forever happy hereafter. The word aionion, rendered eternal or everlasting, has not in these passages, the sense of duration, but signifies that which is spiritual. Some writers maintain that spiritual, is the primary meaning which was anciently attached to aionion. Let the passages quoted by Elder Holmes, be read "spiritual life," instead of eternal life, and their true sense will be obtained.

This subject reminds me to notice a remark in Elder Holmes third speech, which affords a good specimen of his lack of fairness as a controversialist. He charges me with maintaining that a man can be finally holy and happy, without having eternal life.* He well knows this is not my view. The ground I take is, that "eternal life," consists in possessing and enjoying a knowledge of God and Christ. Hence a man cannot be finally holy and happy without this knowledge. But he may have this knowl edge, this eternal life, without being in a state of final or perfect holiness and happiness.

The thirteenth Argument which Elder Holmes introduces in defence of Endless Punishment, is the Contrast between the righteous and the wicked. That there is a contrast between the condi tion of the righteous and the wicked, it only requires the exercise of our senses to discover. That there will always be a contrast in their circumstances and enjoyments, so long as the wicked continue wicked, is self-evident. But I trust the audience will have sufficient penetration to see that to prove there is a contrast be tween the righteous and the wicked, in life, at death, or any other time, is one thing, and to prove that men will always remain wicked, is another thing. There is no possible connection between the two subjects. Yet on their identity rests all the strength there is in the Elder's present argument. Because there is a distinction between the righteous and the wicked, does it follow that the wicked will not reform and become righteous? So long as men remain wicked, this contrast will exist. But I have adduced a mass of testimony in this discussion to show that all the wicked will eventually reform. When this takes place, the contrast will

cease.

The Elder introduces the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, to show that there is a contrast between the righteous and the wicked after death. To allow this, would grant him not the slightest evidence in support of the affirmative of this question. Because men are wicked after death, is no more proof that they will always continue wicked, than the wickedness of a willful boy, is evidence that he will never become a good and useful To obtain proof in support of his argument from the Rich Man and Lazarus, he is compelled to assume that it is a literal history of two veritable individuals. The custom prevailing quite

man.

See page 472.

generally among the more ignorant portion of the partialist clergy, of claiming this portion of scripture as a literal history, involves them in a mass of ridiculous absurdities. To suppose that one man could literally repose in the bosom of another-that Abraham's bosom is literally heaven-that hell is a sea of literal fire-that it is divided from heaven only by a gulf so narrow that conversation can be carried across it, and that the inhabitants of heaven and hell are in the habit of talking with each other-is to plunge into so much gross and childish nonsense, that it is astonishing men making pretensions to good sense and education, can have committed themselves to such a construction! The whole structure of the account, shows the Rich Man and Lazarus was uttered by Jesus as a parable. The learned and eminent Dr. Lightfoot, ridicules the idea that it is a literal history. He says, "That it was a parable, not only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it." Whitby, Hammond, Gill, and other well known commentators, also contend that it is a parable. But to settle this point, Saurin the celebrated Hugenot preacher, and Archbishop Tillotson, declare that in some ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament, the account commences as follows: "And he spake a parable unto them, saying, There was a certain rich man," etc. The passage being thus a parable, it has no reference to the future world-gives no description of the condition of men there, and thus fails of the purpose for which Elder Holmes introduced it. What are we to understand by this parable? Let me answer briefly. 1. By the Rich Man the Savior represents the Jews, especially their priesthood. 2. By the beggar, he represents the Gentile world. 3. By the death of the two personages, he describes the change in the circumstances of both Jews and Gentiles, which took place at the introduction of the gospel dispensation. 4. The Rich Man in hell [hades] represents the wretched condition of the Jews, when God had placed them aside as his chosen people. 5. The beggar in Abraham's bosom, indicates the entrance of the Gentiles into the gospel kingdom which the Redeemer established on earth. 6. The great gulf signifies the unbelief of the Jews in the Redeemer, whereby they have been kept in their unhappy state of alienation unto this day. This application might be carried farther in regard to several minor points, but time will not allow.

Elder Holmes claims that the Bible describes a contrast between the righteous and the wicked in the resurrection state. Supposing I should allow this to be true, my friend would gain nothing by the admission. As I have already shown, if men enter the next life in an alineated state of the heart, it is no evidence they will remain so forever. The evidence we have seen, is on the other side, that they will amend and become obedient. The scriptures however, which the Elder quotes, do not support him in the position he has assumed. He introduces a passage from

Luke xiv. 14, which speaks of "the Resurrection of the just." That the Savior could not have referred in this language, to the general resurrection of the dead, is evident from the fact that there is but one kind of such resurrection. The scriptures do not teach that there is a resurrection of one class of men, and not of another. But all arise from the power of the grave. The word "resurrection," has a variety of significations in the scriptures. Any important change of circumstances, especially any exaltation, is represented by the word resurrection [anastasis.] The resurrection of the just, evidently alludes to the time when the early followers of Christ, should be delivered from their persecutors, and restored to that public estimation, and the enjoyment of those rights, to which they were entitled. This restoration took place at the overthrow of the Jewish nation. The same view of the word Resurrection, should be taken in the passage where St. Paul speaks of attaining unto the resurrection of the dead. He could not have referred to the literal resurrection of the dead. That resurrection does not depend in the least upon men's labors, efforts or deserts. All men are to be raised from the dead, by the power of God. The resurrection after which St. Paul was striving, was a moral or spiritual elevation, or deliverance from the ignorance, predjudice and sinfulness which prevailed in that day, and from the evils which beset the followers of Christ in consequence of their faithfulness in proclaiming his gospel.

My friend has introduced John v. 28, 29, to prove his contrast between the condition of the righteous and the wicked in the general resurrection. And here he commits his usual blunder, in taking it for granted this passage refers to the literal resurrection of the dead, when it shows upon its face, that it is a moral or spiritual resurrection to which the Savior alludes. As I have already explained this passage,* it will not be necessary to dwell upon it now.

The Elder has also brought to our notice "the second death," in Rev. xx. 14. Why cannot men of sense see that in a discussion like this, it is not enough simply to quote a disputed passage, and assume that it has a particular meaning, without furnishing proof in support of it! Has my opponent shown any evidence that the second death signifies a state of endless suffering? Not a particle. His ipse dixit is all that the audience has to depend upon. In this assumption he overthrows principles he has heretofore laid down. He has insisted that in death there is no element of life--that it is a total extinction of happiness. If this be true--if the first death is a total extinction of life and happiness, how then, can there be a second death--in his view of the subject? Can we say of a dead body, that sometime hence, it *See page 377-378.

629

will be dead a second time-that it will experience a second dissolution? I trust the audience well know the book of Revelations is highly figurative in its style. To take the metaphorical expressions of such a book, and apply them literally to the support of any doctrine, is to show either a consummate ignorance, on the part of him who does it, or a desposition to insult the good sense of community! The "second death," is a figurative form of speech, used by the Revelator unquestionably in reference to God's dealings with the Jews. It was a national death. The first death of that people, was their Babylonian captivity. Hence the prophet in foretelling their release from it, and their return to Judea, describes it as their coming forth from their graves. (See Ezek. xxxvii. 12.) The second death was similar in its nature. It was a national death. It indicates the state of darkness, unbelief and wretchedness, into which the Jews as a people were cast, soon after the death of Christ, and in which they continue to the present day.

Elder Holmes says that men will be the same in the resurrection, as at death. How presumptuous and blind is such an assertion. Can a man who has ever faithfully and understandingly read his Bible for an hour, make a declaration so perfectly groundless? It positively and flatly contradicts the plain language of St Paul. In his description of the resurrection of the dead, he says "Behold, I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall ALL be CHANGED, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruption MUST put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."-(1 Cor. xv. 51-53.)

My opponent insists that a contrast will exist between the righteous and the wicked in the Day of Judgment. That such a contrast exists in the true day or time of judgment, I have no doubt. But before the Elder quotes Scripture to show such contrast will exist in a future general day of judgment, he had better prove such a day is ever to arrive. I deny that the Bible gives the slightest sanction to such a notion, and will show in due time, that this denial is not mere assertion.

Mr. Holmes' fourteenth Argument in defence of Endless Punishment, he attempts to draw from a Future and General Day of Judgment. I wish the audience to notice that this argument has not the slightest relation to the subject under consideration. If he could introduce proof that such a judgment will take place in the future world, it would neither prove Universalism false, or endless misery true. Many Universalists have believed in a day of Judgmment in the next life. They maintain that the punishment inflicted on the wicked at that time, will be temporary and remedial, and will result in their amendment and restoration to holiness and happiness. These views the Elder must overthrow-he

must show that the punishments inflicted on the wicked in his future day of judgment, will not be remedial and restoring, but vindictive, revengeful and unending--before his argument can be of the slightest avail to him.

This argument from the Day of Judgment abounds with assumptions of the most bare-faced description. Let me notice a few of the most prominent. 1. The Elder assumes, as we have seen, that punishments inflicted upon the wicked at that time, will be endless. This he has not proved, and cannot. 2. He assumes that the day of Judgment, and the literal resurrection of the dead, will be simultaneous. Whereas, in the Bible, they are never represented as occuring at the same time, or in any way connected; but they are invariably described as events which will take place at different times, and at periods far apart. Those passages of Scripture which speak of the resurrection of the dead, say nothing of a judgment: and those which speak of a judgment, make no mention of the resurrection. 3. He assumes, that to judge mankind signifies to assemble them in a body-institute a judicial trial, and pass sentence upon them. But the word "judge” or “judgment,"―[krima, krinein, kriseos,] is frequently used in the Scripture to designate power to reign, to exercise authority, dominion. To judge men is to rule over them as a Prince or a Sovereign. 4. He assumes, that the judgment is to take place at a time still future, and in another world; whereas, the Bible declares that it takes place on the earth, and commenced eighteen centuries ago. There can be nothing more positive than the assertions of the Scriptures, that Christ's judgment takes place in this world. They do not describe mankind as going into another world to be judged, but assert that Christ came into this world to judge. Jesus says "For judgment I am come into THIS world."-(John ix. 39.) "Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth."-(Ps. lviii. 11.) judgments are in all the earth."--(Ps. cv. 7.) “I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment and righteousness, in the earth." (Jer. ix. 24.) Those passages which speak of Christ accompanied by his angels, preparing to judge mankind, describe him as coming to this world, to engage in that work, and not mankind as going to them in another world after death. For instance "When the Son of man shall COME in his glory, and all the holy angels with him," etc.-(Matt. xxv. 31.) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his Father, with his angels,” etc. --(Matt. xvi. 27.) That judgment is not deferred to an indefinite time still future, but commenced with the introduction of the Christian era, is evident from the plainest declarations of Christ. He says-" NOW, is the judgment of this world."-(John xii. 31.) In reference to the time when he should "come" with his holy angels, to judge the world, the Savior declares--"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -(Matt xxiv. 34.) "Verily I say unto you, there be some stand

66

** His