sert that

denotes "perma

nent existence or subsistence;" and in a peculiar sense "the only independent and permanent existence in the universe." But where is the proof of this? There is none except what is contained in their assertion, which is sufficiently confuted by the frequency of its application to inferior be

to translate, but which the merest tyro in Arabic could have told him that he had mistranslated. The term which he has translated Ille, in the connection in which it occurs in that formula, signifies God, even more emphatically than the preceding term which he has translated Deus. Hence it has been lately translated by a distinguished Arabic scholar, "Thereings, proving that it denotes nois no God except the true God," -a translation which, in as far as the sense is concerned, is perfectly correct, although in the original there is no epithet answering to true. After the correspondent of the Observer has been convinced of the necessity of proving, as well as the advantage of making, a bold assertion, he will probably

be more successful than we have been in discovering examples and authorities to justify the alleged use of the Arabic pronoun.

2. It is further stated that the pronoun 17 in Hebrew "is often used so as to designate 'God';" and to prove this, one passage from the book of Deuteronomy, and four from the prophecies of Isaiah are cited, unaccompanied however by even a single remark. But it surely

behoved this writer to show that the pronoun in these passages is not used as a pronoun simply to represent a noun whether near or remote; and having shown this, to prove also that when used in a more emphatic manner it is never applied to any other being besides God.

Neither of these tasks has he attempted, and yet without accomplishing both, his interpretations have not a foundation to rest upon.

Parkhurst, who quotes Lowth (not Bishop Lowth,but, we believe, his father, who was much inferior as a Hebraist to his own son), and Good who quotes both, as

thing more than simple existence. Thus in Esther vii. 5. Ahasuerus demands, "Who is this he (7) and where is this he (N)? In Job iv. 7. Eliphaz inquires, "Who is the he (1) that has perished being innocent?" And in the prophecies of Jeremiah xlix. 12, Jehovah is

represented, as addressing Edom "Shalt thou, the he (1 the very one- -Blayney) go altogether unpunished?"

et

Glass in his remarks on the rule respecting the use of this "de Deo non sine pronoun says, emphasi dicitur et fere nominis proprii significationem habet." We have just seen that the emphatical use of it is not confined to God. He adds, "Quemadmodum apud Græcos vulgares εκείνος, αυτος usurpatur apud Latinos Ille." Now who would say, that these pronouns in profane authors would of themselves designate God, if that noun was neither expressed nor implied in the sentence? And if it is either expressed or implied, then they differ from other pronouns only in the greater or less degree of remoteness or obscurity attending the reference to the noun which they represent.

Taylor (see Hebrew Concordaccuracy ance) with greater

"it seems to be sometimes says, used substantively, for a person, Being, a He." Besides the instan

Again the same form is employ- | Lord says; "it is I," and in John ix. 9. where the man who had been blind, says "I am he," the original words are ɛyw εμɩ, which this writer proposes to translate elsewhere I am God."

ed by the Seventy, even when the pronoun is not found in the Hebrew. Thus in 2 Sam. xii. 7, the phrase "I anointed thee" is translated εγω ειμι ὁ χρισας σε; and in xx. 17 "I hear" is translated ακουω εγω ειμι. These and numerous other passages of the same kind that might be adduced, prove that the phrase εγω ειμι, in the translation of the Seventy has not the peculiar signification contended for.

4. We come now to examine the phraseology of the New Testament in reference to this subject. Here the first thing to be observed, is that even the correspondent of the Observer is compelled to admit in his preliminary remarks, that in Mark xiii. 6. Luke xxi. 8. and John iv. 26. the phrase εγω ειμι must have χριστος "supplied from the preceding words," for that it "does not mean by itself, I am the Messiah;" yet when precisely the same phrase occurs in John viii. 24. 28. xiii. 19. he does not hesitate to tell his readers, that it does mean by itself I am God.' Now we beg to say, that he is in like manner at perfect liberty to supply eos "from the preceding words," if he can find it; but that only the love of hypothesis and system could have induced him to add such an important word where it is not to be found, and to maintain that the above phrase has "of itselt" such a meaning.

Not only does our Lord employ this expression when it confessedly relates to nothing more than his Messiahship, but it is even employed by him and others without any reference to that character.

Thus in Matt. xiv. 27. Mark vi. 50. and John vi. 20. where our

And upon what grounds is it that he contends for this extraor dinary signification, only in John viii. 24. 28. xiii. 19? Upon no other ground, as far as mere language is concerned, than would equally apply to all the instances in which the same expression is employed. "If therefore" he says, "St. John wished to express in

he כי אני הוא Greek the Hebrew

could not use any words which would so well convey to the minds of those to whom this translation of the Old Testament was familiar, the import of this Hebrew phrase, than the words ότι εγω ειμι. Here it is assumed contrary to fact, that our Lord spoke Hebrew, or the language in which the greater part of the Old Testament is written. It is also assumed without proof, that the above Greek phrase is a translation of the above He. brew phrase in John viii. 24, 28, xiii. 19, and no where else. And it is further assumed in opposition to evidence within his reach, that the Evangelist in employing the above Greek phrase in these three passages respecting Jesus, intended to apply to him a phrase which he knew was appropriated to God in the translation of the Seventy; whereas we have shown that the Seventy have in several instances given a different translation where the Hebrew is the same, and the same translation where the Hebrew is different, and that both the Hebrew phrase in the Old, and the Greek phrase in the New Testament, are used with the utmost latitude of signification.

The Syriac Version of the New Testament furnishes us with the means of the nearest approximation to the very words of Jesus Christ. This is one of the earliest versions, if not the earliest, of the Canon of the New Testament, and it is a version into a language differing, in the opinion of Michaelis, from that spoken by our Lord chiefly in respect of pronunciation. Moreover it ranks, perhaps, the highest in point of accuracy and fidelity. What then is the reading of the Syriac Version for εγω ειμι ? In all the passages hitherto quoted in which that expression occurs with only one exception, the reading is the same, and that reading is, not JN, which are the Syriac words corresponding

to the Hebrew ones RT 8 but

or a repetition of the אנא אנא

first personal pronoun.

It is

therefore at least more probable that these are the words spoken by our Lord, and of which the phrase of the Evangelist is a translation. The exception to which we have referred is Luke xxi. 8. where the Syriac supplies the word Messiah.

We have thus shown that this pronoun is not used, either in Arabic or Hebrew, of itself to designate God, and that neither the translators of the Old Testament, nor the writers of the New, understood the phrase εγω ειμι in the peculiar sense which is ascribed to it by the anonymous writer in the Asiatic Observer.

As a sort of Appendix to his remarks on the Hebrew pronoun

he, has also attempted to force a new meaning on the Greek pronoun ɛkɛɩvog in 1 John ili. 16,Hereby we know the love

of God, because HE laid down his life for us." Such is the common version of this passage, and although the words of God are admitted to be an interpolation, and give a sense perfectly remote from the design of the Apostle, and which would never have occurred to an ordinary reader, yet we are modestly assured, that the translation, although, "rather free is substantially correct"! It is not however upon this acknowledged addition to the words of the Apostle, that the Trinitarian interpretation of this passage is now made to rest. This is found untenable, and therefore recourse must be had to something else. Accordingly we are informed, that although the pronoun he (ɛкɛɩvos) in this verse certainly describes Jesus Christ, yet on account of the remoteness of the reference to verse 8th, where he has been last mentioned, it "cannot have here according to which it points to a the usual power of a pronoun noun which had occurred shortly before;" that "it must by itself designate the Lord Jesus;" that "nothing can be more likely than that" the Apostle employed it "in the same sense in which the Hebrew is often used;" and that it "undoubtedly here means God." One might have hoped, that a sober minded man on reading the words he laid down his life would have been deterred, independent of all criticism, from applying them to that Being who ONLY hath IMMORTALITY. But no. The triumph of implicit faith over sound reason and common sense is complete. The death of God would appear to be an idea as familiar to the mind of the learned and pious writer in the pages of the Observer, as it was to that of the ignorant and presumptuous ca