This we shall have occasion fully to show in another place.

But 2. What he here lays down as a principle, (and it appears to be a favorite, and a fundamental principle with him too) that " a man will reap his harvest where he sows his seed"--that is, that a man will receive the whole amount of his punishment where he commits his crimes ;-unless he supposes some men will continue to sin in another world--goes to preclude all punishment beyond the grave. For it would be injustice to punish any after they have received their full recompense, and this they are supposed to have received where they sinned-in this world. It would be satisfactory to know what our Examiner's views are upon this point; whether he believes any will be punished after death, or not. The general strain of his arguments, if we can perceive their tendency, says not:--but he does not come out and avow the sentiment openly. In his work he has published pieces from others, upon both sides without any expression of approbation or disapprobation on either side! His course upon this subject appears to savour much of policy;--he appears to want the privilege of taking either side, as the exigency of the case may require!!

But we would observe 3. that the principle that "man will reap his harvest where he sows his seed," goes effectually to destroy all connection between our actions in this world, and our state in the world to come. On this principle we conceive that no motiye can be taken from the future and eternal world, to influence our actions in this life. If so the doctrine of immortality, can be of no vital importance to the cause of morality and practical piety. But if all motives drawn from the eternal world are entirely nugatory, how futile is a great part of the Bible? it being one continued series of motives drawn from the future and eternal world, to induce a course of obedience in this!

6

What follows upon this proposition is an attempt to show the "gross absurdity" of our inferences from two passages. Observer says that on the doctrine of the restitution though he' the sinner may reap corruption as the fruit of his present doings, yet that corruption would not be the opposite of everlasting life, seeing it will issue in it,' &c. A person for some crime is sentenced

to ten years imprisonment in a dungeon-he then is set at liberty. Would it do to say that the punishment he is to endure in his solitary dungeon, will not be opposed to liberty and the light of the sun, seeing it will issue in it." [P. 166.] It appeared to us that there was a perfect an tithesis, in these passages, between corruption, indignation and wrath," &c. on the one hand; and eternal life" on the other: which would be absurd were not the two in some repects equal. The supposition that the apostle would contrast a few days suffering the lash, or taking a salutary medicine, with an "eternal weight of glory,” without adding any thing to show its superiority in point of duration or the connexion between them. appears to us, a gross absurdity" with a witness!-His comparison is altogether irrevelant: In it the length and termination of the" imprisonment," is specified. If the apos tle had as particularly limited the punishment of the wicked, this would have settled the question. But there is no limitation of this punishment: it is contrasted with "eter nal life," and there it is left, to make the natural impress ion, that it must in some respects at least, be equal.

But to conclude. We now see no reason why we should change our views in relation to the passages which were quoted under our first proposition. That they do indeed express the future and final states of men in contrast, we still believe. Our Examiner, clearly perceiving that the inevitable consequence, from these passages, thus circumstanced, must be, that if the happiness of the righteous be endless, the misery of the wicked must be endless likewise, denies that they refer to a future state at all. But in doing this he has in many instances, done violence to both the text and context;-and has neutralized some of the most direct evidences in the bible, for the eternal happiness of the righteous. We think it a clear case, that if the eternal state, is not asserted, in at least, some of these scriptures, it cannot be found in the bible. Let our Examiner examine, and show us where "life and immort tality are brought to light by the gospel." And let him see, if he can find a passage, which may not as fairly be applied to the present state, as those which we have produced in our first argument. And if it do appear, that in his zeal to do away the doctrine of eternal punishment, he also does away that of eternal blessedness,

it will certainly be no inconsiderable argument against his method of explaining the scriptures, & indeed against the theory, to defend which, he is forced to resort to such a-method!!!

No. VII. The Argument founded upon the strength of the terms, DEFENDED.

Our second argument is deduced from those passages which express the duration of future punishment by the terms everlasting, eternal, &c.

The editor enters upon the examination of this argument In his usual style, thus: He has assumed a position which should have been established before he proceeded in his arguments. If by future punishment he means punishment in a future state of being, he should have shown that these scriptures describe, and have relation to such punishment in distinction from the punishment inflicted in this state of being. Till he does this he is building upon a sandy foundation." (P. 166.) This would appear very singular, were it not the language of one who is in the habit of pressing his opponent to the labouring oar, when he should ply it himself!! We maintain, (and shall fully establish it in our next number,) that the literal & proper signification of the qualifying terms in question, is interminable, or endless duration. And it is assumed as a first principle in the interpretation of language, that all other things being equal, the primitive and literal meaning of a word, is to be preferred to any figurative and secondary sense; and that if the connexion, or the nature of the case be such that it cannot be taken in its original signification, all other circumstances the same, that which is next to it is to be adopted; and so on through all the various significations which use has sanctioned."*

*Says Mr. Horne:" Although the plain, obvious, and literal sense of a passage may not always exhibit the mind of the Holy Spirit, yet it is ordinarily to be preferred to the figurative sense, and is not to be rashly abandoned, unless absolute and evident

66

assu

Upon this principle of interpretation (and who will contest it?) we have a perfect right to presume, that these terms in the places in question, are to be taken in their literal and proper sense. This ground we shall maintain until he shows that the connexion, or the nature of the case is such, that these words, in the places in question, should not be understood in their proper signification: until he does this, our " position" is by no means med:"-it is legitimately our own. This point gained, it will be a matter of course, that the passages under consideration refer to a future state of being"-unless what is strictly endless may have an end-and this we suppose he will not assert. The burden of proof, upon this point, rests entirely upon him:-and until he proves that these terms are to be understood figuratively, in the passages under consideration, these passages are conclusive evidence in our favor. This he does attempt to do, by laboring to prove that they refer to this life only.We will now pass to examine what he has directed to this point.

66

He explains Dan. xii. 2. by comparing it, and its connexions, with some passages in the 24th. of Mat. (P. 167.) We admit that this part of the prophecy of Daniel, and some parts of the prophecy of Christ, are very similar, and probably refer to the same events. But we have before shown the insufficiency of his reasons for applying the prophecy of Christ exclusively to the destruction of Jerusalem and as we have taken away his foundation, his superstructure of course cannot stand!

But as further evidence that this passage in Daniel, has its fulfilment in this life, he introduces the 3d verse:

necessity require such literal sense to be given up." (Horne's Introduction to a critical study and knowledge of the scriptures. Vol II. P. 500.)

And the learned Hooker "I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred scripture, that, where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is common. ly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this li centious and deluding art, which changes the meaning of words, as alchemy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of any thing what it pleases, and bringing in the end all truth to nothing." (Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapter 58-60.)

"They that be wise shall shine," &c. and remarks upon it as follows:-" They that turn many to righteous. ness." The verb is in the present tense. They shine forth while they are employed in turning many to righteousness, an evidence that they are on earth." (P. 169.) The verb turn is in the present tense to-be-sure:-but shall shine, and upon this the whole depends, is in the first fu ture tense. He speaks as though there were but one verb in the passage and goes on to paraphrase it as though it were throughout in the present tense." This he must certainly know is not the case. The critical acumen which he has displayed in this case, is really admirable!

This gentleman applies Mat. xxv. 46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment," &c. to the punishment of the Jews, on the destruction of Jerusalem. (P. 167.) And to support this application of the passage he quotes Mat. xvi. 27, 28. (See P. 169.) "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you there be some standing here, which shall not taste death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Christ's coming in the glory of his Father, in the 27th verse, we conceive, refers to a different event from his coming in his kingdom, in the 28th. For this coming of which he first speaks is accompanied by circumstances which did not take place within the life time of any of those who were then standing there.

This coming is marked by the following circumstances: 1. He would come" in the glory of his Father." 2. "With his angels." And 3. Then he would reward every man according to his works.” Now in what sense does our Examiner suppose that this last particular, especially, (waving the others,) was fulfilled on the destruction of Jerusalem? Here is an universal retribution spoken of: Then shall he reward every man."—It will not answer for the editor after what he has said upon the ❝ unequivocal" meaning of the " term every" to say that “every man" means the Jewish nation only. This would be to abandon the ground which he has taken, and to give up many passages upon which he much relies, as supporting the doctrine of universal salvation. Now as we have