it for the present, more wise, more patriotick, more tenderhearted men of the nineteenth century to accomplish?

Again. Suppose this universalist missionary should speak often of the righteous and the wicked, and of their rewards and punishments; and in so doing should use the same language which they used, and by which they meant endless blessedness and endless misery. And suppose the good people should understand him to mean by the language, exactly what they meant by it; and he should know that they so understood him. Would universalists think him an honest universalist missionary? Yet this is exactly the course pursued by our Saviour on earth, as we have shown. And it cannot be denied, that the early christian fathers all believed in future retribution; and most all of them in an unending state of happiness for the good, and of misery for the bad. Had Jesus corrected this errour (if it were an errour) we could not account for it, that his immediate followers should all fall back into the errour, who had all his instructions before them; and who were -well acquainted with the usus loquendi, all the words and phrases used on that subject in the New Testament; and all this without the least discussion, debate or schism among them!

We may put the argument into the following syllogistical form.

1. If Jesus Christ were honest and fearless; and if he came to suppress the errour of endless punishment; he would have said something against the errour.

But he was honest and fearless; but did not say any thing against the crrour of endless punishment; therefore, he did not come to suppress that errour.

2. If Jesus Christ knew the doctrine of endless punishment to prevail extensively in the world, and did not undertake to suppress it; he must have been willing it should prevail.

But he did know it prevailed extensively in the world, and

did not undertake to suppress it; therefore, he was willing it should prevail.

3. If Jesus Christ had not known the doctrine of endless punishment was the truth, which he knew prevailed extensively in the world, he would have attempted to suppress it. But he did not attempt to suppress it; therefore, he did know it was the truth.

4. If Jesus Christ knew the people used certain words and phrases to denote endless punishment; and he did not mean to teach endless punishment; he would not have used the same words and phrases without explaining that he used them in another sense.

But he did know they used certain words and phrases to denote endless punishment; and he did not explain that he used them in any other sense; therefore, he did mean to teach endless punishment.

5. If Jesus Christ was the son of God he must have taught the truth; and all attempts to improve his doctrine are a blasphemous assumption of superiour wisdom and goodness.

But Jesus Christ was the son of God; therefore, he taught the truth, and all attempts to improve his doctrine, are a blasphemous assumption of superiour wisdom and goodness.

The same arguments will apply, in all their force, in the case of the apostles. If the facts on which this reasoning is founded are denied, (which I think will not be done from any respectable source,) we will give incontestible proof of them in another work. For we are very careful, not to assume as facts, any thing of any consequence, which is not susceptible of proof.

But as this work is designed only as a compendium, it is not thought necessary to take up room with proof of facts generally admitted, and which will not probably be denied. Much, both of fact and argument must be omitted, for want of room in this volume, which we consider only a begning to what may be done.

22*

SECTION X.

Several classes of Scripture, which indubitably prove universal doctrine untrue, considered.

"When the Son of Man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink I was a stranger and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick and ye visited me: I was in prison and ye came unto me.

:

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered and fed thee? or thirsty and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger and took thee in? or naked and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into (aionion) everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Ther shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, verily, I say unto you, inasmuch, as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into (aionion) everlasting punishment; but the righteous into (aionion) eternal life.” Mat. xxv. 31-46.

Thus reads what is generally called "the parable of the sheep and goats."

That it is a parable, or at least, clothed with a kind of parabolical imagery, all will agree. But as a parable, its

meaning must be something, and something too clearly drawn from the description-something which such language would be well calculated to convey to the mind of the hearers; and such hearers as were with our Saviour when he delivered it. The exposition universalists put on it, confines the whole drama to this world; and makes it to have been fulfilled about forty years after it was spoken, in the judgement which came on the Jewish nation, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles. They go into the 24th chapter, and contend that the "coming of the son of man" there described, was an event to happen before that generation passed away--before all of them tasted of death, &c. And from that chapter and corresponding passages in the other evangelists, they. make it appear that the "coming of Christ" there, was expressive of a season of temporal judgement on Judea and Jerusalem, which very exactly occurred when Titus, the son of the Roman Emperor besieged Jerusalem; destroyed the city; caused above eleven hundred thousand deaths; sold multitudes as slaves and laid waste the country.With regard to that" coming of the son of man" in the 24th chapter, we should probably agree, though it is believed that allusion is there also made to the last judgement. Universalists contend, that the 25th chapter begins with particular reference to that " coming of Christ" which was in temporal judgement on the Jews, by the word then; meaning the time he had referred to in the 24th chapter, which was before that generation should pass away.Hence, they conclude both the 24th and 25th of Matthew are a continued discourse, and refer to but one principal event, the destruction of Jerusalem.

1. It is admitted that the "coming of the son of man" in the 24th of Matthew, alluded to the calamities coming on Judea; but we have no evidence that the coming in the 25th is the same. We know not that the 23d, 24th, and 25th of Matthew are one continued discourse. The whole

was written without the division into chapters and verses as it now stands; and it is probable the 25th chapter was delivered on another occasion, and referred to another coming, of which his hearers had some idea. There are other comings of Christ spoken of in the Scriptures, besides that which signified the Jewish calamity. "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." I. Cor. 1. 7. This coming of Christ could not have been that of the destruction of Jerusalem, because it is spoken of as an important event in which the Corinthians were as much interested as any other people. Were it the destruction of the Jewish city, these Corinthians could have had no spiritual or important interest in the matter. "But every man in his own order; Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming." I. Cor. xv. 23. None will dispute that this coming of Christ is at the resurrection of the dead. This was a coming of Christ in which not only the Jews, but all men were particularly interested. Let it be kept in mind that the resurrection of the dead is called "the coming of Christ," as well as the event of the Jewish calamity.For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? (are) not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" I. Thes. 11. 19. The word are italicised above is a supplied word; and should be supplied so as to put it in the future: thus, "will ye not be in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" These people of Thessalonica will be present with our Lord at his coming in the resurrection; but they were not present either among the Jews or the Roman armies at the destruction of Jerusalem. "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first." I.

66