網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

sent (which I by no means admit) that Paul was silent on the subject of endless punishment; does his silence prove there is no such doctrine as endless punishment? Certainly not. Are there not other inspired writers equal in authority with Paul? This you must admit unless you allow that Paul was a Pope. Then, ifany inspired writer taught the doctrine of endless torment or of an endless hell, is not the doctrine true? Neither Paul or any other inspired writer ever said or wrote, that the future punishment of the wicked would come to an end or that it was not eternal. Nearly all the inspired writers have declared, either directly or indirectly that it will not come to an end and that it is eternal. What then am I to believe regarding Universalism? Whether am I to believe the infallible word of God or the word of fallen and depraved man? I leave the reader to judge in this case and form his own conclusion.

You say that in order to justify the preaching of the present day, "Paul should have been continually thundering about sheol, and gehenna" &c. In reply I would say that the "Methodist sermons" which are so full of hell, hell fire, damnation, eternal damnation, damnation of hell, &c. &c., have for their example a higher authority than Paul. They have the example of Jesus Christ who taught the truth of God in a clearer and fuller manner than any man ever did. And this is all the authority I want to justify the "popular preaching" of the present day. As a few instances of this I submit the following to your consideration and for the information of your readers:-"Fear hire who,after

he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell" (gehenna) Luke xii. 5. "Whosoever shall

ye

say thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire (gehenna) Matt. v. 22. See also Matt. v. 29, 30, and xviii. 9, where the word gehenna is used, which you say had it been used by Paul would justify the popular preaching of the present day. "Ye devour widows' houses, &c. therefore shall receive the greater damnation," Matt xxiii. 14. "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, &c., is in danger of eternal damnation" (aionion) Mark iii. 29. "How can ye escape the damnation of hell" (gehenna) Matt. xxiii. 33. We consider these expressions, sir, which were employed by our blessed Saviour in the course of his preaching, perfectly sufficient to justify and authorize the present mode of preaching among the Methodists, while we regard the Universalists as anti-christian in their doctrine, so far as they oppose the doctrine taught by Christ. It cannot be denied that they either omit the doctrine of hell and damnation or deny the existence of such misery and punishment, and in this instance we must regard them as holding a dangerous heresy unknown in the days of Christ and his Apostles.

You say that if I look at the connexion of the text in 2 Thes. 1. 9. I will see that the destruction alluded to was that of the Jews by the Romans. Now, sir, I look upon this as one of those perversions of scripture which is never used in a good cause, but always required to support a bad one. Who in his proper senses could think for a moment that Paul had any allusion whatever to the destruction of the Jews by the Romans? I cannot think he had the

slightest reference to that catastrophe, for the following reasons:

1. The epistle was written to a church chiefly composed of converts from among the Gentiles who were not greatly interested in the affairs of the Jewish nation.

2. The Apostle throughout the whole epistle never once names either the Jewish nation or the Roman army, nor any other appellation by which either can be reasonably understood; consequently there is no reason for believing he had any reference to the overthrow of the Jewish nation.

3. Upon a review of the chapter an unprejudiced person would see several things that would lead him to conclude that the destruction in question was to take place at the day of judgment: for instance, the phrase, "taking vengeance on them that know not God." This cannot be said of the Jews, but of the Gentiles, as the former did know God in theory at least, while the latter did not know him. "Admired in all them that believe." The Redeemer could not be admired in ALL short of the day of judgment but only of a part of them.

4. But what seems to determine the matter to a certainty is, the caution given in the second chapter, where the apostle cautions them lest they should be shaken in mind, as if these things were to happen immediately; at the same time he assures them that that overthrow should not happen till after the establishment of antichrist or man of sin, whose destruction should be accomplished in the general overthrow of the eneies of the saints. It is obvious that this prophesy is not yet accomplished.

5. All the commentators that I have consulted on the meaning of this epistle agree in referring the principal transactions of it to the judgment of the great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest by Jesus Christ.

You say, "we are aware that Paul used the word aionion or everlasting, but this is applied to hills, mountains, covenants, priesthoods, and a great variety of things, limited in their nature." I confess, sir, that I have read this sentence with perfect astonishment. Was it written with a design to deceive the unlearned? I absolutely deny that the word aionion was ever used by any inspired writer to signify the duration of a hill, mountain or priesthood, except the priesthood of Christ. I challenge you to produce one instance of it. If you show me one instance of it I here promise to give up the argument so far as the word aionios is concerned. You may expect to hear from me before long concerning the words aion and aionios.

Yours, in the bonds of a peaceful Gospel,
JOSEPH MCKEE.

LETTER NO. I.

BALTIMORE, Oct. 24, 1834.

To Rev. Joseph McKee:

Dear Sir-In our zeal to sustain a favorite theory, we often attach a high importance to circumstances of a trifling nature, and to arguments that have no connexion with our subject.

slightest reference to that catastrophe, for the following reasons:

1. The epistle was written to a church chiefly composed of converts from among the Gentiles who were not greatly interested in the affairs of the Jewish nation.

2. The Apostle throughout the whole epistle never once names either the Jewish nation or the Roman army, nor any other appellation by which either can be reasonably understood; consequently there is no reason for believing he had any reference to the overthrow of the Jewish nation.

3. Upon a review of the chapter an unprejudiced person would see several things that would lead him to conclude that the destruction in question was to take place at the day of judgment: for instance, the phrase, "taking vengeance on them that know not God." This cannot be said of the Jews, but of the Gentiles, as the former did know God in theory at least, while the latter did not know L

[graphic]
« 上一頁繼續 »