he shall say, I answer if the word occur in the original, it must personate the number previously spoken of.— But this is questionable; for we find on examination, Barnes renders the text, "Truly in Jehovah shall men say, is their righteousness and strength." And he remarks: "The main thought is, that there shall be an universal acknowledgment that salvation and strength are in Jehovah alone."

2. "Even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed." Thus some men are to be inscensed; that is, enraged or at enmity against God in the resurrection state! Will such be holy and happy? As some men are to be ashamed in the resurrection. Will such characters be saved? No; for Paul says: "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Rom. ix. 33. Hence they are unbelievers in eternity, and consequently, damned."

ANS: This will never do. A man who would acquire a reputation for sanity, should not fly thus recklessly in the face of scripture and the laws of language. "Are inscensed,," is in the present tense and of course has nothing to do with the fulfilment of what is previously promised.-"Shall be ashamed," is in the future tense, and hence does not concern the period at which men are said to be inscensed, nor in any respect is it inconsistent with the idea of Salvation. Of the rebellious Jews, God says by the prophet: "Nevertheless, I will remember my Covenant with thee in the days of thy youth. . . . Then shalt thou remember thy ways and be ashamed when I am pacified towards thee for all thou hast done, saith the Lord." Ez. xvi. 61, 3. It is probable that this prophecy, as it distinctly sets forth the

consolidation of both Jew and Gentile into one family, looks to the same event as the one in review.

The quotation of Rom. ix. 33, is not in point. Its application to the point in dispute is a dastardly misapplication of its meaning. Those who believe on Christ shall not be ashamed of believing; for says Paul "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ." Rom. i. 16.— Nevertheless, he was doubtless, ashamed of his past sins as was certain other believers whom he addressed: "What fruit have ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?" Rom. vi. 21. Moreover Barnes renders the text, "All who were inscensed," which makes our view of the case still stronger. And besides JARCHI, as quoted by Barnes gives a still more favorable rendering: "All who have opposed themselves to God shail come to him led by penitence on account of the things which they had done, and shall be ashamed." Thus our authors reasoning is proved to be about as strong as a cord of moonshine!

3. "By referring Isa. xlv. 23 to the resurrection state, they admit there and then is to be the judgment seat of Christ. Now hear the apostle Paul: "But why doest thou judge thy brother? Or why doest thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. (How do you know Paul?) Because "it is written." (Where? in Isa. lv. 23.What?) "As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God." Rom. xiv. 10, 11. Thus the whole theory of Universalism is effectually capsized by applying this proof text as it does, to the resurrection state; for Paul quotes the very same passage, and proves by it that we shall stand before

the judgment seat of Christ, at the very time when this bowing and confessing shall take place.”

ANS: In the first place, admiting all that is alleged above to be true to the letter, it affects not in the slightest degree the ultimate issue. Be there ten thousand judgments, and as many judgment seats of Christ, and all in the et ernal world, it is not one particle of evidence of endless misery, nor that all men ultimately will not be made holy and happy. It requires not superextra intelligence to see this.

The question, therefore, at issue, concerns but a single point: Does the application of Isa. xlv. 23 to the resurrection state prove "that then and there is the judgment seat of Christ?"-or that judgment by Christ is confined entirely to the resurrection state ?— Mr. Hall affirms; we deny; and we predicate our denial on the following specifications:

1. The judgment by Christ is represented as commencing contemporary with the divine kingdom. Dan. vii. 9, 14.

2. The Kingdom was set up and the judgment established, "that all people, nations, and languages should serve him."-that "every knee should bow, and every tongue confess, that in the Lord they have righteousness and strength."

3. The apostle represents the divine rule and judgment as the means by which this glorious result shall be consummated. Hence the inquiry: "But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."-That is, we shall all be subjects of his kingdom, governed by his laws, and therefore, he is the only legitimate authority to execute judgment.

But what proof had he of this? Ans: Prophetic proof, setting forth the results of the Messianic administration; to wit: "For it is written, As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."-The apostle reasons from the effect back to the cause,-from the result of the divine government to the means by which that result shall be secured; and this method of argumentation could not be less than conclusive to his antagonist who admitted the inspiration of the apostles. Now, therefore, unless it can be proved that the kingdom of the Redeemer and the government there with connected are things which are yet to be established exclusively in the eternal world, it cannot be proved that the judgment seat of Christ belongs exclusively to the resurrection state! As it is impossible to take the necessary preliminary step, we are confident the latter position can never be established; and hence the dilema is completed.

4. "But the last verse of this chapter is supposed to teach Universalism. "In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall glory." In order to make this text tell any thing in favor of Universalism, two things must be proved. 1. That shall is used in an absolute or unconditional sense. 2. That "all the seed of Israel" means the entire Jewish nation, as contradistinguished from the Gentiles, without a single exception."

ANS: "To justify here," says Barnes, "is not to vindicate, or pronounce them innocent, or to regard them as deserving of his favor; but it is to forgive, to receive them into favor, and to resolve to treat them as if they had not sinned; that is, to treat them as if they were righteous. All this is by the mercy and grace of God."

Hence it appears at once that the first specification is proved that shall is not used conditionally. The reader will please examine again the latter part of section first.

The second specification is proven by the fact, that the phrase. "All Israel," or the seed of Israel, when used doctrinally, as in this instance, signifies the whole, without an exception: When used historically, as in the instance cited by Mr. Hall, 2nd Kings xxvii. 18, 20, it is liable to a limitation.

SECTION VIII.

Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.

Against this declaration of the Almighty, Mr. Hall enters a broad and emphatic denial. He admits God has said he will do all his pleasure, but that he has kept, or will keep his word, he denies in toto! This is his language: "We will prove that the pleasure of the Lord is, and has been frustrated in many instances."p. 34. "The pleasure of the Lord is not always done." p. 28.

Against such anti-scriptural notions and absurdities, we cannot do better than to quote in full the comment on this text in Banes' Notes on Isaiah. As Mr. Barnes is a New School Presbyterian, and the author of several very popular commentaries, his learning nor orthodoxy, of course, will not be questioned.