網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

of a part may not be affirmed of the whole, because the whole is not included in a part. Consequently, you will have to find some other proof for the salvation of all men, besides the proofs of the salvation of a few.

I have already observed, that by rejecting aionios as signifying endless life, you left the christian no proof of the endless duration of the saints' happiness.

The adjective aphthartos is variously translated in the New Testement, as, incorruptible, immortal, and occurs only six times. It is derived from a negative, and phthartos corruptible, and signifies incorruptible. It is twice applied to the Divine nature of God, Rom. i. 23; 1 Tim. i. 17; once to the resurrection body, 1 Cor. xv. 52; once to the saint's inheritance. 1 Pet. i. 4; once to the word of God, (1 Pet. i. 23.) to which when aion is applied, it does not mean endless duration, according to your last letter; and once to the saint's crown of glory, 1 Cor. ix. 25. There is no use made of this adjective whereby it proves the endless happiness of one single

man.

The noun athanasia is derived from a negative, and thanatos death, and signifies immortality. This word occurs only three times in the New Testament, and is once applied to God, 1 Tim. vi. 16; and twice to the resurrection body of the saints. 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54. There is nothing in this word, to prove endless happiness, but merely endless existence.

The word aphtharsia occurs seven times in the New Testament, and is derived from a negative, and phtharsis corruption, and signifies in

corruption, incorruptibility. It is three times applied to the resurrection body of the saints. 1 Cor. xv. 50, 53, 54. Trice to doctrines. Eph. vi. 24; Tit. ii. 7. And twice applied to christian principle. Rɔm. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 10. Nothing appears in the use of this word to prove endless happiness, but only the unchangable state of things in the future world.

The adjective aidios is derived from aei always, according to Parkhurst, and signifies eternal, or endless. This word is employed to ex press the endless nature of the chains that bind the fallen angels. Jude 6. If the endless misery of devils is satisfactorily proved, which is undeniable in the present case, it affords a strong reason to induce us to believe in the endless nature of human misery, in a future state. This word occurs only in one other place, in the New Testament, and is employed to express the eter nity of God. Rom. i. 20.

I am, &c.

JOSEPH MCKEL

LETTER No. XI.

BALTIMORE, Feb. 24, 1835.

To Rev. Joseph M'Kee:

Dear Sir-In this discussion it is un. derstood, that I am acting on the defensive, as you made the attack on Universalism, and requested the privilege of offering your objections against it, and of refuting the arguments by which it is supported. It is my place then to examine what you advance-but since your

present letter contains hardly anything which requires an answer, I shall devote a portion of my reply to those "arguments" which you are so reluctant to approach. Before proceeding to these, however, I will notice, 1. Your reply to the following statement of mine-"You adn.it that olam in Dan. xii. 2, and aionios in Matt. xxv. 46, are synonymous, though you denied this in Letter No. 1." To this you reply-"I admitted nothing of the kind." Then sir, I know not the meaning of language, for in Letter No. VI. labouring to show that Dan. xii. 2, referred to the eternal world, and was descriptive of endless bliss and woe, you say: "It is worthy of remark, that the duration, both of the happiness of the righteous, and contempt of the wicked, are expressed by the word olam in the Hebrew, aionios in the Greek and everlasting in the English." Thus do you assert that olain and aionios are the same. 2. You deny saying anything of olam ir Letter No. I. To place this matter fairly before the reader, the following from my first communication must be inserted: 'I am aware that Paul used aionios, or everlasting, but, this is applied to hills, mountains, covenants, priesthoods and a great variety of things limited in their nature." To this you affect great astonishment, and accuse me of writing it to deceive the unlearned. Not suspecting that you were resting on a mere quibble, I replied by saying, that the learned admitted that aionios and olam are synonymous, when lo and behold! it turns out that I am accused of deceiving, because I did not use the precise word of the inspired writer, and not because

[ocr errors]

I did not convey his meaning. By this rule [ can prove that the inspired writers say nothing of God or Christ, heaven or hell, life or death, for they did not use these very words. Olam in the Hebrew, aionios in the Greek, and everlasting in the English, are used as I said, and if the first two are synonymous, as the learned admit, and as you have admitted, my argument is good, and my assertion true.

It is a little amusing to hear you insinuate, that I have been guilty of some gross perversions of your language, and that it is painful for you to point these out. I beg that your tender feelings may not deter you from duty, and especially since I have not spared you in this respect go on Sir, and give the instances.

2. In saying that the meaning of aionios must be determined by the noun to which it is applied, and the circumstances under which it is used, I asserted nothing contrary to the rules of language. As for instance, when we say a great man, a great house, and a great mountain, although the adjective qualifies the noun, we decide its extent of meaning in the three cases, from the nouns. So with aionios, and so all critics admit. My position then, is not 'absurd,' neither does it 'invert the established order of language.'

3. You say my various definitions of aionios are assumed, but by turning to Letter No. VI. the reader will see that such is not the case.

4. My assertion that the believer of to-day may be the infidel of to-morrow, is denied; and this denial is backed up by some foreign statements respecting the indestructible nature of

Christ's kingdom. If your position here means anything, it is, that saints cannot fall from grace. When you will avow this doctrine, I am ready to discuss it. Till then, I will not allow you to shift from Methodism to Calvinism, to evade the force of my arguments.

5. I deny that Col. iii. 24; Heb. xi. 26; Rev. xxii. 12, refer to the future state; and until you prove this, all you have said on that head, will weigh nothing. That the primitive Christians were rewarded, is certain, and I have shown that this reward is called "zoen aionion.' You say by my rule, a man can have fifty everlasting lives; but all this is merely playing around the question, without attacking the main position—and such is the case with your whole letter.

6. You say, my quotation from Clarke is a perversion. Will you show this?

7. Your denial that our Lord applied Dan. xii. 2, to the destruction of Jerusalem, is like denying the existence of a God, when nature and revelation declare it in language that none can mistake. The atheist can deny the Divine existence, but he cannot sustain his denial, neither can you yours. If you can, why not do it?

8. On the text "ordained to life," I need only remark, that the life to which those were ordained, as mentioned in Eph. i. 4, 5, 11; ii. 10; Rom. viii. 29, 30, is not endless life. See Whitby and Clarke on these. Your inference, therefore, about reprobation is quite too fast.

9. All you have said on Matt. xii. 31, respecting the sin against the Holy Ghost, is refuted by the fact, that after the positive negation, comes the phrase "neither in this world, (age) neither

« 上一頁繼續 »