refer the events here mentioned, to the destruction of Jeru salem, or to the judgment which takes place at death, or to any thing which has yet transpired. Their fulfilment is therefore to come. And if Christ is yet to appear in the clouds, with his angels, and to gather his elect, &c., the day of Judgment is still future.

We have already discussed John v. 28, 29, (which clearly. implies the doctrine of a general judgment,) and shall therefore here only refer to it in passing. See also chap. vi. 39; and xiv. 3; which clearly point to the great event of the Saviour's coming and the resurrection as still future.

The testimony of Acts is very full and explicit. We have already discussed several passages herein, which, though they speak primarily of the resurrection, yet clearly imply that the judgment is still future. There are several others which we might discuss, as, e. g. Acts i. 9-12, (compare Dan. vii. 13,) which is still unfulfilled. See also chap. x. 42, and xxiv. 25, but we pass them, and confine our remarks to a single declaration found in chap. xvii. 31. "Because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

In this passage Paul urges upon his Gentile hearers the duty of repentance, from the consideration that God hath determined to judge the world (zǹv oixovμɛvyv, orbem terrarum, not each individual simply as he dies,) in righteousness, lest they should be found unprepared for that event: and he informs them that God hath given assurance to all that such is his purpose, by having raised from the dead Him whom he hath appointed to be the judge. The phrase яaçaoxwv níoτw яao, is very strong, and means an argumentum invictum ac irrefragabile, quo sufficienter convinci possent de constitutione illa divina, a moral demonstration that such is the divine purpose. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, is here affirmed by Paul to be an assurance to all, that God has constituted him to judge the world in righteousness on a day which he has appointed.* It is not an as

surance that he does now judge the world, as Professor Bush supposes, but that he will do so on a certain day-a period

*See this argument excellently stated by Lightfoot, in Works, Vol. II. p. 1101, folio.

of time yet future-and not judge the Jewish nation only, (for what had the Athenians to do with them?) but all mankind: (compare the word as used in Rev. xii. 9; Matt. xxiv. 14; Acts xi. 28; and xix. 27; and xxiv. 5;) and hence this assurance is given to all-Jew and Gentile; and this universal judgment is to be at an appointed day. We have already shown the connexion between Christ's resurrection and ours; and this is the ground of the assurance here spoken of by Paul.-Christ is raised to be the judge, and therefore mankind must be raised in order to be judged. This one passage is therefore of itself, abundantly sufficient to settle the whole controversy, even if the Bible was elsewhere silent on the subject.

Professor Bush seems perfectly aware of this, and has made a prodigious effort, (see p. 340-343) to get rid of its testimony. In the investigation of the passage he has made a discovery, which he takes for granted, (and justly,) will surprise the reader, and which he confesses has greatly surprised himself, (p. 341.) And this extraordinary discovery is that "the established rendering- hath appointed a day' is entirely without proof." Though Bretschneider in this very verse gives it the sense of præfigo; and Wahl gives it constituo, festsetzen, (see their Lexicons sub voce,) and Schleusner defines it in a similar manner, all pronouncing its import here to be, to fix, or appoint, beforehand, yet it all has no influence to lessen our author's confidence in the greatness and value of his discovery; for he announces that he is "fully prepared to evince" that the word in such a connexion has no such meaning in holy writ. "The original word," says he, "is ornos, which, as every Greek scholar is aware, comes from the root ornu, (he means, I suppose, the root oráw,) signifying in its primitive and intransitive sense to stand, thence in its active import to cause to stand, to place, to settle," &c. &c. Then after a very laborious effort to establish these meanings of the word, he adds, (p. 343,) as follows: "To what conclusion then are we brought in regard to the passage before us, God hath appointed (ornoe) a day in which he will judge the world?' Is it not inevitable that the sense to be assigned is, that God established at the present time such a day?—that it is even now current that it is brought in—and that in this fact lies the great motive to repentance which the apostle urges upon the Athenians? We cannot for ourselves get over the evidence

that the term, in its genuine import, denotes the establishment in the present time of the designated day; nor will it of course be possible to convict this view of error except, in the first instance, on philological and not on theological grounds:" and he concludes by adding a self-complacent remark or two in view of the great effort which he has achieved.

Were I to follow Professor Bush through the whole of his criticism on this passage, it might be supposed that I take delight in exposing his glaring and perpetual errors in philology: but reference to a single point will be amply sufficient to show how shallow is the evasion by means of which he expects to save his theory from the death-blow which this passage cannot but give it. He has written as though he thought that the sense of the whole passage depended upon the import which was attached to otros; whereas, it is the connexion in which it is here found, which has compelled Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschneider, and other lexicographers and critics to attach to that word the unusual signification of præfigo, or constituo. And yet this is a point, of which Professor Bush has taken no more notice than the sleeping rocks. Did he not know that διότι ἔστησεν ἡμέραν, ἐν ἡ μέλλει κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην, &c. stands in this connexion? and that μennec xgivew IS FUTURE? and that therefore, however he might translate orŋos, whether appointed, or may or does appoint, or now appoints, still, the WILL JUDGE— Méxλe xgive, announces the judgment itself to be future? and this, not a judgment of men as they die, but of the oixovuévn the world of mankind? All this is in no way affected by his criticisms on ornos, and yet these are the things which bear directly against his theory. It would really seem as if the Professor had forgotten the idiomatic use of μéna. Let him look at it again as illustrated by Wahl and Bretschneider, or by Glassius, in Philol. Sacra, Lib. III. Tract. III. Can. 38, or by Winer, Idioms of the Greek Language of the New Testament, Part III. §. 45, 8, and I feel assured he will see that it was purely on philological, (and not theological) grounds that Wahl and Bretschneider, &c. &c., have assigned to one here the meaning they have. It would have rendered them ridicu lous throughout Germany had they attempted to define it otherwise in this passage; for every boy who had been but

a year at the Gymnasium could have told them that in such a connexion it could mean nothing else.

The next important passage, and one which Professor Bush has passed over without remark or allusion, is Rom. ii. 1-16, one of the sedes themselves of this doctrine, and contains not only clear announcements that the day of Judgment is future, and that all men are then to be judged, but an exhibition of the principles upon which the world of man is then to be judged. The passage is too long to admit of its being here fully quoted, but that the judgment is to be at an appointed time, and consequently does not take place at death, and that it is to be universal, comprehending both "Jew and Gentile," and that it is still future, is clear from the following extracts: "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds." "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" (and then after a parenthesis, Paul adds,) "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men (Jews and Gentiles) by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." See also Rom. xiv. 9–12.

In 1 Cor. iv. 3, also, Paul remarks, " But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment; (ixò ȧvogwлívns quégas or of man's day;) yea, I judge not mine own self." He here contrasts man's day, which is now, with the day when the Lord will judge; and man's judgment with the judgment which the Lord will pronounce when his great day of judgment shall arrive. Crellius (whom I have opened since writing the above,) takes the same view of the passage. "The apostle," says he, "appears to allude to that day of the Lord in which he will pronounce the final judgment; and to oppose the human day or judgment to that day and judgment."

We have already commented on 1 Cor. xv. 23, 51, 52, which fixes these events as synchronical with the coming of Christ, the sounding of the last trump, and the resurrection of the dead: and for the same reason we shall pass over 2 Cor. v. 10, with a single remark. It announces that all are to appear before the judgment-seat of Christ to receive according to their deserts: and the phrase τοὺς γὰς πάντας ἡμᾶς φανεξωθῆναι δεί, can mean no other than a universal and si

multaneous arraigning, at which time each one (exaotos) is to receive his reward. Nothing of this kind has yet occurred, and therefore the declaration remains yet to be accomplished,

Phil. iii. 20, 21, has already been discussed in relation to the resurrection. It also announces that at the great day of Jesus Christ (see ch. i. 6) he will descend from heaven. Of course, therefore, the judgment cannot, any more than the resurrection, take place while he is in heaven, as our author imagines.

The testimony in the epistles to the Thessalonians is very full and explicit; we have room, however, only to refer to it briefly in passing. 1 Thess. iv. 16, and its context, has been already noticed in our remarks on the resurrection. It also announces (see context) that the coming of the Lord to judgment is to be with the sound of the trumpet and the raising of the dead in Christ, and the rapture of them and of the living saints. These are the preludes to the judgment: and they are all yet to occur. See also chap. v. 2, and iii. 13; and Col. iii. 4.

The following passage needs no comment; its overwhelming testimony can never be set aside, and Professor Bush has thought it wisest to pass it in silence. Nothing can be more full or decisive of the point under discussion. "And to you who are troubled," says Paul," rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."

Another express affirmation that Christ will come visibly to judgment is found in 2 Thess. ii. 8: "And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:" xipávsia tys ragovolas, brightness of his APPEARING. The Greek language has no phrase which can more fully than this convey the idea that Christ will personally and visibly appear at the time here referred to; and this appearance will be in judgment, as the text declares.

But the whole context is worthy of consideration in view of Professor Bush's theory. In vs. 1-8, Paul assures the