me only, but to all them that love his appearing. Who that had never read Mr. B. would dream of this passage, referring to the scenes of Jerusalem's destruction? But there are some matters which need explaining before we are convinced. This was said by Paul in immediate prospect of death, which would show that the crown laid up for him was a crown to be received after death. If a dying man were heard to speak of a recompense laid up for him, we should understand him as expecting it after death. Then we want evidence, as in the last paragraph, that Jerusalem's destruction was a scene of such triumph to the church-such a heaven upon earth. The Saviour speaks of it as a day of consternation and flight. And the facts answered to the prophecy-It was a day of "fleeing to the mountains," when even christians escaped with their lives, leaving as it were their garments behind for haste and consternation, and found a refuge in a little town by the name of Pella. This is the day which Mr. B.'s imagination transforms into a glorious Jubilee, a universal rest. And then Paul did not live to be crowned upon that day, nor did he expect to; for nearly twenty years before it he pronounced himself as even now ready to be offered. But Mr. B. nothing daunted by such a difficulty, will have us believe, that though dead long before, Paul was crowned at this time. He says, "We have seen it stated somewhere in the course of our reading that, it was common to crown the dead victor [in the ancient games] with his crown the same as if he had been alive. It is certain, Adam in his Roman Antiquities, p. 472. speaking of their funeral rites says, 'the couch was sometimes decked with leaves and flowers, the bedstead of ivory, and if the deceased had received a a crown for his bravery, it was now placed on his head."" Now it is somewhat strange that the man who quotes Greek and Hebrew so profusely when there is no occasion for it, should send us to "somewhere in the course of his reading" for a fact so novel, and for one on which so much depends. That a crown should be used in funeral rites as one of the trappings by which a corpse was laid out in state, in remembrance of some achievements, by which a man's life had been signalized,

is a matter familiar to every tyro. But it happens that the text before us has no allusion to funeral rites-but to the exercises of the Grecian games; and Mr. B. perhaps would have given the world some instruction if he had told us where he read, that in games which consisted in wrestling and running races, (for these were not gladiatorial exercises) men were wont to be killed and he who was killed in a race could be the victor —and then such victors crowned after they were killed: and, after having admitted all this, we want to know in what fact consisted the crowning of Paul at the time of Jerusalem's destruction. What fact then transpired fit to be the basis of such a representation, what remembrance was made of the apostle of the Gentiles by any of the parties concerned in that tragedy? And then, admitting that his memory was some way honored there, could that be a crown laid up for him, the desire of which goes out with such a gush of emotion as is expressed in the text? Was Paul such an ambitious aspirant for posthumous fame?

Heb. 9:27. And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. The question before us is, whether there be a judgment after death. And what says the text? Here I can most conveniently express Mr. B.'s views and my own in the form of a dialogue. Balfour. One would think it a premature conclusion, that the soul is to be judged after death unless it first be proved that man has a soul. Answer. Whether it be a man's soul or body that is judged, it is here asserted that after death is the judgment. B. But this is the only text that speaks of a judgment after death, while the vast importance of the subject required, (if there be a judgment after death) that these things should stand forth in large capitals. Ans. This is not the only text that speaks of a judgment after death, as we have seen. And if it were, one assertion of the Holy Ghost should convince and satisfy us. B. Will you tell us when this judgment takes place; immediately after death or at the resurrection? Ans. It is both immediately after death and at the resurrection; in the first case in the man's own conscience, and in the other amid the public formalities of a gen

eral judgment. But suppose we could not tell; so much would be true as God's assertion can make it, That after death is the judgment. But pray, Mr. B. will you tell us what kind of judgment this is that comes after death? B. Yes, you have it in this-Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return. That is, after the body is dead it is adjudged to turn to dust. Ans. Then we are finally lodged in the conclusion that the judgment means the decomposition of the body. The invention of man would never have hit on that idea, unless urged by strong necessity. But when we find an instance in any writer, sacred or profane, where the word has this meaning, it will be time to consider whether that is the meaning here. Till then, the plain meaning of the passage may be taken for the true meaning. It is appointed unto all men once to die and after this the judgment.

2 Peter 3: 7. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. This passage Mr. B. also refers to the day of God's temporal vengeance on the Jews, because the dissolution of kingdoms is sometimes described by such figures as that of the dissolving of the heavens and earth. And he says, "If it should be contended that verses 7-12. describe the end of this material system, why not also contend that verse 13. promises a new material heaven and earth which are to succeed their dissolution. If the one is

understood literally, so must the other. But it is universally allowed, that the new heavens and the new earth refer to the kingdom of the Messiah, which was to succeed the Jewish dispensation and was predicted in the Old Testament." What does the man mean by this? Does he not know that we contend, and does not he himself contend for a new material system to be occupied by the material bodies, which the saints will have after the resurrection. If man has no soul separate from material bodies, in this or the coming world, surely those bodies must have a material dwelling place. But when I hear him assert, that it is universally allowed that the phrase, new heavens and new earth, here refers to the kingdom of the Mes

siah in this world, I am still more stumbled. And I know not whether it be most charitable to attribute the misrepresentation to ignorance or design. Such writers as he ought to consult before he pronounces upon what we all allow-such as Scott, Dwight, Chalmers, Rosenmüller and Storr, are directly against him, (and nowhere in the course of my reading have I found one in his favor) as to the fact of there being a new material system after the resurrection. And yet this groundless assertion contains the main force to be found in his evasion of this text. Where in all the chapter is the least intimation of the destruction of Jerusalem? The creation and the deluge are directly brought in as historical facts, and a comparison is instituted between those events and the passing away of the heavens and earth, and the arising of a new material system in their place, which is yet to come, and you may as well apply what is said of the creation and deluge to political changes, as what is said of the coming destruction of the world. The ideas are majestic, but they wear not the costume of fiction or poetry—the majesty of the language is but the naked majesty of the events described.

Jude 14. Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execnte judgment upon all, and convince all that are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. Here Mr. B. finds another prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem again. But he fails of showing that the persons spoken of or spoken to in this epistle, were Jews, or that that passage has any particular reference to Jews. He does not inform us how Enoch before the flood should have a prophetic eye on Jerusalem's destruction, or what particular appropriateness the words of this prophecy have to describe such an event, or what is represented by ten thousand saints accompanying Christ in that scene. There were no saints that came from heaven to help Christ destroy Jerusalem-for on Mr. B.'s hypothesis there were none in heaven at that time; and surely the Roman army

was far from being an army of saints. Mr. B. refers us to three passages in the Old Testament where he says similar language is used in application to other events than the judgment. But in the two first passages quoted, none but Mr. B. would discover the similarity, and in the third, Dan. 7: 10. the final judgment is most clearly included in the description. And then it was not true that all the hard speeches and ungodly deeds of all that are ungodly were brought to light in Jerusalem's destruction.

Rev. 20: 22. And I saw the dead small and great stand before God, and the books were opened, and another book was opened which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the books according to their works, and the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were judged every man according to their works. As Mr. B. admits that this passage refers to the resurrection and gives us no reason why we must not understand it of the general judgment, I shall not for the present abate its force with any comments. It will come under consideration again in another part of this discussion. You observe that the very point in question is here affirmed; the dead small and great after the resurrection standing before God and receiving judgment. I wish not to be captious, but here again charity is perplexed to know whether design or inadvertance is the most favorable construction of another instance of Mr. B.'s improper dealing with his readers. In the commencement of the essay now under examination, he says, "In this essay we shall refer to all the places where these words are used in the New Testament, according to their renderings in the common version. Under each word we shall particularly consider the passages which are supposed to teach a retribution or punishment after death." He then takes up the word "krino," the one used in this passage and refers us to fifty-nine texts where it is used, and says that none of these texts teach the doctrine; and then adds, "but the following are supposed to teach it." But in which class does he place the text before us? In neither. The text