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 judgment" 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 judgment 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 concede- "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

perceived its point, Mr. Loveland perblunt it, denies that

infinitive following signifies this "particularly in threats and warnings. It was only to such passages as contained threats and warnings that I applied this criticism. You do not seem to have or if you did, you evaded it. ceived it, but finding nothing to the passage contains a threat or a warning, as we shall see afterwards. You say "examples can be produced, showing this rule to be defective." How defective, Sir? That mello, with an infinitive following does not signify it is about to be, in texts which contain threats or warnings? No Sir, though you and Mr. Loveland ransacked the Scripture usage of mello, a single example of this kind you could not find. Could Mr. Loveland have found but one such example, he never would have attempted to deny this text contained a threat or warning to Felix. Love of system ought not to drive us quite so far as this. By doing so, he forgot that he was robbing you of one principal text in proof of your 66 future judgment."

By

2d. But if Paul in this text teaches your future judgment, why did he use mello, with an infinitive following? He was liable to be misunderstood. your own showing, mello, with an infinitive following 66 may be immediately connected with the present." But your day of judgment when Paul wrote, was at some thousand years distance. Even now, some tell us at the distance of three hundred and sixty thousand years. Paul's language conveyed the idea, it was about to be, as all I think ought to admit. Does the Holy Spirit speak with so little precision as this? Who then can blame some of the first Christians for thinking the end of the world was to happen during their day?

3d. If you could have found a text to meet my criticisms, Rom. 5: 14. Gal. 3: 23. 1 Tim. 1: 16,

would not have been adduced, for none of them contain a threat or a warning. You may toil, and sweat and sigh over it till you die, but you never can rid yourself of the force of this criticism against your views of this and other passages. And why? Be cause, Sir, it is true..

manner.

4th. You despatch all my other arguments by a few brief sentences, chiefly in the way of ridicule, and wrap the matter up as usual in the following "To conclude, I will state that the passage before us naturally teaches a future judgment. St. Luke could not in honesty have written such language to people who believed in a future retribution, unless he meant to teach that doctrine." But does your saying "I will state" all this, make it true? I thought the point in dispute was-did the Scripture writers" teach a future retribution ?" But you assume it as true, and think if you say "I will state" it to be true, it must make it true. I am really sick at listening to this mode of proof, and seeing the sacred writers impeached, as fools or dishonest men, if they do not teach your doctrines. It indicates you have become bankrupt in argument.

5th. You say, p. 93, "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." Who ever disputed, Sir, that it signifies future? Is not "about to be" future? Is not mellontos a part of the verb? And who could suppose you would conceal the infinitive following? The whole Greek phrase is"tou mellontos esesthai. Does not the infinitive follow here? Was not Paul delivering a threat or a warning to Felix? And is not this the point of the criticism I quoted from Dr. Campbell? Did you evade it, or was all this oversight? If the latter I excuse it, but if the former, it speaks a volume against.

you and the system for which you are contending. You ask me on the same page-" does he understand mello in verse 15 to signify about to be?" I have only to ask as a reply, was Paul, in verse 15, delivering a threat or a warning? No Sir, he was not; and it shows how you evade the point of my criticism, which you cannot meet. But meet it you must, or forever give up this and other texts in proof of your future judgment."

66

"Because he

Acts 17: 31 is your next proof text. hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness," &c. This text was considered fully in my Essays, p. 222-228. The following criticism was introduced, as on the last text. Parkhurst says "mello signifies, with an infinitive following, to be about to do a thing, futurus sum." Dr. Campbell, on Matt. 3: 7, also says, mello 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." Is mello then used with an infinitive in this passage? Yes. Is a threat or warning delivered in this passage? Yes, you do not dispute it; though Mr. Loveland denies it. Let us inquire, 1st. What is the meaning of the Greek term mello? Ewing says "mello signifies I am about to be or do, I delay." What do you say? You say, p. 92-"the word mello more naturally signifies future than about But is not about to be future, however near it

to be."

may be to the present?

2d. Did I ever contend that mello always signifies about to be? No. So far from this I perfectly agree to what is said by you, p. 92, "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."