the broken and contrite heart, and rewards holy submission to his will with his peculiar favor. The reward is not a REWARD OF MERIT, but a REWARD OF GRACE, or favor. It is so in this world. No benefit received in this world, by virtue of our obedience, is merited. Every blessing is a gift-and if a reward, a reward of grace. Think of these things till you hear from me again. Yours, as ever.

You will admit that every argument favoring the idea, that the righteous will be rewarded in the world to come, implies punishment for the wicked. There are many passages in the Bible, which to my mind, as clearly promise rewards of grace to the righteous, as language can express the idea; some of these passages your preachers and authors have attempted to explain away, but have utterly failed. Let us look at some of these important texts. Read for instance, 2 Cor. 4: 17, 18. "For our light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are unseen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Here the afflictions of the righteous, such as they sometimes experience in this world, are said to be but for a moment, and work for them, not temporal, transient rewards, but an eternal weight of glory. Human language can express no more. Do you say these rewards are experienced in time-that they are temporal? Here you contradict the Apostle. He says they look [for their reward] not to things seen which are temporal, but at things which are not now seen, but are eternal.". What can Universalism do with this passage? If you explain it away, it will not, it cannot stay explained. While the Bible lives, it will be to all the afflicted followers of the Lamb, a solace and comfort, a pledge that righteous sufferings in this world shall be rewarded with "an eternal weight of glory."

There are many passages of similar import. Read Rom. 8: 17, 18. "If children, then heirs ; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be

also glorified together, for I reckon that the sufferings of this present time, are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Here those who suffer with Christ, that is, in his cause, have a promise that they shall be glorified with their Saviour. This implies a radical distinction in the future condition of those who suffer with and for Christ, and those who madly inflict these sufferings. The sufferings of the righteous here, when persecuted by the enemies of God, though in themselves painful and severe, the Apostle regards as momentary, temporal and too light to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in them. The same sentiment is clearly taught in yet another form, in 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12.— "It is a faithful saying; for if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him; if we suffer, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us."

Here it is manifest, that the apostle gives us a conditional promise. Our future reign with the Lord is promised upon the condition that "we be dead with him,"-"that we suffer" with him. Not to be dead to sin with Christ is to deny him, and in such a case he threatens he will deny us.

Again, I cannot adopt your system, because I find in the Bible a class of texts, which speak of the blessings of the heavenly world, as a reward of grace for deeds of piety and benevolence. I will give a specimen. Take the case of the young man who came to Christ with this inquiry, "Good master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" Now if Christ had been a Universalist preacher, what a convenient opportunity he had here to teach that doctrine? He would naturally have said to the young man, "You labor under a great mistake in supposing that you can do any thing to secure or endanger your eternal life. The blessing of eternal life, is the gift of God, and will be bestowed upon all men, without regard to previous character." This is the way a modern Universalist would have answered his inquiry. But how did our blessed Lord answer him? After testing his self-righteousness a little, in order to bring out this feature of his character, he said:"If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that thou hast and give to the poor; and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me." Matt. 19: 21.

Here the Saviour required that the young man should give up his supreme selfishness, consecrate himself and his possessions to the cause of Christ, in order to secure a treasure in heaven. Universalist preachers never teach on this wise.Again, we hear our Lord on a certain occasion, when at the

table of a Pharisee, whose creed embraced the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, of the just and unjust, in their distinctive characters, discoursing on this wise:" When thou makest a dinner or supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee; but when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee, for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Can words teach the doctrine of future rewards more plainly? Who was the speaker? The Faithful and True Witness. To whom did he speak? To one of the Pharisees-a sect who believed that the righteous and wicked would have a distinct resurrection. Whom was he not to invite to his dinners and suppers? His rich neighbors and kinsmen. Why not? Because they would make a similar entertainment, and thus recompense be made to him in this world. Whom was he to invite? The poor, blind, and wretched. Why? Because they cannot reward him. This would be an act of benevolence. But shall benevolence lose its reward? By no means. shall be rewarded at the resurrection of the just. What can Universalism do with this text? Explain it away. But will it stay explained away? Let us see. An explanation has been attempted by Thomas Whittemore, the Editor of the Trumpet. It is perhaps the best the system is capable of. It is expressed as follows.

It

"Jesus was directing them when they made feasts to be careful not to forget the poor; called the poor, the lame, the blind." He anticipates the objections of the Pharisees, who would say, but if I do this, how shall I be recompensed? He assures them that they should not lose their recompense; for, although the poor would not recompense them, yet when the poor were raised [this is the resurrection of the just] from inactivity to action, from obscurity to eminence, or returned to, such a state after an interruption, then they should be recompensed."

Look at this ridiculous attempt to get rid of one of the simplest and plainest texts in the Bible. It makes Christ utter nonsense, and contradict himself. In plain English, it makes Christ address the Pharisees thus:

"Give not to the rich. Why not? Because they can and will repay. But give to the poor. Why? Because they will soon rise, if they are righteous, from obscurity to eminence, from inactivity to action, from poverty to wealth, and then they

will repay you."That is, give not to the rich, for they will repay you, but give to the righteous poor, because they will become rich and repay you. Did Christ ever utter such nonsense? Never. It is an abomination in his sight. The exposition is so absurd and self-contradictory that it needs no further notice. It refutes itself.

Under this class of texts I will refer you to Luke 18: 29, 30. "And he said unto them, verily, I say unto you there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time and in the world to come life everlasting." What will the Universalist do with this text? Why-your preachers attempt to refer it to the famous destruction of Jerusalem. They attempt a Greek criticism upon the word aion, rendered 'world' in the text-tell us it means age, and that the then existing age was the Jewish age or dispensation, which ended at the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the age or dispensation to come is the gospel dispensation. With the aid of this criticism the purport of the promise of Christ is made out to be this; 'No man that hath left house or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, (that is, under the Jewish dispensation) and in the world to come, (the gospel dispensation which is to open at the destruction of Jerusalem,) everlasting life.'_ Is this all straight? Will it bear examination? I think not. Error is fated to run crooked. I object to this exposition,

1. That it is built on false premises. As a matter of fact, it is not true that Christ and his Apostles lived, taught and died under the Jewish dispensation or age. Upon this subject we are not left to mere conjecture. The Saviour has told us how far the dispensation of the law and the prophets extended. Hear him. The law and the Prophets were until John; since that the kingdom of God (the gospel kingdom) is preached." When John introduced his disciples to the true Messiah, saying "Behold the Lamb of God"-then Judaism received its death blow; when the Messiah expired on the cross as a sin-offering, he nailed all ordinances, purely Jewish, to his cross, broke down the middle wall, and partition between Jew and Gentile. With the preaching of Christ then the Christian dispensation cominenced.

2. The construction put upon the word AION, rendered * world' in the text, is deceptive. It does not denote a limited period, or portion of time in itself considered. According t

the best Greek lexicographers, it primarily denotes always be ing, and expresses the longest period the subject to which it applies, is capable of. Grove defines it thus, AION,' ever being; eternity, an age, life, dispensation of Providence, duration or continuance of time, a period, a revolution of ages, this world, the world or life to 'come.'

3. If the world to come' here denotes a period in this world subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, then our Saviour was guilty of teaching false doctrine. His language is general "There is no MAN that hath, &c. who shall not receive," &c. Now, as a matter of fact, the most of those who became his followers during his personal ministry, died before the destruction of Jerusalem. They did not-could not, then according to your construction, receive life everlasting in the gospel dispensation. And if Christ has made a false promise in one instance, as your exposition implies, what reason have you to believe that he has not in every instance?

4. It is not true that the primitive church enjoyed any privileges at, or immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem, which they did not enjoy from the beginning. No historian, Pagan, Jewish, or Christian gives an intimation of any such oc

currence.

5. From the parallel passage in Matt. 19: 28, we learn that this reward of everlasting life is to be dispensed in the regeneration—that is, when the Lord Jesus Christ shall create new heavens and earth.

I have yet several other passages teaching us that the righteous are to be rewarded in the world to come, which I hope to present for your consideration. Yours as ever,

My Dear Sir:

LETTER XVI.

I have not yet done with my argument in favor of the doctrine of future retribution as drawn from the promises. The evidence here is as ample, explicit as I could wish. The limits which I have marked out for myself in this correspondence will allow me however, only room to present you with a specimen of the different classes of promises of eternal salvation, which,being conditional,necessarily imply future retribution.Allow me then to say, I cannot believe your doctrine,

1. Because I find a class of texts in the Bible in which we