of Jerusalem, than he said in preaching of the gospel. For Mr. B. admits that this kind of discourse was not preaching the gospel. In his first Inquiry, p. 200 he says, "In all the texts where he (Christ) speaks of hell, he was not preaching the gospel, but addressing the Jews about temporal calamities coming on them as a people." According to this principle, Christ preached but very little Gospel. Then if these writers had given us a complete commentary of the whole gospel of Matthew, they would have found the same necessity of referring no small portion of what they have left us for gospel, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and so making it no gospel. Almost all that they have commented on, they have thus ungospelled, and what reason have we to believe that they would spare the rest? Now were I called upon to give credit to the views of this class of commentators, I should here be stumbled at the threshhold should deem it a bold tax upon my credulity, to be asked to believe, that the great subject of Christ's preaching was found in the destruction of Jerusalem, that spiritual and immortal interests were a mere circumstance, an incidental adjunct of the cther. And if I ever succeeded in digesting the monstrous absurdity, I would be honest enough to call things by right names, and label the New Testament "JERU

Of

Of

this is not referred to national calamities Of chap. 10, the first 5 are narrative, 14 and 15 referred by Mr. B. Essays 249, to national calamities. And 28-31 is referred Inq. p. 150 to the same. chap. 11, first 4 narrative, 20-24 referred by Mr. B. p. 58 to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of chap. 12, verses 1, 2, 9-17, 22—24 and 46-50 are narrative and 25-32 Mr. B.'s 2d Inq. p. 299 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. And 33-37 in Essays p. 251 is referred to the same. And 38-42 in Essays p. 251 is referred to the same. And 43-45 Mr. W. p. 37, refers to the same. chap. 13 the 3 first are narrative 24-30, Mr. W. p. 51 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. The next 8 verses Mr. W. p. 61, refers to the same. The last 6 are narrative. Chap. 14, all narrative. Of chap. 15, none is referred to the destruction of Jerusalem. 25 of its verses narrative. Of chap. 16, first 16 verses narrative. 21 -23 narrative, 24-27 Essays p. 32 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Chap. 17 all narrative. Chap. 18 two first narrative, 7 -14 by Mr. W. p. 10 referred to the destruction of Jerusalem. Chap. 19 the 1, 2, 3, 7, 10 and 16, narrative, all after the 16 referred by Mr. W. p. 182 to the destruction of Jerusalem. Chap. 20,

SALEM'S DESTRUCTION FORETOLD." And then I would lay it aside, as a book which interested me no more than any other treatise upon times and events so remote,-as fit only for antiquarian purposes-lay it aside on the ground that what was written mainly and so exclusively for the men that lived near 2000 years ago, could claim little authority and influence over me. When I read in the Old Testament, histories and prophecies relating to temporal affairs, and national events, I feel an interest in it and derive instruction from it, because I see in all those events a preparation for the introduction of the gospel dispensation. I see in all previous events, the whole creation groaning and travailing, to bring forth him who was the redemption of the church. And therefore I see an ample reason, why all those histories and prophecies, should have a place in an inspired book, bearing the name of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ." And I see how to derive divine and practical instruction from them all. Considered in this light evangelical prophecy becomes as important, interesting and practical as evangelical history. But when all the historical, didactic and hortatory parts of the New Testament, are made to termiminate in Jerusalem's destruction, an event having so few important connexions with the world's subsequent history, and

first 16 verses, continuation of the same subject and by Mr. W. referred to the same. The next 8 and last 5 narrative. Chap. 21, first 23 and last 2 narrative. 33-44 by Mr. W. p. 196, referred to destruction of Jerusalem. Chap. 22, first 14 referred by Mr, W. p. 117 to the destruction of Jerusalem, the next 14 and verses 3336 and 41 and 42 and 46 are narrative. Chap. 23, all is directed towards a conclusion which Mr. B. p. 163 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is so connected that if any refers to that, all does. The next two chapters both Mr. W. and Mr. B. argue at great length in a reference of them to the destruction of Jerusalem. The next 3 are all narrative except the last 3 verses. And here ends the book. Now the reader may if it be worth his while taking these results and put them together and he will find this general result.-There are in Matthew's gospel according to this examination of universalist interpretations, 523 verses of narrative, 296 referred to the destruction of Jerusalem and 257 of Christ's discourses not referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, i. e. 39 verses more of Christ's discourses referred to the destruction of Jerusa. lem, than of those which are not so referred.

conduct, the sacred book is divested of its main interest and influence over me. Before I could believe this, I should hesitate upon the thought that Jesus Christ should come from heaven to earth, for the mere purpose of warning that nation of the coming destruction-that he should undergo what he did for such a purpose-make all his instructions and laborious teaching point mainly to that-that he should exhaust the resources of eternal wisdom, and in the end take upon him such a death, as mere mortal never underwent, for that object, and then, fail as he did at the last. For failure most complete it was, if the great purpose of his coming and ministry was the salvation of that people from their national calamities. If this were "the joy set before him, for which he endured the cross despising the shame," it was a joy never attained,-nay, never expected; for he knew and his prophets foretold before he came, that the nation was to be destroyed. However much my guilty heart might desire the belief, that the main threatenings and warnings of Scripture, had their termination in Jerusalem's overthrow, my understanding and my conscience would rebel. That Enoch before the flood had a prophetic eye on the Roman army, as of ten thousand saints coming with Christ to execute judgment upon Jerusalem-that Korah and his company under the name of angels that sinned, having been annihilated, soul and body, fifteen centuries before, were still "reserved" to sustain the heaviest force of their punishment in Jerusalem's destruction-that apostles, writing to the Gentile churches who never saw Jerusalem, and who were not in a way to be seriously affected by its destruction, made this a leading topic in all their letters-earnestly warning them against that day, as one that was to fix their eternal destinyare no easy matters to believe. A demand that I shall digest all this is about equivalent to calling upon me to believe that Jerusalem is the central point in the universe, and that all the nations and generations of the world are merely its suburbs, and all other worlds its dependent provinces. That the destruction of this city was an event, in which all others had their termination, and central design, the whole chain of causes and ef

fects from the morning of eternity onward being only subsidiary adjuncts of this-in short, that here is the original point from which go out all the divine counsels and influences, and to which returns the whole revenue of divine glory.

Again, the Universalists make the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead to be the leading doctrine of the gospel. And there is a sense in which it is truly so. But they exalt this doctrine more than any other class of religionists, in that they find in it the restoration not only of the life of the body, but also of the soul. And not only this, they find in the resurrection of the body, a substitute for holiness of life and conversion to God in this life, making it work such transformations of character as to save all necessity of a man's preparing for heaven before he dies. And yet they pretend that they can believe that a doctrine so important to them, as that of the resurrection, it but seldom mentioned in the discourses of Christ, while the destruction of Jerusalem is on all occasions the theme of remark. My memory now does not fix upon more than one instance in all the gospels, where they will allow that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is taught. And yet they will have us believe that an event of no more importance in the history of the world, which he came to save, than that of Jerusalem's destruction, can occupy the greater part of his discourses, recorded in the evangelists. They ask us to believe that the whole gospels are a perpetual sing-song of Jerusalem's destruction, and yet so important a doctrine as that of the resurrection comes near to being overlooked, and forgotten. It requires some credulity to admit such an idea.

If I would be a Universalist after the model of these writers, I must furthermore believe that Paul being now ready to be offered, and the time of his departure at hand, had his soul filled with emotions unutterable, in anticipation of a crown that he was to receive at the time of Jerusalem's destruction-20 years after he was dead, soul and body; and to come at this edifying doctrine, I must believe that Grecian games were duels where men contended unto death, instead of wrestling and racing, as they are represented in the classics, and that the party kill

ed in these duels, was sometimes the victor. And I must believe, because Mr. B. has somewhere read "in the course of his reading," he cannot tell us where-that a dead victor in such duels was crowned for his valor after his death. that Paul was anxiously aspiring for the post mortem crown that was to be awarded to him as an apostle of the Gentiles when the Jews should be overthrown.

And

I am furthermore asked to believe, contrary to the testimony of prophecy, and history, that the time of Jerusalem's destruction was to Christians throughout the world, a season of grand and glorious jubilee. That instead of their being in a condition of "fleeing to the mountains," as Christ taught them to expect, and instead of the Gentile churches being in a state of severe persecution, and under the full pressure of heathen hostility, as historians have led us to suppose, they were enjoying that glorious rest with the apostles then dead, i. e. annihilated, which was to take place when the Lord Jesus comes from heaven, to be glorified of his saints, and admired in all them that believe. I must also give my faith to the notion, that all the passages of Scripture which speak of eternal, or everlasting life, refer to something in this life, and do not mean that blessedness enjoyed by the saints in heaven, and yet that the Bible somehow reveals an everlasting life in heaven, i. e. that the Bible reveals everlasting life, yet when it speaks of it, it means no such thing. I must also believe, that in all the passages which speak of the resurrection, not a word is said about any coming forth to damnation. I must believe, that the resurrection to damnation is a moral resurrection—that a man is first raised by it to spiritual life, and then finds his damnation in reward for his spiritual life in Jerusalem's destruction. I must believe, that when the word everlasting is found in connexion with punishment, that itself is an intimation that it is a punishment limited to this world, i. e. the word everlasting applied to punishment is prima facie proof that everlasting punishment is not meant that "this very application of the word everlasting is a strong confirming circumstance, in proof of the views he has advanced." See his comments on 2 Thes. 1: 6.