We are informed in 2 Peter iii. 7, that the heavens and the earth which are now, are reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.. Here we find a number of important events connected with the day of judgment, if we understand the passage according to the natural import of words. Many commentators explain the hea. vens and the earth figuratively, but they evidently do violence to the connection. In the preceding verses the drowning and perishing of the old world by water is mentioned, which must be understood to relate to the time of Noah, and is a literal description. Then why not understand this in the same manner, which is introduced with an evident allusion to it, and by a just comparison?

We have one more text to mention, and then we have examined all at the head of this Lecture. It is Jude 6. "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." It is not necessary to this subject to contend about who those angels were; but it is just to remark how well this passage accords with the one we have consid. ered in St. Peter, in their being reserved un. to the judgment of the great day.

Having thus examined the scriptures selected, with a view to find whether they support the doctrine of future retribution or not, we

I

may now proceed to examine other relative and important particulars. The scriptural testimony which I have now brought forward to substantiate a belief in future retribution, though ample, is by no means exhausted. have endeavoured in this and the preceding Lectures to avoid all parables, however plain their allusion to this subject, unless they were followed by an immediate explanation. My object in this is to render the subject as plain and indisputable as possible.

With respect to the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked, we find nothing in these passages that express duration, except the term everlasting in two places. In one of these the text itself limits it: "He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day;" but nothing is said of their being under these chains any longer than to the great day. Relative to the other text my hearers are directed to the concession of a learned author, mentioned in the first Lecture.

We will now attend to some arguments against the doctrine of future punishment.

It is objected and stated, that it is contrary to every representation of scripture that Christ came into this world to save men in another. Reply, Is it contrary to every representation in scripture that Christ came into this world to begin the work of salvation, and extend it to another? In Acts xiii. 23, we read that

God has raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus; but he has not yet saved Israel in this world. We read in another place that all Israel shull be saved; but if many of them are not saved in another world or life, can any person believe this scripture true? "God sent not his Son to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved;" but can any one believe he saves the whole world in this life? It is almost too plain an error to need refutation.

Another objection to future punishment is founded on the nature of sin, as receiving its origin in the flesh, and constantly supported by the improper desires of the same; and when the body returns to dust, nothing more remains of sin, and consequently no need of punishment, or in other words, there is nothing wicked to punish. This objection supposes the soul or moral faculties of man perfectly pure in its nature, without the possibility of moral defilement; but loses the balance of power by the superior power of the flesh. If this be not admitted, the objection loses all its force. If it be admitted, how can we introduce the doctrine of regeneration? It is not the flesh that is to be regenerated; it is not the principles of the "old man" that is to be reformed; but to be put under as St. Paul says, "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection." If the soul of man be always pure in its nature, then all men are as holy as

Jesus Christ; for he by reason of the flesh was tempted in all points like as we are, but never committed sin. If the soul of man be capable of receiving impurity and suffering the reigning power of death, as "the wages of sin is death," and "the soul that sinneth shall die," is it reasonable to suppose that when involved in this state, the throwing off of the body only would save it? It is presumed the idea cannot be maintained by any just rules of philosophical reasoning, and evidently not from scripture. St. James says, "Let him know that he who converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death." Should we admit the affirmative of the aforementioned question it would be as proper if it read, "Let him know that he who murdereth the sinner will save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins." In this case the sinner being delivered from the earthly frame would be immediately sav ed according to the idea we are considering, as directly as according to the original reading of the text. It may be further observed that the admittance of the question confines the benefits of the salvation of Jesus Christ to this mortal existence, where but a small portion of the whole ransomed of the Lord are made the actual partakers of these benefits.But when death comes with his killing power, he slays the whole race of Adam's sons, and raises millions to glory, before the gospel in

demonstration of the spirit, and of power, could reach them.

A third objection to future punishment is, that no men are sinners in future life; therefore are not punishable. Answer, the question is begged, and not formed on good authority. An unjust man is a sinner; and St. Peter says, the Lord knows how to reserve such to the day of judgment to be punished. If the unjust cr sinners are reserved to the day of judgment and punished at that time, will there not be sinners then? Let the contrary be proved, and then the question may be urged with some propriety. It is not to be inferred, because we have no account of crimes committed in future life, that none can be sinners,any more than because we have no account of good works that none will be righteous. And I know not but we are as destitute of any particular account of the latter as we are of the former. In this life, we do not suppose the sinner always actual in commission of crimes; yet he is ever considered a sinner, till he becomes a saint, although in some instances he has fed the hungry and clothed the naked.

We sometimes find an objection, urged against the idea of punishment in future life, from a supposed necessity, that it detracts from the honor due to salvation through Christ. If punishment be necessary to salvation, says the objector, they are not saved by