網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

shows that it was limited, otherwise no word expressing addition, would have been added.The fact that these particles do not occur in the New Testament can prove nothing with respect to their use by the lxx.

Yonr vindication of the double form of aion is far-fetched and falacious. The Hebrew is olama va ad. The Septuagint is ton aiona, kai ep' aiona, kai eti: in other places it is eis ton aiona, kai eis ton aiona. tou aionos. In the New Testament, it is eis tous dionas ton aionan. Now all these expressions are the same in meaning. They are grammatical, because olam and aion, depend on their use for their signification; but did they strictly mean endless, no rule of language could justify their use in this manner. If olam means a long time, olam va ad would be a still longer time; hut if olam means eternity then olam va ad means eternity and beyond it. So with the Greek, both of the Ixx and the New Testament. In the light of these facts, what shall we think of your class ical allusion to Most Highest? You object to my allusion to the Septuagint, then you must object to the Hebrew and to the Greek of the New Testament, for the same form of expression occurs in both.

You differ widely from Dr. Clarke, respecting the Septuagint. While you are saying it is bad Greek and can be of no service, he declares, that it is of the greatest service. Besides, why not refer to this, as well as to the Targums?

With regard to the phrase of forever and ever, they have grown out of the Hebrew and Greek, and are used in the same sense. Thus we say forever, and mean the period of life, forever and

mean eternity, forever and ever, and mean the same. The words as their originals in Hebrew and Greek, depend on their use for the sense. The translators in numerous instances recognize this rule.

Before considering your three rules, it may be well to observe the change you have experienced since writing letter No. 2. Then the question must turn on the grammatical meaning of aion; now other rules must be adopted. But had you proved that uion of itself means endless, it would be no argument against us, because as it is variously used, we must learn its sense from its connexion. This all critics

allow.

Rule 1 is admitted, but the inference is rejected, it having not the most distant connexion with the rule. The immortality of the mind is no proof of the immortality of sin. Sin is corruption; it is of earthly origin; it is not of God and must come to nought. The misery of the mind depends not on its immortality, but on its impurity. Hence before Rule I would justify you in saying that aionios, in connexion with misery means endless, you must prove that sin, the cause of misery is endless in its nature. The nature of the mind proves nothing with respect to the nature or duration of sin.

Rule 2 is admitted, but the assumption denied. When you say, the Bible nowhere teaches that punishment will end, you assume the whole ground in debate. Suppose I should say, the Bible declares that the misery of the wicked will end; therefore, aionios when connected with misery, must be limited-would you not call me an oracle; and would not the wise mon

of the land do me reverence? What honors then are due to thee?

Rue 3 is admitted, but the groundless assertion isrejected with contempt. That a man professing to argue a religious question, and from the scriptures too, should deal thus in assertions, is almost iucredible. Why is this, Sir? Have pou exhausted your stock of arguments? The whole of letter five consists of charges, assumptions and assertions.

Your public call respecting es is quite pompous. With one breath, you lay down three rules to decide the question at issue,and with the next you declare that a preposition settles the matter eis ton aiona. But before you made this call, it would have been well to prove, that aion means endless, in the fifty-five cases where it is govcrned by eis; and as that matter rests on assumption, it must receive attention, or your public call will be answered by, one loud and long from the public.

I have paid no attention to your remark, that future punishment is vindictive, thinking it best to leave this, till furnished with your reasons for converting God into a being of rage and revenge; and for arming him with infinite vengeance.

One word on your remark that "no good can arise from allusions to the heterogenous words of enthusiasts and fanatics, who have used aion and aionios," and I will close. This was doubtless made with reference to my closing remarks in letter No. 3, where I alluded to the manner in which these words were used by the Greek fathers: Knowing that this would be an unanswerable argument against you; the fathers are

This is

denounced as enthusiasts and fanatics. in keeping with letter No. 1, where you denounce these fathers as artful and cunning, and accuse them of the mean artifice of torturing and perventing the Bible to deceive the illiterate. Not content with heaping contempt on some of the most learned and pious christian fathers, you even denounce the Septuagint. But this you are compelled to do, in order to sustain your unfounded notions. Why may not as much aid be derived from the Greek fathers, as from the Targums?

"There is one fact worthy of notice respecting these fathers. Several of those who wrote in the Greek language during the second, third and fourth centuries, maintained the doctrine of Universal Salvation; yet they freely and habitually applied the terms in question to the subject of punishment, without any explanation, such as our modern prepossessions whould have made nccessary in order to prevent mistake This shows that the ancient Greek fathers never suspected that those terms would, of themselves, convey the notion of endless duration, when applied to punishinent. And this conclusion is confirmed by another fact, viz. that those Greek fathers who on the contrary did not believe in Universal Salvation, and who began at length zealously to oppose that doctrine, never quoted the terms now in question, against their opponents, but resorted to other arguments. I speak of the most ancient Greek christians; those who lived before the fifth century. I am, &c.

OTIS A. SKINNER.

LETTER NO. VI.

BALTIMORE, Nov, 25, 1834. To Rev. Otis A Skinner:

Dear Sir.-I was more surprised on reading your third letter, than I was by all your former communications. It appears to me that you wish to confine almost every subject in the scriptures, to the state of mortality, in the present world. One would think, by your manner of treating the subject, that you intended to set every thing at loose ends, and consider nothing as absolutely certain. It would appear that you endeavoured, not only, to destroy the evidence of endless misery, but the evidence of endless happiness, and, even render doubtful, the immortality of the soul. I never expected to find a Universalist, that would so much as insinuate the smallest doubt, concerning the unlimited duration of the spiritual life of the saints.-But such is the state of affairs. Now, it appears to me that, the endless happiness of the saints, must be proved by the adjective oionios, or not at all, for, I know of no other word by which it can be done, if this one be insufficient to do it. Therefore, the misery of the wicked and the happiness of the saints must stand, or fall together; if aionios cannot prove the endless duration of misery, it cannot prove the endless duration of happiness; and if it can prove the interminable duration of happiness; it has undoubtedly the same force in its application to misery; it is the adjective which is commonly used in the scriptures to express both.

Regarding the word (zoe) life, it may be remarked, that there are several sorts of life.

« 上一頁繼續 »