« 上一頁繼續 »
two literary frauds, or falsehoods. For, first, Kuinoel does not rely on Eichhorn as authority concerning the dates of the Targumns at all; nor does he, second, quote the Targums as the work of the 3rd or 4th century. But I will state what Kuinoel does say on this subject, and then it will be seen that he decidedly establishes my side of the question. Kuinoel in his prolegomena, gives us a dissertation on the Logos,, and in page 109 he cites the Targums to show what were the Jews' opinion, on this subject, at the time of Christ. He then goes on to say, that admitting the Targums were (which he by no means admits not written till the second or third century, it made no difference; as the Jews were extremely tenacious of their opinions, so that whatever sentiments or opinions they once held, they always held. In a note, at the bottom of the page, he refers to Eichhorn as one who had offered some trifling reasons to show that the Targums were not written till the 3d or 4th century.Hence Kuinoel is decidedly in favour of the notion that the Targums were written before Christ; at all events, that they contain the notions which the Jews always had. Consequently the Targums prove that the Jews and our Saviour used Gehenna to signify endless fire, in a future state. . Furthermore, as you have referred to Kuinoel as being of high authority, I suppose yon will abide by his decision concerning the meaning of the term Gehenna, in the New Testament. Then, if you will turn to his Exposition of Matth. v. 22, (page 135,) you will find that, after remarking that it is derived from two words signifying the valley of the son of Hinnom, he affirms it
signifies, in the New Testament, the place of everlasting damnation! Again, on Matt. x. 28, (page 299) he says, apokteino means not only to deprive of life, but to destroy or extirpate. Therefore he is decidedly against your sentiments on these three points of difference between us.
Now as I have shown that you misrepresented this author, which is the only one I had access to, it is very likely this would be the case with all you have quoted, had I the opportunity of examining them.
Now having demonstrated the existence of endless misery, by the word Gehenna, any other discussion on the subject is unnecessary, as it is only a useless waste of time. I have shown by twelve authorities that the Targums were written before Christ. These Targums use the word Gehenna to signify endless misery, and consequently, show how the Jews used the word; and our Lord being a Jew according to the flesh, and preaching to Jews must have used this word as they understood it, therefore, its meaning in the New Testament is definitely fixed. I cited twelve authorities to prove it signifies future punishment. No authority can be found to say it does not. Therefore the question is finally settled; for, if it is not, there is no use in debating upon any subject whatever.
It may be observed that I have made no attempt to reply to any of your positive proofs of Universalism, because all such proofs must be explained in accordance with the existence of endless misery; that is, to harmonize with the existence of a fact which is demonstrated. Yours in the bonds of the gospel, JOSEPH M'KE I.
LETTER No. XIV.
Baltimore, April 15th, 1835.
To Rev. Joseph McKee:
Dear Sir-Your oft repeated assertions, that you have gained the point,' 'demonstrated the eternity of misery,' 'overthrown Universalism,' and 'unanswerably settled the question,' betray a sense of the weakness of your cause, and of the impossibility of sustaining it by proofs that are even satisfactory to yourself. For if it were not so, you would be willing that your arguments should speak for themselves. That such assertions may satisfy the ignorant, is possible; but by all who read and judge for themselves, they will be regarded as the piteous attempts of mortified pride and disappointed ambition, to conceal your defeat, and to keep up the appearance of confidence and success. If it be not so, why do you try to prop up by other proofs, what you assert has been already unanswerably settled?
Your question about garbled quotations, is entirely gratuitous, for you knew, that by these I meant, giving so much of an author's language as would suit your purpose, and make him speak what he never intended. The instances in which you did this, I have twice pointed out, and yet you have the hardihood to say, I have given no instance!
Your allusions to my criticisms on aion are like the faint breathings of expiring nature. Suppose I only considered six out of eleven cases where you said aron was endless, when not governed
by eis? This destroyed your argument, because that rested entirely on the idea, that it is oftener used in an endless than a limited sense.
Your remarks on 2 John 2, are incorrect, because the apostle was speaking of the truth abiding in Christians, and of their walking in it, in opposition to going after false doctrines, which shows that he simply meant, they would always walk in the truth. Thus the Psalmist says (XLVIII. 14,) "This God is our God forever and ever, he will be our guide even unto death.' The circumstances under which aphthartos is used in 1 Pet. 1. 23. are entirely different from what they are in 1 Cor. xv. 52. In the latter case, it relates to the immortal state, and in the former, to the gospel, whi was designed for the instruction of man in this world. I John II. 17, being a contrast between the permanency of the word and things sensual, requires no illustration.
You deny cailing for the dates of Lexicons. Let the reader turn to letter No. 9, and he will see that in speaking of Lexicons, speaking too in reply to my charge respecting perverting their meaning, you say, 'in citing authorities, I wish you to give both the date and place where the book was printed,' &c. Not a word in that letter is said respecting commentators!
You accuse me of giving commentators 'by the parcel' without referring to dates. The charge is wrong (--)in exery instance I have said, 'see Čom. in loc.,' the same as you have done in qnoting Henry, Clarke, and Wesley. Rev. E. S. Good win, I said, informs us, that Homer, Hesiod, &c. do not use aion in the endless sense, but to sig nify spiritual existence. Could I then in refer
ing thus to these men, give the dates of their works? You did not give the date of Aristotle, when you told us what Clarke said of him. Such is your inconsistency. Goodwin lived in Sandwich, Mass., and published his criticism on aion in the Christian Examiner.
You deny quoting from your own commentators when both Wesley and Clarke were Methodists; and you falsely charge me with saying all I have quoted from are Methodists. Produce the place. You say too, I have been misled by Hosea Ballou, when I had not referred to his works.Do you imagine that such measures will weaken the argument drawn from the fact, that my ap plication of scripture is sustained by orthodox writers? As well might you attempt to silence 'the noise of many waters.'
Your remarks respecting H. Bailou 2d, who was the editor of the Expositor, and author of the Ancient History Universalism, show your utter destitution of candor and fairness. I doubt whether you have read his history, and yet you denounce it as partial and incorrect. But all this you must do, or admit the antiquity of Universalism. When you have replied to what I have proved respecting the Discourse concerning Hades, it will be time to talk of my being hard pushed, for relying on the statements of H. Bal lou 2d as published in the Expos. vol. II., No. 12.
The arguments by which I established my positions respecting the Targums, drawn from Jahn, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, the first critics of the world, you meet by simply asserting, that they prove nothing. To this Sir, the reader must bow in submission. The naked assertion of Rev. Jo