that "after death is the judgment," he would fain have us believe from some supposed connection that the passage relates to the high priest. But as I shall take up this passage again, I will not comment on it here.

My opponent puts the most arbitrary comments on the Scriptures when he cannot otherwise make them favour his doctrine. Thus in all the passages where Christ is spoken of as the "Judge of quick and dead," contrary to all rule, contrary to the sense of all mankind, and without the least authority from the word of God, he takes the quick to be those who are raised to a new and spiritual life, and the dead to be those who are spiritually dead in sin.Whereas by the quick is meant such as shall be alive on the earth at the time of Christ's coming to judge the world; and by the dead such as are literally dead; and that for this plain reason, because every passage is to be taken literally where we have no intimation to the contrary, and especially where every circumstance of the connection requires the literal

sense.

I will mention one instance more of my opponent's departing from rule, even the rule of consistency. In Rev. xx, 12-15, we read, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God-and the books were opened-and they 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 ap

pointed 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.

in

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 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. 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

3.

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 judgment 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 everv where to repent."