« 上一頁繼續 »
ing been written before; and then he refers to Eichhorn as having showed, that the oldest of them, that of Onkelos, was composed as late as about A. D. 300. Observe, Kuinoel, says in the note, "See Eichhorn's Einleit who there shows, that the Paraphrase [i. e. the Targum] of Onkelos was composed about A. D. 300. I will now add, that Kuinoel immediately proceeds to quote, his proposed illustrations of Jewish opinions, not only from the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel, but also from the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum of Pseudo Jonathan: which two last are acknowledged by all critics, both Jewish and christian, so far as I ever heard to be even later than A. D. 300. So that referring to these collectively, as Kninoel does, in the above extract, it is impossible that he should suppose them to have been written before Christ. Thus do we see, the injustice of your charge, of literary frauds and falsehoods. You are the man sir, who "suspects" some of our "citations to be forgeries" and who says "his suspicions have not yet been removed." This is not strange; they seem,I regret to say, to be flourishing in a very congenial soil. But these things, together with your unfair quotations from Lexicons and Maclane's note in Mosheim, only serve to show, the weakness of your cause; for Truth requires the aid of no such measures-it disdains them. These things are reluctantly mentioned, but I could not close this controversy, without disproving the charge which you preferred against me, and on the strength of which, you inferred that all my quotations, from German critics were false. My arguments therefore respecting the dates of the
Targums, must be admitted by all, nothing that you have said, has weakened them in the least. Indeed your attempt to make Kuinoel speak what he never intended, shows that you are conscious of the truth of my positions.
It now remains for me to examine your present letter.
1. The promises of God. Under this head, you have a long paragraph of assertions and assumptions, but you have not made a single allusion, to those promises, which I brought forward, as being unconditional. That God has conditional promises I admitted. When he says to the Jews, ye shall know my breach of promise, he refers to a conditional promise of temporal good, which he \ had made them, which conditions they had not complied with. See Num. xiv. 34. So, when Paul said, "take heed, lest a promise being left them of entering into his rest, any of them should seem to come short of it," he refers to that conditional promise, which had been made, of rest to those, who would faithfully follow Jesus to the end of the Jewish dispensation. See the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, which relates to the trials of the christians, to their duties under these trials, their promise of deliverance, and rest at the coming of Christ. The conditionality of these promises I admit; but this admission does not weaken my position, that God has unconditionally promised the salvation of all men. Look again sir, at the promises of the new covenant as stated in my last letter; look too, at the promises made to Christ-Jehovah says, that he shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; that to him every knee shall bow, and tongue confess; and that the pleasure of the Lord shall
prosper in his hands. There are no conditions here; and therefore, we must regard these promises, as expressing in the most full and positive manner, what God intends to do. Who dare add an if to the Divine testimony, when God has said ALL SHALL KNOW ME, from the least, even unto the greatest?
But you say, unless I can prove, that all God's promises are unconditional, it is vain to adduce them in favour of Universalism. Who Sir, did you suppose, would believe an assertion, so inconsistent as this? So far from this being requisite, if I can prove, that one promise, relating to the salvation of all men, is unconditional, it is sufficient; for shall we refuse to believe God unless he piles promise upon promise? Again, you say, if my views are correct, wherein, is the use of a day of judgment? Well sir, I confess, I see no use for such a judgment as you teach, neither do I believe in it. Archimides said, he could raise the world, if he could only get a resting place for his lever; and you would prove the eternity of misery, if you could only have the privilege of assuming your premises. You here assume your application of scripture, and your notions of a judgment, and from these assumptions you infer, that my sentiments are wrong!
Nothing that you have said, therefore, affects my arguments in the least. Tears shall be wiped from all faces, and all shall sing the song of Moses and the lamb. This glorious result, God has unconditionally promised.
2. God's oath. In my last, I proved, that God had declared by an oath, that Christ should possess the gate of his enemies, that all'should be subjected to him, and that in him all the kin
dreds of the earth should be blessed. Your only reply is, I can see no proof in all this, of the total destruction of human misery. Can you expect Sir, that such declarations will pass for argument? No man can expect this, it is therefore, yielding the question.
Your proof, that God has sworn saying, some shall never be saved, is too far fetched; because 1st. Paul does not, as you say,make an applica tion of the Psalmist's language; he simply draws from the example of those who fell in the wilderness, and in consequence, did not enter Canaan, their long expected rest-I say he simply draws from them a warning example to the people of his age, and shows them, how they would come short of their expected rest, if there were in them, an evil heart of unbelief. But admitting that Paul did comment on the language of David, I deny that he was speaking of the final state of any. Nothing can be more evident, than that he referred to the rest of the faithful, after Christ should come and destroy those, who persecuted the christians. This was a rest, with which they were promised; by this, they were encouraged to faithfulness and perseverance. I know you have popular opinion on your side in this matter, but the Scriptures are our guide in this discussion; to them, all appeals should be made; and as these give the oath of Jehovah, against the eternity of misery, it does seem that our doubts should be removed, and that we should unhesitatingly admit, the great doctrine of infinite love and grace.
"I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not eturn, that unto me every knee shall bow, every
tongue shall swear, surely shall say, in the Lord, have I righteousness and strength." Such is the work which God has sworn, he will perform.
3. God's will. In your remarks on this subject, you have overlooked two important particulais. 1. That as God works all things after the counsel of his own will, and as it is his will that all men shall be saved, he could not place man under circumstances or give him powers, which he knew would prove his endless ruin, for that would be acting against his will. 2. In the same verse, where the apostle speaks of the will of God, to save all, he speaks of his purpose. Thus he says "having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his own good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself, &c. Here we see, that what God willed, respecting the final condition of men, he purposed. Hence it is his will of purpose, to save all men. And dare you, dare any man say, that this will, will not be accomplished? "As God has thought so shall it come to pass, and as he has purposed, so shall it stand."
In view of these two considerations, who can say, that God's will concerning the final destiny of the world, will be defeated? Defeated!
"Hold! shall the recording angel, as he registers the last line, in the book of human destinies, make the mortifying report in Heaven," that finite man was too great for the Almighty, that God's arm was shortened, that he could not save? So says Mr. McKee. But what says Jehovah? Ans. My council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."
But you tell us, that God's will is defeated with respect to the present conduct of men; and