Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

a

ANSWER. (No. 1.) Will the questioner, who styles himself "A Truth Seeker," be pleased to notice the following: John does not relate the baptism of Jesus, but simply adverts to a circumstance which took place on that occasion. (verse 32.) "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, and it abode upon him." Matthew relates, particularly, the occurrences of that interesting occasion, and informs us, (iii. 16,) "He, (John) saw the Spirit of God descending like dove, and resting upon him." Hence, we conclude, that when John penned the thirty-second verse of his history, Jesus had then been immersed, for he speaks of the transaction as being past. It appears evident, that when Jesus came to be baptized, John did not certainly know him, (see verse 33,) although from Matthew iii. 14, we are led to believe John was inwardly convinced of the sacred character of Jesus, but had not as yet, any direct or formal assurance thereof. It would appear clear, therefore, that when John exclaims in the twenty-ninth verse, Behold the Lamb of God," Christ had then already been baptized, and John had already beheld the manifestation of the Divine Spirit descending from heaven and resting upon him, and heard the voice, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

[ocr errors]

From the other Evangelists we learn, that Christ's temptation in the wilderness took place immediately after his baptism, and both these events (omitted in John's history,) must have taken place previously to the twenty-eighth verse of John's narrative, and about the date of the "these things" which were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing, referred to in the said verse.

There is, therefore, no discrepancy between the several historians in the matter referred to by our worthy friend. John merely omits to narrate what his co-adjutors have done for him,-which “ apparent discrepances" (but apparent at first sight merely) afford one of the strongest internal evidences of the genuineness of their testimony. Had the story concerning Jesus of Nazareth, been concocted and palmed off upon mankind by the emissaries of the Arch Deceiver, their testimony would have borne that peculiar characteristic which distinguishes truth and falsehood, and leads so frequently to the detection of the latter,-of a studied agreement in every particular recorded by them. J. W.

March, 1850.

ANSWER. (No. 2.) It was not the next day after Christ's baptism, that the Baptist saw Jesus coming, &c.; but "the next day" after the deputation of Priests and Levites had waited upon John for his testimony. This I think will remove your difficulty. See John i. 19-28. J. B. ROLLO.

Correspondence.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL BANNER.-Dear Brother,I must claim the favour of a few words of self-vindication before I can allow this discussion to be numbered with the things that were. I pass by the charges of quibbling, and the out-of-the-way course you have adopted, in insisting on various conclusions, rather than being content to offer evidence, leaving the readers to arrive at conclusions, and decide who is advocating an unscriptural theory. But I do complain of being placed in the awkward predicament of denying the resurrection, absolutely; such is the distorted portrait you have painted of my theological features. I contend most earnestly for the resurrection of "the just and unjust," who of course are to be judged according to God's law, but the heathen, to which the passages refer, were "without the law, commandments, &c., without God, without hope in the world;" consequently, "where there is no law, there is (no account kept of) transgression." Christ commanded his disciples not to go into the way of such. Paul says, "God winked at them."

You say those spoken of by David, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, "were not to come up out of their graves during the present state of existence." Is it not to the morn of the resurrection David refers, Psalm xlix. 19? for he says, verse 15, "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave." Here was his privilege over those who never "were to see light;" if verse 19 mean as you say, then David has undergone a resurrection. The idea of the soul having to be redeemed from the power of the grave, is rather adverse to the popular logic, and notions of the "separate state." If I be unscriptural in denying the resurrection of the irresponsible parties deprived of law, and without Christ in the world, only shew me by the scriptures that these things are not so, I will thank you sincerely, and promise you fellowship for ever in better ideas.

Yours, in the hope of a resurrection,

REPLY BY THE EDITOR.

J. LUXFORD.

BROTHER L. says, "I pass by the charges of quibbling, and the out-of-theway course you have adopted, in insisting on certain conclusions, rather than being content to offer evidence," &c. We deny that our course towards him has been an out-of-the-way one. He has not, nor can he, produce an iota of proof to substantiate the accusation. But such assertions resemble the groanings of a wounded gladiator. The intelligent will affirm that we have not insisted on any conclusion which was not logically drawn from premises existing in the subject. And too much stress cannot be laid upon conclusions thus correctly deduced. For a theory entirely depends upon them: they demonstrate whether it be true or false.

As to the amount of evidence presented, we say cheerfully that but a small portion out of a great mass has been brought forward. But for why should brother L. complain of its paucity? he has not been able to shake its columns. We are most willing however that the readers should decide both of its quantity and quality.

Brother L. complains of being placed in an awkward predicament. We reply that he placed himself in it, we did not; we simply showed that according to bis mode of reasoning, the Apostles would not rise again. The fact is, he was

not aware of the deductions which could be legitimately drawn by his mode of arguing. We are persuaded he did not intend to deny the resurrection absolutely, yet his reasonings thus tended. So the party in the Corinthian church who argued that there was no resurrection, in fact denied that Christ was risen; but they appear to have been ignorant of this consequence of their logic, and no doubt, when the Apostle stated it, they would be much surprised, and complain of the awkward predicament in which he placed them.

Brother L. now states that the passages he quoted referred to the heathen. We deny that they all do; but as some refer to them we shall examine his arguments in proof of their non-resurrection. His reasonings are reducible to this syllogism:

Where there is no law, knowledge of God, nor hope, there is no trangression. The heathen are without law, knowledge of God, and hope:

Therefore, they shall not rise again.

The reader will perceive that the conclusion is not contained in the premises, hence, that it cannot be deduced from them, consequently is illogical and absurd. It is most evident that if brother L's. premises were true, they do not prove his doctrine to be true. But a few extracts from the Apostle Paul's writings will demonstrate that his middle proposition is an admixture of misapplied truth and error. We will also show from the Oracles that all his texts of Scripture brought to support it, are misapplied truths.

The inspired Apostle, in his epistle to the Romans, proves these three particulars, the subjects now in dispute-1st. That the Gentiles, or heathen, were under law. 2nd. That they were sinners in the sight of God. 3rd. That they would be punished or rewarded in the judgment day according to their works: hence he proves that they would rise again.

1st. The Jews boasted that they alone possessed the law of God. Paul to subdue their boastings, argued that the Gentiles had the law implanted in their nature. Hence, he said, "When therefore the Gentiles who have not a (revealed) law do by nature the things of the (revealed) law, these persons, though they have not a (revealed) law, are a law unto themselves: who show plainly the work of the law, written on their hearts; their conscience bearing witness, and also their reasonings between one another, when they accuse or excuse each other." Rom. ii. 14, 15. (New version.)

2nd. The Apostle, referring to his previous arguments, said, "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." Rom. iii. 9.

3rd. The Apostle having described the condition of those two divisions of the human family, reveals the fate which awaited every individual of them at the bar of God. He says, "Affliction and great distress shall come on every soul of man who works evil; first of the Jew, and also of the Greek. But glory, honour, and peace, to every one who works good; first to the Jew, and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God. As many, therefore as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned under law, shall be judged by law: for not those who hear the law are just before God; but those who obey the law, shall be justified in the day when God will judge the hidden things of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." Rom. ii. 12. (New version)

Now be it remembered it is here declared that every Jew and Gentile will be rewarded according to his deeds, and that this retribution will take place at the day of judgment. As therefore the good must rise again to receive glory and honour, so must also the bad to receive affliction and distress.

And again, the Apostle declares the resurrection of the heathen, the class of mankind who had not a revealed law, in these words, "And will not the uncircumcision which by nature fulfills the law, condemn you, [Jew] a transgressor of the law." Now from parallel scriptures we learn when he would condemn him. We give one, in Luke xi. 31, it is thus said, "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them:" &c. The virtuous heathen then will condemn the wicked at the bar of God.

Brother L. affirms that the heathen had not the knowledge of God. This is a truth, but misapplied. He quoted it to prove that they were not accountable beings; but Paul affirms that they were inexcusable for not possessing this knowledge. Rom. i. 20.

Our brother also applies to the heathen this scripture, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression." But we have seen that they have a knowledge of law, consequently, the text is not applicable to them.

Brother L. also quotes this passage, Acts xvii. 30,-"And at the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." Now why did the Divine Being overlook their ignorance of himself? Paul again replies, most satisfactorily, "For all, having sinned and come short of the glory of God, are justified freely by his favour, through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his own justice in passing by the sins which were before committed, through the forbearance of God: for a demonstration, also, of his justice in the present time, in order that he may be just when justifying him who is of the faith of Jesus." God did not then wink at their ignorance because they were not accountable beings, but because he had ordained a sacrifice to be offered up for the sins of the world. In view of this therefore, he did not destroy them in their crimes. Had it not been that Jehovah had thus appointed an offering for sin, he would have been compelled, in justice, to have cleared the earth of its inhabitants with the besom of destruction. Hence, when Christ died it was demonstrated to angels and to men that God was just-that he did not compromise, in the smallest degree, his glory when overlooking the transgressions committed by men before the coming of Christ.

Brother L. makes a garbled extract from Matt. x. 5. ("These twelve Jesus sent forth, and cominanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.") Now be it known the reason why the Saviour forbad his disciples to go into the way of the Gentiles, was, because his own mission extended only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel: he therefore limited theirs within the same bounds. But after his resurrection he made the world their circuit, and bade them preach the gospel to both Jew and heathen.

Brother L. asks, Does not David refer to the morn of the resurrection, Ps. xlix. 19? Our reply shall be embodied in a short exposition of the 15th and 19th verses. The 15th verse thus reads, "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me." Here an action, and the design, of it are expressed. The act is, the redemption of the psalmist from the grave, the design, that he may be received by God. Now the design of an action distinguishes it from all other actions of the same kind. The design of the resurrection in the 15th verse being that the object of it might be received by God, What is that resurrection which has such a design? The Oracles reply, It is that of the just. This then was the privilege which the psalmist should enjoy over those of whom he was speaking. He should be redeemed from the grave amongst the just.

But we will persent another proof of the truth of this exposition. When an action is to be performed upon two or more classes of objects, and is to accomplish upon each a different design, if the action and one of its designs be expressed the class of objects to be operated upon can be discovered. We shall apply this rule to the case in hand. A deliverance from the grave is an action to be performed upon two classes, the just and the unjust. It is to accomplish upon each a different design: the first are to be received by God; the second to be banished from his presence. In the verse before us a resurrection is expressed, and its design is that the psalmist, as one of a class, may be received by God. Now what class is to be the subject of this resurrection? All reply-The just! The psalmist was then speaking of the resurrection of the just, and as he was one of this class he rejoiced in its hope. We discern, then, what was his privilege over those of whom he was speaking: he denied not their resurrection, but affirmed the glory of that of which he should be the subject.

The 19th verse thus reads, in the common version, "He shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light." The Hebrew of the last clause is od nejek lah irahu aur, which properly translated is, they shall no longer (literally, yet farther not) see light. To see light, is a Hebrew expression, signifying to have an healthy existence; and, not to see light means to die. See Job xxxiii. 28, 30. The last clause of the verse is a synonimous parallel with the first; both affirm the certainty of the death of those who trusted in their riches; but neither denies their resurrection. We opine that our readers will discern the hollowness of brother L's arguments drawn from these two verses.

The idea that the soul is to be delivered from the grave, is as adverse to brother L's. tenet as to ours. He argues that the soul means life. Now, does the life descend into the grave? But in the Hebrew the term here translated grave, is sheol, which signifies, the invisible state of the dead.

Brother L. has not proved that the heathen were irresponsible, consequently, on his own hypothesis, he has not proved that they will not rise again.

In Christian esteem,

We are his, in the hope of a resurrection,

EDITOR.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »