Mr. W. render "per Spiritum absque macula" by spotless in his mind? It will bear this translation, just as well as does the Greek: for supposing Saúμaros to be the true reading, and conceding to Mr. W. the privilege of forcing upon out of its place, where are we to look for a phrase similar to a veúμaτos aμwμov, spotless in his mind? When Christ is said to be troubled in his mind or spirit, we read, John, xiii. 21. 'eraçάx On Tÿ πvúμATI: and "the humble in spirit" are called (Matt. v. 3.) wxoś τῷ πνεύματι, not δια πνεύματος.-The reading αγίω the same Writer thinks "is not amiss," meaning with a holy mind; but here again we have to seek for authorities, which may justify such a translation. It is painful to behold a man, whose general character and conduct betrayed no want of pride, thus condescending to subterfuge after subterfuge, and ready to submit to any expedient, however humiliating, if it promised but for a moment to aid the cause, which he had at heart. Αλήθειαν καὶ Παῤῥησίαν was the Motto, which Mr. Wakefield caused to be inscribed on his portrait in the exercise of the latter of these he yielded to no controul; it were much to be wished that his adherence to the former had been equally unshaken. Candour, indeed, requires us to impute to ignorance, that which cannot be proved to originate in malice. There is, however, in the ignorance of this writer, if so we must regard it, the consistency, which usually marks design: his ignorance uniformly operates to a given end and if this be the ground, on which his advocates shall choose to defend his integrity, they must concede that his learning was prodigiously overrated, and must assign him a place among scholars of far more modest pretensions.' pp. 601-603. "Mihi res, non me rebus subjungere," is as much the principle of the criticism of Mr. W. as of the philosophy of Aristippus.' p. 608. On a proposal which has frequently been made, of revising the authorized Version of the Scriptures, we have the following judicious observation, suggested by the use of the Article, Luke xii. 54, τὴν νεφέλην ; I cannot help thinking that a Revision would be extremely imperfect, or indeed would be nearly useless, if it were to overlook minute circumstances, such as that before us. It is in niceties of this sort principally that our Eng. Translation admits improvement: its general fidelity has never been questioned; and its style, notwithstanding the captious objec tions of Dr. Symonds, is incomparably superior to any thing, which might be expected from the finical and perverted taste of our own age. It is simple; it is harmonious; it is energetic; and, which is of no small importance, use has made it familiar, and time has rendered it sacred.” p. 328. The memorable words of the apostle Thomas, on acknowledging the overpowering evidence of our Lord's resurrection, are thus illustrated. • John xx. 28. ὁ Κύριός με καὶ ὁ θεός με. It might be supposed that the former Pronoun and the latter Article should here have been omitted in conformity with Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. It must be confessed that this would have been the usual Greek form: but in this με με instance the Greek idiom seems to have given way to the Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldaic in those languages the Affix must be subjoined to both Nouns; for if it be added only to the latter, it will not comprehend the Noun preceding. Thus we read Psalm v. 3. b, and Ps. xxxv. 23.71; and it is not unreasonable to suppose, that as the expression of St Thomas was so remarkable, the Evangelist might wish to record it with the utmost exactness. This he has had done; for supposing the exclamation to have been (allowing for the difference of dialect ‚¶, or as the Syriac Version has it, the Greek translation is the closest possible. The two passages above cited from the Psalms, the LXX have rendered respectively by ο βασιλεύς με καὶ ὁ θεός and ὁ θεός καὶ ὁ Κύριός με: in both which instances, as well as in the present and many others, the Nominative with the Article prefixed is used for the Vocative. It will hence be perceived, that I do not understand the words of Thomas in the way of assertion, as some have done, by supposing an Ellipsis of où : of such an Ellipsis I have not noticed any example. But though the words seem to have been spoken by way of exclamation, this exclamation is not to be construed into a mere expression of astonishment. Michaelis has justly observed, that if Thomas had spoken German, (he might have added, English, French, or Italian) it might have been contended with some degree of plausibility, that "my Lord and my God" was only an irreverent ejaculation. But that Jewish astonishment was thus expressed, is wholly without proof or support. Add to this, that the words are introduced with IT aut, i. e. to Christ; but a mere ejaculation, such as that here supposed, is rather an appeal to Heaven. But our Saviour's reply, makes it absolutely certain, that the words of Thomas, though in the form of an exclamation, amount toa confession of faith, and were equivalent to a direct assertion of our Saviour's Divinity. → Christ commends Thomas's acknowledgment, while he condemns the tardiness with which it is made: but to what did this acknowledgment amount? That Christ was Kugios al sós. It is true that attempts have been made to lessen the value of this recognition. Thus Servetus, in a passage cited by Wet. remarks that Thomas did not call Christ Jehovah, to which the Affix is never applied. This objection is so frivolous, that I should not have thought it worth notice, but for the sanction, which may seem to have been thus given it for just as well might it be urged that the God invoked by Christ was not the true God, since Christ, Matt. xxvii. 46. and Mark xv. 34. exclaims "my God, my God:" yet was it ever doubted, whether Jesus in these words addressed Jehovah? The same address is common also in the LXX. and is incapable of being otherwise understood, than in the obvious and common way. It is much to be lamented, that the bias of Wetstein's mind inclined him to countenance such absurdity.? A We shall now solicit the attention of our readers to an extract from Dr. M.'s Note on Eph, v. 5, one of the passages before adverted to, under the Rule for Attributives assumed of the same subject. The whole,note is too long for us to Insert. The unknown writer, already noticed on Matt. xi, 11. contends, that Xros being an epithet, the expression is harsh and intolerable; and that he must be a rude Writer, who should say, "The anointed and God,"p.74. Rude he would be indeed : but this is not similar to the Greek, and therefore ought not to have been so represented; and yet this very misrepresentation is made to be the ground-work of the Writer's whole fabric. Without deigning to inquire whether the Greek and English Articles have any and what degree of analogy, he sets out with the bold assertion, that the rule laid down by his Opponent, and by all Antiquity," may be tried just as well in English as in Greek. Now in English," he says, 66 we have such phrases as the King and Queen, the Husband and Wife, &c. &c. which cannot be understood of the same person. And hence he concludes that Mr. Sharp and all the Gr. Fathers, who according to Mr. Wordsworth support Mr. Sharp's interpretation, must be wrong. If it be so, for Mr. Sharp's error I cannot pretend to account; but that of the Fa. thers should thus appear to have arisen from their ignorance of English. A mind accustomed to any thing like proof would have shrunk from such temerity. It might have been thought of some importance in a question of Greek criticism, to have ascertained the practice of the Greek writers in cases precisely parallel: it might have been a consequence of this examination to have investigated the ground of an usage, which in the Greek writers both profane and sacred was found to prevail universally: the result of this inquiry might have induced at least a suspicion, that the Greek idiom in some respects differed from our own; and on a subject of a very serious nature, which after all could be decided only by learning and calm discussion, it might have been deemed neither necessary nor decent to catch at the applause of illiterate Unbelievers by attempting to raise a laugh. On all these points, however, the Unknown Writer thought differently from persons accustomed to sober and grave deliberation: at the outset he is satisfied with a mis-statement of the question, and he is not ashamed to triumph in the consequences.-The truth is, that the Article of our language not being a Pronoun has little resemblance to that of the Greeks; and the proper rendering of rỡ Xgıçẽ xal 98 is not ❝of the anointed and God," but " of Him, (being, or) who is, the Christ and God;" in which, I believe, there is nothing approaching to the ❝rudeness" of the burlesque translation, nor to the vulgarity of such phrases as "the King and Queen." Of the objection, that Xeros is an epithet, I do not see the drift: for epithets, being descriptive of quality, are more especially and strictly subject to the rule; though epithets in many instances, as in evós, &c. and in this also, become Substantives; and to them this Writer, being ignorant of the principle, on which the rule is founded, seems to have supposed it chiefly, if not exclusively, to apply. But it is the strange infelicity of the Unknown Controversialist, that when he would reason, which rarely happens, he can only cavil. The same truth is evinced by the examination of the Greek Fathers so ably executed by Mr. Wordsworth; who affirms "we shall have the consolation to find, that no other interpretation than yours (Mr. Sharp's) was ever heard in all the Greek churches:" p. 26. He then adduces, among other examples, some very decisive passages from Chrysost. Cyril Alex. and Theodoret, in which this very text is cited with the common Trinitarian texts, John i. 1; Rom. ix. 5. These passages, indeed, the Unknown Writer would evade, by saying, that the arguments of the Fathers are a deduction from the unity of dominion; meaning, I suppose, that Christ and God are no otherwise one, than as they jointly reign over one kingdom. But here again is the mischief of not inquiring into the principle of the rule, which does and must apply perpetually in cases, where a reference to community of dominion cannot be supposed. Almost every chapter in the N. T. contains some exemplification of the rule in question, with which, therefore, the Sacred Writers were well acquainted, and must have supposed their Readers to have been acquainted also; and if in Titus ii. 13. they did not mean to identify the Great God and the Saviour, they expressed themselves in a manner, which they well knew would mislead their Readers, and to mislead must have been their object; so absurd are the conclusions, to which the subterfuges and conjectures of this Writer inevitably conduct us. It ought to be observed, that Theodoret's explanation of Titus ii. 13, introduces the present text as a similar passage, Mr. Wordsworth avers (p. 132) "I have observed more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form i Xeros xai Osòs (Eph. v. 5.) some hundreds of instances of μéyas beos xai σwinę (Tit. ii. 13.) and not fewer than several thousands of the form sos xal owing (2 Pet. i. 1.) while in no single case have I seen, where the sense could be determined, any one of them used, but only of one person." The Syriac does not appear to me to have any method, generally applicable, of expressing the idiom noticed in Part I. Chap. iii, Sect. iv. § 2. In the present text at least I suspect that the Syriac is ambiguous: others, perhaps, may detect some distinction, which has escaped my notice. In examining the Coptic, I believe, we shall be more successful. This language has Articles, both determinate and indeterminate: they seem not to be employed to mark the difference distinguishable in the usage, which we are now considering: yet, if I mistake not, the Coptic has a Canon, which is equivalent to the Greek one. In that language there are two Copulatives, OuOH and NEM: the latter, indeed, is a Preposition corresponding with the Heb. y or Greek μerá: but it is also commonly employed, where the Greek has xxi. I have observed, however, that these Copulatives are not used indiscriminately: where the Translator understood two Attributives of the same person, xal is always, I think, rendered by ouоH; where of different persons, as in ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμών, by NEM. A single example will illustrate my meaning: the Translator read ver. 20. of the present chapter i ὀνόματι το Κυρίε ἡμῶν Ἰησέ Χρισέ καὶ τὰ θεῖ καὶ πατρός : his Version is NEM TE OVOн T Taτgós. Supposing, then, that we have here a Coptic Canon equivalent to the Greek one, what is the result? It is, that of Mr. Sharp's seven texts (for at Acts xx. 28. the Copt. read Kugls) the present was understood of two persons contrary to the interpretation of the Greek Fathers; the three next, viz. 2 Thess. i. 12. ; 1 Tim. v. 21.; and 2 Tim. iv. 1. also of two persons: but there the Fathers are silent; Titus ii, 13. and 2 Pet. i. 1. were interpreted of one person : and Jude 4. where, however, the Copt. did not read Bɛov, is expressed, as in the Syriac, by apposition, : For the Arabic and Ethiopic I must avail myself of the assistance of Mr. Wakefield. His rendering of this passage is very curious, "of the anointed Teacher of God." He observes in his Note, that the Arabic and Æthiopic Verss. omit xaí, and he refers us in behalf of the phrase "anointed of God" to Luke ii. 26, and ix. 20. On examining the places I find ὁ Χριστὸς Κυρίε and ὁ Χρισος ΤΟΥ θεῷ : both of which accord with the Greek usage: see on Luke i. 15. ; but where are we to look for • Xeros Ot? It is somewhat singular, that a man, who had devoted the greater part of his life to Philology, who had translated the N. T. and who had written the Silva Critica in illustration of it, should not have known that ¿ Xeros 0 is not Greek. But the Arab. and Æthiop. Verss. says Mr. W. omit xxí: was he, then, to learn Greek from Arabs and Æthiopians, when they presented him with a construction founded on a solecism? But, after all, how does it appear that they omitted xaí? I suspect, from the known analogy of the Oriental languages, that neither the Arabic nor the Ethiopic Translator meant to indicate, what Mr. Wakefield's rendering implies, that xal was wanting in the copies, which they respectively used : for I know that in the Peshito Oros xal marne is frequently, though not always, rendered by "God the Father" I think it probable, therefore, that the Arab. and Ethiopic Translators have here employed the same method of expressing identity.-On turning to Bode's Pseudocritica, which I had not seen till some part of this work had been printed off, I found the very same solution. It appears, therefore, that the Arabic and Ethiopic Translators did actually understand this passage of Him, who is Christ and God.' pp. 531-533. To acquit ourselves of a promise in our last number, we shall select two or three samples of the further castigation, bestowed by Dr. M.'s solid learning and dignified temper, on the insolent pretensions of this flippant Socinian, the soi disant Gregory Blunt. (On Matt. xi. 11.) An Unknown Writer, who, in a pamphlet entitled "Six more Letters," has attacked Messrs. Sharp and Wordsworth on their respective publications, and whose petulance is scarcely surpassed by his profound ignorance of the subject, gravely challenges his readers (at p.24.) to assign a reason why the Article was here omitted before yenlois. That the reason will be satisfactory, to him at least, is more than I dare hope it is, that the Writer, or rather Translator, of St. Matthew's Gospel, understood Greek somewhat better than does the Author of the Six more Letters.” He who is thus ignorant of every thing relating to the point in dispute, may with little invention find questions to put to his antagonists.' p. 271. (On 2 Thess. i. 12.) The Unknown Writer, already alluded to, "prefers even to the Common Vers. a construction, which should apply both Nouns to one Person, viz. not to Jesus, but to the God of Jesus: and he is persuaded that the true rendering is "by the blessing of the God of us and Lord of Jesus Christ:" p. 85. The same writer, consistent in his folly, would translate 2 Pet. i. 1." the Saviour of Jesus Christ.' (On Tit. ii. 13.) The Unknown Writer here again attacks Mr. Sharp |
