網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

that it is also limited. But every Lexicographer has not given this. Schweighaueser, Valpey, Pickering and Schrevilius do not give eternity as its signification, but simply age or life. Now, dear sir, for your forty-eight, who say it means eternity! These cannot be produced, and even if they could, unless they give eternity as its only sense they would prove nothing.

There are some other things in your introductory remarks which betray a spirit that I regret to see. Take for instance, the unchristian and outrageous charge that some of my quotations from Lexicons are " mere forgeries!!" Now sir, I call on you, either to sustain this insinuation or else acknowledge that you have violated the rules of honourable discussion. One of the two you are bound as a gentleman and a christian to do. This charge of forgery, together with that of personal abuse, is kindred to the false one preferred of calling Clarke a bigot. I consider them designed to make me appear in that odious and shameful light in which you are conscious that you stand-in other words, to bring me down to a level with yourself. But the enlightened reader is not to be duped in this manner; nor shall I be provoked by this, to depart from an honourable and christian course. And should you reiterate these charges, or accuse me of quibbles, evasions, miserable subterfuges, &c. I shall only hold them up to the reader's gaze, and call them by their right names. If this be personal abuse, then have I transgressed; but if simply holding these up as I have done be abuse, what shall we call making the charges? Let your conscience give the an

swer.

32

Before considering what you have said on aïon, it may be well to sum up what I have proved respecting it in my previous letters. 1. I have proved from its roots that its etymological meaning is time indefinite, or continued existence. 2. I have proved from Lexicographers, that it is variously used, and of course, that its sense must always be determined by the connexion in which it occurs. 3. I have proved that eis can determine nothing respecting its meaning, because in the Septuagint and also in the New Testament, it often governs it when limited. To the first two of these, you have found it convevient to give no answer, as is the case with my arguments on many other subjects. Instead of replying to these, you have wasted your time in telling about the coincidence between your views and those expressed in the notes of the Cottage Bible, by which you were led to change your cpinion and adopt my explanation of a text. Inspired with confidence by this, you go over the ground which you travelled in Letter No. 2, simply asserting that aion in seventy-two places means endless. Have you no argment against universalism but assertion? Where are those strong proofs, by which you have threatened to crush this monstrous heresy? After stating your positions and proving them by assertions, you gravely draw the conclusion, that the use of aion is an incontrover tible argument against Universalism. All this you enforce, by your usual christian and courteous flourish the man who can fritter this away by sophistry and critical torture, &c. Now, were I to treat this part of your letter as it deserves, I should pay no attention to your assertions respect

ing awon and eis; but being anxious to render our discussion as instructive as possible, I will explain these texts and reply to those which you assert are so hostile to Universalism.

1. Let us consider the eleven texts where aion is not governed by eis. Of these the following are limited: Mark x. 30; Luke xviii. 30; John ix. 32; Acts xv. 18; Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26.— "That the word in these" six "cases is limited I have no hesitation to assert, in the most positive manner." As these speak of a world, (aioni) to come, in contrast with a world (aion) that is past, of the beginning of the world (aionos,) and of worlds (aionon,) they show that aion is here limited. But this I have proved in letters No. 2 and 5, and to this proof you have given no reply. Besides, Dr. Clarke says, he is fully satis fied, that the phrase "world to come' signifies the Christian dispensation. He is against you therefore on Mark x. 30, and Luke xviii. 30. He is also against you on John ix. 32, for he says 'since the world began,' means "from the commencement of time." From his comments on Acts xv. 18, Eph. iii. 9, and Col. i, 26 it is plain that he understood aion there in a limited sense.

Thus have I sustained my assertion respecting these six texts, by proof, and by your own commentator. And this I suppose will be equal to your assertion,

2. I deny that aion in the singular, when gov erned by eis is endless in the following texts: Matt. xxi. 19; Mark xi. 14; Heb. vi;. 5 Luke i 55; John viii. 35; x. 28; 1 John ii. 17; 2 John 2; John iv. 14; vi. 51-58; xiii. 8; xiv. 16; 1 Cor. viii.

13; Heb. v. 6; vi. 20; vii, 17, 21, 24, 28; 1 Pet. i. 23, 28; Mark iii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. 17; Jude 13.Here are 25 cases to be deducted from your 31.

In letter No. 5, I referred to fifteen texts, deeming these sufficient to refute your argument drawn from eis; but as you have again brought it up, it becomes necessary to go more fully into this subject, and show how sadly you have wrested Scripture to give your argument support. Before proceeding to this however, I must notice your shouts of triumph at the trifling error in setting down John ix. 32. as an instance where eis go. verns aion. In the numerous references which are made in these letters, it would be strange if errors of this nature did not occur. Several have occurred in yours, which I have corrected, and there is one in your present letter. Your seizing therefore, with such avidity upon mine, shows how sadly you are pushed for argument, and is like a sinner, magnifying into mountains, the uninten tional mistakes of the good. I will now consider the 25 texts where eis ion arona occurs in which aion is limited.

1. Matt. xxi. 19 and Mark xi. 14. These two relate to the fig tree cursed by our Lord. To be satisfied of the limitation of aion in them, it is only necessary to observe, that a fig tree has, at the longest, only the brief existence of a few years; it exists in no case to the "utmost bounds of eternity." Where then was the necessity, of our Lord,conveying the idea, that to the "utmost bounds of eternity," the fig tree should bear no fruit? Such a declaration would have been altogether gratuitous. His language, therefore, must be interpreted by the subject upon which he was

speaking, and if this be done, he can only be considered as saying, the figtree should wither, and bear fruit no more. Your question, whether I believe the figtree will bear fruit, at some future time, is entirely irrelevant, because it is in no way necessary to say this, to show, that aion is here lim ited; for the figtree was of short existence, and aion was used with reference to this. Can you or any reflecting man seriously believe our Saviour taught, that to the utmost bounds of eternity," no fruit should grow upon the tree, which he cursed? Rather than advance an idea so supremely absurd, let us admit that he used aion as it often occurs in Scripture and in common conversation. Thus Micah says (chap. iv, 5) we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever, (eis ton aoina kai epekeina, Greek, olam va ad, Hebrew.) So we say of man, he is ruined forever, when we simply refer to temporal misfortunes.

2. Luke i. 55. As Clarke is against you on this, it will be sufficient to give his words. The verse preceeding, he says, relates to God's cove nant, and v. 55 records the fact, that this was given in one form or other to all the fathers.And this is what he understands by speaking to Abraham and his seed forever. Observe, verse 55 does not say, he made an endless promise, but that he spoke to them forever. It is indusputably certain then, that aion is here limited.

3. John iv. 14; vi. 51, 58. These relate to the effects of drinking the water of life. Your at tempt to make me deny the endless blessings of grace and goodness, because I said aion was bere

« 上一頁繼續 »