will of the Savior that false doctrines should be imbibed, [mon strous!] until their fruits should come to maturity, is shown, in that he saith, let both grow together till harvest."" Ballou's Notes on the Parables, pp. 72, 68.

A popular preacher of your denomination, a few months since, in preaching from this parable, addressed his audience

thus:

"My hearers, do you not sometimes feel a desire in your hearts, that all men may be holy and happy in the world to come? Yes. Well, this is the wheat. On the contrary, do you not at times feel to shudder at the thought that you may be separated from your kindred and friends in eternity, and that any of them should sink in endless torments? Yes. Well,

this is the tares."

That is, according to Mr. Ballou and Universalist authors in general, pure, bona fide Universalism is the wheat; and the doctrine of future punishment, is the tares. Remember this.

3. The harvest, or end of the world, what does this denote? Mr. Whittemore shall answer:

"It never should be forgotten that the end of the world, at which the harvest was to take place, was not the end of kosmos, the world said to be the field; but the end of aion, the age, and unquestionably referred to the conclusion of the Jewish state," i. e. destruction of Jerusalem. See Notes on parables, p. 101.

4. Our Savior in his exposition of this parable, says, "at the end of the world," at the time of harvest, "the Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity." Who are these angels that the Son of Man employs as reapers? Mr. Whittemore will tell us.

"It is certainly meant that the Roman armies were the messengers [angels] which God sent to destroy his rebellious people, the Jews." p. 103. Remember then, the angels of Christ, were the Roman armies. They were the reapers of the field, "the material universe.'

5. Our Savior says, in his explanation, that "then "—(that is, at the end of the world,) "the righteous shall shine forth as the Sun in the kingdom of their Father." What does this denote, according to the new light shed upon the Scriptures by Modern Universalism? Mr. Whittemore will answer.

"Their persecutors, the Jews being destroyed [at the destruction of Jerusalem,] and persecutions on every hand being abated and softened, they would experience comparative earth

ly felicity, and have an enlarged enjoyment of gospel peace and life. Separated from the hypocrites, the Church would be pure."!!! p. 104.

We have now before us the Universalist exposition of the parable of tares and wheat. It is furnished by two of your most popular divines, fathers and oracles of the order. It is, unquestionably, the best exposition of which the system is capable. Is it sound? Will it stand the test of examination? Look it over. The field is "the material universe"-the wheat is sound doctrine, i. e., pure, unadulterated Universalism-the tares represent false doctrine, particularly the doctrine of future punishmentthe harvest, or end of the world, was the destruction of Jerusalem, the angels were the Roman armies-the exaltation of the righteous, was the "earthly felicity" which Christians enjoyed at the destruction of Jerusalem. To all this I object,

1. It contradicts the exposition which the Savior himself has given of this parable. After the multitude were sent away, the disciples came to Christ with this request. "Declare un

to us the parable of the tares of the field." Now if Christ meant to teach that at the destruction of Jerusalem, he would by the agency of those ungodly, mercenary, idolaters, the Roman soldiers, gather the doctrine of future punishment out of the "material universe," and leave nothing but the doctrine of Universalism, he would have undoubtedly expressed it in clear and emphatic language. Did he do so? Look at his explanation of his own parable.

"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.— Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Math. 13: 37–43.

Here we are taught by one that cannot lie, (1.) That the good seed, or wheat, when ready for harvest, is not Universalism, but "the children of the kingdom," called "the righteous" in verse 43. Here a figure of Rhetoric is used, called a metonomy, in which the cause is spoken of as the effect, or

the effect as the cause. The seed sown by Christ in person, or by the agency of any of his true ministers, is the truth; the crop, or result, is, "the children of the kingdom." (2.) The tares in harvest, are not false doctrine; but "the children o the wicked one," the natural product of false doctrine. False doctrine produces depraved hearts. Here the same figure is used as before. The wicked are frequently spoken of as the children of the Master whom they serve, or the principles they adopt. They are called the "children of disobedience," "children of their father, the devil." Now, in saying that the tares and wheat, not when sown as seed, but when reaped in as a harvest, are false and true doctrines, you contradict Christ, who says, "The tares are THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE; "The wheat, the children of the kingdom," the righteous."

2. I object to your exposition again, because it is absurd and nonsensical. Look at it. Did Christ employ the Roman soldiers, a wicked and bloody set of men as ever lived-to purge his church and gather out of it all false doctrine? Did they, as a matter of fact, gather out the tares-the doctrine of future punishment, from the field-the "material universe," and burn it up in fire? If so, then it follows that the Roman army which destroyed Jerusalem, a wicked crew of heathen monsters in human form, were the most successful preachers of Universalism, which the world has ever beheld. They reaped down and burnt up the doctrine of future punishment, not only under the walls of the holy city, but through “the material universe." Nothing but pure Universalism, of course, cauld have been left throughout "the material Universe."

It is surprising that some ancient historian has not chronicled this wonderous harvest time of the Roman army, when they so effectually, as the "Mighty Angels" of the Son of Man, cleansed, not only the sanctuary, but the "material universe" from false doctrine and wicked men. We should naturally suppose that Josephus, Philo, Tacitus or Seutonius, or some other historian of those days, would have noticed so extraordinary an event. But no. They have left us in the dark, both as it respects the modus operandi and the fact of this marvelous circumstance. Besides, if the tares-false doctrine-were gathered out of the field "the material universe" and burnt up at the destruction of Jerusalem, is it not a little extraordinary, that the whole field-" the material universe" was so quickly covered over again with tares? For it is a matter of fact, which you will not presume to deny, that the doctrine of future retri

bution, your tares, has been adopted, so far as we can learn from ecclesiastical and profane history, by the entire mass of Jews (the small sect of Sadducees excepted) and Christians, Pagans and Mahomedans, from the days of the Apostles down to the beginning of the present century. Where did these tares all come from? I think your reapers must have acted the part of eye-servants, and left large patches of the old crop standing; with which the "enemy" seeded over the whole field again.Besides, it is a circumstance which I cannot account for, that the entire harvest or wheat, true doctrine-Universalism, gathered in by the angels, Roman army, should have been so soon lost and that for nearly eighteen-hundred years; for you are probably well aware of the fact, that the peculiar system of Universalism has not a single advocate in all antiquity. True, your authors tell us that Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and some other Christian fathers, were Universalists; but this is deception. These men believed in the doctrine of a judgment to come. They were Platonic philosophers, and their error consisted in blending the speculations of that vain philosophy in relation to the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, with Christianity.

3. It is not true that the end of the world took place at the destruction of Jerusalem. The word aion, world, here I admit, does not mean material world. The material world I have no reason to believe, will ever have an end. It denotes age or dispensation, the gospel age, or dispensation. The Jewish age, or dispensation closed long before the destruction of Jerusalem. It closed at the commencement of John's ministry, if Christ is to be believed: "The law and the prophets (the Jewish age) were until John, since that time the kingdom of God (gospel kingdom) is preached, and every man presseth into it." Luke 16: 16. When the end of the Jewish age is referred to by the New Testament writers, it is spoken of as having already arrived.

"Now once in the end of the world (Jewish age) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9: 26. Now when did Christ appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself? Not at the destruction of Jerusalem, for he had appeared, been sacrificed, and re-ascended to glory, more than 30 years before that event arrived. He peared first as the Messiah, on the banks of Jordan, where John was preaching and baptizing, when John said "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." John. 1: 27.

ap

4. Mr. Whittemore's exposition as to what is meant by "the righteous shining forth in the kingdom of their father,' will not stand the test; for (1.) It is not true that the Jews, the enemies and persecutors of the Christians, were destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem. Multitudes of the Jews survived the destruction of their city and temple, nor does it appear from the page of history, that their calamities purged their hearts of prejudice against Christ or his followers. (2.) It is not true that Christians, in consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, experienced any remarkable degree of "earthly felicity." On the contrary, the Christians in Judea were separated forever from their unconverted friends, driven out from their houses and homes; their property given to the flames, and they were obliged to take shelter in "the dens and caves of the earth." Is this "shining forth as the sun in the kingdom of their father?" Is this experiencing "earthly felicity?" It is such "earthly felicity," such "shining forth in the kingdom" as Mr. Whittemore would be unwilling to receive as his reward for well doing. Let a company of furious savages be let loose upon the city of Boston-and with sword and torch in hand, let them butcher the helpless, burn the city, Trumpet office and all, break up the Editor's family, and chase him into the mountains of Vermont-and he would be the last man who would call such a retreat-such a disaster, "shining forth as the sun in the kingdom of his father," or "comparative earthly felicity!!" (3.) Nor is it true that "the Church was separated from hypocrites and became pure," at the destruction of Jerusalem. No such fact can be proved from history. It is a fact invented to help out with this explanation.On the contrary, the Church was more pure before, than after the destruction of Jerusalem. While the Apostles were alive, the Church was more pure in doctrine and discipline, than at any period since. As these holy men, one after another, passed away, men continued to rise in the Church, who "brought in damnable heresies."

5. I cannot adopt your exposition of this parable, because it requires me to violate an important rule of Biblical interpretation, viz :-That every explanation of Scripture, should be regarded as false, which does not harmonize with well known facts, or with itself.

Well, now your exposition of the parable of the tares and wheat, does not harmonize with well known facts;-well known historical facts are against it. It does not harmonize with itself; hence it must be false.