Luke xvii. 30, 31. "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In THAT DAY, he which shall be upon the house top, and his staff in the house, let him not come down to take it away." This undeniably relates to the destruction of Jerusalem and the events connected therewith. See Luke xxi. 22. "These be the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled." This refers to the same events. For the meaning of the phrase "presence of the Lord," see Gen. iv. 16, Jonah i. 3, and other places. To the objection, that the brethren at Thessalonica were little interested in the destruction of the Jewish state, being so far distant, we reply in the words of Macknight: "As the Jews were the bitter persecutors of the christians, in all countries where they had any power, it must have been a great consolation to the brethren everywhere, to be assured that the power of their chief persecutors was soon to be utterly broken"! Com. 1 Pet. iv. 7. [For remarks on 1 Thess. iv. 16. 1 Cor. xv. 23, 26, see exposition of 1 Cor. xv. in Chap. I. See the same for remarks on Phil. iii. 20, 21. The remaining texts cited by Mr. Hall, are sufficiently explained in Part I. of this chapter.] Thus our author's attempt to prove a second coming of Christ yet future, is a most signal failure. And, what is better, we have fought him chiefly with his own sword -by testimony from believers in endless misery! The truth is, the mass of Partialists know nothing of the writings of their own authors. Did they but know that there is scarcely a text, in reference to this subject, on which they agree; they would, in our opinion, be less willing to render an easy credulity to every ignoramus, or cunning deceiver, who makes an exhortation or writes a book!! CHAPTER III. THE JUDGMENT. Our author next proceeds to edify his readers with his views of "The General Judgment." With 'twenty five incontrovertible arguments' he proposes to prove that 'the day of Judgment is yet future, after death, and at the resurrection of the dead.' Before entering upon the main subject, however, Mr. Hall stops to let go a shot at the Universalist view of the case, If his statement can be believed, Universalists have "two theories with respect to the day of Judgment; so that when one gives way, the other is seized as the only true ground upon the subject.”— And to support these two theories they have three texts of scripture-yes, reader, all of three texts of scripture to support two theories-each individual text, of course, point blank against them. This, it must be confessed, is somewhat of an inauspicious state of things, but, as our modest and truth-loving author's veracity is above suspicion, we must make the best of it we can, and as honest men be thankful for small favors. ་ It may interest the reader to know what those three proof-texts are, and what relation they have to the subject. The first occurs in John ix. 39. "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world; that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind." Our author says that this text refers to the displays of Christ's miraculous power in attestation of his Mesiahship. To this we have no particular objection; though to us, it appears rather to denote the manifestation of the true characters of men, which would be one of the results of Christ's ministry. "I came into the world, that the children of light and the children of darkness might be distinguished." Be this as it may, one fact is beyond dispute: The word judgment does not necessarily refer to a judgment beyond death! This Universalits have ever maintained; and, it is precisely what Mr. Hall ADMITS. The second text occurs in John xii. 31. "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. "Wonderful to tell, our author confesses that of the true meaning of this he is utterly ignorant. He thinks it may refer to the judgment of the chief priests against the Saviour: but in our opinion the sense of the text would be accurately expressed if the word krisis, here rendered judgment, were merely clothed in its English form, crisis, and left untranslated. A crisis was near at hand in the life of our Saviour. His death was about to be consummated; and, "thenceforth, the cause of truth and holiness was to become triumphant over false hood and ungodliness, gradually overthrowing every opposition, until all should be purified and gathered to Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, according to the assurance in verse 22: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me"!! "The time The third text occurs in 1 Peter iv. 17. is come that Judgment must begin at the house of God." Our author thinks that as we dispense with the italicised word one in Ia. xlv. 24, we should in this case dispense with the italicised words, is come. Does Mr. Hall mean to say that the italicised words in every case are either necessary or unnecessary? If so, he is a greater blockhead than we have heretofore taken him for. In the next place he says is come is in the present tense, and must begin in the future; which, in his estimation, does not make sense. Wonderful, indeed!What would he say of sentences like the following: The time is come when we must depart? The time is come when we must begin work? &c., &c. Would he presume to say that these sentences are senseless or improper? We presume not. Neither is the construction of the text improper; and he knows it! Macknight thinks the text refers to the judgment which came on the Jews, as described in Matt. xxiii. 35. Dr. Clarke's opinion, which we earnestly recommend the reader to examine, is the same. And now, pray what two theories of a judgment do these three texts support? It would no doubt puzzle the wise Mr. Hall to tell. The truth is, they simply develop a grand doctrine of the scripture; to wit: that God executes judgment in the earth; a doctrine supported not only by three texts but by more than THIRTY!! See Section V. Let us now proceed to Mr. Hall's twenty-five incontrovertible arguments; which, by the way, are merely twenty-five quotations of Scripture, coupled with a mass of foolish rodomontade, and saddled with a mongrel, hotch-potch melange of doctrines which he dignifies by the name of Universalism! We shall only examine those texts generally supposed to be of the most difficult construction, and on which our author places the most reliance. I Heb. ix. 27, 28. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. Our author says Universalists have two ways of interpreting this text; to wit: 1. That after this the judg ment does not mean after death but after this appointment; 2. That tois anthropois, here translated men, should have been rendered these men, meaning the Jewish high priests. Unluckily for our truth-loving author, he has fallen into an error here. In the first place, no Universalist ever mantained, that the adjective this, positively referred to the appointment. It may have been suggested that its reference was doubtful and involved a difficulty, but further than this no Universalist has ever affirmed. Mr. Hall's grammatical parallel, as he terms it, is not in point. It is true, if we should say, 'It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the funeral,' it would be very improper to understand us to mean that a man must have his funeral sermon preached before he dies. But, to apply this illustration to the text, is literally begging the question. It is a settled fact that a man's funeral must take place after his death; but it is not a settled fact that the judgment must take place after death. This is the very thing to be proved. In the illustration, the fact that the funeral is subsequent to death is a fact previously known. Not so in the case in question; and hence, we suppose it has been argued that the reference of the adjective this, is indeterminate. In the second place, it is not true that Universalists say that tois anthropois should have been translated these men. Tois is an article, and in this place should be rendered by our English article the; but which, in the phrase in question, certainly implies the same as these. A literal translation of the text might read thus: 'As it is appointed unto the men;' i. e. the men who ministered in the priestly office; 'once to die' or to signify their death by sacrifice-'and after |