(On the Resurrection)
"The arguments now designed will go to show that the scriptures make use of words signifying a resurrection, in a figurative sense, when nothing beyond this mortal state is intended, that the passage under consideration is of this description ; and that it is proved to be so by comparing it with other passages which evidently have their application in time, and also by comparing it with passages which speak of a resurrection into an immortal state, by observing the difference there is between the two classes. (A Series of Lecture Sermons, p. 339) "Will the hearer now say that all this may be, and that both Daniel and the Saviour were speaking of the resurrection of mankind to a state of immortal happiness and misery in a future world ? To this we reply, when Jesus spoke to his disciples of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the calamities which should shortly come on the Jews, he uses the words of Daniel nearly verbatim when he speaks of the time of trouble. By this circumstance we are instructed that both Daniel and the Saviour spake of the same time, and of the same events, and that that time was when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.
"The true meaning of the words of Jesus and of the passage in Daniel appears to be this : those Jews who listened to the mild voice of the gospel, proclaimed by Christ and his Apostles, came forth from spiritual death to the life of faith in the new covenant; but those Jews, who rejected the doctrine of salvation, crucified the Saviour, and persecuted his apostles, were those who had done evil, and they were roused from the dormant state in which they lay, as in a covenant of death and a refuge of lies, by the voice of judgment, and come forth to the resurrection of that condemnation which is so particularly pointed out in the 24th and 25th chapters of Matthew ; and which was illustrated in our lecture on that subject." (ibid., p. 342) (1804 - Notes on the Parables of the New Testament: Scripturally Illustrated and Argumentatively Defended)
"In Matt 12:31, 32 (neither in this world nor in that which is to come), "world" means dispensation; "this" world, the legal priestly dispensation; and "that which is to come," the gospel.” "Nothing can be more evident than that what Jesus and his disciples meant by the end of the world was the end of the Jewish polity and their destruction by the Romans.” (p. 81)
“The wrath to come,’ of which John spake, when he said ‘who hath warned you..’ is speaking of the destruction of the Jews and their city, he said ‘For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” (p. 17)
(1811 - A Treatise on the Atonement)
“If Christ is to be understood as he said, if his words explain his meaning, it is clear, that his coming in his glory.. was some time in the life-time of those to whom he spake. "If this be true, which my opponent with his eyes open, will not dispute, then no objection can be stated, from this parable, against the final holiness and happiness of all men." “We are informed, that Christ came once in the end of the world, to put away sin. The world, of which Christ came in the end, was undoubtedly the dispensation of the legal priesthood." (1820 - A Series of Letters in Defence of Divine Revelation)
"Nor need I speak of Moses who foretold the dealings of God with the house of Israel as if he had lived now and had written their history. But I must insist on your paying some nice attention to the prophesies of Christ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. This prophesy is recorded very circumstantially in the 24th of Matt. Be so good, sir, as to compare this prophesy with the history written by Josephus and let candor decide whether the author of that prophesy was divinely inspired, or whether he was a poor deceived enthusiast."
"What you say on the subject of prophecy, does not appear to me, either to reflect any light on it, or to call up any question of importance. Your query whether the books of the New Testament were not written after the destruction of Jerusalem, which would suppose that the prophecy of the destruction of that city was written after the events took place of which the prophecy speaks, is an old suggestion in which I am unable to see any thing very reasonable. And I will remark here, that men who seem to lay an uncommon claim to reason, ought to make use of it when arguing on such momentous subjects. What difference would it make whether St. Matthew wrote his gospel before, or after the destruction of Jerusalem, as it respects the prophecy which Jesus delivered concerning it? You allow St. Matthew to be an honest man. You do not doubt then but Jesus did deliver such a prophecy before his death, which was certainly before the destruction of the city. Then surely it makes no difference whether the prophecy was committed to paper before, or after the fulfilment of it. Besides, you seem to urge the _silence_ of St. John on the subject as unfavourable to the account, because he wrote his gospel after Jerusalem was destroyed. As to interpolations which you think might have found their way into the gospels, it appears to me, sir, that a candid consideration of this subject would issue in this conclusion; if any important interpolations had been admitted, they would have produced such a disagreement as to effectually destroy the validity of the books; for if one heresy could be indulged, it is reasonable to suppose that another would be, and so on, which in room of allowing us the scriptures in their present consistent form, would either have destroyed their existence altogether, or have varied so as to confound their ideas."
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/b/ballou-hosea.html
