ticed them; and they, both of them, had studiously avoid. ed every question, the consideration of which would break up the smooth track in which they had so long travelled. I saw occasionally, however, some backhanded thrusts, intended as I thought to ridicule my views. I thought it possible, also, that both the editor and readers of the Banner were sick of it, and I concluded to trouble them no more. And although Br. Shaw, in the outset bids me God speed, yet he winds off by saying he is willing to let the subject rest. No wonder. But he need not have made this request, for in the first place I had no inclination to get into an angry debate with him upon the subject, because such a course always injures a good cause. And in the next place, there were more errors in his communication than could possibly be refuted in an article of reasonable length for the Banner. But I will now proceed to consider his arguments at length, and I hope with candor and fairness. His sneers about what he is pleased to call "perpetual wakefulness," "labored original articles," &c, may pass for what they are worth, I have nothing to do with them. But every thing in the shape of argument shall be attended to. He says—“As I was not certain that I comprehended his meaning in his last article, I have carefully read all the articles that have appeared in the Banner, from his pen, since April 25, upon the coming of Christ and the resurrection," This is right. Of course, then, he must have seen some doz, en or twenty questions, if no more, which it would be very important that he should reply to; not one of which has he noticed. In my article of April 25, I asked, if the end mentioned in 1 Corinthians, xv, 24, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the king-dom to God, even the Father," should not be understood to mean the same as the end, mentioned in Mark xiii, 7, “but the end shall not be yet," and other passages where

we read of the coming of Christ at the end of the world? If he expects to show that my views are erroneous, it ap pears to me of the first importance, that this question be attended to. It appears to me very obvious, that the apostles arguments recorded in 1 Corinthians xv, and also in 1 Thessalonians iv, concerning the coming of Christ and the resurrection, are founded chiefly upon the discourse of Christ to his disciples, on the Mount of Olives. If I am correct in this, it follows that "the end," in both cases mean the same thing, viz: the end of the Jewish world. And why did not the writer attend to this ques tion, and give some satisfactory reason if he could, why they should not be so considered? Does he think it, enough to say, he "very much doubts" it? If this is sufficient, the infidel can stand ready armed against all arguments that can be deduced from the Bible. All that would be necessary for him to say would be "I very much doubt." He says, "It appears to me that the scriptures plainly teach both a moral and a literal resurrection, and that E. C. confounds one with the other." This too, is a very convenient way of dodging questions. So. when Christ said, “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other," he was speaking of a moral resurrection. But when Paulsays, "the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised," it means a literal resurrection; although both are to be at the end of the world. When Christ said -"for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just," it must be understood to mean a "moral resurrection," but where Paul speaks of the resurrection of the just, it means a "literal resurrection." And we must be careful not to "confound one with the other." This is a very easy way of sliding over questions which could, not be answered.

No one disputes that the scriptures speak of a moral resurrection. But when we read of the resurrection at the last day, coming of Christ, or end of the world, a moral resurrection is not all that is meant, neither can the Rev. Mr. Shaw prove that it is. After disposing of all these questions without attempting to answer a single one of them, he says, "In the phrase, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that should come to pass,' no doubt is implied that some would not be counted worthy to escape, but it does not follow that Christ should be understood in the same sense in his conversation with the Sadducees." He then goes on with a long round-about story, to make out that being "counted worthy," does not mean the same in both passages. I shall not undertake to follow him through all his turnings and windings; for if I can show that in both passages, the subject was upon the resurrection, I suppose this will be sufficient.

It will be remembered that this conversation was to the disciples alone on the Mount of Olives. "They came to him privately, saying, tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" After informing them concerning the signs, he told them that his coming should be before that generation should pass away. And all Universalists agree in this, that the time of his coming, in this passage if not in others, was at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. They also agree in this, that this event happened nearly forty years after these words were spoken by the Saviour. I suppose, too, that it will be conceded that the disciples were nearly all dead before this event transpired; and I think all except John. The passage in question reads thus: "Watch therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the

Son of man." Now I ask the plain question, and I hope it will not be treated as my questions have heretofore been treated ;-how could the disciples stand before the Son of man at his coming, except they were first raised from the dead? Paul says, Romans xiv, 10, 11, "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Does Paul mean that all were to stand before the judg ment seat of Christ, and every knee bow, and every tongue confess to God, before the resurrection? Surely Br. Shaw, all these things are against you. Again:"But the passage E. C. quotes in his article on the coming of Christ, [see Banner April 25,] for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just,' Luke xiv, 14, alludes to a moral resurrection, as may be seen by consulting the context, and the recompense is the same as the good received when they came forth to the resurrection of life, John v, 29,-they entered into the life of the gospel." Here he asserts that the resurrection of the just, in Luke xiv, 14, is to be understood to be a moral resurrection, as may be seen by consulting the context. I wish he had tried to show this, for surely I can see nothing in the context which goes to give it that meaning. And I consider it an insult to the understanding of his readers, to make such an assertion. It shows, however, how readily he can dispose of every difficulty which happens to come in his way. He might, with as much propriety, assert that the resurrection of the just, in Acts xxiv, 15, should be understood a moral resurrection, and then say "it may be seen by consulting the context." The Rev. Mr. S. says further, "E C. quotes Phil. iii, 7-11, in which he thinks it is implied that all should not be accounted worthy to attain unto the resurrection of the dead, and Paul himself would not, unless he should

'continue faithful. But does E. C. believe that the resur rection to immortality depends upon the faithfulness of the creature, or upon any thing we can do? If so, why is 'eternal life' called a 'free gift,' and not of works?→→ And why does he think that Paul implied that only the righteous would be 'accounted worthy to attain unto the resurrection of the dead,' if he in other passages taught the resurrection of all the dead?' He seems to make it a point which he is determined to stick to, that because it is admitted that all will be raised from the dead, that all are to be counted alike worthy. I will not accuse him of unfairness, but I hardly think he can be satisfied with his own reasoning." He asks, "can there be degrees of happiness in the immortal state." I will reply to this by asking him a few questions. If Paul believed that all are equal in the resurrection, why did he say,-"If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." He was sure of being made equal to the angels, whether he was found in Christ at his coming or not. "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away." But what if he was a cast-away? Why should he strive to obtain an incorruptible crown? He was sure of being equal to the angels, according to Mr. S's theory, and none could be more so. What sense is there in saying,-"Be thou faithful unto will give thee a crown of life." ing from the prophet Isaiah, says,

death, and I

The apostle Paul, quot

"Eye hath not seen,

nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him." Why are these things prepared for them that love God, if all are equal in the resurrection? But perhaps the gentleman will say, these things were prepared for them, and that they enjoyed them when they entered into the life of the gospel in this world. Let us consult the