Page images

a hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial ; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he." (Eccles. vi. 3.) Dr. Clarke produces several instances from Schoetgen to the same effect. I will give a few of these only. “Whoever considers these four things, it would have been better for him had he never come into the world ; that which is above, that which is below, that which is before, that which is behind ; and whosoever does not attend to the honor of his creator, it were better for him had he never been born." CHAGIGAH. " Whosoever knows the law, and does not do it, it had been better for him had he never come into the world." SHEMATH RABBA. " If any man be parsimonious toward the poor, it had been better for him had he never come into the world." “If any performs the law for the sake of the law, it were good for that man had he never been created." SAHAR GENES. The words in small capitals are the titles of several Jewish writings. “ These examples sufficiently prove (I am quoting Dr. Clarke) that this was a common proverb, and was used with a great variety and latitude of meaning." Christ, however, does not say it were good for Judas NEVER to have been born, but simply, if he had not been born; that is, we may reasonably suppose, if he had not been born that particular person, or at that particular time, or to that particular end of betraying his master. If it were better for him NEVER to have been born, the goodness of his creator is seriously impeached in having conferred an existence which he foresaw would prove an infinite curse to its possessor! That God, who " is good unto all," was also good unto Judas, those tender mercies which “ are over all his works,” must also have been over him; but this could by no means have been the case if he was brought into being with the foresight that he should eternally be the loser thereby.

But Christ calls Judas a devil, and this, you think, strengthens. the probability against his salvation. Your brain is probably mystified in regard to this particular, by the supposition that by the word devil, is meant an abandoned, fallen spirit of the infernal pit; but, as I have elsewhere shown, this is an unauthorized definition of the term. You believe in Peter's salvation, and him the Savior calls Satan. (Matt. xvi. 23.) I see not why one devil may not be saved as well as another.

Again, Judas is called the son of perdition, and is said to be lost. True, his treachery proved the cause of his temporal destruction, or perdition, (for the terms are synonymous) and the círcumstances of his death appear to have been very ignominious and painful; this fact would, according to the usages of speech in those days, fully justify the Savior's calling him the son of perdition. As to his being lost, there is no proof that any thing more is meant, than that he was lost to Christ as an apostle; the context clearly favors this inference; the Savior had kept together all whom the Father. had given him for disciples, save that one. In this particular sense Judas was lost; to consider him as lost in a moral sense, however, would but be to include him amongst those whom Christ came to seek and to save. And it must be further remembered that nothing is to be so lost, as not to be recovered again “at the last day.” (John vi. 39.)

" That he might go to his own place," and that place, oh, sapient reader, you are pleased to think, was the infernal regions! Extremely modest it was, I must needs say, for the eleven apostles to tell the almighty Jehovah, that the deep abodes of hell was the appropriate place for one of his intelligent offspring, and a foriner companion of theirs! If they had been certified that God had created that place for Judas, and him for it, they might have called it his “ own place” with some proprieiy; but in the absence of such assurance, it were a stretch of presumption amounting to blasphemy. It must be evident to the candid reader, that the passage in our version needs a transposition, which will transfer the applicability of the words in question from Judas to Mathias, who succeeded him in the apostleship, “ that he might go to his own place, from which Judas by transgression fell."

It may well be doubted if Judas died by his own act; the original represents him as having strangled himself. There are other modes of strangling besides hanging ; and a man may strangle himself otherwise than by a voluntary act; Judas may have suffocated with excessive grief, for his grief was excessive. The account of his hanging does not consist with that which Peter gives of his death—"and falling headlong he bust asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts i, 18.). The law of gravitation behooves to be subverted, before a person suspended by the neck can fall headlong! Dr. Lightfoot, however, jumps

over the philosophical difficulty in the case, by supposing that the devil rnay have snatched Judas from the gallows and dashed him to the ground. Ah, it is easy accounting for the greatest marvels where the devil is concerned. On the whole, there is really nothing in the case of Judas which, on close examination, amounts to an argument against universal salvation; nor is there any thing which is not susceptible of an easy explication in agreement with the fact of his eventual redemption.


Know ye

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John iii. 3.) not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind; nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor, revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.) It would really seem, in this last passage, that the great apostle had the universalist heresy in his eye, and that he penned this language with the express intention of guarding the church to whom he wrote against it. “ Be not deceived ;" let none persuade you that the good and the bad, with faith and without it, the man of prayer and the blasphemer, are all to attain at last to celestial blessedness; no, no, I tell you that the righteous only shall inherit the kingdom of God.


I have had several previous occasions to observe, in this work, that the phrases, " kingdom of God,” and “ kingdom of heaven,” are not to be confounded with the world of celestial bliss; they are nover so used in the scriptures. I have given some proofs of this; take a few more. , “ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them, and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke xvii. 20, 21.) “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Rom. xiv. 17.) “But woe unto you, soribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye


up the kingdom of

heaven against men : for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” (Matt. xxiii. 13.) These are but a specimen of very many proofs, that by the kingdom of God, and of heaven, is meant, the gospel institution in the world ; when it was about to be ushered in, men were told that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, &c. Now, it has long been the prevalent error with christians, in regard to this subject, that they have confounded this kingdom with that of celestial glory beyond the grave. Nicodemus was a Jew; his habits, and modes of thinking, his prejudices, were all Jewish; he was told that in order to become a subject of the gospel institution, he “must be born again,” must undergo a moral renovation, must cease to act, and think, and worship as a Jew, and begin anew to graduate in the science of religion at the feet of Christ. An individual who has bad his birth and education, and spent a considerable part of his life in a despotic country, must needs be born again ere he can appreciate the blessings of a free government. A person in a savage state is not prepared to be ushered at once into civilized life; he must first be prepared for the transition by an education of his mind, sentiments, and habits. So it is in regard to religion; ere we can appreciate the blessings of the gospel kingdom, we nust obtain a mastery over our evil passions and appetites; we nust cultivate and cherish those dispositions and tempers which will assimilate us to Jesus Christ; we must cease to do evil and Learn to do well. Paul saith truly, that no murderer, fornicator, »s the like, can inherit the kingdom of God; this truth was new to. such as had been converted to the belief in Christ, from the various aeathen superstitions ; they had been accustomed to regard many vices as not only consistent with religion, but as actual virtues. I need not inform my intelligent readers that the very worship of most of the pagan deities was often associated with acts of a most vicious and repulsive nature. In reading the apostolic epistles, we find they had much trouble to indoctrinate the early converts. into the knowledge of that pure, and elevated system of faith and morals, which constituted the religion of Christ, the kingdom of God, or of heaven, into which nothing that is unclean, or unholy, can enter; which is as chaste " as a bride adorned for her hus. band,” We may easily comprehend, then, (withoạt supposing a caption against universalism to be intended,) why Paul warned

the Corinthians against the delusive supposition, that the unrighteous could inherit the kingdom of God; as though he had said, “Be not deceived on this head, my brethren ; christianity is quite a different institution from those of which you were formerly the subjects; they allowed in you many things which are wicked and abominable, but it requires in its subjects the utmost attainable purity of thought, of conversation, of life; and it utterly refuses to lend its countenance to any thing of a contrary nature.”

But here arises a question. 6. Since such are the requirements of Christ's kingdom on earth, can we reasonably expect that the unrighteous will be admitted into that more glorious kingdom in heaven ?" No. Neither can we reasonably expect that the utmost holiness to which we can attain while we inherit flesh and blood, will qualify us for admission there ; if divine grace must needs effect a preparation in the worst of sinners for that blest abode, so must it also in the best; let the christian who has the immodesty to question this, learn to know himself better. Is he never sensible to the presence of anger in his bosom? of envy, jealousy, discontent, revenge, malice? Does he think to carry these disposilions to heaven with him? How much difference in these respects, on a candid comparison of himself with others, (some there undeniably is, but how much?) does he find in his own favor ? It is quite a plain case that the christian needs a preparation for heaven as well as the sinner; the difference is, that in the former it is begun on earth, in the latter it is not; but to infinite grace the counteraction of the greatest guilt is equally possible as that of the least.

To speak of salvation to an individual in a state of guilt, is to speak nonsense; it is an absurdity in terms, for what is salvation but a deliverance from guilt; saved from it, we are saved from misery, (moral misery I mean,) for where guilt is, and there only, is misery–in the heaven of heavens as in the heart of hell. Let none charge us, then, with the teaching that all mankind are to be made happy in heaven without a previous preparation for it We differ from others in believing that all will eventually be so prepared; some of those to whom Paul wrote, had been such characters as he specifies as not admissible to the church or kingdom of Christ; but they had ceased from their former evil practices, and had become the denizens of that kingdom. (1 Cor. vi. 11.)

« PreviousContinue »