distinctions we had never seen on paper, if you could have found any thing better to meet my argument. I take your good will for the deed.

2 Peter 2: 9, is your next text. "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, to be punished." In reply to what you have advanced, my first remark is-you assume at the very outset the question in debate, and very little in the form of proof appears afterward. There is no debate, Sir, that this passage speaks of a day of judgment. Nor, that when Peter wrote it was future. Nor is there any debate but that at this day of judgment some were to be punished. The question in debate isdid Peter teach your day of general judgment at the end of this world? This is precisely the point at issue between us, as you will allow, but for want of evidence to establish it, you are determined to assume it. Assumptions and proof, Sir, are with me very different things. So also is a day of judgment in time, and yours in eternity.

2d. Having fixed your premises, by assuming the question in debate, you commence by asserting or inferring thus:-"thus we see, that this passage at first view teaches a future judgment."

But from what, Sir, is this seen, except your assumption and assertions? And what is it, that a man might not see, if these are to be admitted. as evidence? But you add this sentiment is not only expressed in the language of the passage, but is interwoven with the whole argument." Here is another assertion, but which you attempt to make good by "a brief view of this passage in its connexion." This you do by 1st. Telling us from Ewing that tartarus is "the place where fallen angels and wicked spirits are kept until the day of judgment." But this is also assertion, and has been asserted until we are tired in hear

ing it. But, in confirmation of it you add-" Mr. B. in his First Inquiry, p. 63-85, admits that tartarus literally signifies a state of punishment, after death, or the prison of hades." What, Sir, I admit this? No Sir, I admitted that the heathen held such an opinion, but showed that their wise men laughed at this fable of tartarus. See the whole of sect. iii. chap. 1. of my First Inquiry, and also my Essays, p. 272-275. Even the orthodox Mr. Sabine, declared, that tartarus was a "political limbo," a "place of fabled confinement for unfortunate gods and kings." But, Sir, as your present book is a professed answer to my Essays, how comes it to pass you passed over in silence what I said of Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2: 4, respecting the angels which sinned? Prove if you can that these texts refer to angels who fell from heaven, or that tartarus to which they were cast down, referred to your place of future punishment. Refute, Sir, my interpretations before I say any thing more on this subject.

But you proceed to say-" Peter well knew that those to whom he addressed himself, believed in a future judgment, and that the very word tartarus would convey that idea to their minds. If this opinion had been erroneous, he would have corrected it." See the whole paragraph. But is this reasoning? Or do you consider where it will lead you? For example, "Peter well knew that those to whom he addressed himself once believed in an evil being called the devil, and that the word devil would convey that idea to their minds, 1st Epistle 5: 8. If this opinion had been erroneous he would have corrected it." I might apply your mode of reasoning to the term satan, to demons, ghosts, witchcraft, and many other things, but a word to the wise is sufficient. We do not affirm that you believe all these heathen opinions, but we do affirm you ought to believe them to main

It will not

tain consistency in the above argument. surprise me to hear you are a believer in all the superstitions of the heathen. And you can tell us as you do here" Peter as a faithful apostle, or even as a man of common honesty, would not have used such language, unless he knew all these things to be facts." But as this argument comes upon us, not like "angels' visits, few and far between," enough has been said respecting it.

On p. 119, you proceed to notice my objections to your exposition of this passage. But here again you go on assuming and asserting. In my Essays it was shown, that Peter in the context introduced three instances of God's judgments under the Old Testament dispensation. When God brought judgments formerly on the wicked he delivered the godly. Peter, and all Christians knew their master had predicted a day of judgment coming on that generation, and he reasons from God's past conduct what he would do when it arrived. Formerly, he had delivered the godly, and reserved the wicked to be punished, and he would do so again. But let us see what you say respecting my objections to your views.

1st. I founded an argument against your views on the word chiefly, or the phrase "chiefly them that walk after the flesh," and asked why any chiefly in this case, if all the unjust are reserved to the day of judgment at the end of the world?" But the question you ask by way of retort is not to the purpose. The judgment referred to did not come on all the Jewish nation to the same extent; they who endured to the end were saved, but even they unavoidably felt the distress which came on the nation generally, for even the best of men, yea, innocent babes, suffer in the general calamities which came on nations for their sins. But the weight of God's vengeance fell on the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation, hence it is said,

66

chiefly them who walk after the flesh." But we have seen on Heb. 9: 27, above, that none are exempt from your day of judgment, so that there can be no chiefly in this case. It is a universal day of judgment, universal punishment, according to your system. 2d. Another objection of mine was- "that Peter says nothing of the end of the world in this passage or the context." You retort by saying Peter says nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem in this passage, and hence it cannot apply to that event." Who disputes, Sir, that Peter refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, 1 Peter, 4: 7. 17-19, and other places I might refer to in his epistles? Orthodox commentators will show you this. But you add, that Peter, in the next chapter, verse 7, "speaks of the end of the world." This is a mistake, as even orthodox commentators also show you. I heard Dr. Beecher give the very same view of this passage that I gave, and would refer you to the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine for an illustration of it.*

But you say, p. 121, "this is one of the plainest passages in Scripture on the subject of the destruction of the earth, and unless Mr. B. admits this doctrine, it is idle for him to maintain the restitution of all things; for as long as men continue to live here as they do at present, a universal salvation can never take place." Certainly Sir, "as long as men continue to live here as they do at present, a universal salvation can never take place;" but who said they will always continue to live so? Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 15, that living and dead shall be changed in a moment, from mortality and corruption to immortality and incorruption. Will not this, Sir, be a restitution of all things, a universal salvation, if the earth should never be destroyed? Is there any occasion to destroy

*See vol. I. No. 45.

the earth to accomplish it? In no place where the resurrection is mentioned does any writer speak about destroying the earth. On the contrary, after the resurrection, both earth and air exists, for it is from the earth the raised dead are to ascend to meet the Lord in the air. 1 Thes. 4: 13-18. From what part of your Bible do you learn that it is necessary to destroy the earth to accomplish the restitution of all things, or a universal salvation? Some very eminent men bave held the opinion that this earth is to be fitted up for the abode of men after the resurrection.

3d. It was also stated by me as an objection against your view of the passage, that the judgment of the persons was near, for their judgment lingered not and their damnation slumbered not, verse 1-3. How could this be said, if your day of judgment is at three hundred and sixty thousand years distance as is affirmed by some orthodox writers? In fact, how could it be said, if it should take place to-morrow, for it is nearly two thousand years since Peter uttered these words. In reply to this, you refer us to chap. 3, about the coming of the Lord, and that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years. But you should know, Sir, that this cannot refer to Christ's coming at your day of judgment and the end of this world, for after both these, Peter speaks of a "new heavens and a new earth," which is allowed to refer to that mentioned in Isai. 65: 17-19, and means the new dispensation under the reign of the Messiah. But see the paper in the Trumpet referred to above. 4th. I mentioned as an objection to your views, and in support of my own, the following from Parkhurst. He says, "that the Greek kolazo is sometimes applied by the profane writers in the sense of restraining or repressing as may be seen in Scapula." In corroboration I adduced Acts 4: 21, the only other