is not quoted or alluded to in the whole essay; and that, while in the first sentence of the essay he promises to refer to all the passages which contain the word "krino.” And to show that it was not the effect of inadvertance this same passage is commented upon in the discussion of other subjects but even there its bearings on this subject are not alluded to. If this be not an artifice to cover up the truth it is not easy to

say what is. It may not be out of place here to introduce two passages from the Old Testament. Eccl. 12: 14, For God will bring every work into judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or whether it be evil. Whether this passage would also be referred to the destruction of Jerusalem if Mr. B. had undertaken to notice its bearings on the question, I cannot say. Certainly the readers of the book in Solomon's day had nothing to lead them to such an interpretation. The writer brings this in as the winding up of a description of the scenes of old age and of death. He does it in this impressive manner -Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, &c. Judgment here means an examination of conduct, a bringing to light of secret things, and deciding whether they be good or evil. But in all the experience of this world there is nothing that fits such language.

Dan. 12: 2, 3. And many of them (or the multitude of them) that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever. So far as it affects the question before us, I am willing to grant what Mr. B. labors to prove of the first verse of this chapter, viz. that it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, though I do not believe it. But this granted, it by no means follows, as Mr. B. assumes, that the second and third verses relate to the same events. The verses describe one event that concludes a series of events prophetically described by Daniel, extending from his day onward to the close of this

world's history. That events so distant in time should stand in such near connexion, is nothing unusual. Numerous instances might be adduced of the same peculiarity of prophetic language. Jeremiah connects the conversion of the first fruits of the Jews, and the general conversion which is to be expected in future time, and passes over the intermediate rejection of the greater part. So Malachi prophesies of the coming of John the Baptist, in the same verse with the destruction of Jerusalem, as, Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Such being the habit of prophetic writing, we must be determined by other reasons than the connexion, as to the time and event here made the object of prophecy. And the expressions of this passage must have great violence done them, before they can be applied to any thing else than the resurrection and general judgment. Mr. B. pretends that a moral resurrection, such as took place on the day of pentecost is here foretoldthat they that sleep in the dust are those who were spiritually dead. Here we have it, that many at that time would rise from spiritual death-and some of these would find that they had risen from spiritual death, to go into shame and everlasting contempt! Awaking from the sleep in the dust of the earth, either means coming to spiritual life, or it does not. If it means that, it can by no means be asserted of those who awake to shame and everlasting contempt. Mr. B. quotes no authority to show that awaking from a sleep in the dust, is proper phraseology to express the being put to sleep in the dust by the Roman sword. And yet he tells us that a part awoke to everlasting life at the day of pentecost and then forty years afterwards, those who continued to sleep on, all at last awoke to shame and everlasting contempt, in the national calamities that came upon them. And then what were the glorious rewards attained by those who rose to everlasting life, fit to be compared to shining as the stars and the firmament? Surely it was not the glory of a flight to the town of Pella, the only reward which history records as received by christians then. Mr. Balfour makes the directness and plainness of this passage an

objection. He says, "Did Daniel here speak of everlasting punishment of the wicked? If he did, he declared it in plainer language than any other sacred writer." Surely he is like to children sitting in the market and saying we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced, we have mourned unto you and ye have not lamented. The truth now is taught too plainly to admit belief.

I have already pursued this examination beyond the patience of the reader, and shall therefore omit other passages whose testimony is equally in point. And were I to labor in the summing up of the matter contained in this chapter to give you a vivid and forcible condensation of the proof, I could do nothing more effectually than to read you the passages commented on, and ask you to decide, what is the plain unsophisticated common sense interpretation of them. Read them and forget every comment that you heard of them, and you will find it difficult to resist the conviction that the word of God has revealed a judgment to come.

CHAPTER III.

COLLATERAL PROOFS OF A JUDGMENT TO COME.

I CANNOT persuade myself to dismiss this topic, without presenting some facts and considerations which, independent of direct scripture testimony, appear to my own mind, conclusive proofs that there is to be a judgment after death. The theory of Mr. Balfour and the modern universalists (excepting as I do in all this discussion, the restorationists) is, if I understand it, that all punishment or retribution which God ever inflicts on men, he inflicts in this world. This idea I think can be shown to be untenable, aside from that kind of evidence which we have been examining. That it can be clearly proved that this present life is not the scene of God's last and most complete retribution. I shall not pretend that nothing is here done in a way of retribution. Scripture records many instances of retributions inflicted on nations and individuals. God here and there lets down a stroke of his justice to check the flow of human wickedness, and forewarn the world of what is to be expected, at the termination of the sinner's guilty career. But it is generally true that sentence against an evil work is not speedily executed.

My first reason for believing that this life is not the scene of complete and only retribution, is, that the ends of punishment are not fully nor chiefly answered by all the judgments that are inflicted on the wicked here. What is the end of punishment? The universalist replies the good of the offender only. This is not true. But grant it for the moment. If all are punished according to their deeds in this world, it is plain that this punishment fails of securing in all instances the reformation of the offender. Those passages of scripture

which speak of judging every man according to his works, are made by the universalist to say that all men have a complete retribution according to the deserts of their sin in this world, and this punishment is designed to reform the offender. But I ask, is this end answered? Are all effectually reformed in this life? Are the evils which the drunkard endures seen to be working a gradual reformation upon him as he approximates towards a drunkard's death? Does the man in the act of suicide show that the work of reformation was complete upon him at the moment when he left the world? The well known fact that millions of wretched beings are pressing on from this to the eternal world, increasing in wickedness and hardness of heart as they go, shows that the purpose of man's reformation is not universally and completely effected by punishment or any other means in this world. On this hypothesis God is every where attempting what he cannot effect, and then receiving into a state of being, where punishment and the rod of correction never come-receiving to his confidence and love those whose obstinate rebellion neither persuasions nor chastisements could subdue.

But it is not true that all punishment is disciplinary, intended for the ultimate good of the offender. The execution of a murderer is not specially intended for his own good, but for the good of the state, to sustain the force of law. And the laws of God look as much to the public good as do the laws of a state. But understanding retribution as designed to give force to law, and cause the lawgiver to be feared and obeyed, we do not see its ends universally or generally answered in this world. No retributions, here experienced, avail to create a general respect for the law of God, to vindicate his power, holiness and truth, till all men have an effectual impression of it, and to rectify the disorders of the moral kingdom. We expect that the authority of God will be recognized, that the force and energy of government will be felt, if any where, surely on the ground where law is having its highest and most impressive executions. But what a farce is God's law, and what mockery its execution, if having done its utmost, it secures