Page images
PDF
EPUB

rection? Why, it is obviously, being raised from a death in sin, to a life of holiness. There is no chance for dispute here. Well, now, did the Jewish nation experience such a resurrection at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem? Look at it. Think it over. Did the Jewish nation, or any considerable portion of them, experience a happy change in their moral characters? Were they then raised by the Roman army that destroyed their city and temple? or by the gospel, or by any other means, from a life of sin to a life of holiness? With the history of that bloody siege before you, you dare not answer in the affirmative. So far were the Jews from experiencing any moral resurrection, properly so called, at the destruction of Jerusalem, that, according to Josephus, their moral blindness and infatuation were amazing in the highest degree.They seemed to have been lost to all moral sensibility, and madly plunged into their graves, instead of coming forth from them to a moral resurrection.

But you may say to this, that a moral resurrection' took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, so far as the Christians were concerned. I reply, (1.) The resurrection spoken of in the text is not thus limited. It is applicable to ALL. "All that are in their graves shall hear his voice,"&c. The living saints, at the time Jerusalem was destroyed, were not as a matter of fact, "in their graves." Their bodies were not there. Their souls were not there. They were not morally, nor physically in their graves. Hence they could have had no part in your moral resurrection at the destruction of Jerusalem. (3.) The Christians of Jerusalem, who, according to the testimony of one historian who wrote three hundred years after that event, fled to the mountains of Palla, had all of them experienced your "moral resurrection" before the Roman army arrived and commenced the work of human butchery. They experienced their "moral resurrection" when they "passed from death unto life," when they "were raised up and made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

But you say the resurrection was also political-that "the Jewish nation had long been in moral and political death." Very well. Will this bear examination ? We will see.What then, is a "political resurrection?" Why, the very opposite of political death. Mr. Balfour tells us that the Jewish nation had long been in a "political death," by which he obviously means that the political independence and prosperity of the nation were gone, and that the administration of the government had become oppressive and corrupt. This is a political

death. A political resurrection is the very opposite of this. That is, a political resurrection among the Jews, would have restored them to their former independence and prosperity, such as they enjoyed in the days of Solomon. You say this political resurrection took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, the very time and place when the last blow was inflicted upon a bleeding and dying nation! What absurdity! What a contradiction! The destruction of Jerusalem might with some propriety be called a "political death," but to call it a political resurrection," shocks all common sense.

66

3. I object to the Universalist exposition of John 5: 28, 29, again, because the Greek word mnemeiois, here rendered graves, literally denotes tombs or sepulchres. It is a word nowhere used in the scriptures in any other sense. Is it not then unreasonable, a manifest perversion of the Word of God, to give it a new and unheard-of sense in this text?

4. Your exposition contradicts the positive statement of Christ, as to matter of fact. He says at the time of the resurrection referred to, all shall hear his voice and come forth. But you contradict this, and say that it does not refer to all men, but only to the Jews. You limit the language of Christ still more than this, and make ALL mean only those Jews, who were involved in the calamitous events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem. It is amazing to see in how many instances the Universalists are under the necessity of limiting scriptural expressions of universal import, such as, "Every one, ," "all nations," "all," &c., in order to sustain their system. In this way, while you are bolstering up your system at one end, you are digging it down at the other.

5. I object to your exposition again, because it represents our Savior as speaking in a manner altogether impertinent to the occasion. Look at the preceding context. You do not there see a word about the destruction of Jerusalem. This was not the subject upon which our Blessed Lord was conversing. His discourse was introduced by the miracle at the pool of Bethesda. This led Christ to speak of his miraculous power, and the use he would make of it. He would give moral and physical life to whom he pleased,—he had all judgment committed to his hands, &c. Observing their amazement at these declarations of his power and authority, he exclaimed,— "Marvel not at this,"-do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves (sepulchres) shall hear his voice, &c. Now this is all natural and easy ;but had Christ gone on to speak of the destruction of Jerusa

lem, in a strain of the most ambiguous, figurative language, in order to illustrate the manner in which his miraculous power would be employed, it must be obvious to every unbiased mind, that his hearers must have misunderstood him,—that his reference could have been no illustration, inasmuch as Jerusalem was destroyed by the military power of the Roman legions, and not by the miraculous power of Christ. Besides, an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem under the circumstances in which our Savior was then speaking, must be regarded as an awkward, impertinent, and to the hearers, an unmeaning digression.

6. I cannot adopt your exposition, in fine, because it makes my Blessed Lord utter nonsense and falsehood. Let us so paraphrase the passage as to make it read according to Universalism, and you will then readily see its falsehood and absurdity.

"Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, at the destruction of Jerusalem, in the which all, [i. e. a part] that are in the graves of moral and political death, shall hear his voice, which he shall utter thro' the operations of the Roman army, and shall come forth out of their graves of moral and political death;they that have done good (in their graves of sin and political corruption,) to the resurrection of life, (the same life they had always enjoyed while doing good in their graves of sin ;) and they that have done evil, in their "graves of moral and political death," to the resurrection of damnation,-that is, to that punishment of sin, which they had always experienced, day by day as they passed along in life!!!”

This is the true construction of John 5: 28, 29, according to Messrs. H. Ballou and W. Balfour, two of your most eloquent and popular preachers. Did Jesus of Nazareth ever utter such nonsense? No-never. It is scarcely less than blasphemy to charge him with it. Look at the confusion con founded, which it makes of the whole passage. Its absurdity and nonsense consist in the following particulars. [1.] It make Christ say all, when he meant only a part, yea, only a smal part even, of the Jewish nation. [2] It represents the Savio as speaking of that event in Jewish history, which of all othe events in that history, was the deepest plunge into the abyss of moral and political death, as in fact a "moral and political resurrection.' [3.] It represents Christ as promising a reward to those Jews, who had done good while in their sins,-being in their graves, "inactive." Did the wicked Jews do good in their sins? If so,how they could have done good in sin,and at the same

time have remained" inactive," is a mystery to me. [4.] The passage is made to contradict your whole system, by representing the punishment of sin as deferred to a future day. The wicked Jews did not receive all the punishment of their sins as they passed along. Judgment lingered, and damnation slumbered, till the destruction of Jerusalem. This is an incongruity in the explanation, not easily explained, to say nothing of the intimation which it gives, that those Jews who fell asleep before Titus arrived with his invincible legions, under the triple walls of the Holy City, escaped their "resurrection of damnation," which they equally deserved with their brethren, and mounted aloft to the paradise of God.

But we are told by your authors, that "the resurrection of life," to which some came forth at the destruction of Jerusalem, represents the peculiar blessings, which were enjoyed by the Christians, who fled from the devoted city to the mountains of Palla, and were safe. To this I answer, (1.) It is not certain that many of the Christians of Jerusalem, at its destruction, were not involved in the common temporal ruin of their Jewish brethren.-The statement that they all fled from the city, depends upon the testimony of only one ecclesiastical historian, who lived 300 years subsequent to the event, and is probably given by him on no better authority than tradition. (2.) Temporal rewards or blessings are not spoken of anywhere in the New Testament as "life""eternal life," "resurrection of life." (3.) The Christians at Jerusalem, if they all fled from the city, must have left behind them their unconverted relations and their property. These must have been devoted to destruction. This must have been a most heart rending trial to their benevolent souls; and their retreat from home, kindred, property, and friends, into the mountains, to suffer privation, poverty, and in the end, bitter persecution, must have been anything but the "resurrection of life." I ask you, Sir, would you not shrink with horror from the thought of being rewarded with such a "resurrection of life?" If this is a "resurrection of life," I think you and I would prefer the "resurrection of damnation."

Thus I find the attempts of your greatest men at explaining away this solemn text, an utter, perhaps I might say "a splendid failure." The Universalist explanation confounds itself, conflicts with historical facts, and makes the Dear Savior utter the most unmeaning nonsense.

Yours as ever.

LETTER XXII.

My Dear Sir:

The parable of the tares and wheat, is a serious obstacle in the way of my adopting Universalian sentiments. It reads thus: "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The king'dom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn." Matt. 13: 24-30.

This parable I regard as clearly teaching the probationary nature of time, and the reality of a judgment to come. But this natural and obvious view of the passage, you object to, and refer me to standard authors among Universalists, for the true scriptural sense of this portion of our Lord's preaching. I will now examine the commonly received exposition of Universalists. Messrs. T. Whittemore and H. Ballou, shall be our guides.They differ a little between themselves, but in the main they agree. Let me then ask,

1. What is meant by the field?

Mr. Whittemore answers:

"Here the word world is a translation of the Greek word kosmos, which usually signifies the material universe. The world, therefore, is to be understood in its usual sense in the instance before us.' Whittemore on Parables, p. 96. Now remember the field in which the wheat and tares were sown, is "the material Universe." A large field truly.

[ocr errors]

2. What is denoted by the tares? Mr. Ballou shall answer: He tells us that the wheat represents sound doctrine, that is, Universalism, and the tares, false doctrine, that is, the doctrine of future and endless punishment. Hear him.

"Nor are tares of a very different character from false doctrines, which make many appearances like the truth as tares do like wheat, when in the blade." Again, "That it was the

« PreviousContinue »