tion are, Balfour's first Inquiry, third edition, Balfour's second Inquiry, second edition, and Balfour's Essays. I shall also occasionally notice Balfour's reply to Stuart, and Whittemore's work on the Parables, first edition. These works abound in criticisms upon the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible. But I shall be under no necessity of leading the unlearned reader far beyond his depth, in my reply, and I have here no ambition to decorate my pages with such ornaments. I trust I shall be able to adapt the style to popular use, and yet leave no depths of Mr. B.'s learned criticism unfathomed.

The main questions on which we are at issue with the modern Universalist, and which will now come under discussion in review of Mr. Balfour's books, are-First, that of the immortality of the soul, or whether souls exist in a state of consciousness after death and before the resurrection. Second, whether those passages of the Bible which speak of judgement, condemnation, damnation, &c. teach the doctrine of a retribution after death. Third, whether those passages which speak of everlasting or eternal life, mean a life enjoyed in this, or in the future world. And next, we shall inquire respecting the meaning of the words everlasting, eternal, &c. when applied to punishment. In the next place, whether any passages speak of a place where punishment after death is inflicted. Next, examine Mr. Balfour's attempt to disprove the existence and agency of evil spirits. And then we shall dwell on some miscellaneous topics connected with the discussion.

And may the God of truth, by the Spirit of his grace, guide the understanding and the heart of the writer; that he may be kept from the exercise of all feelings and purposes inconsistent with the high ends of such a discussion; and be governed by the single desire to sustain the truth against the assaults of its enemies, and commend it to the consciences of men; and may his understanding be assisted properly to conceive, and present the subject, feeling himself the tremendous weight of the truth he inculcates. And may the reader come to the examination of the question with a mind willing to see and know the truth, and carry through it the impression that if the doctrine of eternal punishment be true, it is tremendously true, and ought to take hold of the deepest principles of the mind and heart.

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

EXPOSED.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL; OR THE SOUL'S EXISTENCE IN THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.

No one unacquainted with Universalism, according to its latest pattern, would dream of its being needful to prove the immortality of the soul, in an argument with those whose doctrines provide an eternal salvation for all men. But for reasons which will appear in the sequel, Mr. Balfour strenuously denies it. In his reply to Stuart he says, "It is my honest opinion, that the whole doctrine of future punishment, whether limited or endless, depends on this,—Is the soul immortal, and is it capable of suffering or enjoyment in an intermediate state ?" The reader then will understand, that proof of the immortality of the soul, and of the fact of its existence after death, and before the resurrection, amounts by Mr. B.'s own confession, to proof of the doctrine of future punishment.

In considering this subject, I shall for convenience sake reverse the order of subjects which Mr. B. has pursued; so that I may dispose of the less important consideration first. His last section is devoted to answering objections to his denial of of the soul's separate existence. And he promises in the outset to confine himself to such as are likely to be urged. I am willing that Mr. B. should enjoy his belief that such objections, the mere creations of his own brain, are likely to be urged, but

I am sure it will not be, till bis opponents become strangely stultified. They are such objections as I never heard of, and, for the most part, such as have no relation to the subject. If Mr. B. can find amusement in building, and then slaying a man of straw, I would not deprive him of it. But it is no part of a fair and honest reasoner, to put into the mouths of his opponents, arguments whose silliness conveys an insult to their understandings, and then set himself gravely to their refutation; as if they were the main hinge of the controversy. Surely he has presumed much on the ignorance of his readers, or he would not dare hold out the pretence, that the immortality of the soul was believed on such grounds.

Mr. Balfour's fourth section of this essay, is occupied with objections, or what he calls "facts showing that the common opinion respecting a man's soul and its condition after death cannot be true." These I shall notice in their numerical order. 1. "When God created man he did not inform him that he had given him an immortal soul." Answer. That he did not we have Mr. Balfour's assertion. And if he did not, the fact proves nothing. For he did not inform him of a thousand other things which were facts notwithstanding.

2. "God has not imparted to Adam's posterity immortal souls either by gift or propagation." Answer.-This rests on Mr. B.'s bare assertion. It is an assertion that man has not an immortal soul brought as a fact to prove that he has not.

3. "God has not, during the past history of man, ever informcd him that he has given him an immortal soul which shall either suffer or enjoy in a future state." Answer.-Here again we have an assumption of the very point in dispute brought to prove that point, and need not occupy the time in refuting it. The tirade against revivals of religion and missionary exertions which is brought in to illustrate this objection, is doubtless a genuine expression of the writer's feelings, but is of little avail to prove that men have not immortal souls.

4. "We do not read in scripture of any persons in time of sickness, or near prospect of death, expressing fears that their souls after death would go to hell, and suffer endless misery."