guilty, to quicken the good, to assert the rights, and maintain the justice of God's throne; I cannot but think it the greatest rashness to deny or call it in question.

I have now laid before you a part of the evidence which supports the important doctrine of a future judgment; and though the subject is far from being exhausted, you may perceive that few subjects are capable of being supported by evidence so full and satisfactory. I would ask the deniers of this doctrine how it ought to have been expressed to be entitled to credit?Can they find any clearer expressions than those which have been employed? Observe, the judgment is uniformly described as an event still future. That we may not mistake its period, it is said to be after death, and otherwise described as following the general resurrection. As though to put it beyond all doubt, the fallen angels, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the generations of the Gentiles who lived and died before the commencement of the Gospel dispensation, we are told, are reserved unto the judgment of the great day. And finally, the adjuncts of the judgment are such as clearly distinguish that day from all others; such as the appearing of the Son of man in glory, with his mighty angels; the burning of the earth, the melting and passing away of the heavenly bodies, &c. Have these circumstances ever existed? To what event, to the destruction of what city or kingdom, will they apply? It will not be denied that some of these circumstances have

been figuratively employed by the inspired wri ters to express political revolutions in earthly kingdoms. But every figure is taken from something real; and where shall we look for the reality of these things except in the circumstances of the last judgment? Let this be considered by those who deny a future judgment, and they will no longer pretend that they have found a parallel in the circumstances of the destruction of the Egyptian, the Babylonian, the Idumean, or the Jewish state. If the revolutions and changes in these governments are expressed in figurative language, as all admit, the same language must have a literal meaning somewhere; and yet upon the principles of our opponents the literal meaning cannot be found.

And

To deny a doctrine so well supported by Scripture evidence as that of a future judgment. is the direct road to skepticism and infidelity, and can hardly fail to produce the worst effects upon the minds of men. If such evidence can be set aside by sophistical exceptions in one case, it can in another, and in all cases. he who has conquered his faith in the doctrine of a future judgment, is prepared to go farther, and will, if inclination and interest serve, give up one point after another till Christianity be reduced to the standard of a vain philosophy, or natural religion be substituted in its place. Beside, the mind being freed from the restraints of the terrors of the Lord, as St. Paul terms the future judgment, is more assailable by temptation and error, less likely to search diligently

for truth, to judge accurately, or proceed with due caution in a case where inclination is opposed to duty. In this way a wide door is thrown open to error and irreligion, if not to downright licentiousness.

There has seldom been a time when it was more necessary to reason of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, than the present; and the assurance with which the judgment is denied, is a principal reason why it should be insisted on by the ministers of Christ. Our Saviour and his apostles frequently allude to it by way of admonition, and perhaps with less occasion than now exists. To how many towns and cities in our favoured land might we say, Wo unto you! "It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah, yea, for Chorazin and Bethsaida, in the day of judgment, than for you." For had the inhabitants of these cities heard as many Gospel sermons, and seen as much of the work of the Lord as has been

66

wrought before your eyes, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.". Every minister of Christ, and every Christian, should continually say, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."

If the doctrine of future judgment be true, that of future punishment must be true also.These doctrines stand or fall together. The sentence of the great day will confirm and consummate the sentence more privately passed both upon the righteous and the wicked as they left this world. Yea, the decisions of that day

will close the administration of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, and that kingdom shall then be given up to the Father, that God may be all in all. Every argument, therefore, which proves a future judgment, proves also future punishment. There is just as much evidence for one of these doctrines as for the other.

And though to prove the endless duration of future punishment was not the object of this discourse, I cannot forbear to notice how clearly it follows from the decision of the last day.Whatever the terms be in which the sentence upon the wicked is expressed, they must imply endless duration; not only because they are prospective, and look forward into eternity, without any rate of time to limit their signification, but because the administration of the mediatorial kingdom will then have ceased. There is then no longer a mediator between God and men. Mercy is no longer exercised toward the guilty. The "clement, mediatorial" day is over. The harvest with them is passed, the summer is ended, and they are not saved. Then they may knock, but it shall not be opened! they may call, but he will not answer.

The use to be made of this subject is that of admonition. If there is to be a judgment, let us prepare for it. This is our time, the accepted time, the day of salvation. And how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation as is now offered! And remember that the time is short.

"Lo, on a narrow neck of land,
"Twixt two unbounded seas we stand,
Secure, insensible:

A point of time, a moment's space,
Removes us to that heavenly place,
Or shuts us up in helt."

October 25, 1827.

ANSWER I.

Remarks on Mr. Paige's Reply to Lecture I. My opponent passes over in silence the whole of my reasoning on the evidence of future judgment, the importance of that doctrine, and the danger of denying it. He observes no rules in the interpretation of Scripture. Of the following rules of exegesis we should never lose sight:

Explain the passage under consideration agreeably to the context, where there is a connection, and never fancy a connection where there is none.

Explain the passage by what is known of the subject to which it relates.

Explain the text by other passages relating to the same subject.

Explain literal passages by literal, and not by figurative passages.

Explain the same passage uniformly in the same manner, or be consistent.

My opponent infringes one or other of these rules continually, as we shall see in the progress of this discussion.