Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

want deep to call unto deep,-the grand thought of immortality to be brought into, companionship with the idea of endless pain. Take up the idea of ETERNITY,-try to get some conception of that oceanic word. Remember that the vastest measures of times do but touch the beginning of eternity. Let millions of years and ages roll like the waves and billows of the sea; let the immeasurable main stretch out with its sounding waters; and in the last remove of thought the highest flight of fancythe grandest stretch of a firmamental imagination, and you have not cast the slightest shade on the dial of eternity. Think of a soul suffering actually suffering all that continuity of ages, and yet not in the humblest sense as having taken one step towards an end of being or pain, and this too while "Alleluias, like the sound of seas," sweep through the air of heaven to the praise of God who is love! No, no! there is—there can be no truth in such an idea. carries its own refutation in its own terribleness. The sun burns it -the moon walks above it-the ocean sweeps it away as a weed. Earth, with her million voices, mingles with the best and holiest affections of the human soul, and the music banishes the demon of dark

[blocks in formation]

It

Men now living can call to mind the time when it was confidently asserted that the Scriptures were "verbally inspired." Few orthodox theologians would say so now, but rather that the Bible contained the word of God. That this is the true position is evidenced by the efforts to give us a correct translation. It was said many years ago by a church of England divine in letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury that "there

could be no written word of God independent of the pen of man. We know that slips of the pen occur unintentionally. They have occurred intentionally to fortify a man made creed. Witness the expurged passage, "There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, Spirit and Word. Also the persistent course to clothe a certain word or words with a meaning foreign to original signification, simply to keep alive a belief of a dogma which clothes our Heavenly Father with attributes antagonistic to his nature. To show how language has been perverted and ancient metaphor tell an untruth is shown by an interrogation in Isaiah. Let any minister read "O Lucifer son of the morning how art thou fallen from heaven and ask his congregation who is meant, fifty per cent would answer "Satan." No wonder. Tertullian and Pope Gregary the great said, "Lucifer meant Satan" and since then it has been the name of that personage. Bunyan uses it in that sense and Shakspeare

"How wretched

Is that poor man that hangs on princes favors

When he falls he falls like Lucifer,
Never to hope again."

Isaiah meant nothing more than the king of Babylon. Lucifer to the ancient Hebrew was the morning star which so lucidly precedes the day and, "O king of Babylon how art thou fallen from thy brilliant estate" is what the poetic prophet says.

That there has been a class at work on the divine records that thought the more astounding and unnatural a miracle could be made to appear the more power and glory was reflected upon Jehovah is quite evident. Too, it is evident when the translators were in a quandary by reason of imperfect knowledge of the original, what ought to be the true

rendering they seldom looked at it, from the stand point, a judicious man would, but from that legendary view which contemplates God as doing all things just the opposite a man of sense would.

Errors have entered the record from want of Archaic knowledge. Much of the Old Testament was written at an age of the world when the transition from the hieroglyphic to the alphabetic method of com municating ideas was not far apart. A sheaf of wheat and a foxe's tail are much alike and one represents the other in hieratic language and as the Septuagint originated in Egypt about 200 B. C., we can see how such human errors should creep into the text.

Philologists know the abiding elements in language are the consonants. The vowel is only a breath preceding or following to articulate the consonant.

It is probable that errors have got into the text from want of a keen insight into this element of language. We know not what vowels were used by the ancient Hebrews in the utterance of these radicals of speechthe consonants. For instance, the radicals of the word Shem--S. M. we know not certainly whether they said Sem or Sim. But we do know that tho sibilant S has survived through all the vicissitudes of the Hebrew people. Take another, R. B. which in the Semitic languages does or may stand for Arab or its plural form -R. B. M. for Arabs. We know that R. has come down the ages with its one uniform element always R. We also know B has also retained its labial character. But there is this about B, it is convertible into P and V as a labial. It has slid from the German silber, into V as in silver. We find its convertibility in picoSpanish--into Anglo Saxon-Veak. May not this convertibility of B into

V been the cause through ignoranceof giving in 1 Kings 17: 4, the reading R. V.- -raven when the original was R. B. or R. BIM-Arabs. Whether it was or not, the internal evidence of that incident in the life of Elijah shows plainly the purpose of creating a miracle which rather than shedding a glory upon Jehovah does the contrary. The prophet had incurred the animosity of Ahab and Jezebil as a "Troubler in Israel." He was compelled to flee to the east of Jordan into the territory of the Arabs and hide there to save his life. He was commanded to hide by the brook Cherith "And it shall be that thou shalt drink of the brook and I have commanded R. Bi M.the Arabs to feed thee. Translating from the Septuagint king James' translators say-ravens. And the Arabs brought him bread and flesh in the morning and bread and flesh in the evening. The brook dried up and he had to go into a less arid region better watered belonging to the Zidonians-Phenicians—not under Ahab's jurisdiction. No doubt the Arabs around the brook Cherith had to strike their tents for some other locality where they found water. Their course not being the one Elijah was impelled by divine direction to take they could longer be the ministers to supply Elijah's daily wants. Now it was just as easy for Omnipotence to keep the brook running contrary to natural law as it was to influence the raven or crow contrary to all its habits to regularly bring bread and flesh to the prophet. The drying up of the brook was very natural in a drouth and it seems to indicate so much true naturalness as to make it quite apparent that the "bread and flesh" came as naturally. But it is not modern or the nineteenth century's Biblical criticism that alone divests

no

this remarkable instance of God's providence in this incident in the life of Elijah, of a miraculousness mixed with so much naturalness.

In our version it reads "And the ravens brought him bread and flesh

etc.

In the Hebrew "And the Orbim brought him bread and flesh." Kennicott 150 years ago-one of the best Hebrew scholars of his time, "Thinks Orbim inhabitants of Oreb and St. Jerone of the latter part of the fourth century A. D. says "Villae in finibus Arabum." Another Hebrew scholar says "In no contingency 'Crows." W. Browning Smith in the Ency. Brit. ninth edition, admits the word translated "ravens has also been rendered "merchants," "Arabians" or inhabitants of the rock Oreb."

999

M. HOLROYD.

FIVE NEGATIVES.

[ocr errors]

a

It is known that two negatives, in English, are equivalent to an affirmative. They destroy each other. But it is not so in Greek. They strengthen the negation; and a third negative makes it stronger still, and so fourth, and a fifth. How strong five negatives must make a negation. But do five ever occur? Whether they ever occur in the Greek classics, I do not know; but in the Greek of the New Testament there is an instance of the kind. And what is that? Are the five negatives used to strengthen any threatening? No; they are connected with a promise, one of the "exceeding great and precious promises" which are given unto us. The case occurs in Heb. 13: 5. "For He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." There five negatives are employed. We translate but two of them; but there they all are, as any one may see who looks into his Greek Testament. Now, they need not all have been there. They are not all necessary to

express the simple idea that God will never forsake his people. There must have been design in multiplying negatives so. I do not believe the phraseology was accidental, and I think it not difficult to guess the design. God meant to be believed in that thing. He would secure the confidence of his children in that particular. He knew how prone they were to doubt his constancy, how strongly inclined to that form of unbelief, and how liable to be harassed by the dread of being forsaken by him; and he would therefore make assurance more than doubly sure. So, instead of saying simply, "I will not leave thee," which alone would have been enough, he adds, "nor forsake thee;" and instead of leaving it thus, "I will not leave thee, I will not forsake thee," he uses language equivalent to the following: "I will not, I will not leave thee; I will never, never, never forsake thee." There is a stanza which

very faithfully, as well as beautifully expresses it:

[ocr errors][merged small]

assur

How in earnest God appears to be in this matter. How unworthy it is in his children, after such an ance as this, to suspect that he will forsake them. He cannot. It is impossible for God to lie. Here one who was never known to break his word, assures his people, each of them individually, and five times over in a single sentence, of his continued presence with them. Under similar circumstances, what man of reputed veracity would be discredited?

And shall not the God of truth be believed in a like case?

DR. NEVINS.

[blocks in formation]

VALUE OF UNIVERSALISM.

Here is a young lady, just arrived at the age of womanhood. She is mild, and lovely, and beautiful. She is about to follow the dead body of her beloved father to its final resting place. He was struck down but yesterday in the glory of his strength. He had always been kind and affectionate towards his daughter, and she had loved him with all the fondness of a true daughter's affection. He had never given her an unkind word, and she had never regarded him with an unkind thought; or with any thoughts but those of filial love. But alas! in his fondness for his child, or for some other reason, he had forgotten his God; he had died impenitent; and his future condition is regarded as nothing but evil. The friends of the mourner, with their minister, attempt to administer consolation in this trying hour. But alas, the words die upon their tongues! They can only exhort her, by a timely repentance to escape the like dreadful doom. But will this comfort her? Will this bind up the bleeding heart? Suppose they enter upon a learned disquisition concern ing the justice of God, in the popular manner. Suppose they speak most eloquently concerning his power which is omnipotent, and his love to sinners which prompted him to prepare a way of salvation, provided they will walk therein, that they may be saved. What, I ask, has all this to do with comforting that mourning daughter? Will it make her smile through her tears, think you? If it does, depend upon it, it will be the maniac's smile. In such an hour, with the blighting prospect of her father's misery before her, what will it be to that loving heart, whether God is just or unjust; whether he is powerful or weak; whether he loves or hates? Will that daughter be

concerned at such a time, think you, about her own salvation? I tell you

no! selfishness is dethroned at such times, and disinterested affection rules the mind. They may exhort her to repent, with all the honied eloquence of Cicero. They may declaim about God's justice, with all the thunder of Demosthenes. They may talk about his love from morning until evening, and from evening until morning. They may do all this, and ten times more, but I tell you as long as that daughter believes that her beloved father is lost, she must be miserable, let her be where she may. Despair will knaw like an undying worm at her heart's core. Life itself will be turned into a cruel bit

ter.

Can they

Now, do you ask, what believers in God's impartial grace can do more than others in this case? There is hardly need of an answer. not point that weeping mourner to the morning star of immortal hope? Aye, my friends, you are able to point her to that blessed inheritance prepared by our God, in which her father shall dwell forever with angels. You can prove, by an overwhelming amount of evidence, that they, together with all mankind, shall meet in that glorious habitation, never to part again. Despair is now at an end! The heart has ceased to bleed. She sees indeed the dark waters of death rolling at her feet; "but she looks to the future, and a radiant beam of light shoots from the other side of Jordan like the night fires of the sentinel, gleaming upon the storm-spent mariner who is tossed upon the mountainous wave. Glad hope revives the sinking spirit, and the mourner is made happy. Ask not then what you can do more than others. You can comfort mourners when others have no power to cheer. Universalism is the heavenly charm

« AnteriorContinuar »