all this implies that they will be known personally, and that the character of their ministry, as well as their individuality will also be known.

And once more,―The

way

in which the reward will

be bestowed proves that there will be made hereafter a marked distinction of individuals, on account of some specific acts or some particular line of conduct. Thus we find our Lord saying:

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. x. 32, 33.)

"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before His Angels." (Rev. iii. 5.)

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore, when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou

doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret and thy Father, which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly." (Matt. vi. 1—4.)

A single remark on these passages will be enough. The declaration made in the last cannot relate to the general reward, so to speak, of the people of God, by which they will have eternal life bestowed upon them, but to specific rewards on account of particular acts acts of benevolence, namely, done from a right motive and in a right way. These, being done in secret, shall receive an open recognition on the part of Christ. A specific reward shall be given on account of them, and that reward shall be openly bestowed. Could anything possibly prove more clearly that there will be the fullest knowledge and the most distinct recognition of each individual hereafter? I refrain from enlarging on the subject, or on the arguments which may be urged in reference to it, for they are so very obvious that it would be a waste of time to both writer and reader to do so.

So much then for the scriptural proof, which it is unnecessary to carry any farther. That proof is, I conceive, as complete and conclusive as could be ex

pected or even desired in favour of the doctrine that glorified Saints will recognize and know each other hereafter, and nothing would be gained by the production of any additional number of passages in favour of it. But there is yet another light in which it may be viewed.

§ III.

- ITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE CONDITIONS
OF THE QUESTION.

It was affirmed at the close of the last section, that the scripture proofs in favour of the doctrine under discussion are complete and conclusive; and if this be the case, there can of course be no necessity to extend the examination of it any farther; but yet there is another direction in which it may be well to follow it, in order, as in former cases, that its consistency with other and acknowledged truths may be seen, We may inquire, for instance, into THE CONDITIONS OF THE QUESTION, AND CONSIDER WHAT ARE THE INFERENCES THAT SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM THEM. We have analyzed the language of Scripture upon it, and we find that we are uniformly brought to one and the same conclusion. But what of the à priori probabilities of the question? There is reason to believe that glorified Saints will mutually know each other hereafter is this to be expected from the very nature of the case?

It will be perfectly legitimate to discuss this question, now that we have examined the subject inductively and arrived at our conclusion. That conclusion is not dependent on what we are now about to do, nor would it be affected by it, even should this prove erroneous. What we are now about to attempt is not for proof, but for corroboration. This is a very different thing to examining probabilities in the first place, and then making them a part of the proof. In this case, the proof would be in a measure dependent on them, and if they failed, it would fail in the same proportion. But our proof rests on no such foundation as this, but on the only legitimate one-the testimony of Scripture. But having discovered the doctrine in Scripture, it will be satisfactory to apply it to what the nature of the case would seem to render antecedently probable, that it may be seen that here also we meet with the same harmony and agreement which everywhere met us while comparing one part of the Word of God with another.

When, then, we contemplate our state at present, we readily see that our certainty of our own identity is caused by a consciousness of present existence and a remembrance of the past. The one alone cannot produce this