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 sinall 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

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