end of the world, to be either punished or rewarded. This will appear presently. What I would observe here is, that if your reasoning in the above quotation is admitted correct, God must work a continued miracle to fulfil either his promises or his threatenings, or the course of human events must be stopped. For example, Christ said-" he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” But his promise was never fulfilled to such faithful disciples as died before the destruction of Jerusalem. Again he said, "that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth." But some of the wicked Jews died, and escaped this threatening. But Sir, this objection of yours, sarcastically stated, was fully answered in my Essays, p. 290-296. Answer what I have said there, then indulge your sarcasm. Virtue, wisdom, prudence, righteousness and other things which were stated as a crown of glory to their possessors, it seems are only the "bubble honor." But to use your own words—" it is to be regretted that men of sense and judgment will have recourse to such pitiful shifts to save a sinking system."

66

I have thus briefly remarked on all you have said on this passage. But there are two or three remarks I have yet to make which show you have a mistaken view of it. 1st. You have contended, that verse 10 teaches a universal judgment. Admit this true, and what follows? It follows-that all, Paul not excepted, are to be punished at it. Every one is to receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Have not all, Paul not excepted, done many bad things in the body? Allowing, Sir, that Paul and others did many good things in the body, still they must be punished for the bad things done, as well as receive a reward for their good things. Paul then, on your own view of the text, could not go to heaven to be

with Christ at death, unless you send him there be-fore he was punished for the bad things he did in his body. It will not answer for you to say he was punished for these in this world. No Sir; for it is at your day of judgment the bad deeds done in the body are to be punished, and the good deeds rewarded. I have just as good a right to say he was rewarded for his good deeds here, as you have to say he was punished for his bad deeds here.

You have all along been contending, that men are to receive for both these at a day of judgment at the end of this world. And does not this fairly show, that they are to be both rewarded and punished at the same time? And how do you as a fair reasoner prove that the punishment is to be limited, yet the reward is eternal? Is it not as likely that people may be rewarded out of heaven as punished out of hell?

2d. Whatever is here declared, shall be "received" for either good or bad deeds done, it is to be in the body. The passage read without the supplements shows this. But you say this is to be received after people leave the body. In fact you place both the reward and the punishment at an immense distance from the time the deeds were done. If I suspend men's conscious existence between death and the resurrection you suspend their punishment and reward for the same length of time. And might they not all this time be just as well without any conscious existence as existing in a state of neither reward nor punishment?

3d. The connexion between the 10th and 18th verses shows you are mistaken in your views of this whole passage. In the 11th verse Paul says, "knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men." What terror of the Lord, Sir? Surely from the connexion, appearing at your judgment day to be punished, according to your view of it. But if you will only

consult Dr. Clarke, he will tell you-" this, I think is too harsh a translation of eidotes oun ton phobon tou kuriou, which should be rendered-knowing therefore the fear of the Lord." After refuting the common opinion of this passage he adds, "men who vindicate their constant declamations on hell and perdition, by quoting this text, know little of its meaning; and, what is worse, seem to know but little of the nature of man, and perhaps less of the spirit of the gospel of Christ." See his whole exposition.

LETTER VII.

SIR,

THE seventh division of your book is termed "Scripture proof of a future retribution."

first proof text is,

Your

John 5: 28, 29. "Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." You begin by observing-"this passage not only teaches a retribution, but a retribution which is to take place at a particular specified time," and allow it is specified by the phrase "erhatai hora," the hour is coming, p. 132. Yet on p. 139, you say, "the phrase the hour is coming' means nothing more than this-the time is future." But Sir," the time is future" is no "particular specified time" at all, but future time without any particular specification. How you make out that "the time is future" designates a "particular

specified time," is beyond my comprehension. You declare this passage teaches a retribution which is to take place at "a particular specified time," and you and others contend it is at the end of this world. Who can deny, Sir, that whatever retribution the passage teaches, the specified time at which it takes place is designated by the phrase-" erhatai hora," the hour is coming? What time is then specified by this phrase? Did I not show, from all the places where it occurs, that it referred to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem? And did I not even quote orthodox writers to show that this was its meaning? You do not deny this, but finding Scripture usage of the phrase "erhatai hora" uniformly against you, say, "it was shown when remarking upon this rule of interpretation, that it was extremely vague, and that but little dependance could be placed upon it," p. 139. Permit me then to ask, 1st. Would you have said this, had you found the uniform usage of "erhatai hora," the hour is coming, referred to the period of your day of judgment? I presume not. Had you found this to be the case, what would you have said of me if I still persisted in my views, notwithstanding its Scripture usage was against me, and decried your Scripture usage as a vague uncertain rule of interpretation? Just reverse this case, and you see what I ought to say of you. But

2d. You defame Scripture usage with the one breath, and praise and adopt it with the other. Let us see how you speak and act about Scripture usage on this very passage. You say p. 133, 134-"The term mnema or mnemeion, is defined by Parkhurst, Ewing, Schrevelius, and others, to signify a monument for the dead, tomb, sepulchre. Wakefield renders it tombs. Here is not the least intimation that the term is ever used to signify moral guilt. St. John in his gospel alone uses this term sixteen or seventeen

times, and in every instance except the one in quession, it will be admitted that it denotes the place of the literally dead. Nay, this term occurs frequently in the New Testament, and it is not even pretended that it is used different from the sense given by the authorities above. And even if we go to the Old Testament, the Heb. keber, rendered grave, is defined by Parkhurst to mean grave, sepulchre. This term is, I believe, in every instance, used to signify the literal grave, or place of the dead, except in one connexion in Ezekiel, one of the most figurative books in the whole canon, and that too in a paragraph which is expressly denominated a vision, and which is allowed to contain a representation the furthest possible from being literal. Now are we authorised. to explain the mnemeion in the passage before us in opposition to the uniform usage of the whole New Testament, and in opposition to the best authorities? Nay, in opposition to the Old Testament also, one vision only excepted? Such a method of interpretation may serve the purposes of party, but I fear will not be likely to lead us into truth."

Such is the way you speak of Scripture usage now, notwithstanding you had just said, p. 139" it was shown when remarking upon this rule of interpretation (p. 37--47) that it was extremely vague, and that but little dependance could be placed upon it." Such is the way the man speaks of Scripture usage, and counts" the number of times a word occurs in the Scriptures," and "determines truth by vote," yet ridiculed it, p. 42, by saying, "and should there be no majority, there could be no decision." Such are the statements of the very same Mr. Hudson, who spent the whole third division of his book to defame my use of etymology and Scripture usage!

3d. Scripture usage would have been of essential service to you in establishing your views of this pas