connection with punishment, and explains it by the same phrase connected with the coming of Christ to redeem mankind. Angels, in the same parable, though ministers of vengeance, he explains by "angel," the bishop or pastor of a Church. Why this departure from all rule?

Again my opponent violates all rule by explaining literal passages by figurative. In John v, 28, 29, we read, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming when all that are in their graves," &c. In this passage he takes graves to be parallel with Ezek. xxxvii, 12-14. Now the passage in John refers to a literal resurrection, that in Ezekiel to a figurative resurrection. In Ezekiel it is a political resurrection of the house of Israel. In this captivity they despaired of a restoration, and compared their hopeless state to dead people, whose "bones were dried." The prophet took the idea from them, and went on to prophesy of their restoration under the figure of a resurrection from graves. But is this the case in the other passage in St. John? Nothing like it: nothing in the text or context that indicates a political or figurative resurrection, but the direct contrary.

I cannot but mention one instance more of my opponent's explaining literal passages by figurative; and it shall be in that case which he thinks more of than any other as favouring his views of judgment. In Matt. xxv, 31-46, we have what all Christians, and the whole

stream of commentators, from the earliest times down to the present day, have taken to be a literal account of the last judgment. It begins thus: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him," &c. Frequently other phrases, relating to the same subject, have been connected with this passage;-such as his appearing, coming with clouds, the dissolving of the heavens, the melting of the elements, &c. My opponent finds several places in the same gospel, where similar language is used to describe a political revolution, and the passing away of the Jewish commonwealth. He finds several passages in the Old Testament where similar language is applied to similar events. Now, says he, this language in Matt. xxv, and in those other passages relating to the same subject, must be taken figuratively, because it is figurative in Matt. xxiv, 29, and this without due consideration of the passage before us, or the least reference to one of those passages which relate to the last judgment. Let us now examine this matter a little more closely.

In Matt. xxiv, 29, 30, we read, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken; and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven." What are we to understand by the sun, moon, and stars here?

We understand by the sun, the supreme power or authority of the state; and by the moon and stars we understand the inferior powers; and by the powers of the heavens being shaken, we understand the loosening and dis solving of all connection between rulers and people, and the passing away of the Jewish polity. Were all these things figurative? We acknowledge that in this case they were. What were these figures taken from? They were taken from things real, that is, the figurative sun, moon, and stars, were taken from the literal sun, moon, and stars ;-the passing away of the figurative elements was taken from the passing away of the literal elements; and the figurative coming of the Son of man, from the literal coming of the Son of man. And so in all the other cases of these figurative descriptions. Thus by means of the figurative judgments we arrive at the knowledge of the literal judgment. And in every one of these figurative judgments the literal judgment is implied. No, says my opponent, there is no literal judgment; the judgments are all figurative. Indeed, sir! this is something new under the sun. We rather think with St. Jerome that "a simile of the judgment would never have been used to signify the subversion of states and kingdoms, unless such a future judgment had been believed and known; because no one ever confirms a declaration by things which have no exist

1

ence. So much for my opponent's explaining literal passages by figurative. called his attention to this subject in this view, in my lecture, but he took no notice of it

there.

I must notice a few other things in my op ponent's reply in a general way. It would seem from the reply, that to support Universalism is with him a paramount object, and that it must be done at all events. How else shall I account for his hardly looking one of my texts full in the face? For example, 2 Pet. ii, 4, and Jude 6, where these apostles speak of the fallen angels as "reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day," which he passes over with this gentle remark, that "they are another order of beings." What then? Does that disprove the doctrine of future judgment?

Again, 1 Thess. i, 7, 8. This passage, which was certainly written for the purpose of admonition, and speaks of the "Lord Jesus being revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them which know not God," &c., he explains by God's appearing in fire on Mount Sinai to give the law, and to Ezekiel to prepare him for the prophetic office. Why did he not speak out, with his elder brother H. Ballou, and tell us plainly

* The argument of St. Jerome was used to prove a literal resurrection from a figurative; but it is just as good to prove a literal judgment from a figurative.--See Dr. Coke on Ezekiel xxxvii.

that this fire of vengeance is the "law of God," designed to consume sin and save the sinner? He does speak out and tell us that "the revelation of one from heaven, in fire, proves nothing beyond this life." This quaint remark, in substance, my opponent has contrived to attach to nearly all my proofs, as though a text could not prove judgment after this life, unless it says "after this life," in so many words. But this is worse than weak; for if ten or five passages inform us that the judgment is after this life, surely five or ten more, which refer to the judgment, may be taken as proofs, though they do not say in so many words that the judgment is after this life.

My opponent passes over the context in every place where it is clearly against him, and in other cases imagines a connection where there is none. An instance of the former we have when 2 Pet. iii, 10, is before him, where the apostle speaks of the "heavens and earth which are now," being "reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” Here the connection is so strong and awful that if he were determined to support his doctrine at any rate I do not wonder at his passing it over. But in Heb. ix, 27, where the apostle tells us 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.