We shall conclude this protracted discussion with one or two general remarks.

6

1. There is only one kind of Christians. There can be but one, until we have more than one Christ, and more than one sort of Christianity. When Christians speak of Orthodox christianity, and Unitarian christianity; of Orthodox christians, and Unitarian christians, and various other kinds of them, they only proclaim their own ignorance. Is Christ divided? Were the founders of various sects crucified for them? Or have those, belonging to them, been baptized in their names? From the conduct of the various christian sects towards each other, one might conclude, there were as many Christs as sects, and nearly as many kinds of Christianity. But Christians seem to glory in what is their shame; for while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?' And yet, zeal for sects is considered by many as a mark of great spirituality. Were Paul now on earth, some churches would not admit him to their communion. Jesus Christ himself would be suspected of heresy; and would not be allowed to preach in their pulpits. But what are all our sectarian divisions and separations about? Is it whether Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world, or not? No. They are all about very minor points, and some of these rather childish. Christians have divided about water baptism, whether it is a christian ordinance, and whether its mode ought to be, by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion; whether Christ is in or under the bread in the Lord's supper; whether the Lord's supper should be received standing, sitting, or kneeling; whether the form of church government is Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent; whether the wicked are to be punished forever, for a limited period, or are to be annihilated. And Christians have been involved in contentions, about the color and cut of the costume of the clergy. Let these and other things be viewed as important as you please, they are all trifles, unless Christians live like Christians, and act like Christians towards each other.

2. There is only one christian fellowship or communion. In Paul's day, the disciples of Christ formed but one sect, called by their enemies, the sect of the Nazarenes.' There was only one church or christian fellowship. It was one body, of which Christ was the head. It was not meeting in one place which constituted this fellowship, or church; but being all par

takers of the precious faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And every partaker of it, cordially said-'grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.' But now, Christians are divided into innumerable sects, and have separate communions. They preach against each other, pray against each other, and treat each other as pagans, with whom they can hold no religious fellowship. Each sect is striving for the mastery, and compasses sea and land to make proselytes to its sectarian opinions. The money, which ought to supply the wants of the poor saints, is spent in carrying forward their own sectarian projects, and all are expecting, the world in due time will be converted to their creed. Sect is trying to convert sect to a sectarian creed, while all need to be converted to the spirit and practice of primitive Christianity. But we need not expect this until primitive Christianity is better understood, and sectarian dogmas abandoned. When all Christians take the Scriptures as their one rule, they will again make but one communion or fellowship.

W. B.

ART. XXXVIII.

Opinions and Phraseology of the Jews concerning the Future State; from the time of Moses, to that of their final dispersion by the Romans.

Though we propose so long a period for the scope of our survey, yet it is with reference particularly to the age of Christ and his apostles, that we shall aim to exhibit our subject. To this ultimate purpose, we shall accordingly make all the previous stages of our inquiry subservient. What were the notions, and what the accustomed phraseology, of the Jews, concerning the future state, at the time of our Saviour's ministry, is a question which evidently involves the natural meaning of many passages in the New Testament; for it was in the midst of those very notions and of that very phraseology, whatsoever they were, that our Saviour taught and his apostles wrote. They were themselves Jews, brought up among the Jews of that time, surrounded by their opinions, and habituated to their modes of expression. Their language it was, which they

used; and they used it in clear view of its customary signification. To Jews indeed, either as unbelievers or as converts, they addressed the larger part of their instructions; and their method of teaching, we may presume, was adapted to the prevalent habits both of thought and of expression. These, it is therefore necessary to know, and to keep in view, in order justly to interpret those instructions. Whenever Christ and his inspired followers introduce such representations as we find to have been appropriated, by cotemporary usage, to the future state, it is natural to suppose, even from that consideration alone, that they likewise refer to the same topic, unless we are apprized to the contrary by some other circumstance, sufficiently strong to set aside the ordinary import. And it is equally plain, that when they employ ideas and forms of expression, which, at that time, were not thus appropriated, we ought not so to apply them, without other evidence, whatever may be our modern usage of the like phraseology. We are apt, unwarily, to overlook the peculiarities of the ancient, in our habitual attention to the present. Especially is it the case, that, on discovering some points of resemblance between the two states of things, we are ready to conclude at once that there is a similarity throughout, and so take it for certain that the same language must have struck people then, in the same

manner as now.

Instances of this oversight are frequent with interpreters: it is sufficient to mention a single example: It is well known, that the Jews, in our Saviour's day, generally believed in an eternal retribution for mankind, after death. What, then, we are asked, must a people, accustomed to such views, have understood him to mean, when he spoke of everlasting fire, of everlasting punishment, of the damnation of hell, of a hell where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched? These are the leading phrases of the doctrine of endless misery; and we must remember, it is said, that Christ was fully aware of the common opinion, among his hearers, on the subject. What, then, could he expect, or intend, but to enforce it, by the use of such language? This appeal may, indeed, be silenced, perhaps, but it will seldom be satisfied, by the reply, that those expressions, when introduced by our Saviour, were generally accompanied by certain intimations or explicit remarks, which show that he did not refer to the future world. Point out this circumstance in relation to the several

cases, and though the objector feels baffled, the real difficulty still remains the terms, the tenor of the representations, the figures, in a word, all the language, is such, he knows, as is now appropriated to the idea of eternal punishment after death; and as this doctrine was as familiar with the original hearers as with us, what else could be intended, or thought of? He suspects some break in the context, some change of the subject, between the contrary intimations that may be pointed out, and the significant passages themselves. Such is the state of mind in which he is left. Now, the direct and proper answer to this particular appeal, (for what relates to the context, belongs to another branch of the illustration,) is, that the natural import of those expressions, if taken thus alone, depends on certain circumstances which he has not yet considered: on the peculiar form in which the Jews held their doctrine of eternal retribution, and on the distinguishing phraseology which they actually appropriated to it, rather than on the very indefinite fact of their having held something of the kind. Was their doctrine such, in its details, as to coincide apparently with the representations in the texts alleged? so that the resemblance would instantly strike the hearers of those days? If not, the seeming allusion disappears. And, did they commonly employ the same, or similar, terms to express their idea of endless woe? Did they call it everlasting fire, everlasting punishment, the damnation of hell, &c.? In other words, was it their peculiar phraseology on this topic, that our Saviour adopted? If not, why should we suppose that he must have been understood to speak of that subject, when he used neither the representations, nor the language, which was then associated with it? At present indeed, or till of late, our popular doctrine of endless punishment corresponded well enough, in appearance, with those figures and expressions; and for this good reason that it had been subsequently shaped with studied reference to them, and that its leading terms had been taken from the very texts in question. But how was it with the Jews of Christ's day?

To afford the means of determining this question and others of the same bearing, is the object of the present article. We should confine the limits of our survey to the time of the New Testament, were it not for the following consideration: the testimonies in point, which have descended to us from that particular period, are too scanty to present so clear a view as

may be desired. They disclose the main points in the case, but do not remove all the obscurity. We therefore need the additional light that is derived from a more extended survey; and having traced the progress of opinion from the first, marked ats successive changes, and followed it down to the Christian era, we shall be the better prepared to judge of the stage to which it had arrived at the period in question. With the whole horizon in view, we contemplate any particular scene, its bearings and proportions, more fully, than if it burst upon our sight through a narrow vista, opened for the moment amid surrounding darkness.

It may be observed, too, that a complete history of the opinions and language of the ancient Jews concerning the future state, embraces, in its earlier as well as in its later periods, many facts that are highly interesting to the Biblical student. At almost every stage, it throws light on some part. of the sacred volume. For all these reasons, we feel that it becomes us to spare no pains in the execution of our task, but to perform it throughout as faithfully as the means will permit, that our labor may subserve important purposes besides those we have more directly in view. We shall, first, present the subject as we find it in the time of Moses; secondly, trace it onward to the Babylonish captivity; thirdly, thence, to the Christian era; fourthly, from the birth of Christ, to the destruction of Jerusalem; and finally, we shall cast a glance on the two centuries following.

I. In the time of Moses: From 1604, B. C., to 1563, B. C.*

Here, our only authority is the Pentateuch. To this, indeed, we might add the inspired books of later date, did they, in any way, advert to the state of the subject at the time now under review. No profane writings whatsoever, (perhaps we must except some of the Egyptian hieroglyphics,) at any rate, no other possible sources of information, are found within many centuries of this remote antiquity.

That neither Moses nor the Jews of his time had any idea of such a future state as is taught in the gospel, is evident: it

*As it seems desirable to adopt here some approved system of Chronology, I follow Jahn, as respectable authority, without knowing, however, whether it is considered the best. Biblical Archæology, Tables at the end of Sect. 221.