word and expression bearing upon them. Now, why is it that these persons wage war against Hebrew idioms and Greek particles? Is it because the Hebrew idiom designates the Lord our God, JEHOVAH? and that this high name implies a union of persons, and especially when it said, "JEHOVAH Our God is one JEHOVAH," and which would be a useless expression in any other sense?"1 For if we were to say, "the Sovereign our King is one Sovereign," what idea would this convey, but that of absurdity, to suppose any could want to be told a truth which none would or could call in question? But when we see that David, speaking of Christ, calls him his Lord, and applies the high name of JEHOVAH to him, when, as the witness Horsley has powerfully and clearly proved, Christ was the JEHOVAH of the Old Testament, — then we see why the Defendants scout and detest Hebrew idioms. We find, too, in pursuing the same track, that their abhorrence of Greek particles arises from a principle of the same feeling. St. John opens his Gospel, as I have already mentioned, - This text is urged by the Jews as an unanswerable argument against the doctrine of the Trinity; but they admit that it is extraordinary and perplexing that the name of God should be thrice repeated. As to the Christians against whom it is urged, they are almost unanimous that in this very sentence is a plain indication of the Trinity. - Sandford's Connection, p. 328. 1 after the manner of Moses in opening the history of the creation, with these words: "In the beginning was the Word ('Ev άpx v ó Aóyos);" which the Defendant Belsham alters thus:-"The Word was in the beginning,"-which, however trifling the variation may at first sight appear, is of immense importance. The Greek construction preserves the parallel with the opening of Genesis, and implies, that in the beginning of all things, The Son was in existence: the Defendants' construction is made to imply that The Son was in the beginning of the new (or Christian) dispensation. Now, that Christ should be in existence at the commencement of his own ministry, is an axiom which I think none of you, Gentlemen, will be disposed to question; and if this were all that was meant by the Evangelist, it would be of about as much importance as my telling you that when I commenced this reply, I was alive in your presence. But St. John proceeds to say, "And the Word was God (Kai ☺eòs žv ó Aóyos)." The Defendant renders this, "The Word was a God." Again, they render viòs sou, a Son of God, because the article before viò is omitted; and this they think implies that he is said to be God, not actually, but It is still more important to observe here, that these words are rendered in the Jewish Targum, "In the Beginning the WORD JEHOVAH created," &c. figuratively; and yet they admit that he acknowledged himself The Son of God (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, Luke xxii. 70.), where his having made such an acknowledgment subjected him to the charge of blasphemy. Now, permit me here, Gentlemen, to represent to you, and that without exaggeration, the style and manner which the Defendant has adopted in paraphrasing the verses of St. John to which I here allude; and if you will take up the volume of this "Improved Version" of our Scriptures, you will see that the absurdity I am about to show is not my own. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος. — “ In the beginning was the Word." By the beginning I by no means intend the beginning of the creation, or of all things, but merely the beginning of the Gospel dispensation. I do not specify this to be my meaning, because I conclude you will perceive it, though I know well enough that I express myself exactly as though I did mean it, and that another beginning must be present to your minds, when the world was made by the Logos or Word of God: however, I certainly do not mean this; I mean to make no sort of allusion to any thing you may happen to know, or have previously heard, of the Logos or Word of God, by whom the world was made; but I mean merely to give this appellation to Jesus Christ, a man like myself, because he was commissioned to reveal the word of God (that is in Greek λóyos) to mankind: it is what grammarians and rhetoricians would call a metonymy; I do not tell you this in my Gospel, because, notwithstanding any prejudices to the contrary, I think you must know it by instinct. Καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. — "And the Word was with God," that is, not with him really and personally, but how, do you think? Why, in the way of retirement or private communion, as might be the case with you, or me, or any other man. Do not fancy he was really with God, though I say so; there is something implied under the preposition πpòs, which I do not stop to explain to you, because I conclude that you, and every convert that comes after you, however unacquainted with the Greek language, women and children, will easily comprehend what I mean, by instinct. Kai Ceds чy & Aóyos. "And the Word was GOD: "-Do not mistake me, I mean God was the Word; though, contrary to grammar, depend upon it this is my particular meaning; or, if you do not like this, mind that og has in this place no article before it; therefore, at the utmost, it can only imply that the Word was a GOD, perhaps you will think Jupiter or Mercury: not so, but yet a GOD; one, in short, of the Jewish Elohim, but take special care you do not account it one of the Elohim spoken of in Deuteronomy, vi. 4., for, of course. it is impossible I should mean any such thing, though, indeed, I know that you have been brought up to believe that the Word of God was the appearing Jehovah, and, therefore, might reasonably be accounted one of the Elohim, which God himself has told us constitutes ONE Jehovah: but had I meant to describe him to be Jehovah, you may be sure that I should have put the definite article before sòs, and called is, a distinction which in no manner belongs to him. Though, indeed, I know that St. Matthew has blundered so greatly as to deceive you in this particular, when he tells that the Messiah was to be GOD WITH US, that is, in our language, Emmanuel; in the blundering you Greek of St. Matthew, pe' uveos. This may not strike you at first; but, depend upon it, he never meant Jehovah, he only meant a God in some way or other as I do: do not, therefore, on any account, attend to his insertion of the article, mind only my omission of it.1 - Gentlemen, I should scorn to use ridicule as a test of truth, much more so upon such a subject as this, were I not anxious to show how nearly it borders upon an actual absurdity to suppose that a Jewish evangelist could, in those days, have so expressed himself, as to be subject to the interpretation which Unitarians now put upon his words. These arbitrary alterations, so much at variance with the rules of legitimate criticism, and which would instantly be rejected by any scholar in the interpretation of a profane classical author, in conjunction with the great and unwarrantable excision of the text, afford to my mind a very strong argument against the truth of the Unitarian system; for it is evident that all this lopping and mangling, all the new readings suggested, all the improbable probabilities hazarded, apply to the Scriptures only in those points where they are conceived to oppose that system; and even the substitution of reason for revelation is used only where the doctrine of the Trinity is in question. If we look around us, we shall invariably find this practice resorted to by 1 Nares's Remarks on the Improved Version of the New Testament, p. 100. |