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 kingdom 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 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.

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 doc-. trines, which make many appearances like the truth as tares do like wheat, when in the blade." Again, "That it was the

will of the Savior that false doctrines should be imbibed, [monstrous!] until their fruits should come to maturity, is shown, in that he saith, 'let both grow together till harvest."" Ballou's Notes on the Parables, pp. 72, 68.

A popular preacher of your denomination, a few months since, in preaching from this parable, addressed his audience thus:

My hearers, do you not sometimes feel a desire in your hearts, that all men may be holy and happy in the world to come? Yes. Well, this is the wheat. On the contrary, do you not at times feel to shudder at the thought that you may be separated from your kindred and friends in eternity, and that any of them should sink in endless torments? Yes. Well, this is the tares."

That is, according to Mr. Ballou and Universalist authors in general, pure, bona fide Universalism is the wheat; and the doctrine of future punishment, is the tares. Remember this.

3. The harvest, or end of the world, what does this denote? Mr. Whittemore shall answer:

mos,

"It never should be forgotten that the end of the world, at which the harvest was to take place, was not the end of kosthe world said to be the field; but the end of aion, the age, and unquestionably referred to the conclusion of the Jewish state," "i. e. destruction of Jerusalem. See Notes on parables, p. 101.

4. Our Savior in his exposition of this parable, says, "at the end of the world," at the time of harvest, "the Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity." Who are these angels that the Son of Man employs as reap

ers? Mr. Whittemore will tell us.

"It is certainly meant that the Roman armies were the messengers [angels] which God sent to destroy his rebellious people, the Jews." p. 103. Remember then, the angels of Christ, were the Roman armies. They were the reapers of the field, "the material universe."

5. Our Savior says, in his explanation, that "then"-(that is, at the end of the world,) "the righteous shall shine forth as the Sun in the kingdom of their Father." What does this denote, according to the new light shed upon the Scriptures by Modern Universalism? Mr. Whittemore will answer.

"Their persecutors, the Jews being destroyed [at the des truction of Jerusalem,] and persecutions on every hand being abated and softened, they would experience comparative earth

ly felicity, and have an enlarged enjoyment of gospel peace and life. Separated from the hypocrites, the Church would be pure."!!! p. 104.

We have now before us the Universalist exposition of the parable of tares and wheat. It is furnished by two of your most popalar divines, fathers and oracles of the order. It is, unquestionably, the best exposition of which the system is capable. Is it sound? Will it stand the test of examination? Look it over. The field is "the material universe"-the wheat is sound doctrine, i. e., pure, unadulterated Universalism-the tares represent false doctrine, particularly the doctrine of future punishmentthe harvest, or end of the world, was the destruction of Jerusalem, the angels were the Roman armies the exaltation of the righteous, was the "earthly felicity" which Christians enjoyed at the destruction of Jerusalem. To all this I object,

1. It contradicts the exposition which the Savior himself has given of this parable. After the multitude were sent away, the disciples came to Christ with this request. "Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.' Now if Christ meant to teach that at the destruction of Jerusalem, he would by the agency of those ungodly, mercenary, idolaters, the Roman soldiers, gather the doctrine of future punishment out of the "material universe," and leave nothing but the doctrine of Universalism, he would have undoubtedly expressed it in clear and emphatic language. Did he do so? Look at his explanation of his own parable.

"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Math. 13: 37–43.

Here we are taught by one that cannot lie, (1.) That the good seed, or wheat, when ready for harvest, is not Universalism, but "the children of the kingdom," called "the righteous" in verse 43. Here a figure of Rhetoric is used, called a metonomy, in which the cause is spoken of as the effect, or

the effect as the cause. The seed sown by Christ in person, or by the agency of any of his true ministers, is the truth; the crop, or result, is, "the children of the kingdom." (2.) The tares in harvest, are not false doctrine; but "the children o the wicked one," the natural product of false doctrine. False doctrine produces depraved hearts. Here the same figure is used as before. The wicked are frequently spoken of as the children of the Master whom they serve, or the principles they adopt. They are called the "children of disobedience," "children of their father, the devil." Now, in saying that the tares and wheat, not when sown as seed, but when reaped in as a harvest, are false and true doctrines, you contradict Christ, who says, "The tares are THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE; "The wheat, the children of the kingdom," the righteous."

2. I object to your exposition again, because it is absurd and nonsensical. Look at it. Did Christ employ the Roman soldiers, a wicked and bloody set of men as ever lived-to purge his church and gather out of it all false doctrine? Did they, as a matter of fact, gather out the tares-the doctrine of future punishment, from the field-the "material universe," and burn it up in fire? If so, then it follows that the Roman ariny which destroyed Jerusalem, a wicked crew of heathen monsters in human form, were the most successful preachers of Universalism, which the world has ever beheld. They reaped down and burnt up the doctrine of future punishment, not only under the walls of the holy city, but through "the material universe." Nothing but pure Universalism, of course, cauld have been left throughout "the material Universe."

It is surprising that some ancient historian has not chronicled this wonderous harvest time of the Roman army, when they so effectually, as the "Mighty Angels" of the Son of Man, cleansed, not only the sanctuary, but the "material universe" from false doctrine and wicked men. We should naturally suppose that Josephus, Philo, Tacitus or Seutonius, or some other historian of those days, would have noticed so extraordinary an event. But no. They have left us in the dark, both as it respects the modus operandi and the fact of this marvelous circumstance. Besides, if the tares-false doctrine-were gathered out of the field-"the material universe" and burnt up at the destruction of Jerusalem, is it not a little extraordinary, that the whole field-" the material universe" was so quickly covered over again with tares? For it is a matter of fact, which you will not presume to deny, that the doctrine of future retri