Page images
PDF
EPUB

true, the term akatalutos is here applied to life; but not as you insinuate, to that life of future happiness which is opposed to punishment. The life here spoken of, is that which pertains to our Lord's priesthood, which is opposed to that of Aaron, wherein men were not suffered to continue by reason of death. The word signifies indissoluble; and being applied to the nature of a priesthood which death could not dissolve is very property rendered endless. It possibly might be applied to the endless happiness of good men, as opposed to the dissoluble, or transitory enjoyments of the present state; but as to the punishment of the wicked, supposing it to be endless, I question whether it be at all applicable to it. I can form no idea how the term indissoluble. any more than incorruptible can apply to punishment. The word kataluo to unloose, or dissolve, is true is said to refer to travellers loosing their own burdens, or those of their beasts, when they are resting by the way: but there are no examples of its having been used with reference to the termination of punishment; nor does it appear to be applicable to it.In its most common acceptation in the New Testament, it signifies to destroy, or demolish-and you will scarcely suppose the sacred writers to suggest the idea of destruction which cannot be destroyed." (VI. Letter to Vidler.)

In fact the word akutalutos is no more expressive of duration without end than the words aion & aronios:-and could just as well be used figuratively, or in an accommodated sense. It might be said of the matrimonial covenant that it is indissoluble because it is made for life, or of any compact, that it is indissoluble, if it is intended by the parties, to continue a long time. or indefinitely.

It will not be pretended but that the English words eternal and endless naturally signify unlimited duration. But who has not read, or heard, of the eternal snows of the polar regions--eternal fame, &c. And who but has often heard in familiar conversation of an endless talker--an endless task-an endless contention, &c. But what would be thought of a person who would come forward & argue from this, that these terms are indeterminate; and do not naturally signify any thing more than a long time? The strongest terms in any language may be used in an accommodated sense: but would it be good logic to conclude from this that they have no natural determin

ate meaning, or if they have any, that it is no more ex tensive than the accommodated one? This wonld be considered sophistry so wretched as not to require a şerious refutation:-but it would be precisely of a piece with the reasoning of our universalist opponents upon this subject

No. IX. The argument from implication DEFENDED.

Our third argument in favour of eternal punishment, is built upon a number of scriptures which are supposed to imply the doctrine. The editor has remarked upon quite a large proportion of these scriptures: whatever is of importance in his remarks we shall now carefully consider.

[ocr errors]

In his commencement he complains that we have not introduced one argument to support that the many pass sages" which we have quoted, have reference to that punishment to which" we apply them." (P. 179.) It is difficult for us to perceive what he would require of us. Our arguments are founded upon the natural and obvious meaning of these passages;-would he have us bring arguments to prove that the language employed in them means what it is commonly understood to mean? It ap pears to us that he ought rather to bring" arguments to prove" that it means something else:-and until he does which, the natural meaning must stand.

He now gives us a number of criticisms upon Mat. xii, 31, 32. and Mark iii, 29. which speak of the sin against the Holy Ghost. He informs us that the true and original meaning" of the Greek word aion, is, “ dispensation" and gives to us what he considers" a more proper translation of the passage" (Mat. xii, 39.) thus: "It shall not be forgiven him neither in this dispensation, neither in the dispensation to come:" and adds the following paraphrase: " i. e. neither in the dispensation of ❝i. the law of Moses,-neither in the dispensation which was to follow." (Ibid.) We need add nothing upon the proper meaning of the word aion: this subject we have sufficiently discussed in the preceding number. But if

we were to allow that aioni, in this place, signifies dispensation; will it be possible for him to show that the dispensation to come," is not the last and final dispensation of mercy to fallen man? Where is his proof that there will be another dispensation, after the dispensation of the gospel is closed, in which forgiveness will be extended to this sin, or to any other? It is not so clear ty us that the mode of expression" implies any such thing, but entirely to the contrary! In proof of this he quotes Eph. ii, 7. i, 10. But before these passages will afford him any help he must show that the ages to come' and the dispensation of the fulness of time, refer to ages, &c. beyond the world to come'-and that in these passages there is a promise of forgiveness to the sin against the Holy Ghost:-but this he will not be able to do.

2

He gives us another specimen of his critical knowledge and research, in what he calls "a correct transla tion" of Mk. iii, 29. hath never forgiveness,' as follows: "Hath not forgiveness [eis ton aiona] unto the dispensation or age:"and remarks: "eis ton aiona unto the age or dispensation, is left out. which perverts the text." [Ibid.] Here we beg leave to dissent:-Ers ton aiona is the phrase, commonly rendered forever. Ouk echei aphesin eis ton aiona, is literally, hath not forgiveness forev er, or to eternity. This, every reader will at once perceive, is precisely the same in sense, as, hath never for giveuess. Eis ton arona says the learned Dr. Geo. Camp bell, with a negative particle, when the sense is not confined by the verb, has invariably the same meaning, which is never. [See his note on John viii, 51.]

But we will now put this subject within the grasp of the plainest reader. We will refer to a number of passa ges where this phase [eis ton aiona] occurs, and render - and explain them according to our editor, and then see where his criticism will lead him.

"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst. [John iv, 14.] According to his translation: shall not thirst (ens ton aiona) unto the dispensation, or age!" If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever." (vi, 51.) i. e. he shall live unto the dispensation! "If a man keep my sayings he shall never see death." [viii, 51.]-He shall not see death unto the dispensation! "And I give unto them eternal life,

and they shall never perish." (x, 28.) They shall not perish unto the dispensation. "And whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die." (xi, 26.) Shall not die unto the dispensation!" His righteousness remaineth forever (2 Cor. ix, 9.) i. e. unto the dispensation! But he that doth the will of God abideth for ever." (John ii, 17.) i. e. according to our translator, he abideth Cers ton aiona) unto the dispensation!

So according to this famous critic, those who drink of the living water shall not thirst unto the dispensation, but they may afterwards! Those who eat of the bread of life shall live, unto the dispensation, after which they may die-yea die eternally! Those who keep the sayings of Christ shall not see death, unto the dispensation:but alas! what then? they may indeed see death! Christ's sheep to whom he gives eternal life shall not perish, unto the dispensation, but then they may indeed perish! Those who live and believe on Christ, shall not die, unto the dispensation, but then, sad to tell, they may die! The righteousness of those who disperse abroad, and give to the poor, remaineth, unto the dispensation, but perhaps no longer! And he that doeth the will of God, abideth unto the dispensation, but then he may be removed? These are the consequences to which the gentleman's ❝ correct translation" will lead him! Nothing need be added to show their absurdity.

He proceeds next to examine Heb. vi, 6. It is impossible to renew them again unto repentence.' (See P. 180.) These words he thinks only "teach if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance in the same way they were first renewed." But pray sir,

in what other way would you have them renewed? A$ you have not told us, and as we have nothing in the scriptures upon the subject, we must still wait to be informed.

But he enquires: "If it is impossible for such ever to be reclaimed-why all the exhortations to them to return?" The editor would do well to distinguish between a state of partial backsliding and that of total apostacy:in one case they are exhorted to return; in the other we know not that they are. Now without repentance there can be no salvation: but here is a case in which repentance

M

is impossible:-Therefore in this case there can be no salvation.

Much of his explanation of Heb. x, 26, There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,' is in perfect accordance with our views. As he says: "There was no other" sacrifice" which would prove availing: even the sacrifice of Jesus was of no effect while they rejected it.""The case" says Dr. Clarke "is that of a deliberate apostate; one who has utterly rejected Jesus Christ and his atonement, and renounced the whole gospel system. To him there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; for there was but ONE Jesus; and this he has utterly rejected."

But to save himself, the editor must attempt to show that these characters will ultimately receive Christ; and so, though no other sacrifice will avail for them, yet they will be interested in this. But the scriptures by which he attempts to establish this point we have previously explained: (See pp. 22-25, & 64, 65.) and this explana

tion remains unanswered.

He now passes to consider Luke ix, 25. • What is a man advantaged if he shall gain the whole world and lose himself or be cast away.' [See P. 181.] He would not have been so hard set to comprehend what we meant by a man being lost in a desert and yet saved in fact,' had he attentively considered what he quotes from us a few lines below, thus: But he cannot be lost so as to be cast away and yet finally saved. Our idea was simply this: that a man could not be cast away finally, and yet be finally saved. And it appeared to us that it was a final casting away, which our Lord intended.

[ocr errors]

But he attempts to make out from Rom. xi, 2, 15, that those who are cast away will be" regained." Now it is evident that the apostle speaks of casting away in two different senses. In one sense Israel was not cast away, verse 2. • God hath not cast away his people. But in another, they were; for verse 15, he says, if the casting away of them be the riches of the world,' &c. They were not irrecoverably cast away, but were rejected or cut off from the privileges of the visible church; but if they did not abide still in unbelief,' they should be grafted in again.' [verse 23.] But is it certain from this that those who lose themselves, or are cast away, in our Lord's sense, and in the sense which the apostle first mentions,

« EelmineJätka »