table of a Pharisee, whose creed embraced the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, of the just and unjust, in their distinctive characters, discoursing on this wise:-"When thou makest a dinner or supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee; but when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee, for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Can words teach the doctrine of future rewards more plainly? Who was the speaker? The Faithful and True Witness. To whom did he speak? To one of the Pharisees-a sect who believed that the righteous and wicked would have a distinct resurrection. Whom was he not to invite to his dinners and suppers? His rich neighbors and kinsmen. Why not? Because they would make a similar entertainment, and thus recompense be made to him in this world. Whom was he to invite? The poor, blind, and wretched. Why? Because they cannot reward him. This would be an act of benevolence. But shall benevolence lose its reward? By no means. It shall be rewarded at the resurrection of the just. What can Universalism do with this text? Explain it away. But will it stay explained away? Let us see. An explanation has been attempted by Thomas Whittemore, the Editor of the Trumpet. It is perhaps the best the system is capable of. It is expressed as follows.

6

"Jesus was directing them when they made feasts to be careful not to forget the poor; called the poor, the lame, the blind." He anticipates the objections of the Pharisees, who would say, but if I do this, how shall I be recompensed? He assures them that they should not lose their recompense; for, although the poor would not recompense them, yet when the poor were raised [this is the resurrection of the just] from inactivity to action, from obscurity to eminence, or returned to such a state after an interruption, then they should be recompensed."

Look at this ridiculous attempt to get rid of one of the simplest and plainest texts in the Bible. It makes Christ utter nonsense, and contradict himself. In plain English, it makes Christ address the Pharisees thus:

"Give not to the rich. Why not? Because they can and will repay. But give to the poor. Why? Because they will soon rise, if they are righteous, from obscurity to eminence, from inactivity to action, from poverty to wealth, and then they

will repay you." That is, give not to the rich, for they will repay you, but give to the righteous poor, because they will become rich and repay you. Did Christ ever utter such nonsense? Never. It is an abomination in his sight. The exposition is so absurd and self-contradictory that it needs no further notice. It refutes itself.

Under this class of texts I will refer you to Luke 18: 29, 30. "And he said unto them, verily, I say unto you there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time and in the world to come life everlasting." What will the Universalist do with this text? Why-your preachers attempt to refer it to the famous destruc tion of Jerusalem. They attempt a Greek criticism upon the word aion, rendered 'world' in the text-tell us it means age, and that the then existing age was the Jewish age or dispensation, which ended at the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the age or dispensation to come is the gospel dispensation. With the aid of this criticism the purport of the promise of Christ is made out to be this; 'No man that hath left house or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, (that is, under the Jewish dispensation) and in the world to come, (the gospel dispensation which is to open at the destruction of Jerusalem,) everlasting life.' Is this all straight? Will it bear examination? I think not. Error is fated to run crooked. I object to this exposition,

1. That it is built on false premises. As a matter of fact, it is not true that Christ and his Apostles lived, taught and died under the Jewish dispensation or age. Upon this subject we are not left to mere conjecture. The Saviour has told us how far the dispensation of the law and the prophets extended. Hear him. The law and the Prophets were until John; since that the kingdom of God (the gospel kingdom) is preached." When John introduced his disciples to the true Messiah, saying "Behold the Lamb of God"-then Judaism received its death blow; when the Messiah expired on the cross as a sin-offering, he nailed all ordinances, purely Jewish, to his cross, broke down the middle wall, and partition between Jew and Gentile. With the preaching of Christ then the Christian dispensation comienced.

2. The construction put upon the word AION, rendered 'world' in the text, is deceptive. It does not denote a limited period, or portion of time in itself considered. According to

the best Greek lexicographers, it primarily denotes always being, and expresses the longest period the subject to which it applies, is capable of. Grove defines it thus, AION,' ever being; eternity, an age, life, dispensation of Providence, duration or continuance of time, a period, a revolution of ages, this world, the world or life to come.'

3. If the world to come' here denotes a period in this world subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, then our Saviour was guilty of teaching false doctrine. His language is general “There is no MAN that hath, &c. who shall not receive," &c. Now, as a matter of lact, the most of those who became his followers during his personal ministry, died before the destruction of Jerusalem. They did not-could not, then according to your construction, receive lifefeverlasting in the gospel dispensation. And if Christ has made a false promise in one instance, as your exposition implies, what reason have you to believe that he has not in every instance?

4. It is not true that the primitive church enjoyed any privileges at, or immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem, which they did not enjoy from the beginning. No historian, Pagan, Jewish, or Christian gives an intimation of any such oc

currence.

5. From the parallel passage in Matt. 19: 28, we learn that this reward of everlasting life is to be dispensed in the regeneration-that is, when the Lord Jesus Christ shall create new heavens and earth.

I have yet several other passages teaching us that the righteous are to be rewarded in the world to come, which I hope to present for your consideration. Yours as ever,

My Dear Sir:

LETTER XVI.

I have not yet done with my argument in favor of the doctrine of future retribution as drawn from the promises. The evidence here is as ample, explicit as I could wish. The limits which I have marked out for myself in this correspondence will allow me however, only room to present you with a specimen of the different classes of promises of eternal salvation, which,being conditional,necessarily imply future retribution.— Allow me then to say, I cannot believe your doctrine,

1. Because I find a class of texts in the Bible in who we

are exhorted to faith and piety by the hope of rewards in the heavenly world. For example, Christ exhorts us thus:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt and where thieves do not break through and steal." Math. 6: 19, 20.

Now if your system is true, how can you account for the fact, that Christ, the wisest and best of all teachers, did exhort his hearers to lay up treasures in heaven? You believe that nothing that we can say or do in this world, will have any influence whatever upon our future condition. How then can one lay up treasures in heaven? A long life of self-denying piety will not add one ray of glory to the immortal crown of the saint. A long life of heaven-daring and blasphemous impiety will not diminish one iota of the bliss and glory of those who live and die in sin. How then can we lay up treasures in heaven? Your doctrine charges Christ with folly for uttering such anunmeaning exhortation. Again; we hear the Saviour breathing forth the following exhortation to a company of selfish Jews who followed him for the loaves and fishes: "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." John 6:27.

Here the hearers of Christ were laboring for the good things of this world exclusively. Christ gently rebukes them for this, and exhorts them to labor for those undying blessings which endure-abide, unto everlasting life. How would such an exhortation sound from the lips of a Universalist preacher?Had Christ been a preacher of Universalism, the Jews might have turned upon him and said:

"You acknowledge that our present business is to provide for our temporal wants, our eternal wants being above and beyond our reach. In seeking loaves and fishes, the n, we are in our "appropriate sphere." Why then do you exhort us to labor for the meat that endureth unto everlasting life? Everlasting life is an unconditional gift of God, and its felicity can in no sense or degree be increased or diminished by our labor. Our present characters have nothing to do with our future destination."

Such an appeal would have exposed the folly of such an exhortation. Did Christ ever utter such nonsense? Never. Hear the Apostle Paul to Timothy: "But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness, for bodily exercise profiteth little (or for a little time,

as the margin reads) but godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." 1 Tim. 4: 7.8.

Here the fact that a connection exists between present moral character and the future destination of man is fully expressed. According to Modern Universalism, neither godliness nor ungodliness has any thing to do with the "life which is to come.' Godliness is not profitable; nor ungodliness unprofitabl to it. But the inspired Apostle, who seems to have been a stranger to the inventions of these last days, affirms that the profits of godliness extend to the life which is to come. This clearly implies future rewards and punishments. This text involves your system in a dilemma. Take which horn you please. Say that neither godliness nor ungodliness has any profits to be realized in eternity, and you make the Apostle a false teacher. Say the "life which is to come" denotes the present life,and you destroy the well known meaning of language. Hear St. Paul once more to the same point:

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away." 1 Cor. 9: 22, 27.

In the preceding context the Apostle tells us of his arduous and self-denying labors to promote the spread of the gospel and secure the salvation of men. Now taking text and context into the account there are several things here to my mind utterly inconsistent with Universalism. (1.) I cannot understand why Paul should labor so hard, suffer so much,—become all things to all men that he might by all means save SOME, if all are on the road to heaven. If all are to be saved why should he suffer and labor so much to save SOME? Can you tell? Why should a man make incessant efforts to save a few at least, if he well knew that all were to be saved? Surely Paul was not a Universalist,if he was, he was a mad-man; for none but mad-men could be guilty of the folly of laboring to or save that which they know cannot be injured or lost.

secure

(2.) The Apostle compares himself and his Christian Brethren, who are making this great and indefatigable effort to save some, to the competitors in the Grecian games. "Now they do it (run in the games) to obtain a corruptible crown; but we. an INCORRUPTIBLE." Now I cannot understand how the Apostle and his Christian Brethren could labor for an incorruptible crown, if that crown is to be bestowed upon all in-.