92

all the events he places there, and indeed for much more, yet all the circumstances at this stage in our Lord's work, just before he should be received up, and after he "walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there tarried with the disciples;" "and the Pharisees had given commandment, that, if any man knew where he was, he should show it, that they might take him,"-these circumstances at the time of his retirement to Ephraim, and all the considerations suggested by the records, go to show that there was nothing of an active and public ministry from Ephraim, but what occurred on the journey as "he went on before, going up to Jerusalem," that is, at most, from Luke xvii. II on. Indeed, this portion including and beginning with Luke xvii. 11-19, can be located with much more certainty than any of the separated portions of this peculiar passage in Luke.

LUKE'S SEPARATED PORTIONS.

Let us now consider formally the separation of this peculiar passage in Luke (ix. 51-x. 16; x. 17-42; xi. 1-xiii. 9; xiii. 10-xvii. 10; xvii. 11-xviii. 14) and the adjustment of these sections to the distinct notices of time and place by John: Tabernacles, Dedication, beyond Jordan, raising of Lazarus, Ephraim, Bethany. (See editor.)

Some of the considerations in favor of the separation of this large portion of Luke, and their relation to John's notices of time and place, have been given in connection with the consideration of the several portions above. It will be only necessary to add, therefore, in regard to the separation of Luke's record of this great and final journey to Jerusalem as follows: (1) All harmonists accept some separation of the record. (2) This arrangement, as shown above, does no violence to Luke's narrative, but leaves all the events in the order he has left them, which, it is thought, best explains this momentous journey of our Lord from Galilee. (3) The divisions made are only those which are

generally acknowledged as distinct portions of the narrative. (4) These portions have such a natural and remarkable correspondence with the distinctly mentioned divisions of time. in John, that there is no strain of either record, nor yet is it mere taste or conjecture, nor in anywise simply arbitrary, to so adjust the two narratives. (5) As John connects the accounts of the two feasts of Tabernacles and Dedication, and as Matthew and Mark speak of his going up to Jerusalem, briefly, as a departure beyond Jordan, so Luke omits all the visits to Jerusalem, and speaks of the whole as a journey to the last Passover, of which Matthew and Mark give but few incidents. Luke gives considerable, insomuch, that as John may be called the Gospel of his Judæan ministry, and Matthew and Mark the Gospels of his Galilean ministry, so Luke may be called the Gospel of his Ascent, or of his Peræan ministry. (6) This important and long ministry, at least for six months, is alone recorded by Luke, and he himself gives many hints of its very circuitous route, and probable long time; but it is only John who gives the periods, which explain and properly divide this awful journey with set face to Jerusalem, when the time drew nigh when he should be received up. (7) In view of all the considerations given in connection with the several portions, and the general acceptance of the separation, there is a great probability that it is not only the best arrangement, but the real order of the events, and the proper adjustment of the natural divisions in this passage in Luke with the notices of time in John, between the festival of Tabernacles and our Lord's arrival at Bethany.

The Gospel of the Ascent, or ministry in Perea, is, then, with but little if any doubt, as follows: (1) Having left Galilee and on the way to the feast of Tabernacles, and but shortly before this, Jesus sends out the seventy (Luke x. 1-16). (2) At or just after the feast (John vii. 10-viii. 59), the seventy return (Luke x. 17). And going out from the hands of the Jews at the feast, he goes with and follows the seventy into all the places he had sent them, and formally begins and

continues a vigorous ministry until the feast of Dedication (Luke xi. 1-xiii. 9). (3) After this feast (John ix. 1-10-42), he goes away "again" beyond Jordan, where John was at the first baptizing, and continues the ministry begun after Tabernacles with the seventy, but it is now more cautious in its character and more limited as to locality, yet open; he goes publicly around the cities and villages, in John's first field, and teaches, privately and by the way, through parables, and signs, humility, forbearance, repentance, and faith, while he "abode" there (John x. 40-42, Luke xiii. 10–xvii. 10), until called to Bethany (John xi.). (4) He then culminates the whole of this most important, final, effective, and flaming ministry in and at the gates of Jerusalem, both before and after the feast of Dedication, by the raising of Lazarus (John xi. 1-46). After this he thought best to walk no more openly, but went into a city called Ephraim and there tarried with his disciples, until the passover of the Jews was at hand (John xi. 54-55). (5) And then leaving his retirement at Ephraim, he goes with his disciples, and joins the multitudes. on the road beyond Jordan, probably near the borders of Galilee, whom "he went on before, going up to Jerusalem " (Luke xvii. II on). Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover came to Bethany (John xii. 1), when the days were well-nigh come that he should be received up, and with his face steadfastly set to go to Jerusalem (Luke ix. 51).

[To be continued.]

ARTICLE V.

THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW ENGLAND DIVINES.

BY THE REV. frank h. foster, ph. d. (leipzig), professor of church HisTORY IN OBERLIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

V.

THE UNIVERSALIST CONTROVERSY CONCLUDED.

AFTER the arrival of Mr. Murray some years passed away before the New England divines felt their position attacked by the Universalists with sufficient vigor to call for a special reply. The Revolutionary War long engrossed the strength and attention of the ministry, and little of either could be given to theology; but when its echoes had died away, the activity of the Universalists began to demand notice. At the same time the secession of King's Chapel from the Episcopal Church gave to the Unitarian movement form and substance. The orthodox divines began, therefore, publicly to defend their faith and their opponents to reply, so that a number of books and pamphlets appeared on either side of the controversy from 1785 to 1805. The leading Universalist writings have already passed under our review.1 now attend to the New England writers.

I. THE REPLY TO RELLYANISM.

We

John Smalley, of Berlin, Conn., in a sermon preached by request at Wallingford2 struck the key-note of this stage of

1See BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, Vol. xlv. pp. 669–686.

2"A Sermon delivered at Wallingford by particular agreement, with special

reference to the Murryan Controversy," etc. Hartford, 1785. 8vo. pp. 29.

It was followed by "A Second Sermon," etc. 1786. 8vo. pp. 32. Both sermons are reprinted in Park's volume of "Essays on the Atonement," p. 45 ff.

the reply. With reference to the idea derived by Relly from Old School theories and expressed in his "union," that salvation is a matter of necessity, or put by others in the more sober form, that it is a matter of justice, Smalley proposes to show that "eternal salvation is on no account a matter of just debt," and hence à fortiori no mechanical necessity. After some preliminary statements in explanation of the meaning of justification, he takes up the redemption wrought for us by Christ for the purpose of showing how it is consistent with free grace in justification. He proceeds to present a new theory of the atonement, which has since been called the New England theory, and which, deriving its leading idea from Hugo Grotius, teaches that God, in exacting punishment for sins, did not act as the offended party, but as a Ruler, and that consequently, the atonement of Christ was not the payment of a debt, but "an astonishing expedient of wisdom and goodness that we transgressors might be saved and yet God be just and his righteous law suffer no dishonor "—a penal example making forgiveness consistent with the authority of the government, but in no way establishing a right upon the sinner's part to forgiveness. The great Smalley had argument of Rellyanism was thus refuted. stated it thus: "God is obliged in justice to save men as far as the merit of Christ extends: but the merit of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of all men; therefore God is obliged in justice to save all men."4 The new theory removed the major premise of this syllogism.

5

3

Universalism was thus the occasion of the introduction into the world of the New England theory of the atonement. In fact, the New England divines could make no other reply. The position that the merit of Christ was sufficient for the salvation of all men, or that he died for all,

Sermon, p. 10.

4 Ibid., p. 21.

The first three treatises presenting this theory-Edwards's, Smalley's, and West's-were all published within a twelvemonth, in 1785-86, and they all had reference to the Universalist Controversy.