صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

were designed for the unlearned, as well as for the learned. They were designed for the whole mass of the people.

Now if the interpretation here examined be correct, it seems that God is sporting with the weakness of his children; for not more than one in a hundred would ever have hit upon this interpretation. But would God have given us a revelation, tending to de- : lude ninety-nine hundredths of his creatures? We

think not. But we find several inconsistencies in the interpretation itself. When the rich man, and consequently the whole Jewish nation, was in hell, we find that they had brethren without five times as numerous as themselves! (See ver. 28.) That is, when all were in hell, five sixths of them were out of hell! The five brethren cannot mean the Gentiles, for they are represented by the beggar who went to Abraham's bosom. Neither do those Gentiles who have not embraced the gospel, enjoy "Moses and the prophets." (ver. 29.) Some have been pressed with this difficulty, and have attempted to avoid it by saying, that it relates to the ten tribes who revolted in the days of Jeroboam.

To this we reply; when we are told that the rich man signifies the Jews, it appears that all the children of Israel are included, for Jews and Israelites are then used synonymously. Not to insist upon this, we ask how can the ten tribes be represented by the number five? It is said as the two remaining tribes are considered as one, so the ten may be considered as five in the same proportion! The argument then is this; If two tribės united under one head, are one nation, then ten tribes united under one head, and one only, are five nations! Or in other words-If one family consisting of ten members, be one family, then one family consisting of twenty members, must be two families! Or thus-If one family consisting of nine members, be one family, then another family consisting of five members, must be five ninths of a family!! But should we admit that the five brethren represented the ten tribes, it would not assist the advocates for

this exposition in the least. What was the hell into which the Jews were cast at the end of their dispensation? They were dispersed; they were conquered by their enemies. Now the ten tribes had been in the

same hell several hundred years. But this plainly contradicts the interpretation of the passage which supposes, they were out of hell, when the Jews were in!

Neither is the interpretation consistent with facts. It represents the Jews as calling upon the Lord to send Lazarus, or the Gentiles, to them with the gospel. But the truth of the case is the reverse of this. Instead of calling for the gospel, they reject it when it is sent to them. It also represents them as pleading that the gospel might be sent to their numerous brethren without, when they were all within! Or if the ten tribes be intended, it represents the Jews as praying for the safety of them, contrary to fact, which assures us that they were so inimical, that they would have no dealings with the Samaritans. If our brethren were pressed to support their interpretations, the most they could say would be, it may be so explained. It is a sufficient answer to say it may

not.

But it is said on the other hand, if it be not a parable, it must all be understood literally. But this is very far from being the case. Almost every literal history has some figurative language, but who in his senses would contend that the whole must be figurative, because some words are of that description? And even if it be a parable, it does not follow that the interpretation here controverted, is the only interpretation that can be given. Much more might be said upon this subject, but this must suffice for the present, HYRAM,

&

EKOOMMUNICATION.

Letter of Admonition to Miss Prudence Puffer. Dear Sister,

it

If we are commanded to "exhort one another daily," if this injunction is enforced by the consideration that the "day" of final accounts is "approaching,' is wrong to neglect it any time, but to withhold when we see a church member get out of the way, is criminal in the extreme. Faithful admonition, is an evidence, not of ill will, but of sincere friendship. We hope, therefore, that you will consider this epistle dictated by a sincere regard for you, and that love which is a distinguishing characteristic of the people of God.

The brethren and sisters of this church feel grieved on account of your embracing the sentiment of Universal Restoration. This, you well know, we do not consider a sentiment of the Bible, but directly repugnant to its teachings. Though it is not our province to deprive any one of the priviledge of thinking on any point; yet we consider it our duty to withdraw the hand of fellowship from those who embrace sentiments, which, as we conceive, are adverse to the gospel. This we hope, however, will not be the case with regard to yourself. We remember the seasons when we have taken sweet council together, and we earnestly desire that those seasons may soon return. Our hearts are pained at the idea of losing you. We cannot but foster the hope that the Lord will “scatter light in your path," and that you will return to us with rejoicing. But a few months ago, you was buri ed in baptism, and received into full communion with us and now must we withdraw the hand of fellowship? O we cannot think of it. We admonish you dear sister, to return, to attend our conferences and church-meetings. Let us again "sit together in heavenly places." Let us remember the hill Mizar, and the land of the Hermonites. Ease the mind of the

church by again filling your place.

"The next title, THE MIGHTY Gop, is allowed to be a false translation, altho there have been various opinions in regard to the exact import of the original. Le Clerc, who was a trinitarian, and as profound a scholar in biblical learning, perhaps, as any other person, renders the passage thus: Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty.' Christ was a divine counsellor in having derived all his counsels and precepts from God; he was mighty in the miracles he performed, and the divine power he possessed.*

"The fourth title, EVERLASTING FATHER, is translated by Bishop Lowth, 'The Father of the everlasting age,' and by Grotius, 'Father of the future age,' or 'of the age to come.' This was strictly appropriate to Christ. He was the founder of a new dispensation, and of a pure and holy religion. He was the head of the church, and came to bestow the means of salvation on mankind, and to confer inestimable benefits, which should continue through all ages.t

"The principal difficulty, in this passage, seems to have arisen from the doubtful meaning of the word AL, which is sometimes rendered God, sometimes ruler, or magistrate, and is sometimes used in the sense of an adjective to denote excellence or distinction," as AREZI AL, divine cedars—HERERI AL, divine mountains.

"This latter sense is preferred by Le Clerc." He translates ▲▲ as meaning divine or excellent, and connects it with the word translated Counsellor, and not with the one translated mighty.-To call him Divine counsellor, agrees with what was said of him in Isa. xi. 2, "The spirit of counsel and might shall rest upon him."

"There is much suspicion that the word AL was not written in the original Hebrew, as there are no corresponding words in either of the ancient Greek versions of the Seventy, Equila, Symmachus, or Theodotian."

"The original words ABI OED, literally translated, mean Father of the age. They are rendered by Le Clerc Pater perpetuus, because as he says, Christ is the perpetual or everlasting father of all who shall believe in his religion.

"Grotius translates them Father of the future age. This fulure age is the christian dispensation. Christ was the father of this dispensation, in as much as it was established through his

V

"The application of the last title no one can mistake. He was eminently the prince of peace, in giving a religion to the world, whose direct tendency is to promote peace among men.

"Such are the renderings which the most able critics have given of this text. They are such as the original easily receives, and such as are peculiarly applicable to the character of Christ, as it was exhibited in his life and religion. The text, thus explained, gives no support to the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Christ, and contains nothing more than several titles and epithets prophetically applied to him, and expressive of the character which he actually sustained. The translation may be expressed in the following terms: "And his name shall be called Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace." These results are drawn, it must be remembered, from the critical expositions of Trinitarians.

"Even admitting the received translation to be correct, it does not prove Christ to be the Supreme God. We have already seen that the title God was often applied to other persons by way of distinction besides Christ, even to all to whom the word of God came.' It may certainly be given, therefore, with great propriety to him, who was appointed a special messenger of the counsels and will of Jehovah, and who is exalted above all principality, and power, and dominion.' Hence if the name be translated God, it cannot be accounted a proof of the supreme divinity of Christ. But I do not wish to vindicate this rendering, as the voice of criticism is decided against it."

instrumentality, by the exercise of such powers as were communicated to him by Jehovah, and also to his apostles in such a degree as to convince men of its truth and authority."

« السابقةمتابعة »