and "Kingdom of Heaven," in the New Testament, universally mean the reign of the Messiah. I cannot admit this. Heaven was understood by the cotemporaries of Christ, and those whom he addressed, to signify the glorious abode of the blessed in the spiritual world. Such must have been the understanding of the apostle when he declared that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," I acknowledge that by a figure of speech, the term was occasionally used to signify some striking and peculiar manifestation of divine power on the earth. But this was not its literal meaning, nor the sense in which it was usually understood.

SMITH. I will now make an observation that might, perhaps, have been more properly made when I first entered on this debate, but which escaped me at that time. My opponent in his introductory address, required me to prove that there is not any state of future retribution, and that Christ taught no such doctrine.

Now I hardly think that I can be called upon to prove a negative. It is contrary to the usage of all courts and all disputants. I apprehend it will be sufficient for me to answer such arguments as may be produced by my opponent.

My friend maintains, that the doctrine of a future retribution being generally received among the Jews, Christ, if he did not expressly explode that doctrine, must be considered to have sanctioned it. But in my apprehension this argument proves a great deal too much. For we may say in like manner, of every other notion received by the cotemporaries of Christ, that if he did not explode those doctrines, he must be considered as having maintained them.

The Jews, in the time of Christ, had incorporated into their religion a great number of traditions and heathen doctrines. They believed for instance, in the existence of a vast number of devils or demons, under the command of a prince Beelzebub, and that these devils possessed men, as it was called. Now Christ was certainly far from exploding those false notions; for when the pharisees accused him of casting out devils by demoniacal assistance, he made the following answer---"If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out ?" And yet, who will suppose that Christ meant to give his sanction to the doctrine of demoniacal possession, or to imply that the children of the pharisees had the power of casting out devils?

The early disciples, even the Apostles themselves, entertained mistaken notions about the kingdom of Christ, which they took at first to be a temporal kingdom; and these notions Christ only in part corrected.

Paul, when he writes to the Galatians, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you," uses the language of a believer in witchcraft, and might seem to sanction an erroneous notion almost universal in his time.

As to the passage in Phillippians, my friend's interpretation will carry him too far. We cannot suppose that when the apostle directed those to whom he wrote to possess the same mind as was in Christ, that he would make the case of Christ analagous to ours. Christ was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Can we possibly suppose that the apostle would have us take the form of God, or assume an equality with God? What he meant was, that we were to possess the same humility, and the same confidence in God, that Christ did. I still maintain that there is no analogy between Christ's case and ours. For it was necessary that Christ should be upheld by God, and kept from falling, in a manner not granted to us, in order that he might leave us a perfect example. Had he been weak as we are, he would have fallen as we do, and could not have left us a perfect example. He had the spirit without measure, we have it with measure; he had power over all things, we have not. All this shows there is no analogy between his case and ours.

My friend thinks Christ must have received the name spoken of in this passage, in another world. But in another text we are told that the great name he was to receive was "under heaven and among men." His reward then was here. Without any irreverence, or without intimating that Christ was not infinitely greater,---we may illustrate this passage by the case of Washington. Washington served his country, and he was rewarded with praises and fame. So this "name above every name;" received by Christ may well refer to his glory in the church through all ages.

As to the passage from Hebrews, it may be observed that the apostle compares himself to a racer at the Olympic Games; and it may be explained exactly like the previous one. "The crown" he speaks of, was a crown of reputation and glory.

In replying to my remarks on the passage in Matthew respecting "laying up treasures in heaven," my friend has seemed to imply, that I understood this of mere temporal, earthly treasures. I said no such thing. These treasures were to be laid up here, in this life, but they were not carnal or earthly, but spiritual. The kingdom of heaven, though in this world, is not of this world, and its treasures are not of this world. They are moral treasures; such treasures as can alone secure our happiness, which mere riches and sensual indulgencies cannot do. it is written, "great is your re

1

ward in heaven,"---great is, not great is going to be, evidently applying to this life, and that Heaven is something here.

But my friend says "flesh and blood" cannot inherit it. Very true, "flesh and blood" cannot inherit it, for this very reason that it is something moral and spiritual, and therefore flesh and blood have nothing to do with it. The kingdom of heaven comes not with observation, it consists not in meats and drinks, but in peace, righteousness and joy in the Holy Ghost---all which, my friend will allow may be enjoyed here in this life.

It is urged, because there are rewards and punishments here, we may expect a retribution in another life. But we are punished here for what we do here, not for what we have done in a previous state of existence. To make this argument good it would be necessary to revive the old doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and hold that men are punished in this life, for what they have done in a previous existence.

My friend has remarked upon what I said as to the expectation of reward not being a ground of action worthy of Christ. My doctrine on that point is this; love to God and love of our neighbor are the grand motives, and should be the grand inducements to virtuous actions. It is very true, that virtue carries with it its own reward; but this subsequent fruit of viritue is by no means to be brought forward and substituted as the principal motive of action in the place of that greater and higher motive above mentioned.

BALLOU. My friend says it is not incumbent on him to prove negatively that the doctrine of future retribution is not contained in the Scriptures. I agree that it is not; and I was not aware that I had called upon him to do so. But if I adduce, as I have done, twenty texts, which according to their plain and obvious meaning, prove the doctrine of future rewards, I consider him bound to show that this is not their meaning, and that they are capable of some other rational interpretation.

It appears to me that the view presented by my friend of the conduct of Christ is not satisfactory. He says that the idea of future rewards and punishments was a heathen notion incoporated by the Pharisees into their creed. He allows, at the same time, that Christ in his sermons and discourses, used language and expressions, which must have been understood by the Jews to countenance their belief in this "heathen notion,' ,” and he attempts to apologize for Christ's conduct in this particular. But as he has

represented the case, how does it admit of any apology? Is it consistent with common honesty? If it be, how happens it that Universalist ministers of the present day, do not imitate his example. Why do they expend so much labor on this point to explode error and establish truth? Is it necessary for them to be more wise, honest and faithful than their divine master?

The imputation upon Paul of countenancing the belief in witchcraft, because he uses the expression---" O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you," is utterly unjust; since the word is obviously used in a very common figurative sense, and does not convey the slightest implication that supposed witches had been operating on the Galatians.

To recur to the passage in Phillippians. When the apostle exhorted his brethren to have the same mind that was in Christ, there is no necessity whatever of involving the absurdities pretended by my friend. By "mind" must be understood disposition; and the plain sense of the exhortation is, not to assume an equality with God, but to imitate Christ's obedience, humility, faith and benevolence.

My friend takes no notice of those texts to which I particularly directed his attention, as proving an analogy between Christ's condition and ours; I mean those in Hebrews which say "it behoved him to be made in all things like unto his brethren ;" and he "was tempted in ALL points," as we are. Why this silence? he seems to contradict himself on this point. He maintains that there is no analogy between Christ and us, because Christ was sustained through life by a divine power, in order, that he might furnish us a perfect example. But if there is no analogy between Christ and us, how can he be our example? And if he was supported throughout by an omnipotent, supernatural power, and thus virtually necessitated to live a perfectly holy life, what encouragement does this hold out to us who receive no such support?

As to the name that Christ was to receive, my opponent says that it was to be received here, and quotes the passage-(Acts iv. 12,) "There is none other name given under heaven and among men whereby we must be saved." What this text has to do with the subject, I cannot discern. But according to his doctrine, "heaven'is here on earth. Where then, by his own showing, could this name be received, which was under "heaven?" If received under heaven, must not heaven be ABOVE? Let him inform us.

My opponent insists that there is no analogy between Christ and man, yet in contradiction to this position, he illustrates his notions by pleading an analogy between Christ and Washington: This

analogy, however, is not very satisfactory. Washington might be said to receive his reward in this world in the success of his great enterprise in the admiration of his fellow-citizens and the contemplation of the vast good he had been instrumental in securing to a nation. He lived, indeed, to see this work of his country's salvation accomplished. Not so Christ. He died in ignominy-the salvation of the human race still a distant future event, to be accomplished in the dispensation of the fulness of times; and even that fame and glory in the church of which my friend speaks had not yet been. attained. How then can he be said to have received his reward in this world? If we suppose that in another world, joy and happiness are experienced in the contemplation of great and good deeds performed here, this is neither more nor less than the doctrine of future rewards for which I am contending.

In commenting on the passage in Matthew, relative to laying up treasures in heaven, my friend still insists that the expectation of reward was a motive unworthy of Christ, and not fit to be made the basis of action. Yet is not this same motive relied upon and held forth by Universalists? Do they not tell you that if you do well in this world, in this world you shall surely be rewarded? Is not this expectation of reward the very motive on which they insist? And where is the difference, whether this reward be here or hereafter? For my part, I am satisfied that it is only on our own account, that the Creator would have us be virtuous. He asks us to be so, not for his sake, but for our own; and motives of this sort seem to me a perfectly rational ground of human action.

When my friend says the argument, that rewards and punishments in this world analogically prove a state of future retribution, involves the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, he mistakes the true application of the argument. He insists that a future life is the "free gift of God;" and, therefore, that it admits of no rewards and punishments. But is not the present life the "free gift of God?" And such being the case, if rewards and punishments take place here, why may we not expect them hereafter?

I would remark concerning the text-" flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," which my friend says is not inconsistent with his doctrine that this kingdom exists here on earth in the heavenly dispositions and feelings of the good,-that this passage is quoted from a connexion (1 Cor. xv.) understood by the Universalists as well as others, to apply to a future state of existence. Now if all the preceding and succeeding verses relate to the future life, how happens it that this particular text can be ex-. plained as relating to the present life?