"the civil law consists of a law and a penalty." But what does it signify if the divine law treats of a thousand things the civil law does not, if the divine law does not treat of your future punishment? If the civil law is confined to this world," it still remains to be proved, that the threatenings of the divine law "extend into the future."

66

But from your preceding reasonings you draw the following conclusions, p. 88. 66 Now as the Bible treats upon salvation and final happiness, nay as this is the great doctrine to which all things else are subservient, we may naturally expect that this doctrine will be taught in the clearest manner. As many die in the perpetration of some horrid crime, it appears certain that they must be punished after death. But if this is not the case, we have a right to ask for proof; and if no proof can be produced, we feel justified in saying that such an one will be obnoxious to punishment after death." Answer. Who ever disputed that final happiness is taught in the clearest manner" in the Bible? Or who disputes that this is "the great doctrine to which all things else are subservient?" The point in dispute is, is your punishment after death taught in the Bible in the clearest manner? If it was, you had no occasion to beg the question in the above quotation. I may ask also, is it taught in the clearest manner in the Bible, that your future punishment and salvation in hell is one of the "all things" which is made subservient to "final happiness?" But in begging the question, you tell us some "must be punished after death." Well, who are they? They are those who "die in the perpetration of some horrid crime." But is this certain? Yes, you tell us-"as many die in the prepetration of some horrid crime it appears certain that they must be punished after death." About this kind of sinners you seem certain that they must be punished.

And

why not also all who die in the perpetration of little sins? Why single out horrid sinners, and send them to hell to be punished after death, and yet send Christian little sinners to heaven? If all are not sent to final happiness on the ground of God's grace, and not on the difference of crime, farewell salvation to us all. There is not a principle in your book, which I hold in more heartfelt detestation than the one here advocated; and I am certain, either your views or mine are radically wrong as it respects the ground on which future existence and happiness rests. But I ask, from what does "it appear certain, that any are to be punished after death?" I defy any man to point out the thing from which you draw such a conclusion, except that the persons "die in the perpetration of some horrid crime." This is all the premises from which you draw your certain and must be conclusion. But one thing I suggest for your sober and serious consideration. It is this. The Scriptures relate cases of persons who died in the perpetration of very horrid crimes. But no Scripture writer says what you here say about such persons. Either then they were very ignorant, not to know this thing about which you are so certain, or if they knew it, were not so faithful as you are in declaring it to mankind. If they knew it, what apology can you make for their unfaithfulness? If they did not, how came you to be so certain about it? If you are correct, Annanias and Sapphira, with many other Christians, went from this world to hell, and so far as I can learn from your system, are still there. Very horrid sinners you send to hell, but on Luke 23: 43 above, you sent the man to heaven who died on the cross for his overt acts of iniquity. A few hours punishment settled his whole account. When shall we arrive at the end of your contradictions?

LETTER VI.

SIR, I PROCEED to examine the sixth division of your book called "a future judgment." Your first sentence is extraordinary; you say "let it be observed here, that the Scriptures were addressed to those who believed in a future judgment." Most people imagine it is by the Scriptures alone we can know whether there is or is not to be a future judgment. But it seems they are mistaken, for the faith of those to whom the Scriptures were addressed anticipated divine revelation, and we should think superseded its necessity on this subject. Permit me to ask, how such persons came by their belief before the Scriptures were addressed to them? Should you say it originated in a divine revelation which is now lost, please inform us, who revealed this to you, or show that such a revelation ever existed.

It was very sagacious in you to take this ground, for if the Scriptures do not teach your "future judgment," the doctrine is secure without them. It is certain from your own showing, p. 70 of your Letters, that Moses in his law did not teach it. This part of Scripture then, does not use language which seems naturally to teach this doctrine," and as all your proofs are drawn from the New Testament, I conclude it is your opinion, "a future judgment" is not taught in all the Old Testament. If it is, no doubt but you would have resorted to it for proof. But were the Old Testament writers all believers in a future judgment, addressed their revelations to such as believed in it, and yet as silent as the grave about it? The man, Sir, who can believe this, must have an old propensity for believing. It would be sinful to

think he would become a sceptic about any thing.But if the Old Testament Scriptures were addressed to such as believed in "a future judgment, yet say nothing about it, what made it necessary to reveal this doctrine in the New Testament? Again; do the New Testament writers introduce this doctrine as a new revelation to the world? Do they say it originated in a divine revelation which happened to get lost? Is this carelessness in God (pardon the expression) in correspondence with his care over the revelation now in our hands? Is the subject of "a future judgment" of so little consequence, that God should permit the revelation about it to be lost, and not reveal it again until the days of the Gospel dispensation? And was his confidence in corrupt tradition so great that he transmitted it for several thousand years in this channel until the gospel day should arrive? But admitting he did, how is this to be reconciled with God's injunctions to the Jews, to give no heed to any traditions whatever, but to his written law by Moses? And if the Jews believed in "a future judg ment,” received through corrupt tradition, why did our Lord say they had made void God's law by their traditions, without making any exception whatever? If it was made void by this tradition, by your own showing it was made void by a truth, believed in all ages by those to whom the Scriptures were addressed. But I am such a confounded sceptic, that I believe all traditions not taught in Scripture tend to make them void, and you allow "a future judgment was not a tradition taught in the law of Moses." But further. The law of Moses, in which you own "a-future judg ment" is not taught, was delivered with great preparations and solemnity to the Jews, Exod. chaps. 19, 20. But when, where, by whom, or with what solemnity is "a future judgment" revealed to mankind? You must say "I cannot tell." So God makes a mighty

solemnity about a trifle, but about your future judg ment he makes none. No, he slips it into the world, first by revealing it, but allows this revelation to be very soon lost. He does not allow Moses to insert it in his law. And when he again reveals it, as you seem to think in the New Testament, no solemnity is made about it. The very texts on which you rest the proof of it are few, and to say the least about them, are far from being conclusive. Let us proceed to

examine them.

Your first text is

Acts 24: 25," and as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled," &c. This text was examined at length in my Essays, p. 278-286. Your reply is chiefly taken up with my criticism on the term mello. As similar remarks must be made on your next proof text, where Mr. Loveland will come in for a share of attention, my remarks here shall be brief. 1st. Who, Sir, ever disputed, that mello signifies future, and even a future far distant? Certainly I never did. You con

cede" the word mello, then, simply signifies to delay, to be future, and this future may be immediately connected with the present, or very remote, according to the nature of the subject." Conceding that "this future may be immediately connected with the present," shows the correctness of my statements, and Dr. Campbell's criticism. What is the point of his criticism on which my statements were founded? He says" there is just such a difference between estai and mellei esesthai in Greek as there is between it will be, and it is about to be in English. This holds particularly in threats and warnings." The future here must be connected with the present. This will be seen from noticing distinctly what is the precise point of his criticism. Is it that mello alone signifies about to be? No. Is it that mello, with an infinitive following signifies this? No Sir, it is-that mello, with an