to do with the doctrine of future punishment? The law of Moses did not even teach a future state of existence, and it would be downright contradiction to admit that the law was enforced by penalties extending into a future state, when the law did not reveal such a state. But the silence of a civil code on the subject of future punishment, is no argument against such a punishment. The laws of our country do not extend their penalties into a futute state; but can we conclude from this that there is no future retribution? Because our legislators do not affix to the laws they enact, a penalty extending into a future state, would it be just to conclude that they are not believers in punishment after death? Surely not. You will readily grant that a great majority of our law-makers have been believers in a future retribution, notwithstanding all the penalties which they have affixed to their laws, have been temporal. Now may not this be true of Moses and the children of Israel, as well as of men in our own state and nation? They might believe in a future state of punishment, though their civil law said nothing upon the subject; and there would be no more absurdity in their case, than there is in ours. Suppose a person should attempt to disprove future punishment by the fact that the laws of Massachusetts do not extend their penalties beyond death. I presume you would regard the argument as weak and inconclusive. But to me it appears just as cogent as the argument you draw from the law of Moses.

But you say, Moses declared that this punishment should be according to their sins. Whoever will examine the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus, will be sensible that all the promises and threatenings therein contained, relate to the Jews as a nation, and not as individuals. They were to be punished by discomfiture in battle, by famine, by being driven from their own land, dispersed among the heathen, &c. The very nature of these

judgments shows that they were national judgments. It would be absurd to admit that every individual was justly and equitably punished by such calamities as are mentioned in this passage. Take famine, for example. Who would suffer the most by such a judgment? Not the most vicious, but those who are in the most indigent circumstances. Now it is very far from being the case in any nation, that the most wealthy are the most virtuous. It most generally happens that those who possess an overgrown fortune are the most vicious. It very frequently happens also, that their wealth is the offspring of their wickedness; that their fortune is acquired by dishonesty and oppression. And on the other hand, we find in every country some of the most virtuous characters among the industrious poor. Now in the case of famine, it is manifest the poor would suffer the most severely. While the virtuous man, who is in indigent circumstances, is famishing for food, the rich man, who obtained his fortune by oppression, has bread enough and to spare. Thus it will be seen that such calamities are very far from being an equitable retribution upon every individual. A judgment of this nature may be perfectly just upon us as a people, but as individuals, it is far from being according to our demerits.

The same may be said of war. Though it may be a just punishment upon the nation, as a nation, it does not measure its penalty to every individual according to his moral character. Suppose we as a nation, should become corrupt, and God should permit the savages of the wilderness to overrun our country, and practise their accustomed mode of warfare. Now it is manifest that there would be some virtuous and good people among us, though as a nation, we were corrupt. But every person of common discernment must see that this judgment, though it might be just upon us, as a people, would not be apportioned to the demerits of every person. The

innocent women and children would in all probability suffer most. They, being the most helpless, would be the first to fall a prey, while the most abandoned of the citizens would perhaps escape their ferocity. Nay, the most unprincipled of all, would probably join with the barbarous foe, and imbrue their hands in the blood of their innocent countrymen. This has ever been the case when a nation has been overrun with a savage enemy. Some unprincipled wretches would join the enemy, and thus escape in a great measure, those cruel sufferings which the patriotic soldier and innocent female would be called to endure. Thus we see that such calamities do not fall upon every individual according to the degree of his moral turpitude. And as we have hinted before, when a pinching famine reigns in a land, the laws of equity are at an end, being superseded by the law of power. The strong will seize upon the possessions of the weak, and thus the daring wretch has enough and to spare, while the innocent and defenceless are famishing with hunger. These remarks must appear just to every person who has any knowledge of national calamities.

Now the Jews may experience those national calamities which are mentioned in Leviticus, and this may be a just punishment upon them as a nation; it may be as Moses expresses it, according to their sins, as a people, but as it regards individuals, it would be very far from being just and equitable. Another remark upon national punishments ought not to be omitted. Nations are not punished for their sins, till the measure of their iniquity is full. The Lord bears long with them, till their corruption is deep rooted. Now this national corruption is gradually acquired. So there may be many monsters of wickedness, who contribute more to the corruption of the nation, than any other citizens, and these may die before the deserved punishment falls upon the nation, and according to your views, be taken to consummate

felicity, and their innocent descendants and countrymen may be left to suffer those evils, which, in a great measure, were brought upon their country by their own horrid wickedness, and corrupt example. This principle is exemplified in the case of the Jews, who you say,* have been punished nearly two thousand years for the blas phemy committed by the Pharisees in the days of our Savior.

Now the judgments threatened in the twenty-sixth of Leviticus give no support to your system. This chapter does not even insinuate that there will be no punishment after death. But when we consider that these judgments are national, and that national judgments, though they may be according to the sins of the nation, as a nation, do not fall equally upon every individual, according to the demerit of his crimes, but generally fall heaviest upon the innocent and defenceless. We then see the necessity of a future retribution, to render the ways of the Lord equal. I say, when we consider that the judgments mentioned in Leviticus are of such a nature, that it is morally impossible for them to recompense every individual according to his just deserts, we are furnished with an argument from hence in favor of a future retribution. For as the judgments generally fall heavily upon the innocent and defenceless, while many of the most corrupt, escape them entirely, unless a retribution in a future state be admitted, we cannot

"Vindicate the ways of God to man."

Now, Sir, it is to be hoped that you will no longer use, an argument to disprove future punishment, which if it proves any thing, would overthrow christianity itself by disproving a future state of existence; an argument which, when strictly examined, shows the necessity of a future retribution, to enable us to vindicate the charac

* Lect. p. 144.

ter of God. I will conclude my reply to this argument by observing that the law of Moses threatens the greatest temporal punishments, even death itself; but St. Paul carries the gospel penalty further. He tells us that those who tread under foot the Son of God shall receive a sorer punishment than death without mercy.

I will now attend to some passages of scripture which you cite as direct proof of your system. But before noticing any passage, I will observe that by quoting any passage of scripture, to prove directly that all misery is confined to this life, you give up the plea you frequently make that your side of the question is a negative. So in future, I trust that we shall not be told that it devolves upon us to prove our system true, while you have nothing to do but to examine our arguments. The first passage which claims our attention is Proverbs xi. 31. "Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, much more the wicked and the sinner." Now this passage simply says, that virtue and vice have a reward in this state. This we are ready to admit; but this is not the point at issue. The question is, do men receive all their punishment here? And in support of this, the text is nothing. I might with propriety dismiss the passage with the above remark, but as you seem to attach great importance to this scripture, I will offer a few words more upon the subject. The book from which this passage is taken, is a collection of maxims, the truth of which will hold good in common cases. This will appear from the very title of the book. A Proverb is a general truth, but it will not bear a strict application in all cases. We have many maxims among us, which are founded in wisdom, but still cases frequently occur in which they will not hold good. Proverbs, when they are interpreted as general truths, are of great utility, but when applied strictly, they are, of all language, the most likely to mislead.