might obtain a better resurrection ;" that is, a better resurrection than those children.of the women, who were raised to life again. They refused to receive deliverance, because they preferred that better resurrection, that eternal life of glory, upon which they knew they should enter, the moment they quitted this life.

As to the passage quoted in the forenoon, from Hebrews, about Enoch, and his translation, I cannot perceive that it has the least bearing of any kind upon the question at issue. Enoch was translated without dying, and how can any thing that happened to him prove rewards after death? I must again remind my friend, of the necessity he is under of showing that the passages he quotes in confirmation of his doctrine have some sort of connection with the subject, and that they necessarily bear that interpretation which he puts upon them. Until he does this, it is not necessary for me to say a word in reply.

BALLOU. My friend, to sustain his distinction between the forgiveness of sin and the forgiveness of punishment, is at great pains to quote texts to show, that the scriptures make mention of persons who were forgiven after they had been punished.---I would thank him to quote some instances of people having been first forgiven and then punished. This is what his position requires; for this is what he has asserted. Let us have proof of punishment after forgiveness.

He accuses me of confounding pardon with forgiveness. I confess, I never before knew that these two words did not mean the same thing! Did you? I had always supposed that they were synonymous! He says the governor's pardon of a criminal, cannot relieve him from the reproaches of his own conscience---the disgrace, and other natural fruits of his evil deeds. This may all be true. For the pardon of a magistrate can only extend to the legal consequences of a crime. The moral consequences are to be settled at another tribunal. But all those consequences over which the magistrate has any power, are averted by his act of pardon. So when God pardons a sinner he will be freed in like manner, from that punishment of his crime of which God takes cognizance.

The text quoted by my friend, that speaks of visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation, must be understood of the physical consequences of sin, which cannot properly be called punishment. Otherwise, my friend

would seem to be maintaining the doctrine of original sin,---a notion which he is known not to entertain.

He will hardly persuade me, that because the words "death"--"twice dead," &c. are sometimes used in a figurative sense, and applied to men yet alive, that, therfore, the second death spoken of in the passages I have quoted, must also be applied to this life. We must understand death to mean death, unless some rational interpretation can be put upon the passage in which it is found, consistently with the idea, that it applies to something in this life.

It is said, that my doctrine of forgiveness is inconsistent with God's impartiality. I see not how. I hold that God will impartially forgive all who sincerely repent; and how this makes him a respecter of persons, I cannot imagine.

The interpretation which my friend puts upon the passage from Hebrews concerning the better resurrection, does not relieve the grand difficulty involved in the case. He says the persons there spoken of were to receive a better resurrection than those children of the women, that were restored to life, i. e. the final resurrection to immortality. But if they were perfectly sure of this better resurrection for themselves and all mankind, without regard to any thing done in this life, I do not perceive what inducement they had to die in torments, in order to receive it. They would obtain it just as soon, according to my opponent's views, and enjoy it just as fully without sacrificing themselves for conscience sake, as by doing it.

SMITH. With respect to the texts quoted by me, my friend has insisted much on words, but I do not see that he has achieved much in the way of explaining them. He has replied to several things which I have urged in the course of this debate; but many of my most important arguments he has not touched at all. He has not yet answered what I have said about the traditions of the Pharisees. I do not think he sufficiently answers my objection, that his doctrine of repentance makes God a respecter of persons.

With respect to the phrase second death I apprehend it must be understood to mean the relapsing from a converted state into sin. Thus, the first death is the death in trespasses and sins. When we are raised by conversion out of this state of death, this is the first resurrection; and a relapse into a state of sin is the second death. This interpretation will enable us to explain all the passages, in which this phrase, second death, is used, and to apply them to this life, and will thus enable us to avoid that reference to a future life, on which my opponent insists so much.

In order to satisfy you that the phrase first resurrection applies to this life, I shall read the opinions of certain learned orthodox commentators, upon this point.

With reference to the passage quoted by my friend from Rev. xx. 5,6, Lightfoot asks,---"Now what, and at what time is this resurrection? When the great angel of the covenant, Christ, had bound the old dragon with the chains of the gospel, and shut him up that he should no more seduce the nations by lying wonders, oracles and divinations, and his false gods, as formerly he had done; that is, when the gospel being published among the heathen nations, had laid open all the devices and delusions of Satan, and had restored them from the death of sin and ignorance, to a true state of life

indeed."

Rosenmuller, an esteemed German commentator, lately introduced into this country, remarks on the same passage---"This signifies that the church, for a season, should be delivered from the disturbers of her tranquility, and from those pernicious errors, which corrupted the innocence of Christians. What the first resurrection is, appears with sufficient plainness from what is said thus far, namely, a tranquil and happy state of the church is indicated."

Dr. Hammond says---"What is meant by the first resurrection, here, may be discerned by comparing it with the second resurrection, in the ordinary notion of it. That signifies the resurrection to eternal life; proportionably---this must signify a reviving, a restoration to life though not to that eternal."

These passages will suffice to show what the most learned and able of orthodox commentators have thought of the phrase, first resurrection, to prove that they did not understand the first death, and the first resurrection to mean the natural death, and a resurrection to a future life.

I have already remarked that I do not profess to understand or explain the whole of the book of Revelations. I will now add, that I understand the book to refer to something that was shortly to happon---to the state of the church not long after the time at which the book was written. This appears from the language made use of, both at the beginning and the end of the book---"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants, things which must shortly come to pass,"---this is the beginning of the book. At the end of it, we read---" He which testifieth these things saith, surely I come quickly: amen; even so, come Lord Jesus."

These passages show us the proper application of this book; and such being its proper application it is very plain, that none of the

passages quoted by my friend---whatever their proper interpretation may be, can be justly applied to prove the doctrine of a retribution in another world, since the book relates wholly to this world, and to matters that were shortly to come to pass.'

As regards the passage, John v. 26, 29---" For the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves," &c. Lightfoot observes ---"These words might also be applied to a spiritual resurrection, as were the former, (and so, coming out of graves, meaneth, Ezek. xxxvii. 12,) the words of the verse following, being only translated and glossed thus :---and they shall come forth, they that do good, after they hear his voice in the gospel, to the resurrection of life; and they that do evil, after they hear the gospel, unto the resurrection of damnation. But they are more generally understood of the general resurrection."

Cappe, in a note upon this passage, says---" In the graves, among the tombs, sitting in darkness, and in the region of the shadow of death, Matt. iv. 16; Luke i. 28, 29. See John iii. 18---21. He that believeth on him is not condemned," &c. Compare Eph. ii. 1-"And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." Isa. xxvi. 19---"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise," &c. Compare Deut. xxxii.---"his doctrine shall enliven men as the dew of the herb." Hosea vi. 2--"After two days will he revive us, in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Ezek. xxxvii. taken in a spiritual sense by the apostle, Rom. xi. 15---"What shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?"

وو

"It would," says Dr. Lightfoot, "have prevented many errors, af the phrases, the last day, the day of the Lord, the end, new heavens and new earth, the dead raised, had been cautiously understood. In the Jerusalem Gemarra, it is said---"The righteous, even in death, are said to live, and the wicked, even in life, are said to be dead." Compare Eph. v. 14---" Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

It will be seen from these passages, that the quotation from John easily admits of an explanation which applies it to this life, and that it will not answer the purpose of proving a retribution in a future state of existence, for the deeds done here.

BALLOU. Notwithstanding my friend's contempt of the Apocrypha, translations, inferences and criticisms, he finds it very convenient to summon eminent orthodox commentators to the support of his

cause. Some, however, even of these favor my side of the question. But why has he referred to the criticisms of orthodox commentators? Is he arguing against an orthodox clergyman? No. Does he suppose I shall acknowledge those commentators good authority in this debate? No. Will he allow me to cite orthodox commentators against his doctrine? Not at all. So much of their criticism as will answer his purpose he considers good authority--all the rest good for nothing. For what, then, has he gone to the orthodox? Is his cause so weak that he must needs call in such auxiliaries to sustain it? If so, he is excusable. But let it be understood that I shall pay no sort of deference to his allies. He must be responsible for thein and take the consequences. I shall treat his borrowed criticisms and interpretations as his own. If I answer them at all, I shall answer them simply as his; he has made them so by adoption.

The gentleman would explain the passage from John v. 28, 29, concerning the resurrection to damnation, as referring to the same event foreshewn in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel; viz. the restoration of the captive Israelites to their country. That event is spoken of under the similitude of dry bones and the coming up of dead men out of their graves. "Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel." What reference the passage in John has to an event which had transpired hundreds of years before, I cannot conceive. Much less can I conceive how some of the liberated captives should rise to the resurrection of damnation. There certainly was nothing like a resurrection to damnation in the case of those Israelites to whom God promised that he would bring them up out of their graves, &c. This interpretation of my friend will

not answer.

He now contends that the book of Revelations relates wholly to a period near the time when it was written, and has cited a passage from its commencement, and another from its conclusion to show that his views are correct. He and his brethren have a remarkable tact at confining the application of Scripture to some event or events in the present world. The destruction of Jerusalem is the grand centre around which they generally dispose those texts usually applied to the future state. I wish the gentleman would quote me a text, which in his opinion clearly teaches a future existence. I doubt if he can name one, which by his own rules. of interpretation cannot be confined to this life.

But in confining the application of the whole Book of Revela