Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

be saved? He answered, Force your entrance through the straight gate; for many I assure you, will request to be admitted who shall not prevail. If once the master of the house shall have arisen and locked the door, and ye standing without and knocking, say, master, master, open to us, he will answer, I know not whence ye are. Then will ye say, we have eaten and drunk with thee, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he will answer, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; remove hence all ye workers of unrighteousness. Then will ensue weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abram, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets received into the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves excluded; nay, people will come from the east, from the west, from the north, and from the south, and will place themselves at table in the kingdom of God." In reference to what salvation did a Jew ask this question? Salvation from the destruction of Jerusalem? Surely not; for the Jews did not believe such an event to be possible. They expected to be the triumphant party. Salvation from present sinfulness? Certainly not; for they manifested no anxiety or uneasiness on this subject. No; the question was doubtless proposed in accordance with the well known sentiment of the pharisees that all true Israelites were to share in the happiness of the future life. And to what does the answer of our Savior relate? To salvation from any temporal calamities? Surely not; for those to whom he spoke could not see Abram, Isaac and Jacob entering the christian church. They could not see them raised from the dead to be rewarded at the destruction of Jerusalem. They could not see multitudes come from the four quarters of the earth. They could not be saved from the most cruel persecutions by becoming his disciples. No. The distinct impression which he left on the minds of his

hearers must have been this; that all would not be saved from future punishment; that their chief concern was to become holy; that they need not trouble themselves about the welfare of others until they had first secured their own salvation from sinfulness. Now if he knew there was no danger of any future misery; if he knew that all would be saved the moment they enter upon the next conscious existence, why did he not give the honest inquirer a plain answer? Should a believer in future retribution ask you the same question, would you hesitate to furnish an honest reply, or should you mislead by your words? If he knew that all would be made holy and happy after death, was he not guilty of falsehood in affirming that some would not secure their salvation? If you are consistent you must either pronounce him a liar, or admit that your doctrine of no future retribution is erroneous. I know of no other alternative. Take which side of the dilemma you think proper. For myself I am ready to declare, that if your doctrine of no future retribution be true, I must consider the inspired Savior to have been guilty of falsehood, and consequently unworthy of confidence; but if men are to be rewarded and punished beyond the grave, then his answer to the Jew appears consistent and striking, and his character is delivered from the slightest suspicion of prevarication. Luke 13. 23.

4. Suppose your missionary should learn that a number of his unconverted hearers were obliged to engage in a bloody warfare. Suppose he should most earnestly beseech them to repent and obey the gospel, receive Jesus as their master and openly profess his name. Suppose he should assure them at the same time that their profession of religion would expose them to the severest persecutions and even to death itself. Suppose he knew, that by becoming practical christians they would expe

rience less happiness and more misery in the present life, than they would by remaining in an unbelieving and sinful state? Suppose he firmly believed, that those who died in their sins would enjoy equal felicity hereafter with those who lived in the most perfect manner and suffered most in the cause of Christ. What should you think of such proceedings? Would you not call this a specimen of egregious folly? You would. Now apply this illustration to our Savior. When on earth he solemnly urged his disciples to adhere to his religion. At the same time he assured them that their profession would expose them to tribulation, persecution, cruelty, death. Their sufferings must have been much greater on account of their religion than they could have been in an unconverted condition. Now is it reasonable to suppose the benevolent Jesus would have urged them to such exposures, if he knew their happiness hereafter would be no greater than that granted to their enemies and murderers? If then he knew there was no future retribution, did he not exhibit consummate folly in entreating them to adhere firmly to his principles, when he knew their obedience would render their condition in the next world no better, and in the present existence much worse? For one inspired apostle declared, that if the christians of his day had no hope beyond this life, they were of all men most miserable. If you are consistent, must you not admit that your doctrine of no future retribution is false, or pronounce the anointed Savior guilty of folly and cruelty? Is there any other alternative? Take which horn of the dilemma you please. For my own part, if the doctrine of no future retribution be true, I must regard Jesus as guilty of great cruelty and foolishness, and consequently unworthy of confidence; but if rewards and punishments are hereafter to be equitably distributed, his course ap

pears rational and commendable, and his character is rescued from the least suspicion of weakness or unprincipled ambition.

Thus, my dear sir, I have noticed a few particulars in our Savior's history and character which I cannot reconcile with your belief. If he either knew or believed that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was false, I cannot excuse him from the charges of unfaithfulness, deception, falsehood, folly and cruelty; for his uniform mode of preaching and conduct can be accounted for satisfactorily on no other supposition; and consequently I must renounce my confidence in his fidelity, honesty, integrity, wisdom. I make these assertions in the deepest sincerity. They are not the hasty expressions of an excited moment. I have given days and weeks and months to the study of this subject. I therefore state my most deliberate, most solemn convictions. Yes; the moment I adopt your belief in the doctrine of no future retribution, that moment I must reject the Savior as a faithless, deceitful, silly and cruel impostor, if I exercise my reason according to the common rules of forming a judgment. But so long as I find future rewards and punishments plainly taught in the scriptures, so long I shall believe him to have been a faithful, honest, wise and benevolent messenger from heaven. If there is any way of answering this argument fairly I know it not; and I leave the evidence for your candid consideration.

II. My second incidental argument in proof of a future retribution is drawn from the history and character of the apostles.

1. Suppose Jesus Christ should now appear in person to twelve christian ministers. Suppose he should inform them that the doctrine of a future righteous retribution is not true. Suppose he should assure them that all

mankind will be equally happy on their admission to the next conscious existence. Would not these preachers be amazed beyond measure at the appearance of the Savior? Would they not be greatly astonished at his solemn declarations? Would not their prejudices be exceedingly shocked in having an important article blotted at once from their creed? Would not such a communication make a deep and lasting impression on their minds? Would they not refer to the important period of visitation and instruction in all their coming years? Would it be possible for them to conceal this important disclosure in their own bosoms? No; not without the greatest departure from the known laws of human nature; not without a greater moral miracle than any of a physical character which Christ wrought. Had they never referred to this event should you not believe they had conspired to deceive the community and were unprincipled impostors? You certainly would. Now apply this illustration to the twelve apostles. They were selected from those who firmly believed in future rewards and punishments. Their belief was thoroughly incorporated into their whole religious system. They would as soon have thought of doubting a future existence as the doctrine of a future retribution. Now if our Savior had once informed them that their belief on this point was erroneous would not their prejudices have been greatly shocked? Would they not have made an outcry which no one could have mistaken? Would they not have remembered the moment when their confidence in an essential and undisputed article in their confession was destroyed? Would they not have alluded to this circumstance both in their preaching and writings? Would not this course have been natural, according to the known and invariable laws of human nature? Now what is the fact? Do the twelve or any one of the

« ForrigeFortsæt »