were judged out of those things which were written in the books." On this passage, he remarks, among other things, that "the book of Revelation is highly figurative in its language. It is then reasonable for us to conclude that this is a figurative, not a literal representation." And how does he prove this? Why, he goes to work here in the context, and he finds the phrase day and night; and lest we should think that the text refers to a period in eternity, (a point he is ever anxious to guard against,) he takes it literally. Thus to prove that the text is to be taken figuratively he takes the context literally!

To conclude these observations. My opponent seems much more solicitous to prevent our believing in a future judgment, than to teach us what we ought to believe on this head. Indeed he appears to have no very definite ideas himself on this subject. We merely gather in a few places that he thinks the judgment refers to the destruction of Jerusalem; in a few others, that the time of the judgment is the same with the day of salvation; but in general he has given us no light on this subject, and seems at a loss to determine the application of those scriptures I have adduced in proof of a future judgment. In this way he may unhinge our minds on one point, without fixing them on another. He may take away our belief in future judgment, without giving us any thing in its place. Indeed his method of reasoning in general seems better calculated to destroy, than to create confidence, in the word of God. To show that this is not said without reason, I will give a specimen of it at length. I say there shall be a future judgment, because it is written, "God hath appointed a DAY in the which he will judge the world in righteousness." My opponent says, "This is no proof of future judgment, because the word day is used for the time of preaching the Gospel." A third person says, neither is right, for the word day is used in the Bible for a period of trouble and calamity in this world.

A fourth says neither of these can be true, because the word day is used for the natural life of man. A fifth says it means neither of these, because the word day is used for a period of twenty-four hours; and this is the most common use of it. You are all wrong, says a sixth, for I find the word day is frequently used for that part of the twenty-four hours which is light, in opposition to that part which is dark. While many listeners to the "high debate" applaud this mode of reasoning, as showing that nothing can be proved by this word in favour of a future judgment, because the word day is used in so many different senses, I return to the starting point and say, that this conduct is ridiculous in the highest degree. It can no more disprove, than it can prove a point of doctrine. It may amuse those who wish there were no future judgment, as one is amused with children's play; it may perplex and confound those who have not logic enough to reason correctly on the most common subject. But, I repeat it, it can never disprove a future judgment. That doctrine stands as upon a rock. The strongest arguments that have ever been brought cannot shake it. It is uniformly spoken of as an event yet future ;-as taking place at a particular time, and not successively, as the Universalists teach ;-and is emphatically referred to by the name of a day, the day, that day, the last day, the great day, and the day of judgment. But when it is said that "the destruction of Jerusalem was future when the apostles wrote, and might therefore be alluded to in those passages;" our reply is, that it is by no means certain that the destruction of Jerusalem was future when all the apostles wrote; beside, that was a partial event, affecting the Jews almost exclusively; whereas the judgment is general, affecting not only the Jews, but the Gentiles, and not those of a particular age only, but the whole world of mankind.

After these general remarks it will not be necessary for

me to follow the reply in all that has been said on the passages brought forward in my lecture; I will, therefore, confine myself to a few of the principal ones, and if it shall be found, after all that has been said to the contrary, that these still give their testimony in favour of a future judgment, it will be deemed sufficient.

I begin with Acts xvii, 31, "Because God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness," &c. On which the reply proceeds as follows: "1. Do we read that this day is after death?

No. Is it after the resurrection? We have no information of that fact. Why then refer it to another life?”

Ans. We refer it to another life because it refers to the judgment, and other scriptures inform us that the judgment is after death and the resurrection.

Reply. "The phrase, appointed a day,' does not necessarily imply a particular point of time. We read 2 Cor. vi, 2, Behold now is the day of salvation.' The text quoted is similar in its nature."

Ans. 1. The texts are manifestly dissimilar in their "nature;" the one relates to the judgment, the other to the offers of salvation. 2. The days are different in point of time; one is in the present time, "Behold now is the day of salvation ;" the other is future," God hath appointed a day in which he will judge," &c. 3. The time in the one text is certain, " Behold now is," &c, in the other it is indefinite; " God hath appointed a day." The days, therefore, cannot be the same. The

Reply quotes the preceding verse, "The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now," &c, and remarks, "If God winked at the sins of men in the times of this ignorance, then they were not to be judged at the judg ment spoken of in the text."

Ans. 1. God did not " wink at" (overlook) the sins of men, but the " times of this ignorance." 2. God's “winking at the times of this ignorance," stands connected not

with his judging, but with the command given to all men every where to repent. He winked at those times in not giving the Gentiles a revelation of his will; but "now commands all men every where to repent."

6

Reply. "The judgment in the text is the same mentioned John iii, 18, 19, He that believeth not is condemned already,""&c.

Ans. The judgment in the one text and the condemnation in the other are not the same. 1. Because the condemnation was then present, the judgment was then future. 2. Because in the one, Jesus Christ himself is to be the Judge, but the other relates to the time when he came, "not to judge and condemn the world, but to save the world." Thus this passage is found to support future judgment after all. Rom. ii, 12, 16, "As many as sinned without law shall also perish without law-in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." The reply passes this without remark, “ as it says not one word about judgment after death." But why so hasty, sir! If "it says not one word about judgment after death,” it proves that fact in another way beyond the possibility of doubt. It will entirely clear up what is said of God's "winking at the times of ignorance," and show that those who lived in those times are not excluded from the judgment, as you suppose. Speaking of them the apostle says, “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law-in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," &c. This text, therefore, proves two things, 1. That the judgment was future in St. Paul's day; and, 2. That those Gentiles who lived hundreds and thousands of years before his day, were reserved unto that future judgment. Does not this prove judgment after death?

John v, 28, 29, "The hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that," &c. As this passage is a very formidable one to

Universalism, my opponent has laid out all his strength upon it. We will hear him patiently.

My opponent thinks this passage cannot relate to endless life and misery, "because we can discern no proportion between the virtues of men and endless happiness, nor between their sins and endless misery, which would induce us to believe the one to be according to the other."

Ans. In the case of the righteous we never supposed the proportion to lie between the proper merit of their virtues and endless happiness,-but between endless happiness and the evidence their virtues shall give of their having performed the conditions of salvation, upon which the reward, as of grace, was promised; but in the case of the wicked, we do suppose an exact proportion between the demerit of their sins and endless misery. Between the guilt of rejecting eternal life, when offered upon gracious terms, and eternal death, there is an exact and manifest proportion. And on these principles the reward and the punishment are according to works.

Reply. "If this be the meaning of the text it clearly follows that salvation is of works."

66

Ans. It clearly follows" that salvation is of the evidence of works, not of the merit of works.

Reply. "This explanation of the text is contradictory to the account of the resurrection given by Christ and St. Paul." See Luke xx, 33-36; 1 Cor. xv, 42-50; 1 Thess. iv, 13-18.

Ans. There is not the shadow of a contradiction; for in these places the resurrection of the righteous is treated of; in the other, the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Reply. "Christ said in the same connection, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice," " ," &c. Ans. Why not speak out plainly, and say, as it is a figurative resurrection which is spoken of in the 25th