Page images
PDF
EPUB

find, any day, in the mansions of the rich. They are worldly, proud, haughty, selfish, live at ease, and despise the poor.Not the worst of men, but totally unlike Jesus, and wholly unfit for the heavenly world. As to Lazarus, true, it is not said that he is pious, but this is clearly implied throughout, and he is represented as one of those humble, afflicted, unfortunate children of God, of whom the world is not worthy, whose treasure is in heaven and not on earth. In fine, after examining the most plausible attempt of which your system is capable, to explain away this most solemn and important parable of Christ, I confess myself surprised that any man can be found willing to risk his reputation for good sense, to say nothing of his eternal salvation, upon such thread-bare sophistry. Yours as ever.

LETTER XXI.

My Dear Sir:

I find John 5: 28,29, a serious difficulty in the way of believing in Universalism.

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

This passage as it stands in the records of our faith, is plain, and its import too obvious to be misunderstood by any unsophisticated mind. No commentator or author of any note, to my knowledge, from the days of Christ till the rise of Modern Universalism, has attempted to deny that it clearly and necessarily teaches the doctrine of future retribution. But some of your most popular authors have attempted to explain it away. Look at the Universalist exposition, as given by one of your oldest and most profound divines. He says:

"It is evident that the time of the resurrection of the dead is not meant, but the hour or time of the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish nation, whom our Lord addressed, had long been in a state of moral and political death. They were not only dead, but buried in their lusts; or in the language of the prophet, were in their graves. A few of them, under our Lord's ministry, had heard his voice, and were raised to moral or spiritual life during the time expressed in the phrase,

"now is," verse 25. But he says in the 28th, "the hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice and come forth." Come forth from what? They shall come forth from the state of inactivity to action, from this more al and political death." See the Universalist Magazine. Vol. 7. pp. 103, 107.

This is the proper construction of John 5: 28, 29, according to Universalism. This is the view which your preachers generally take of this passage. Let us look at it. Is it sound? Is it sound theology? Is it sound philosophy? I think not.— Now, this explanation needs to be explained a thousand fold more than the text itself. I object to the Universalist mode of explaining this passage away,

1. It is an unnatural, far-fetched construction; one that could not have suggested itself to the persons who heard our Lord, when he uttered the lauguage of the text,-a construc-. tion, so unnatural as never to have suggested itself to the understanding of any of the many thousands of pious students of the Bible in former days.—It is a forced construction of the text, evidently invented and gotten up to sustain a system.― Such expositions are always false. They are never to be trusted, never to be taken.

2. The sense which your authors put upon the word resurrection here is deceptive and absurd. It is deceptive, because a great parade is made about the import of the Greek word an astasis, rendered resurrection. The hearer or reader who knows nothing about it himself, is told that it means "rising from obscurity to eminence, from inactivity to action," This is adapted to mislead, and leave the impression upon the mind of the reader, that the original word here employed is not the word which is commonly and properly used to denote the literal resurrection of the dead. Be it known unto you, and to all Universalists who have been misled and deceived by such miserable attempts at criticism, that anastasis is the very word employed by Christ and his Apostles to denote the literal res urrection of the dead. It is the word employed in Mat. 22: 23, 28, 31. Mark 12: 18, 23. Luke 14: 14, 20, 27, 35, 36.

The sense which the Universalists put upon the word resur-. rection in this text is absurd also. You apply the text to the famous destruction of Jerusalem, and tell us that the resurrec-. tion then and there experienced, was a "moral and political res urrection,”—that "the Jewish nation had long been in a state of moral and political death." Very well. Now, how will: this hang together? We will see. What is a moral resur-

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.

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.

This

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. 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 confounded, which it makes of the whole passage. Its absurdity and nonsense consist in the following particulars. [1.] It makes Christ say all, when he meant only a part, yea, only a small part even, of the Jewish nation. [2.] It represents the Savior as speaking of that event in Jewish history, which of all other 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

« PreviousContinue »