concerning the resurrection of the just. The object of the Savior in that discourse, was to inculcate charity and philanthropy, and what I said concerning the Pharisees was, that the Savior anticipated an objection from them, who were always looking for a reward, to the course which he recommended. He informed them, therefore, that however poor, miserable and powerless the objects of their charity might now be, in the course of time, in the order of providence, in the resurrection of the just, when they became raised to eminence and power, they would fully repay all the good offices which had been done to them. And this was in accordance with the maxim---" Cast thy bread upon the waters and it shall return to thee after many days."

The gentleman chooses to ridicule this interpretation, and for a very good reason. He cannot answer it in any other manner. Ridicule does very well, where argument is not to be had. This is not the first time I have seen it used, and applied to the Universalists. [Mr. Smith here read an extract from Whitman's Friendly Letters to a Universalist.]

Instead of indulging in ridicule, I must beg my opponent to keep to the question in debate. As I have now answered all that he has alleged, I will improve the remainder of my half hour, in stating a general argument for the truth of my doctrine. We are informed in Romans, v. 15, 16, that the future life is the free gift of God. If such is the case, if it is the free gift of God, how can it possibly have any thing to do with this life, or be in any way whatever connected with it? If you would connect the life to come with the present life, you must show that it is in all respects like the present life, which no one, I believe will undertake to do.

case,

Now as to the future life, I suppose it will be admitted, that no one merits that. No one merits the blessings he enjoys here, much less can he hope to merit eternal salvation. Now if this is the if no one merits eternal life, how can he receive it as a reward for his deeds in this life? It is not given as a reward, but as the free gift of God, and is therefore given to all alike.

BALLOU. I must appeal to the audience whether I am guilty of the heavy charge which my friend has brought against me, of substituting ridicule for argument. I may have endeavoured to point out the inconsistencies of my opponent's interpretation, and to show that it could not possibly be reconciled with itself, or with the general sense of the passage. But this is not ridicule. It is the

only way of detecting and exposing a false interpretation. Let my opponent do the same thing by me; let him treat my interpretations in the same manner, I shall not accuse him of substituting ridicule for argument.

In his argument concerning the traditions of the Pharisees, my opponent takes for granted that I admit, that the doctrine of a future retribution is not contained in the Old Testament. Now I wish it to be distinctly understood, that I make no such admission. I have said nothing concerning the question whether the Old Testament teaches this doctrine; nor have I thought it necessary to introduce that topic into the present discussion.

My argument is that the Jews in our Savior's time, except a small sceptical sect, the Sadducees universally believed in this doctrine of future retribution. Christ used language which must have been understood as confirmatory of this doctrine. Can we then, without impeaching Christ's honesty, suppose that he meant to teach one wholly opposed to it? But, says the gentleman, Christ warned his disciples to beware of the traditions of the Pharisees; this doctrine was one of those traditions, therefore, Christ warned his disciples to beware of it. Now because the Pharisees held this doctrine, must it be set down as one of the traditions which they derived from the heathen? They believed also in one God and in a future state; because the Pharisees held these doctrines, are they to be classed with their heathen traditions?

My friend has adduced a number of texts to prove rewards in this life. Let me remark, that if, as he maintains, Christ intended to discourage that mercenary notion of rewards, which the Pharisees had derived from the heathen-it is rather singular he should set about inculcating rewards in this life. Let it, however, be observed, that I do not deny rewards and punishments in this life, but admit, as I stated at the opening of this discussion, all the retribution visible in human experience. As to the text from Proverbs---"Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth much more the wicked and the sinner"-my opponent is no doubt aware that Peter in his 1st epistle, chap. iv. 18, quotes this same passage from the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, where it is thus rendered-" And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?"

I wish also to state that a literal translation of this text, according to the order of the original Hebrew words, is as follows:-"Behold the righteous in the earth, he shall be recompensed-and surely the wicked and sinner." According to this translation we perceive that the real sentiment of the text is, not that the righteous

and wicked shall certainly receive a full recompense in the earth, but simply that the righteous and wicked in the earth, whoever or wherever they may be, shall sooner or later receive a just recompense. This is precisely the doctrine which I believe. This text, therefore, on which my opponent and his brethren lay so much stress, proves nothing to his purpose. It is every way perfectly consistent with the doctrine of future retribution.

In arguing concerning the analogy btween Christ and mankind, my friend tells you I shall admit that Christ was not exposed to punishment. How does he know I shall admit this? True, as Christ never sinned he was in no danger of punishment, but who is prepared to say, that if he had sinned-if he had failed, when he was tempted, he would have escaped punishment?

With respect to his interpretation of the passage in Luke, you will see that according to his view of it, the doctrine Christ taught was this-"Do good and be charitable-not that you may be rewarded immediately, but that you may be rewarded some time hence, when the objects of your charity grow rich and able." Now how does this agree with my friend's doctrine, that we get it all as we go along? And if he finds it so convenient in particular cases to put off the recompense for many days, why is he so very careful to confine it all to this life? If the reward can be put off for many years, even to the end, almost of this life, why may it not be deferred till the commencement of the next?

I agree with the gentleman, that we ought to confine ourselves to the question. You can judge whether he or I has failed most in this particular. He has yet favored us with the explanation of but very few of the numerous texts which I quoted in the beginning of this discussion. In order that he may take up some of those which he has not yet examined I give him place.

SMITH. My opponent inquires of me, how I discover that the doctrine of future retribution for the deeds done in this life, was one of those traditions of the Pharisees, borrowed from the heathen religion and philosophy; and of which Christ warned his disciples to beware; and he asks if the doctrine of one God, also taught by the Pharisees, and the doctrine of future life also taught by them, were among these traditions of which we are to take heed?

Now the belief in one God is taught fully and clearly in all parts of the Old Testament, and this is the source whence the Pharisees derived it-it is not therefore to be regarded as one of their tradi

tions. The doctrine of the resurrection is also derived from the Old Testament. For Christ, when he reasoned with the Sadducees who denied this doctrine, in order to refute them arew arguments from that source, as will be seen by referring to Matt. xxii. 23-33. The same doctrine will be found in the prophecy of Isaiah. We know the origin then of these doctrines. The Pharisees took them from the Old Testament. But this doctrine of a future retribution for the deeds done in this life, we cannot find in the Old Testament, but we find the Jewish scriptures teaching an exactly contrary doctrine, namely, retribution in the present life. It is therefore fair to conclude, since the Pharisees could not have found this doctrine of a retribution hereafter, in the scriptures of the Old Testament, that they borrowed it from their heathen neighbors, and that it was one of the traditions which Christ condemned.

Now, as to the argument, that Christ did not expressly refute and denounce this doctrine in particular-it must be recollected, that he did not come to expound or explain the traditions of the Pharisees. His mission was to explain the law and the prophets, and having done this, it was enough for him to lay down such general principles as will suffice to refute all the false doctrines which prevailed in those times. To have taken them up one by one, would have been an endless and superfluous labour.

My opponent, it seems, allows that there is some retribution here in this world. But how does he get over the text which I quoted from Proverbs? Why, he proposes a new translation. I observe that Hammond, in his commentary on this passage, gives the original Hebrew words, but I do not find that he proposes any new translation. Now this is a very easy way to get along indeed! and no doubt if I will let my friend translate to suit himself, he can prove almost any doctrine he pleases. However, to grant him this liberty for once, I do not see how his translation alters the sense, or what mighty difference it makes whether we read" the righteous in the earth shall be recompensed," or "the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth." Here is a Bible sentiment expressed in Bible language. It is the doctrine of present retribution, as I hold it. If my opponent's doctrine of a future retribution, is a Bible doctrine, that too will be somewhere expressed in Bible language, and he will be able to produce some text exactly to the point.

My friend inquires if we have our reward as we go along, why speak of any retribution at all. Now I do not say that we have all our reward as we go along. Though there is a great and rich satisfaction in good actions at the very time we are performing them,

there are also certain fruits---certain necessary good consequences that flow from them, and often do not appear until a length of time has elapsed. Hence, the Scriptures speak of a virtuous life under the figure of strewing and gathering, sowing and reaping and the like.

ment.

My opponent admits, that the Savior of the world was or might have been, exposed to punishment. I did not think he would do this, and I would ask if this does not detract from the dignity and glory of Christ's character? And what a horrible idea, if he holds, with some of the gentleman's brethren, that Christ is God! The doctrine of a present retribution is much more efficient to keep men in the path of duty, than the doctrine of a future punishThe wicked fear the gallows much more than future damnation. They believe they can at any time repent, and go to heaven, and having taken up the false idea that sin is more pleasurable than virtue, they resolve to go on sinning, but to take care and repent at last, and so escape the consequences of their transgressions. But it would be impossible for them to proceed in this way, if they were impressed with the truth, that their wicked actions carried with them certain inevitable and disastrous consequences in this life, which they could not by any means escape.

With respect to the passage in Corinthians referred to in the forenoon-the kingdom of heaven though it is an immortal kingdom, and in that sense, not existing on the earth, yet as it is declared to be peace, righteousness and joy in the Holy Ghost, it certainly is enjoyed here on this earth. To be sure, it is not enjoyed as an external kingdom. Being a spiritual kingdom it is enjoyed spiritually; and that which is commenced here on earth, is perfected at the resurrection and brought to an entire completion.

BALLOU. I wish to confine myself as closely as possible, to the question. My opponent during his last discourse, did not accept the invitation I gave him to take into consideration, the texts, quoted at the commencement of this discussion, few of which he has yet noticed. I will therefore content myself with bringing forward the next in order, and shall be glad to hear what interpretation he puts upon it.

The text is Matt. xix. 27---28.--- Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold we have forsaken all and followed thee: what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them; verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration,