Page images
PDF
EPUB

ANSWER I.'

Remarks on Mr. Paige's Reply to Lecture I.

My opponent passes over in silence the whole of my reasoning on the evidence of future judgment, the importance of that doctrine, and the danger of denying it. He observes no rules in the interpretation of Scripture. Of the following rules of exegesis we should never lose sight.

Explain the passage under consideration agreeably to the context, where there is a connection, and never fancy a connection where there is none.

Explain the passage by what is known of the subject to which it relates.

Explain the text by other passages relating to the same subject.

Explain literal passages by literal, and not by figurative

passages.

Explain the same passage uniformly in the same manner; or, be consistent.

My opponent infringes one or other of these rules continually, as we shall see in the progress of this discussion.

Thus Acts xvii, 31, " God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world," &c. He does not explain this by other passages relating to judgment, but by a passage relating to a different subject entirely, the day of salvation, where the Gospel offers mercy and grace to sinners. So also Rom. xiv, 10-12, " But why dost thou judge thy brother," &c, he refers to the time when our Saviour was upon the earth; although he has told us expressly that he "came not then to judge the world, but to save the world." Thus too in the parable of the tares, Matt. xiii, 37-43, he takes the phrase, end of the world, from its connection with punishment, and explains it by the same phrase connected with the coming of Christ to redeem mankind. Angels in the same parable, though ministers of vengeance, he explains

by "angel," the bishop or pastor of a Church. Why this departure from all rule?

Again my opponent violates all rule by explaining literal passages by figurative. In John v, 28, 29, we read, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming when all that are in the graves," &c. In this passage he takes graves to be parallel with Ezek. xxxvii, 12-14. Now the passage in John refers to a literal resurrection, that in Ezekiel to a figurative resurrection. In Ezekiel it is a political resurrection of the house of Israel. In this captivity they despaired of a restoration, and compared their hopeless state to dead people whose "bones were dried." The prophet took the idea from them, and went on to prophesy of their restoration under the figure of a resurrection from graves. But is this the case in the other passage in St. John? Nothing like it: nothing in the text or context that indicates a political or figurative resurrection, but the direct contrary.

I cannot but mention one instance more of my opponent's explaining literal passages by figurative; and it shall be in that case which he thinks more of than any other as favouring his views of judgment. In Matt. xxv, 31-46, we have what all Christians, and the whole stream of commentators, from the earliest times down to the present day, have taken to be a literal account of the last judgment. It begins thus: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him," &c. Frequently other phrases, relating to the same subject, have been connected with this passage; such as his appearing, coming with clouds, the dissolving of the heavens, the melting of the elements, &c. My opponent finds several places in the same Gospel, where similar language is used to describe a political revolution, and the passing away of the Jewish commonwealth. He finds several passages in the Old Testament where similar language is applied to similar events. Now, says he, this language in

Matt. xxv, and in those other passages relating to the same subject, must be taken figuratively, because it is figurative in Matt. xxiv, 29, and this without due consideration of the passage before us, or the least reference to one of those passages which relate to the last judgment. Let us now examine this matter a little more closely.

In Matt. xxiv, 29, 30, we read, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken; and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven." What are we to understand by the sun, moon, and stars, here? We understand by the sun, the supreme power or authority of the state, and by the moon and stars we understand the inferior powers; and by the powers of the heavens being shaken, we understand the loosening and dissolving of all connection between rulers and people, and the passing away of the Jewish polity. Were all these things figurative? We acknowledge that in this case they were. What were these figures taken from? They were taken from things real, that is, the figurative sun, moon, and stars, were taken from the literal sun, moon, and stars; the passing away of the figurative elements was taken from the passing away of the literal elements; and the figurative coming of the Son of man from the literal coming of the Son of man. And so in all the other cases of these figurative descriptions. Thus by means of the figurative judgments we arrive at the knowledge of the literal judgment. And in every one of these figurative judgments the literal judgment is implied. No, says my opponent, there is no literal judgment, the judgments are all figurative. Indeed sir! this is something new under the sun. We rather think with St. Jerome that "a simile of the judgment would never have been used to signify the subversion of states and kingdoms, unless such a future judgment had been believed and known;

because no one ever confirms a declaration by things which have no existence."* So much for my opponent's explaining literal passages by figurative. I called his attention to this subject in this view, in my lecture, but he took no notice of it there.

I must notice a few other things in my opponent's Reply in a general way. It would seem from the Reply,-that to support Universalism is with him a paramount object, and that it must be done at all events. How else shall I account for his hardly looking one of my texts full in the face? for example, 2 Pet. ii, 4, and Jude 6, where these apostles speak of the fallen angels as "reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day," which he passes over with this gentle remark, that "they are another order of beings." What then? does that disprove the doctrine of future judgment?

Again, 1 Thess. i, 7, 8. This passage, which was certainly written for the purpose of admonition, and speaks of the "Lord Jesus being revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them which know not God," &c, he explains by God's appearing in fire on Mount Sinai to give the law, and to Ezekiel, to prepare him for the prophetic office. Why did he not speak out, with his elder brother H. Ballou, and tell us plainly that this fire of vengeance is the "law of God," designed to consume sin and save the sinner? He does speak out and tell us that "the revelation of one from heaven, in fire, proves nothing beyond this life." This quaint remark, in substance, my opponent has contrived to attach to nearly all my proofs, as though a text could not prove judgment after this life, unless it says "after this life," in so many words. But this is worse than weak; for if ten, or five passages inform us that the judgment is after this life, surely five or ten

* The argument of St. Jerome was used to prove a literal resurrection from a figurative; but it is just as good to prove a literal judgment from a figurative.-See Dr. Coke on Ezekiel xxxvii.

more, which refer to the judgment, may be taken as proofs, though they do not say in so many words that the judg ment is after this life.

My opponent passes over the context in every place where it is clearly against him, and in other cases imagines a connection where there is none. An instance of the former we have, when 2 Pet. iii, 10, is before him, where the apostle speaks of the "heavens and earth which are now," being "reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." Here the connection is so strong and awful, that if he were determined to support his doctrine at any rate, I do not wonder at his passing it over. But in Heb. ix, 27, where the apostle tells us that "after death is the judgment," he would fain have us believe from some supposed connection that the passage relates to the high priest. But as I shall take up this passage again I will not comment on it here.

My opponent puts the most arbitrary comments on the Scriptures when he cannot otherwise make them favour his doctrine. Thus in all the passages where Christ is spoken of as the "Judge of quick and dead," contrary to all rule, contrary to the sense of all mankind, and without the least authority from the word of God, he takes the quick, to be those who are raised to a new and spiritual life, and the dead to be those who are spiritually dead in sin. Whereas by the quick is meant such as shall be alive on the earth at the time of Christ's coming to judge the world; and by the dead, such as are literally dead; and that for this plain reason, because every passage is to be taken literally where we have no intimation to the contrary, and especially where every circumstance of the connection requires the literal sense.

I will mention one instance more of my opponent's departing from rule, even the rule of consistency. In Rev. xx, 12-15, we read, " And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God-and the books were opened-and they

« PreviousContinue »