The questions were, When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?

When shall what things be? Why the things of which he had before been speaking; the destruction of the Jewish Temple; and the overthrow of that nation; and the end of the Jewish age. The phrase rendered "end of the world," does not signify the end of the material universe; it is not Kosmos but Aion, which signifies age. We nowhere read in the New Testament of the end of the material world; though we do read of the "End of the Age."

It is a fact too well known to require proof, that the Jewish Temple was destroyed; that the nation was overthrown in a dreadful manner by the Roman Armies, more than seventeen centuries ago. At that time the wicked Jews figuratively speaking, went away in to everlasting punishment; and the Christian believers entered into life eternal; they enjoyed the special blessings promised them here; while those unbelievers, the Jews suffered the judgment pronounced upon them. And they still suffer it; they are despised and persecuted in our own day.

My brother having presented these three parables of the Savior with the passage in Luke xii. proceeds to quote one passage from the Epistles of Paul in support of the affirmative of the question.

Before noticing that, I wish to call your attention to the fact that his proofs, have not been accompanied, with that which is equivalent to a "Thus saith the Lord." They have been drawn mainly from three parables, which if they are to be interpreted figuratively in one part should be so in all, and if literally in one part they should be so in all.

- 9. 5. The fifth passage quoted is 2 Thessalonians i. 7 "And to you which are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power."

My brother says this must refer to a time yet future. He urges three objections to the supposition that it may refer to

the Jewish overthrow.

1st. That the church in Thessalonica was composed principally of devout Greeks and heathen, and not of Jews. In answer to this objection I will refer my brother to Acts xvii. 1—4, where he will learn that there was a synagogue of the Jews at Thessalonica, and that some of them were converted under Paul's preaching, &c.

2d. He objects that they were 1000 or more miles distant from Jerusalem. I reply, that proves nothing for were not all the Jews, and Christians, wherever scattered abroad, effected by the destruction of that nation?

3d. He objects that in the second chapter of the epistle we read that there should be a falling away first, and that the man of sin should be revealed, the Son of perdition; and this he tells us signifies Papacy, which did not rise until several centuries afterwards. To this I reply, that the application is assumhe gives no conclusive reason why this should be said

ed;

to refer to the Romish Church.

The 6th verse of the chapter tells us who were the persons that were to be punished"Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you." No other persons than those who troubled the Thessalonian believers, had or can have any part or lot in the matter of the punishment. It is true that those believers suffered much at the hands of their own countrymen but it is plain that the unbelieving Jews at Thessalonica were the instigators thereof, as well as the principal persecutors in person. This is obvious from Acts xvii. 5 — 9, and 1 Thess. ii. 14— 16, 2. Thess.i. 10, is as follows: " When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired by all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. This then fixes the time.

Paul speaks of "the mystery of iniquity as being already at work when he wrote. He declares that the events by him spoken of should occur when the Lord Jesus should be revealed from heaven when he should come; Luke xvii. 30, 31, is to the

point.

“Even thus it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. IN THAT DAY, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take

it away; and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Similar directions are given in Matt. xxiv. 15 — 18, and in Luke xxi. 20 -- 23; in all which places the time of tribulation to Jerusalem is obviously referred to- "When he shall come. See Matt. x. 23; xvi. 27, 28; xxiv. 29, 30.

-

But enough, I have shown, I believe, who are the persons signified and the time when they were to be punished. I need not now pursue the subject further.

IV. My brother's fourth division in his discourse has reference to this question. "Were the Christian Fathers who lived in and immediately after the days of the apostles, believers in the doctrine of endless punishment?"

I need not devote any time to examine this portion of the discourse. It is not necessary that I should' now produce testimony from the early Fathers, in proof that some of them (at least) did not believe in the doctrine of endless punishment; among them the pious and learned Origen. If the Scriptures teach the doctrine my brother endeavors to maintain, it is not important that this latter question should be found in the affirmative or negative.

I leave this subject with the prayer that my mind may be led into all truth; and not only I, but all present, yea, the whole intelligent creation of God.-AMEN.

DISCUSSION,

PART I. No. III.

IN THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, APRIL 4, 1843.

BY F. YATES.

IN support of the affirmative of the first part of this conjoint question, I endeavored to show, on a previous occasion, that the teachings of Christ and his apostles were calculated, not only to confirm believers in the doctrine of endless punishment, but to lead others to regard this as a prominent point in their faith. It was shown in my discourse, and admitted by my opponent, that the doctrine of endless punishment was generally believed by Jews and Gentiles in the DAYS of Christ and his apostles. It was thought, that, if this prevailing doctrine, which its opposers regard as worse than all other errors put together," were not the doctrine of him who came to "bear witness of the truth," that he would have distinctly opposed it, as "injurious to good morals, and destructive to human happiness." It was affirmed that such opposition could not be found, in a single instance. It was further shown, that, instead of opposing this doctrine, Christ and his apostles used such language, when speaking of the punishment of the wicked, as was used by believers in endless punishment, and which cannot now be consistently interpreted to teach anything short of this doctrine. It was further shown, that the churches gathered

by the apostles, and instructed by them in the doctrines of christianity, were, so far as is known, believers in endless punishment.

I. I now come to notice the reply made by my opponent to these arguments. He does not seem willing to allow, that only some few, in these latter days,' declare that "the Bible does not teach, what the most pious and learned men of all ages of the christian church have believed, concerning endless punishment;" but asserts that "biblical students, all along, through these 1800 years," have not only discovered,' but rejoiced in, and published to the world, the truth that all mankind will be finally holy and happy." And he thinks he "might style" me and my co-workers 'new teachers, since" my "denomination cannot trace its existence, as such, much over one century." Certainly he will not style us new teachers" in reference to the doctrine of endless punishment, for Universalists admit that many of the early Christian Fathers taught this doctrine.

66

But how old is Universalism, pray? In the Modern History of Universalism, p. 318, John Murray is styled the "father of Universalism," who commenced his public life in 1770. Can the child be older than its parent? But the system as it is now advocated, cannot claim so near a relation to John Murray as a child. Not a single doctrine peculiar to Mr. Murray's creed can be found in the present system of Universalism. "He believed in the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, in original sin, in regeneration, and in endless punishment. He believed that the curse of the law was endless death; that all men were justly exposed to it, and that from this Christ came to redeem men. He believed salvation to be deliverance from deserved punishment.”* The present system can trace its origin no farther than Hosea Ballou of Boston, and finds its true date in 1818. So much for his "assertion.”

He admits my first point - that the doctrine of endless punishment was generally believed in the time of Christ, and declares that it had its origin among the heathen. This I deny,

*See M. H. Smith's Lectures, p. 234.