him theirs, but withdrew that grant before he had time to commence. Universalist Society in Charlestown, which is only on the other side of Charles River, by a unanimous vote, offered him theirs, which was accepted. His six discourses were delivered on Lord's-day evenings, once in two weeks. The house was crowded to excess, and many could find no entrance. He was heard with the most profound attention for six evenings; but even his own friends and the most intelligent men admitted, his effort was a total failure. His discourses were afterwards published, to which I replied, but no rejoinder was made by him. Soon after this, I published my second Inquiry. Not long after this, Mr. Hudson, a Universalist, but a believer in limited future punishment, attacked my first Inquiry. To his publication, I replied, in publishing my three Essays, by remarks added to them. My next antagonist was Dr. Allen of Bowdoin College, Maine. He delivered a lecture to his students, in which he principally adverted to my first Inquiry and Essays. To this, I replied in a letter addressed to him, but to which he has made no reply. My next was Dr. Beecher of Boston. I happened one week evening to step in, and heard him preach from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In the course of his sermon, he very evidently referred to my first Inquiry, and made such statements to his audience, as deserved some notice. I addressed a letter to him, which was first published in the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine. It was afterwards published as a pamphlet of 36 pages, 18mo. and went, in a few weeks, through four editions of nearly one thousand each. To it the Doctor made no

reply, nor was it ever whispered by either him or his people, that I had misrepresented a single sentiment he advanced. My last opponent is Mr. Hudson, who has published a reply to my Essays, and a defence of himself against my remarks added to my Essays. I am at present engaged in writing a reply, which I expect to publish in the course of the coming fall. In it, I enter more at large into a consideration of the opinions respecting the immortality of the soul, an intermediate state, and a future retribution, which the limits prescribed to my first Essay prevented me from doing. If you know of any other work more full and particular respecting the opinions of the ancient heathens, than Enfield's History of Philosophy or Stanley's work, I will thank you to name it. I am much retarded in my progress by the want of books I wish to consult, and of some of the best sources of information, I am likely altogether ignorant. I am satisfied the Scriptures do not teach the above opinions; but it is of some consequence to show whence they originated, and their progress among men in past ages. Any accurate sources of information, to which you can direct me, I shall esteem a kindness.

Such, Sir, are my present opinions, not hastily adopted, but after all the serious care and attention I have been able to give to the Scriptures, and after attending to all which my opponents have been able to advance against them. If I am in error, I am honestly and sincerely in it; nor do I think, that any unbiased mind will assert, that any thing yet advanced in reply, is a refutation of my opinions. If they can be refuted, no man in the whole ranks of orthodoxy, more sincerely desires than I do, that it might be done. But I stand unmoved, amidst all pulpit squibs fired at me, empty declamation, and appeals to people's passions and prejudices, whether verbal or written. Nor am I startled at all the thunders of eternal damnation, with which they may threaten me. No. To the Bible I have appealed; and by evidence and argument drawn from it, I stand ready to be corrected. To nothing else will my stubborn heart yield. If I am ignorant, I have used every means I could think of, to be better informed. I have urged, until I am ashamed, some one to come forward and show where my error lies. Several attempts, as I have narrated above, have been made on this side the Atlantic, but my enemies being judges, they are not to the purpose.

As my books were published, I sent a copy of them to the Messrs. Haldanes of Edinburgh. This was accompanied with a request, that they would take the trouble to point out where my error lay. But from some cause or other, to repeated requests of this nature, I have not to this hour received any reply. As neither my enemies, nor former friends, will condescend to do this, what am I in this case to do? To believe their creed without evidence-yea, in face of evidence to the contrary? No: this is impossible. I might say I believe, and thus act the bypocrite with my fellow-creatures; but I choose rather to live and die an honest man, with the testimony of a good conscience, if my name should be cast out as evil by all my fellow-creatures.

I have extended this letter farther than I intended, when I commenced. My time does not allow me to transcribe and condense it, which must plead my apology for sending it just as it is. It is written in haste, but I hope you will make out to read it. May the peace of God dwell in our hearts, and may we be honoured in our day to promote his truth in the earth.-Yours, &c.

W. BALFOUR.

"My Religious Experience, at my Native Home."— Boston, 1829.

"O that parents would but take a hint of wisdom from this. And I do most earnestly solicit them to drive austerity from their religious teachings, and to make the idea of God not only one of the earliest, but one of the happiest of the infant mind.”—Jotham Anderson.

My first impressions respecting the Divine Being, were very indefinite. From my earliest remembrance, I had heard his name pronounced by my grandfather, in the solemnity of prayer on the Sabbath, the only day of the seven in which he offered worship with his family. Then I frequently heard the same name uttered by some one reading aloud from the Bible, or some other religious book, on the sacred day. Thus, the idea of God became most intimately associated in my mind with the Sabbath; and this seemed to me a long, very long, and cheerless period. I must not only stay in the house, but much of the time sit still and silent in my little chair; restraints, which the promptings of nature within, and the invitations