ཐ་

is a place of endless misery. What says Jesus to his disciples ?ye which have followed me in the regeneration, "when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve "tribes of Israel.' Matt. xix. 28. Let the time referred to " here, be when it may, the promise was made to the twelve "when Judas constituted one of them. It will not do to say, "that the promise can be fulfilled by supplying the place of "Judas by Matthias, who was elected after the ascension of

our Lord. The promise was made to that twelve to whom "Christ spake, 'ye who have followed me,' and that the tes"timonies should be true, to them it must be fulfilled. If 66 my opponent feels disposed to dispute all this, he is at "liberty, and I hope I shall be able to meet his argn"ments."a

Mr. Winchester's mode of evading the force of this rigid authority, differs from that of my opponent. He thinks our Saviour's declaration concerning Judas equivalent to those of Job and Jeremiah concerning themselves. They cursed the day in which they were born, thinking that non existence was preferable to such an existence as theirs. He understands this to be the meaning of our Saviour with regard to Judas; that non-existance is preferable to such an existence as his. This author agrees in his calmer moments, with the hasty and improper decision of Job and Jeremiah, that annihilation is preferable even to these comparatively light afflictions which are but for a moment. He speaks as follows, viz. "And who would not, a thousand times, "choose rather never to have been born, than even to sec, "far less experience, the miseries which came upon Jerusa "lem and its inhabitants? Would it not have been better "for mothers never to have been born, than to have killed "and eaten their own children in the siege? and would it "not have been better for the children never to have been "born, than to have been food for their mothers?" He might as well have asked, was not annihilation preferable to the martyrdom of Ignatius and many others, who were food for lions? Surely not: because these martyrs inherit that everlasting glory which Mr. Winchester vainly expects for the devoted inhabitants of Jerusalem. If they were ever to attain this eternal joy, it is well for them to have been born, if, between their birth and their glorification, they had

a Minutes, p. 91. b Dialogue 2nd,

to endure ten thousand sieges of Jerusalem. The infinite superiority of endless happiness over temporary pain shews the rashness of the complaints and wishes of the inspired mourners above mentioned. But was our Saviour rash ? Was he under the influence of ignorance, impatience, or resentment, when after weighing the good and the evil of this traitor's career, he declared that annihilation was preferable to such an existence? "It had been good for that man if "he had not been born."

After having rejected our translation, and amused the audience with a great variety of translations, my opponent at last agrees that the passage means, "good were it for him, "(the traitor,) if that man, (the traitor,) were not born." The result, then, of his pedantic criticisms is this; that he has given us a translation agreeing with our own, and has accompanied it with a paraphrase which establishes our interpretation! "Good were it for him, (the traitor,) if that man, "(the traitor,) were not born." It would be good for Judas, if he were not born: that is, if he were in a state of non-existence as he was before his birth. It is true that a state of non-existence has no positive good attending it; but is it not grammatical, intelligible and scriptural, to say that annihilation would be comparatively a blessing to that man, to whom existence is a curse? Yet this sort of language my opponent endeavours to shew is inconsistent with sound philosophy, and the usages of Greek writers. He would have us believe that the fact of Moses, being born, means the same thing as a supposition that Judas is not born, because the word born is used in both cases. He admits that the one is an affirmative and the other a negative: and yet by quoting a great deal of Greek, and using many grammatical terms, he calculates on making you believe that a fact and a supposition, an affirmative and a negative, mean the same thing. "Now what is the difference between these two passages he gravely asks. I know not how to do justice to his learning and his powers of reasoning, better than by putting his argument into a syllogistic, and almost a poetical form. Major proposition. εγεννήθη Μωυσης= ει ουκ εγεννηθη ὁ άνθρωπος

εκείνος.

Minor proposition. Indicative, Subjunctive, Original, Particles, Idiom.

Conclusion. Therefore, to be born, and not to be born, both presuppose existence, and mean the same thing, according to the philosophy of the Universalists.

If the mere use of the same verb in relation to Moses and Judas, will authorize such a wild conclusion, then it is as true, that Jonah swallowed the Whale, as that the Whale swallowed Jonah, because not only the same verb but the same words throughout occur in both these propositions.

When the Scriptures declare that "by transgression Ju"das fell, that he might go to his own place," a my opponent says that his own place is one of those twelve thrones on which the Apostles shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel. He considers his right to this glory secured to him by the unconditional promise of Christ; and that veracity requires that he be enthroned.

66

It is freely admitted that veracity requires the fulfilment of every promise, as it certainly does the execution of every threat. But where do we find a promise that Judas shall inherit a crown of glory, with or without regeneration, repentance, or faith? The promise referred to, in Matt. xix. 28, is so far from being unconditional, that it expressly confines the benefits promised, to those who had forsaken all, and followed him," in the regeneration." "Then answered "Peter and said unto him, behold! we have forsaken all, and "followed thee: what shall we have, therefore? And Jesus "said unto them, verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall "sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve "thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Here the enquiry is made, not concerning unbelievers and traitors, but concerning self-denied and faithful disciples. The promise which the answer contains, describes the same characters, "ye which have followed me in the regeneration." That regeneration is essential to entering the kingdom of heaven, our Saviour has expressly declared.b That Judas was born again, at the time when this promise was given, will not probably be contended; and it will soon be seen that he had no saving interest in the Christian dispensation, which some will understand by regeneration. That he had not forsaken all, is evident from the reason which is given for his recommending that the ointment be sold, and the money given to the poor. "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein."e This also makes it plain that he had not followed Christ: for he could not serve God and Mam

66

с

mon. That he followed the devil instead of Christ is manifest from scripture prophecy and history. Peter a refers us to a Psalm which says, concerning him, "let Satan stand at "his right hand." Peter, in quoting a part of this Psalm, the whole of which relates to Judas, says, "this scripture "must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by "the mouth of David, spake concerning Judas, which was "guide to them that took Jesus." As a fulfilment of the above scripture, it is expressly stated that "Satan entered "into him:"band our Saviour himself says to these twelve Apostles, to whose persons identically and universally my opponent says the promise was made; to these twelve he says, one of you is a devil." Did he afterward promisé that this devil should be enthroned as a judge of his people? That very scripture which was fulfilled in his diabolical possession, declared that, instead of judging Israel, he himself should be judged and condemned; and that instead of being enthroned as an Apostle, another should take that office from which he fell by transgression. David says, "When he "shall be judged let him be condemned; and let his prayer "become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his "office." After the death of Judas, and the ascension of Christ, Peter says, " it is written in the book of Psalms, let "his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : "and his bishopric let another take." Accordingly, the Apostles pray God to appoint a successor, "that he may "take part of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Ju"das by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." a To his own place! Is heaven that place, as my opponent says ? "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lu"cifer, son of the morning!" Judas is not called a son of the morning, but he is called" a son of perdition;" and of course, perdition with Lucifer, is his own place. "The transgres"sors shall be destroyed together e "Judas by transgres"sion fell." "The wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and "the transgressors shall be rooted ont of it." I ask not whether he was rooted out of the earth by involuntary suffocation, voluntary strangulation, or precipitation from the top of a rock. Certain it is, as my opponent acknowledges, that falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bow"els gushed out:" and it is no less certain that this was

66

d

a Acts i. 16, 20.

b In. xiii. 27. c John vi. 70.

d Ps. cix. 7. 8. Acts i. 20, 25.

e Ps. xxxvii. 38.

f Prov. li. 23.

predicted as an introduction to a place of cursing and not of blessing. "As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as "he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As "he clothed himself with cursing, like as with his garment, SO let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his "bones." What is the proper place of a fallen star but with those "wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness "of darkness forever ?" If Tophet be the proper place of a thief and traitor ;-if perdition be the proper place of a "son "of perdition;❞—and if hell be the proper place of “ a devil;" -then it is plain where this most conspicuous of hypocrites went, when he went "to his own place."

But my opponent says, "if salvation be predicated on re"pentance, we have the same evidence, yea, if possible, better "evidence of the repentance of Judas, than we have of the "repentance of Peter." Doubtless my opponent has read Campbell's preliminary dissertation on the word repentance, and has observed that the Scriptures generally use one worde to signify evangelical repentance, which is the work of the Spirit of sanctification, and another wordd to denote that regret which is no way inconsistent with the most depraved disposition. In the Septuagint, it is used to denote the malignant chagrin of the Moabites, on being conquered by the Israelites. "And there was great repentance against Isracl." In the Apocrypha, its conjugate is used to mark that repentance" which devoted sinners exercised" for having once performed their duty. "As for the ungodly, wrath came upon them without mercy unto the end; for he knew before, what they would do: how that having given them leave to depart, and sent them hastily away, they would repent and pursue them." In the Septuagint, it is used to denote that sorrow which the children of Israel felt for having left Egypt. "For God said, lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt." It is also used to point out the final and irremediable sorrow of the despisers of God's word and ordinances. "And thou repent at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed.e

That Judas' repentance was of this sort is evident from the fact that his remorse was unavailing. He was condemned and degraded by divine authority. "For it is written in the book of Psalms, "let his habitation be desolate, and let no

e 2 Kgs. iii. 27. Wisd. xix. 2. Ex. xiii. 17. Prov. v. 11.

4