Images de page

MR. SMITH commenced his reply, by observing, that this discussion was not one of his seeking; and in proof of this, he read the letters given in the introduction He then proceeded as fol


The same eagerness after the truth which my friend professes, I also feel. I, and those who agree with me in opinion, in advocating the doctrines which we do, certainly have no desire to deceive others, or to be deceived ourselves. If we are in error, respecting this matter, we wish to have the truth pointed out to us, and sustained by satisfactory arguments. In that case we will hasten to embrace it ;---since it is not this or that particular opinion, but truth itself that is the object of our affection.

In replying to my opponent, time will not allow me to take up separately each particular text, which he has quoted. Nor will it be necessary for the purposes of the argument. The twenty texts which he has alleged in his introduction, are all quoted for one purpose and in one connection. They are all similar to each other, and admit of similar interpretations. When I answer and explain I answer and explain the whole.


My opponent has made quotations from the Apocrypha. I must observe that such quotations are no authority in this debate. As to the prejudices, and idle notions of those who lived in the times of our Saviour, we have nothing to do with them. The question is not, what the contemporaries of Christ believed, but what he himself taught. He came neither to confirm nor to refute, the prejudices of the Jews, or the doctrines of the philosophers, but to teach a religion of his own; and our business is, to inquire whether he taught the doctrine of a future Retribution, or whether he taught it not.

I will proceed, then, to exanfine some of the texts produced by my friend who has opened this discussion.

The first text he adduces, is Phillip. ii. 5, 9. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man; he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name,'


Now this text certainly cannot be applied to prove future rewards for men. For supposing even that it represents Christ as enjoying a reward in a future state, for his actions in this world, yet there is no analogy between Christ and men. He was in the form of God. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Where then is


the analogy between his state and that of man? He was sent into the world to perform a certain work; he was strengthened and supported, and enabled to perform it; the angels had charge of him to bear him up, lest at any time he might dash his foot against a stone. In all this his condition was far different from ours; and we can draw no conclusions applicable to mankind from the concluding clause of this text. As a part of the original plan of his coming, after the accomplishment of his work, he was highly exalted, and received a name above every name, &c. This name, however, which he received is not in a future state, but here on earth. It was not conferred as a reward. It naturally sprung from, and was a consequence of, what he did. The whole text is therefore without any allusion to a future state.

The next text to which my friend has referred is Hebrews, chap. xii. v. 1---8. “Let us run with patience the race that is set before us; looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

It is not to be imagined that the apostle intended to imply by this passage, that Christ in his labors for the salvation of men, was influenced by so mean and low a motive as the expectation of future reward. The great and noble motive of doing good was that which moved him, and rewarded him, while it moved him. On the cross, he proclaimed that "it was finished." The work was accomplished. The good of the human race was at once its motive and reward. There needed not a future state to bring the work to a conclusion by rewarding the performer. It was finished before he left the earth. We cannot therefore suppose that in the foregoing text, the apostle meant, at all, to imply, that Christ was rewarded in a future state for his doings here.

Another text quoted by my friend is Matt. xi. 18, 19. "Lay not up treasures on earth," &c.

Now there is nothing in this precept that can be referred to a future state. The laying up treasures in a future state is obviously impossible. The question then is, what is meant by laying up "treasures in Heaven?" The whole difficulty is obviously in the word, Heaven. Now all commentators acknowledge that the writers of the New Testament, use the words "heaven," and "kingdom of heaven," to express the reign of the Messiah on earth. Christ himself says, 66 no man hath ascended into heaven but the Son, who is in heaven." The obvious meaning then, of Christ's exhortation to lay up treasures in Heaven is, that his disciples should endeavor to imbibe the principles and spirit of his doctrine, and not seek happiness from the treasures or pleasures of this world which


are uncertain, transitory and corruptible, but from treasures laid up in Heaven, namely, from the spirit and principles of Christ's doctrine, which are peace, righteousness and joy in the Holy Ghost. The same interpretation applies to another text quoted by my friend from Matt. v. 11, 12. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, &c. for great is your reward in Heaven." Here the same Heaven is signified as in the foregoing passage. It was in their own minds, in the consciousness of their own rectitude, that they had their reward. Like the apostle Paul, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to be persecuted for Christ's sake, and it was this very feeling, this very spirit and disposition, in which their reward consisted. They were rewarded in heaven, that is, in the heavenly feelings they enjoyed in thus being made partakers of Christ's kingdom, and assistants and co-workers in the great and glorious work which he came to perform.

BALLOU. It is true, as my friend has stated, that he is not the originator of this debate. I acknowledge myself the challenger, and whatever honor or disgrace is due to the author of this discussion, belongs to me. In bringing it forward, I have not acted without consideration, and I trust not without worthy motives. I respect those which have induced my friend to accept the challenge. I am glad he disclaims all wish to lead himself or others into error; and far be it from me to impute to him any such intention. I feel the same exclusive regard for truth that he does; and if the discovery of it can be in any measure promoted by this discussion, I am entirely indifferent as to its individual results.

My opponent has taken the ground that if he explains away one of the texts which I have adduced, he has explained away the whole. Is this so? If I should be so unfortunate as to have misunderstood two or three texts, and to have supposed them to teach a doctrine which they do not contain, does it follow that sixteen other texts which I may have adduced to the same point, are equally unavailing to prove it? I appeal to your judgment if this be so.

I am rebuked for quoting the Apocrypha, which is pronounced a book of no authority upon the present question. I did not quote it as authority, but simply to show that the Jews before the times of Christ, and at the time he appeared, believed in a future state of rewards and punishments. I quoted those passages to enable us, by knowing what was then believed, the better to understand the language used by our Saviour. We can understand his discourses only by inquiring what meaning they originally conveyed to those who heard them.



Now if the doctrine of a future retribution was generally received among the Jews, and this doctrine was false, why did not Christ say so? Why did he not guard the people against this false and pernicious notion? Why did he use language that implied its truth? If I should preach in an Orthodox pulpit, and use those peculiar phrases which are understood by the Orthodox to imply a future state of endless retribution, and all the while mean no such thing, but in my own mind put an entirely different construction on those phrases, so as entirely to reverse their meaning, would not this be universally reprobated as a very dishonorable proceeding? And can we for a moment suppose that Jesus Christ acted in this manner?

As to the text from Philippians, you will observe that after declaring that Christ "became obedient unto death," the apostle says, "WHEREFORE God also hath highly exalted him," &c. thus necessarily implying that the reward of exaltation was after death, not coincident with his suffering and humiliation, as my friend contends. And in another passage, Ephes. i. 20, 21, the same apostle testifies concerning Christ---that " God raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in THIS World, but also in THAT which is To COME." This text is utterly inconsistent with the explanation, that the name and exaltation of Christ were in this world alone.

My friend contends that there is no analogy between Christ, and his condition in this world, and man, and man's condition in this world; and that what is said concerning Christ's exaltation in another world, even if admitted, has no tendency to prove that men may attain rewards in a future life.

Now if there be no analogy between Christ and mankind, how are we to understand the following declarations of Scripture: "Wherefore in ALL things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest. For in that he himself suffered, being tempted, he is able also to succour them that are tempted." Heb. ii. 17, 18. "For we have not an high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities: but was in ALL points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. iv. 15.

If in fact, as my friend argues, Christ was sustained and supported by a supernatural power, so that he could not possibly do otherwise than right, how can it be said that he was made in all things, and tempted in all points like men; or how can he serve as an example for our encouragement? According to the doctrine of my opponent, Christ had no merit at all. If it was impossible for him to err,

there was certainly no merit in his doing right. But since he is said in the Scriptures, to have been tried as we are, and as he is offered as an example for our imitation, I cannot assent to the doctrine--that he was upheld by such a supernatural support, as placed him entirely above the natural influence of temptation.

Hebrews xii. 1---3, is another of the three or four texts, out of the large number adduced by me, to which my friend has seen fit to reply. This he insists has no reference to a future state. If so, what is meant in that text, by "the joy set before him?" Was that joy experienced by Christ before death? Do we not read that "he was a man of sorrow, and acquainted with grief?" and that his soul was "exceedingly sorrowful even unto death?" Where then was this joy of which the apostle speaks? After death undoubtedly.

But my opponent says, that it is not to be supposed Christ was influenced by so low and unworthy a motive as the hope of future reward. Does he mean that it is unsuitable for intelligent beings to be influenced in their actions by the hope of future reward? I can see no difference in the expectation of a reward near at hand, and a reward some time hence. One is certainly as worthy a motive as the other. Yet my opponent and those of his denomination, maintain that good actions are rewarded here in this life, and this they preach as an inducement to virtue. He, then, maintains a doctrine of rewards, as well as myself. And in fact, he tells us that Christ did receive his reward here. I cannot conceive how. He alleges that it consisted in the satisfaction he received in the accomplishment of his work, for the salvation of the world. Yet, while he remained on earth that work was not accomplished. Had it been, would the world now, at the end of eighteen hundred years, be still lying in wickedness---far the greater part utterly ignorant of him, and regardless of his precepts?

The text from Matthew, relative to laying up "treasures in heaven," my friend also asserts has no reference to a future life. According to his doctrine, I see not, what reason we have to lay up treasures at all. If we have our reward as we go along; if every good action brings its own immediate recompense with it, with what propriety can we be called upon to lay up treasures at all? The very laying up of treasures, naturally implies a reference to futurity.

Observe too, the contrast between the interpretation of my friend and the language of the Saviour. My friend says, lay up treasures here on earth; Christ says, "lay not up treasures upon earth." It strikes me that here is a discrepancy which needs explanation.

In his observations upon this passage, the gentleman asserts that it is agreed by all commentators, that the expressions "Heaven"

« PrécédentContinuer »