\state. We have shown that an individual consciousness is inseparable from a future state of existence, and that this consciousness must of necessity, make those unhappy after death, who leave this world in the very perpetration of crime. We have further seen that a full and equitable retribution does not take place in this world, and consequently it must in a future ;-that those who are taken away in the commission of crime cannot enter into immediate happiness, for repentance is necessary to salvation, and that is a progressive work, and is always attended with sensations of remorse ;-and that punishment must, in certain cases, be extended into a future state, otherwise we must give up the idea that punishment is salutary. Now these considerations, were there nothing else in the scriptures, would naturally lead our minds to the thought of a future retribution. When the sacred writers had told us that men should be punished according to their deeds, or till they became penitent, they had plainly involved a future discipline. They knew the scenes we had witnessed; they knew that we had seen many depart this life in gross wickedness, and they inform us that such persons shall be punished, till they reform. There was no great necessity of their saying that such characters would be punished after death; they knew that this would follow from the nature of the case. They were very careful to lay down the premises, being, as would seem, sensible that we could not mistake the conclusion. In my next I shall call your attention to more direct proof of a future retribution. Yours, &c. N 123 LETTER V. A Future Judgment. REV. AND DEAR BROTHER, Having stated several considerations which necessarily imply a future retribution, I will now, as was proposed, call your attention to more direct proof on this subject. The point which now claims our attention, is that of a future judgment. But before adducing any scriptures in proof of this, four things will be premised. 1. Though the scriptures teach a future state of existence, yet the passages applying to that subject, or even to a future state in any form, are much fewer in number than most people are apt to imagine. I speak of those passages which apply directly and necessarily to a future state. When I When I say that the passages of this description are not so numerous as is frequently thought, I advance a sentiment in which you will readily acquiesce. Now as the texts which apply to a future state are not very numerous, it cannot be expected that we shall be able to produce a large catalogue of passages in proof of a future judgment, or even of a future retribution. But a host of texts are not wanted. To use the language of the Bible itself, "by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established." Now if it can be proved by two or three passages that there will be a future judgment, this will be amply sufficient. And that person who will not yield to such evidence, would not be convinced by a larger number of texts. 2. A future judgment necessarily supposes a future punishment. The very idea of a judgment or trial supposes that some may be subjected to suffering. Of this, you and those of your sentiment appear to be sensible ; for you deny a future, general judgment. But this point is clearly decided by the scriptures. St. Peter says, that God reserves the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.* This passage plainly asserts that the unjust will be punished at the day of judgment. They are reserved to the judgment, for the express purpose of being punished. St. Paul speaks of the righteous judgment of God, who will render indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, to every man that doeth evil, in the day, when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.† This passage also makes it evident that when the judgment takes place, some will be subjected to suffering. Every passage therefore, which speaks of a future judgment, teaches a future punishment, even though punishment is not expressed in the passage. The idea of punishment is included in that of judgment; and whenever a judgment is mentioned, a punishment is implied. If a future judgment, therefore, can be established, a future punishment will follow as a matter of course. 3. Not only every passage which speaks of a judgment in a future state, but every passage which designates any particular period of judgment in this state, is an argument in favor of a future retribution. Your system does not admit of any special judgment; that is, of any judgment which takes place at any specified time. According to your views, men are punished at one period as much as at another. There is no period or time, when they are punished by God beyond their deserts. Even at the destruction of Jerusalem, to which period you apply almost every threatening in the New-Testament, men, you contend, received no more than they justly merited; and on your system, this is exactly what they have received in all ages of the world. No one period, therefore, can be called a day of judgment any more than 2 Peter ii. 9. + Rom. ii. 5-16. another. Now any passage which treats of a day of judgment, though it should appear that the passage applies to the present world, is in reality a confutation of your system; as it supposes that the judgment does not take place at all times, at one period as much as at an other. 4. In order to understand any writer, it is necessary to take into view the opinions of those to whom he addresses himself. This is a principle of interpretation to which no reasonable man can object. Now let us apply this wholesome rule to the case before us. What then was the opinion of those to whom the gospel was addressed? They believed in a future state of rewards and punishments. Not only the Jews, but the heathen, believed in a future judgment and punishment. For the truth of this, there is the best authority.* Mr. Balfour, a late writer on your side of the question, has clearly proved on the authority of Dr. Whitby, Dr. Campbell, Le Clerc, and others, that the Jews and all the heathen nations believed in a state of rewards and punishments after death. When we speak of the Jews as believing in a future punishment, it will of course be understood that we except the small sect of the Sadducees, which did not believe in a future state at all. Such then was the opinion of those to whom our Savior and his apostles addressed themselves; they all believed in a future judgment and punishment. I do not mention this as affording direct evidence of a future judgment; but I do contend that it is necessary to consider this circumstance, in order to a right understanding of those passages which speak of a day of judgment. Every person of any discernment must know that the same terms and phrases will be understood differently by different persons, and * See Tappan's Lectures on the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus' Works, Bruker's Historia Critica Philosophica, Prideaux's Connections, &c. that their different customs and opinions contribute to this in a very great degree. Tell a person in the State of New-York that you will give him a shilling for a certain article, and he will understand you mean by the term shilling, 12 cents; but if you tell a person in New-England that you will give him a shilling, he will understand you to mean 163 cents. Now this difference in understanding the same term, arises solely from custom; they being in a habit of reckoning 8, and we but 6 shillings to the dollar. We should both on hearing the word shilling, conclude that the person used the word in its common acceptation with us, and so should understand it differently. And it is precisely so with regard to matters of opinion. For instance, the phrase, great God, would convey very different ideas to different persons. All persons who have enjoyed the light of revelation, would understand the phrase to denote the self-existent Jehovah. But the heathen who believed that Jupiter, the son of Saturn, was the greatest of all the gods, would understand the phrase, great God, to denote Jupiter. It is manifest therefore, that every person, when he hears any language made use of, will interpret it according to his own opinion, or in other words, will understand it in its common acceptation, unless he is expressly told that the terms are to be understood in another sense. Now any Christian who should go. among the heathen, and speak in praise of the great god, with a knowledge that they would, of course, understand him to allude to Jupiter, would be accused of dishonesty. And he could not vindicate himself against this charge, without saying that he meant to confirm them in their opinions, being persuaded of their truth. Every person who means to be understood, will vary his language according to the opinions of those to whom he speaks. Now let it be distinctly remembered that those to |