ÉSSAYS, EXTRACTS, &c. are served, and our interests are

preserved; and there is no cure Piety and Charity. for us but piety and charity. A Men are now-a-days, and in- holy life will make our belief holy, deed always have been, since the

if we consult not humanity, and expiration of the first blessed its imperfections, in the choice ages of Christianity, so in love

of our religion; but search for with their own fancies and opi

truth without designs, save only nions, as to think faith, and all

of acquiring heaven, and then Christendom, is concerned in their

be as careful to preserve charity support and maintenance; and as we were to get a point of faith; whoever is not so fond, and does

I am much persuaded we shall not dandle them, like themselves,

find out more truths by this it grows up to a quarrel; which,

means; or however (which is the because it is in Divinity, is made main of all) we shall be secured, a quarrel in religion, and God is though we miss them, and then entitled to it; and then, if you

are well enough.— Bishop are once thought an enemy to

Taylor God, it is our duty to persecute you even to death; we do God Remarks on a New Argument for good service in it! When, if we

the Deity of Christ. should examine the matter right- Orthodox Divines do not aply, the question either is not re- pear to be very well satisfied vealed, or not so clearly, but that with the old arguments in favour wise and honest men may be of of their doctrines, if we may different minds, or else it is not of judge, at least, by their anxiety the foundation of faith, but a re- to bring forward new ones. Of mote superstructure, or else of this, the late excellent Granville mere speculation; or, perhaps, Sharp furnished a notable examwhen all comes to all, it is a false ple by his supposed discoveries opinion, or a matter of human respecting the uses of the Greek interest, that we have so zealous article ; and in the last number ly contended for; for to one of of the Asiatic Observer, a these heads most of the disputes ! quarterly publication supported, of Christendom may be reduced; we understand, by the joint conso that I believe the present fic- tributions of the Trinitarian Mistions (for the most) are from the

sionaries in Calcutta, an anonysame cause which St. Paul ob- mous writer has furnished us with served in the Corinthian schism, another. He does not, indeed, when there are divisions among claim this new argument as an you, are ye not carnal ? It is original invention of his own, but not the differing opinions that professes to be indebted for it to is the cause of the present a German Divine, Dr. G. C. Storr, ruptures, but want of chari- who published the second edition ty; it is not the variety of under- of the Essay in which it is constandings, but the disunion of tained in 1810, and until whose wills and affections; it is not the time, we are left to conclude, the several principles, but the se- whole Christian world remained veral ends that cause our mise- ignorant of its value. It has, ries; our opinions commence, and therefore, none of the venerableare upheld, according as our turns ness of antiquity to deter us from

[ocr errors]

כי אני הוא in Greek the Hebrew

freely examining the grounds | mentioned pronoun in Arabic, "is upon which it rests.

often used SO as to designate That we may not be suspect

God.'” Of course, in every ed of misrepresenting our oppo

language any pronoun will always nent's reasoning, if reasoning it

signate God, when God is its can be called, we shall quote his

antecedent, or the noun for which

it stands; just as it will alown language. “It is well known" he says, “ that in Hebrew and ways designate man in similiar

circumstances. In this there is Arabic the pronoun 897 'he,' is

nothing but what "is well known," often used 50 as to designate

but it happens to be directly op"God.' See Deuteronomy xxxii.

posed to the conclusion which it 39; Isaiah xli. 4. xliii. 10, 13;

is advanced to support. Nor will xlviii. 12. Now $107 x') in Deu

it be of any use to amend the exteronomy xxxii. 39, and Isaiah

pression by saying, that this proxliii. 10, is rendered by the Se

noun “is often used” substanventy thus:'OTLEYW Equi. If, there

tively “so as to designate ‘God."" fore, St. John wished to express It must be shown that when, if

ever, so used, it is the second nohe could not use any words which minative of the substantive verb would so well convey to the understood, and that it always deminds of those to whom this signates God, and never any inferitranslation of the Old Testament or being. But where is the proof or was familiar, the import of this authority for this? There is not Hebrew phrase than the words even a single example adduced to 'οτι εγω ειμι ; and as this explana

show that it designates God in any tion of the words in question admi- connection, or under any circumrably suits the context, as I shall stances whatever. now proceed to prove, we have the

We hope to be pardoned if we strongest reason to believe, that

attempt to supply the deficienit is the true one." The amount

cies of our orthodox antagonist of the argument, then, is this :

by referring to one or two supthat in Hebrew and Arabic the

posed examples of the usage for pronoun 117 often designates

which he contends. Thus Glass God; that sin 'IN ') a phrase i (Philologia Sacra, Lib. I. Tract. applied in certain passages of the II. Canon X.) says “apud Arabes Old Testament to Jehovah, is in solennis formula est, non est two of these passages translated Deus nisi Ile, et in precibus by the Seventy 'otieyw Elue; and ad Deum, O Ille ;” and he rethat therefore the Apostle John fers to Vriemoet's “ Dicta Claswhen he applied this Greek sica Vet. Test. P. I. pag. 119 phrase to Jesus in viii. 24, 28; sq.” Having never seen the last xiii. 19, understood it in the same mentioned work weknow not what sense in which the above Hebrew it contains; and as Glass does not phrase is used in the passages of inform his readers what is the the Old Testament already refer- particular Arabic word which he red to, and meant to represent Je- has translated Ille in the prayers sus as directly affirming that he to which he refers, that example was God. Let us examine the must go for nothing. There redifferent steps of this process.

mains therefore only the formula, 1. It is stated, that the above part of which he has attempted to translate, but which the merest sert that X10 denotes "permatyro in Arabic could have told nent existence or subsistence;' him that he had mistranslated. and in a peculiar sense “the only The term which he has translated

independent and permanent existIlle, in the connection in which ence in the universe." But where it occurs in that formula, signifies is the proof of this ? There is God, even more emphatically than

none except what is contained in the preceding term which he has

their assertion, which is sufficitranslated Deus. Hence it has

ently confuted by the frequency been lately translated by a distin- of its application to inferior beguished Arabic scholar, “There

ings, proving that it denotes nois no God except the true God,” thing more than simple existence. -atranslation which, in as far as Thus in Esther vii. 5. Aha. the sense is concerned, is perfect- suerus demands, “Who is this ly correct, although in the original he (x107) and where is this he there is no epithet answering to (817) ?" In Job iv. 7. Eliphaz true. After the correspondent of

inquires, “Who is the he (897) the Observer has been convinced

that has perished being innoof the necessity of proving, as well

cent?” And in the prophecies of as the advantage of making, a

Jeremiah xlix. 12, Jehovah is bold assertion, he will probably be more successful than we have

represented, as addressing Edom been in discovering examples and

“ Shalt thou, the he ($17 authorities to justify the alleged

the very one-Blayney) go altouse of the Arabic pronoun.

gether unpunished ?"

Glass in his remarks on the 2. It is further stated that rule respecting the use of this the pronoun 17 in Hebrew "is

pronoun says,

de Deo non sine often used so as to designate emphasi dicitur et fere nominis "God';" and to prove this, one

proprii significationem habet.” passage from the book of Deute

We have just seen that the emronomy, and four from the pro

phatical use of it is not nfined phecies of Isaiah are cited, un

to God. He adds, “Quemadaccompanied however by even a

modum apud Græcos vulgares single remark.

But it surely

εκεινος, αυτος usurpatur et behoved this writer to show that apud Latinos Ille.” Now who the pronoun in these passages is

would say, that these pronouns not used as a pronoun simply to

in profane authors would of represent a noun whether near or

themselves designate God, if that remote; and having shown this,

noun was neither expressed nor to prove also that when used in a

implied in the sentence? And if more emphatic manner it is never

it is either expressed or implied, applied to any other being besides

then they differ from other proGod. Neither of these tasks has he attempted, and yet without degree of remoteness or obscurity

nouns only in the greater or less accomplishing both, his interpre- attending the reference to the tations have not a foundation to

noun which they represent. Parkhurst, who quotes Lowth Taylor (see Hebrew Concord(not Bishop Lowth,but, we believe, ance ) with greater accuracy his father, who was much inferior says, “ it seems to be sometimes as a Hebraist to his own son), used substantively, for a person, and Good who quotes both, as

Being, a He.” Besides the instan

rest upon.

66 that 8177

am I.”

ces of its application in this sense the Seventy, we shall perceive no to man as well as to God, he ad- reason to conclude, that they unduces several appropriate exam- derstood the words which they ples of the corresponding use of have employed in the peculiar the Latin pronoun Ille. Thus Vir- sense which is now attempted to gil says, Ille ego qui quondam,” be affixed to them. In Deut. &c. Cicero, “Non ego sum Ille xxxii. 39, their words literally are ferreus qui,” &c. and again “Ego “ consider, consider, that I am,Ille pacis semper laudator,” &c. &c. and Isa. xliii. 10, " That ye But upon the uses of this He

may understand, that I am,&c. brew pronoun, we would particu

Now, if they had considered that larly refer to the remarks of Blay

899 of itself designated God, ney, who has been more success

is it in any degree probable that ful in explaining the rationale of

they would have left it in both its signification than any of the passages, altogether untranslated ? authors already quoted. They

When they meet with a word are contained in the Appendix to

similarly situated, which does the Notes on his new Translation

signify God, they are at no loss of Jeremiah, chap. v. 12. “It

to translate it, as in Psalm 1. 7, seems to me” he says,

where they say, “God, thy God, is used to denote a person or being answering to a particular cha- That they attached no such pecuracter or 'description, ò avtos. liar signification to this pronoun is Sometimes the character is ex- further evident from the manner pressed in words that immediate- in which they have translated the ly follow as 2 Sam. vii. 28, and three 'remaining passages which Neb. ix. 7."-"But in other cases, have been quoted by the corresthe character is to be collect- pondent of the Observeras contained from the general tenor of | ing it. In two of them (Isa. xli. 4; the context, as Jer. xiv. 22;Deut. xlviii. 12,) they not only leave xxxii. 39; Isa. xli. 4; xliii. 10, 13; the pronoun untranslated but xlvi. 4; xlviii, 12, &c.” The con- they also connect the substantive cluding remark points out the way verb with the preceding and folin which the passages quoted by lowing sentences ; and in the the correspondent of the Observer third (Isa. xliii. 13) the substanshould be explained, without giv- tive verb, as well as the pronoun, ing to the pronoun so extraordi. is omitted. Is it conceivable that nary and unsupported a significa. they would have done this, if they tion as that for which he contends. had understood 810 as pecu

3. Considerable stress is laid | liarly designating God ? upon the fact, that the Seventy in This conclusion receives addi

) tional confirmation, when we find have, in two different passages that the Seventy translate the where it is applied to God, em- Hebrew phrase in the same way ployed the same terms, viz. fort even when it is understood of a EYW Elul, which our Lord on seve- human being confessing his sins. ral occasions applies to himself.

This they do in 1 Chron. xxi. 17. To this it may be replied, that “ I am he (N177 'IN) who have f we attend to the two passages sinned,” which they translate referred to as so translated by yw Elue ó åpaprwv.

כי אני הוא translating the phrase

Again the same form is employ- | Lord says; “it is I,” and in John ed by the Seventy, even when the ix. 9. where the man who had pronoun is not found in the He been blind, says “I am he,” the brew. Thus in 2 Sam. xii. 7, the original words are ryw Elll, which phrase “I anointed thee” is this writer proposes to translate translated εγω ειμι ο χρισας σε elsewhere I am God.' and in xx. 17 “I hear" is translated ακουω εγω ειμι. Τhese and And upon what grounds is it numerous other passages of the that he contends for this extraorsame kind that might be adduced, dinary signification, only in John prove that the phrase εγω ειμι, , viü. 24. 28. xiii. 19? Upon no in the translation of the Seventy other ground, as far as mere lanhas not the peculiar signification guage is concerned, than would contended for.

equally apply to all the instances 4. We come now to examine in which the same expression is the phraseology of the New Tes-employed. “If therefore" he says, tament in reference to this subject. “St. John wished to express in Here the first thing to be observ. Greek the Hebrew $107 'IN 'y he ed, is that even the correspondent could not use any words which of the Observer is compelled to would so well convey to the minds admit in his preliminary remarks, of those to whom this translation that in Mark xiii. 6. Luke xxi. 8. of the Old Testament was familiar, and John iv. 26. the phrase the import of this Hebrew phrase, εγω ειμι must have χριστος than the words ότι εγω ειμι. ' “ supplied from the preceding Here it is assumed contrary to fact, words," for that it “does not that our Lord spoke Hebrew, or mean by itself, I am the Messiah;" the language in which the greater yet when precisely the same part of the Old Testament is writ. phrase occurs in John viii. 24. 28. ten. It is also assumed without xiii. 19. he does not hesitate to tell proof, that the above Greek phrase his readers, that it does mean by is a translation of the above He. itself 'I am God. Now we beg brew phrase in John viii. 24, 28, to say, that he is in like manner xiii. 19, and no where else. And at perfect liberty to supply Jeos it is further assumed in opposition to “ from the preceding words," if

evidence within his reach, that the he can find it; but that only the

Evangelist in employing the above love of hypothesis and sys

Greek phrase in these three pastem could have induced him to sages respecting Jesus, intended add such an important word

to apply to him a phrase which he where it is not to be found, and

knew was appropriated to God in to maintain that the above phrase

the translation of the Seventy; has “ of itseit" such a meaning.

whereas we have shown that the

Seventy have in several instances Not only does our Lord employ given a different translation where this expression when it confessed

the Hebrew is the same, and the ly relates to nothing more than

same translation where the Hehis Messiahship, but it is even

brew is different, and that both employed by him and others with

the Hebrew phrase in the Old, out any reference to that charac

and the Greek phrase in the New ter. Thus in Matt. xiv. 27. Mark

Testament, are used with the ut. vi. 50. and John vi. 20. where our

most latitude of signification.

« ElőzőTovább »