Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1855-01-09

vilfs dmit ssfsIE hges Fly I'd il n jsdg.
l6ntys semhloSee Of thstru&h: bss not Ne trlth /
self. OF @ourse this y my own view q Tho sr-
umsnts ysd have addaced, md yoar sssder6wili /
hink with me only SO far as shall be able to |
onvincc them that you are wrong.
And, first, you think have been hasty in my
emark that you have thrown the weight of your
Intellect against the teachings of the Bible. OF
oursc this depends upon your being able success
uily to prove that the teachings you deduce from
are the teachings of the Bible. ] denied that !
hey were, and because did so, you affirmed that
men on this subject chad been led astray by false
'ducaton." Surely then if you can with proprie-
assert that the great mass of believers, who are
with me on this subject (Methodists, Baptists,
Presbyterians, "Roman Catholics, and Episcopa-
ans, have been led astray by ssfalse education,
you will give me the correlative privilege Of af-
irming that believe your teachings are not those
Of the Bible; and this is all have done. qiTfs9i
Second, you think it strange that God knowing
rs he must the necessity of the law did not es-
tablish and execute it in the case of Cain, as an
example to those who should people the EARTH
There are great many, apparent, strange things
in the Bible; but strange as they may seem to us
finite creatures, if the evidence, external or inter-
nal, or both, for the truth of the Bible is suHa-
cent to cause it to be believed as a revelation
from God, or His will, pe are bound to submit to
its teachings, just as 1t u'olds itself naturally and
consistently. Now on this point the Bible pro-
ech. These We are bound to take just as they
are. Fifteen hundred years afterwards, God pro-
mulges the Noachic precept: cat the hand of
every mans brother will require the life of man.
Whose sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his
blood be shed for in the image of God, made he
man." This is another fact and we are bound to
take it also, as itpurports to be; an cmanation
from God. But why He chose to give this pre-
cept, when before he had not thought fit to exc
cute Noah, We have nothing to do with it. The
fact exists that this was His order of events and
of providence; and the humble soul though not
deferred from assigning good reasons for it, if he
can will not hesitate to accept it as the best
order, in which they could have come to US.
And here would adduce some very good rca-
sons, as it seems to me, why God did just as He
did, in this matter. For while, after the fall of
our first parents, it would seem that He left man,
in very great degree, to the counsels of his own
humors and hurtful lusts, in order that it might
he shown to the world, to what height of iniqui-
ty he was capable of attaining, without the re-
straints of law. The consequence was, that
when at the close of this period, g. God look
ed upon the earth,'' he beheld, 'sit was corrupt
for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the EARTH
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is
come before me; for the earth is filled Nth vio-
lence through them; and behold will destroy
them with the earth.'' And God did destroy the
race with the exception of Noah and his family
and with these he commenced d;spensation Of
promulged law. Does not this all appear natur-
al and reasonable? .r.. .f. =.
But, third, you remark, if Cain was ignorant
of the law, then he ought not to have suffered at
ALP Is it not most probable, from his denying
that he knew where his brother was, when asked
by the Almighty, that he did know he had COM
mitted henous crime and that though death
was not inflicted on him, as it could not we'll be-
for there ,cas no law requiring ii, yet he did re-
cieve punishment proportionate to has guilt.
Fourth, you deny the ordinary English render.
ing of the precept. In the ancient Latin version
you say, the text would be" whose shcddcth hui
man blood, his blood will be she'd" In reply to
this would shy that have no Latin version to
turn to, and therefore do not know how the text
would bear the rendering you have put upon it
would however state that the Septuagent version
an older and more generally received one, has the
same form of the verb to express the prohibition
of the moral law "Thou shalt not kill 5" &C., as
it has to express the command in the NoachiC
precept ssWhoso shcddcth mans blood, by mar
shall his blood be shcd.' If therefore, according
to this, the command ssThOu shalt not xii" upor
which you have no doubt, is prohibitory and not
prophetic, as you acknowledge; the ordinary rem.
dering of the precept sWhoso sheddeth" &C..
ought to be regarded equally as correct; and thi,
too without the make weight of the clause imme-
diatcly preceding-''At the hand of every mans
brother, ,ciH Irequire the life of man,
But why 90 to the Latin vulgate for the faithful
rendering of passage, when according to the
most eminent critics who have ever lived, our En-.
glish version is the best. John Selden says " il
is the best translation in the world" Rev. j
w. Whitaker says sc it may be compared with any
translation in the world without fear of inferior
ity." DR.. Geddes remarks that " this of all YER
sions must in general be accounted the most ex.
cellent." DIR. Adam Clarke's language is &c those
who have compared most of the European trans
lations with the original, have not scrupled tt
say that the English translation is the most faith
full of the whole. The original from which il
was taken is alone superior to it." Rev. PROBES
sor Stuart, of Andover, the most eminent orien
talist this country has ever produced, contrasting
it with the Latin vulgate, says ours, on the whole
is most noble production"
Fifth, you aver that eminent writer's contend
that the proper rendering should bess Whatsoevsl
sheddcth mans blood, &c;" and this you sa,
appears plausible from the verse which follows
{" and surely your blood of your lives will re-
quire at the hand of every beast will require
it," &c. You therefore narrow the passage dowr
to this, ssthat arhoso or ,chatsoerer sheddetf
human blood, its blood will be she'd" But Mr.
Editor, the clause, &c and surely your blood &C.,
does not tollou, as you say it does, the precept
GO Whose sheddeth, &C., but precedes it, and ,cil
the unmisakeable requirement betsceen, &c At tn,
hand of every mans brother will require the lif,
of man." How then, according to any just rul'
of Interpretation, can the idea of beast ente
into the construction of the precept2
But you say some eminent writers contend tina