good men would be gainers by dying and going into an unconscious state. See pp. 57, 58. But these men were good men; there was far more virtue than vice in their characters. Now how could they be gainers by dying; since death on his scheme is annihilation? Only in this way— they experienced far more misery than happiness in this state. Hence they were not equitably recompensed here. This is the only conclusion to which his reasoning leads. Now the scriptures expressly declare that every man saall be rewarded according to his deeds. Mr. B. agrees with me that this does not take place here. Hence it follows that it will take place beyond death. Let it be remembered then, through the whole of this discussion, that Mr. B. admits that a just retribution does not take place in this world. We might rest the whole subject here, for as a just retribution is clearly taught in the scriptures, it must take place somewhere; and as it is not accomplished in this state, it must be in the next. But we will pursue this subject through all its bearings. What comes next in course is a future judgment. 91 A FUTURE JUDGMENT. Let it be observed here that the scriptures were addressed to those who believed in a future judgment. This notion, if it were false, would have been opposed by the sacred writers. But nothing like this can be found in the scriptures; but on the contrary, they use language which seems naturally to teach this doctrine-language which cannot be reconciled with any other doctrine, without a long, laboured, critical exposition. This circumstance shows that the sacred writers meant to teach that doctrine. The first passage adduced in proof of a future judgment, is Acts xxiv. 25. "And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come, Felix trembled." See Letters, pp. 130, 131. It was there shown that there could be no rational account given of Felix's trembling, unless we admitted a judgment after death; for Felix in all probability believed in a future judgment, and if Paul had treated of a less judgment than he believed in, he would probably have laughed, rather than trembled. Mr. B. in this case has recourse to a criticism upon the original. See p. 278-286. He tells us that the word mello, here rendered to come, ought to be rendered about to be. In support of this he quotes Dr. Campbell, thus-"Mellon often means not only future, but near. 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." He quotes Parkhurst thus-"Mello signifies with an infinitive following, to be about to do a thing, futurus sum. Mellon, particip. future, what is to come." The following considerations will show that this criticism is nothing to his purpose. 1. The word mello more naturally signifies future than about to be. Parkhurst derives mello from the Heb. amel, to languish, to be weak, and gives delay as its first meaning, and says, "it is applied in this sense by the best Greek authors." And even in the infinitive, on which Mr. B. seems to rely, Parkhurst, Schrevelius and others express the whole meaning by the Latin futurus sum. Sum signifies to be, and futurus is the root of our English word future, and is perfectly synonymous with it. 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. Many passages of scripture might be quoted in which mello expresses a future, and a future far distant. Paul says, Rom. v. 14, that Adam was a "figure of him that was to come,"tou mellontos.) In this case, Adam, the type, was four thousand years before Christ, the antitype. Mello in this instance expresses a future four thousand years ahead. Again, Paul says, Gal. iii. 23, “Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be reveal“ ed," (mellousan.) But could all that were under the law, say that Christ was about to appear? Surely not; for from the days of Moses to Christ was more than a thousand years. These examples show that mello is very far from expressing in all cases what is about to take place. Even connected with an infinitive, on which Mr. B. lays so much stress, examples can be produced showing his rule defective. Paul says, 1 Tim. i. 16, that Christ granted him mercy, that he might be "a pattern to them which should hereafter believe," (mellonton.) No man will pretend that Paul was a pattern to none but those who were then about to believe. He is a pattern for believers. in all ages, consequently mello in this case cannot be confined to a short period, and signify about to be. Thus we see that the definition of the word mello, and its use in scripture, confute Mr. B.'s criticism. 2. Parkhurst, as we have already seen, says as a participle it signifies future, what is to come. Now in the passage before us, tou mellontos is a participle, so according to his own authority it signifies future, what is to come, agreeable to the sense of the common version. Mello occurs in the 15th verse of this same chapter; "There will be (mellein esesthai) a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." The Greek, in this passage, is about the same expression which Mr. B. tells us on the authority of Dr. Campbell, must signi. fy about to be. But does he understand mello in verse 15th to signify about to be? No, he understands it as we do, to express a future resurrec tion. Mello occurs in verses 15 and 25 of this chapter, and Mr. B. may understand them as he pleases. Will he say that they express an ordinary future? Then his learned parade about mello amounts to nothing. The passage speaks of a future judgment, and his criticism has no bearing in the case. But if he insists that mello must signify about to be, then he must admit that Paul believed that the resurrection of the just and unjust was about to take place; contrary to what has proved to be the fact. Such are the absurdities in which he involves himself, in his zeal to pull down a future retribution. The above is sufficient to show that Mr. B.'s criticism, in which he seems to place the most implicit confidence, fails of its object. But Mr. B.'s exposition of the passage destroys the whole force of it. He thinks Paul reasoned of the judgment which was to come upon the Jewish nation! A heavy judgment this upon a Roman governor! No wonder he trembled to hear that the enemies of Rome should be conquered, and their proud city destroyed! This Mr. B. would make us believe was the cause of his trembling! He has also offered several considerations to show that this judgment could not be in a future state, some of which I will notice just to show their childishness. He tells us that Felix did not. tremble much. Well, what of this? He tells us that Paul spoke of a present judgment, but accor ding to his statement, Felix cared but little about it. Again, he tells us that if a future judgment was preached, it made no lasting impression upon |