Postscript to the Essay on the Greek Article.
POSTSCRIPT TO THE ESSAY ON THE GREEK
ARTICLE.
As they who disbelieve the Divinity of Christ are naturally ready to assail whatever tends to confirm and to establish it; and as the lovers of disputation are often prone to the same conduct, without having the same excuse, I deem it necessary to answer the objections which have been brought against me in conversation and by letter. The most ingenious objection which I have yet heard, I shall notice first. It was made by a Unitarian of considerable acuteness. “You allow,” said he, “that when two nouns of an opposite and contradictory meaning are coupled by the conjunction, two different persons are intended, although the article be prefixed to the first, but not to the second. Do you not perceive that you hereby furnish us with a reply? We have only to say that cristov, and qeov are opposite and irreconcilable terms. The passage in Ephesians is therefore an exception.” This is the most subtle objection I have met with, but it is not unanswerable. The fallacy consists in this - my opponent takes for granted the very thing which it is his business to prove. Whether cristov and qeov be opposite and irreconcilable terms, is the point at issue.
Instead of making assertions, I will demonstrate that cristov and qeov are not irreconcilable, but consistent, and capable of application to the same person. In the opening of St. John’s gospel we read that the Word was God. A little after we are informed that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. From hence it is evident, to the humblest capacity, that the Word means Christ. But the Word was God; therefore cristov and qeov are not inconsistent, but compatible. If, however, the gospel of St. John were not in existence, I should still be able to answer this objection by an appeal to the passage in Titus. We there find that qeou and swthrov are most providentially united by the conjunction. Now qeov and swthr are unquestionably compatible. God may be a Saviour if he please, and we know that in the Scripture he is sometimes styled a Saviour. The expression, tou megalou qeou kai swthrov is therefore subject to the influence of the rule, and one person only is intended. But swthr is spoken of Christ; therefore Christ is here styled the great God; consequently cristov and qeov are perfectly consistent, perfectly compatible. I shall next take notice of an objection which has less strength and force than the preceding. “You admit,” said the objector, “because the very numerous instances oblige you to admit it, that proper names are excepted from the influence of the rule. Do you not see that by this confession your whole system is completely overthrown? A Unitarian will immediately observe, that cristov and qeov are proper names, and consequently exceptions.” In answer to this objection, I beg leave to state, first, with respect to qeov, it is simply an appellation. Jehovah is the proper name of God; but the word God is a term by which we designate the incomprehensible Being, the Great First Cause. Secondly, with regard to cristov, it is evident, from the various places where it occurs, that it is simply a title of office given unto that Divine person whose name is Jesus. That the word Christ has become a proper name amongst us, I readily admit; but we must not confound English with Greek idioms. As I have no right, however, to expect that my unsupported assertion should be admitted as an authority, I shall cite the learned Professor Michaelis. “In the time of the apostles,” says he, “the word Christ was never used as the proper name of a person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus.” Introduct, vol. 1. p 337. See also Dr. A. Clarke’s notes on Matthew, see Clarke “Matthew 1:16”. I have now to offer my observations on an argument which at first sight appears plausible. It was urged against me by the same man who made the above objection, but it had already passed through my own mind, and I had already answered it to my own satisfaction. Whether it be answered to the satisfaction of my reader, he will now determine. “In St. John, John 20:28, we find the following expression: Jo kuriov mou kai o qeov mou. All the orthodox are agreed that Jesus is here styled both Lord and God. If, then, the rule you contend for, was real and genuine, the article ought not to have been repeated before the second noun, inasmuch as one person only is intended. The same argument may be deduced from a passage in Revelation, Revelation 22:13, I answer: It is well known to every mathematician that the converse of a proposition does not necessarily hold. Now it is the same in philology as in science. I have maintained, and do still maintain, that when two substantives, &c., are coupled by the conjunction, the article being prefixed to the first, but not to the second, one person only is intended. It does not follow from hence, that when one person only is intended, the article must be prefixed to the first, but not to the second. It may be affixed to neither, or it may be affixed to both, as in the example above quoted, for the purpose of giving greater force and energy. I have now to answer another objection, which I should have passed unregarded if it had not been made by persons of considerable consequence, and of opposite creeds. “We cannot admit,” say they, “that a doctrine of such importance should rest upon a mere form of speech, a mere rule of syntax.” Now I should be glad to know, what truth is there, however sacred, what doctrine, however important, which does not rest upon some form of speech, upon some rule of syntax. A single example will suffice. How can we be certain whether, in John 3:16, Christ meant to inform us that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son; or that the world so loved God, that he gave his only begotten Son? What other answer, than the following can be given? It is a universal law of syntax that a verb in the indicative mood must be preceded by a nominative; and if there be an accusative case in the sentence, that accusative must be governed either by a verb, or by a preposition. We are therefore certain that the passage admits of one meaning only. All Divine knowledge, as well as all human knowledge, is communicated through the medium of language; and where would be the certainty of language, if it were not governed by fixed unalterable rules?
If my memory be correct, it has been asserted by a Unitarian writer, that the passage in Titus 2:13, may be understood thus: “The appearance of the glory of the great God, and the appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ;” and a reference has been made to the passage wherein it is said, that Christ will come in the glory of his Father. I reply: It is also said that he will come in his own glory: and it is at least as probable that the apostle refers to the latter as to the former. But if the probabilities be equal, then neither interpretation can be admitted. I have said, it is at least as probable that the apostle refers to the latter, but the fact is, that it is much more probable. If he had alluded to the former, it is most likely that he would have written the glory of the Father, or the glory of God; but not of the great God. There is no reason however to believe that he referred to either. Bishop Burgess has clearly shown, by references to other passages, that epifaneian thv doxhv is a Hebrew idiom, and that the glorious appearance is its proper translation.
I have now gone through the principal objections which have been urged against our system. If it should appear to the enlightened reader that I have not sufficiently refuted them, I hope, I entreat, that he will attribute this to the inability of the advocate, and not to the imperfection of the cause. When the admirable Porson was alive, he might have lulled the question into an everlasting rest. With one effort of his mind, with one glance of his eye, with one stroke of his pen, he could have poured upon the subject a flood of light which Satan could never have extinguished, and our opponents could never have withstood. But, alas! except in one instance, his studies were not directed to subjects of sacred criticism. I shall conclude this postscript with a few general observations on the subject.
When the Monthly Reviewers sat down to criticise Dr. Middleton’s work upon the Greek article, the subject was but in its infancy. It had not attained the matured vigour and perfect bloom which it now displays. These gentlemen imagined that they had given a death blow to the system, by bringing forward such examples as the following: ton swfrona, kai akolaston the temperate, and intemperate. We now see that their arguments are most successfully turned against themselves. It is evident, from what has been said at the beginning of my Essay, that this instance is no exception to the rule. A temperate, and an intemperate person, are characters essentially different, and therefore it was unnecessary to repeat the article. Thus AEschylus, in his Agamemnon, speaking of the Trojans and the Greeks, says, kai twn alontwn kai krathsantwn.
“And of the captured, and those who gained the victory;” in which place it is manifest that the repetition of the article would have been needless.
I have also stated that proper names are exempted from the jurisdiction of the rule. It is clear that Peter and John are distinct persons: therefore, St. Luke, Luke 9:28, writes: paralabwn ton petron, kai iwannhn, kai iakwbon Having taken Peter, and John, and James.
In Acts, Acts 26:30, St. Luke informs us that the king and the governor arose. If we examine the original we shall find that the article is prefixed to both these nouns, anesth o basileuv, kai o hgemwn. Why was the article here repeated? Was it to give force and energy to the expression? No: it was for a reason more important; the evangelist intended us to understand that, when Paul had ceased to speak, the king, Agrippa, and the governor, Festus, arose. Now, the offices of a king and a governor are perfectly compatible. If, then, he had written o basileuv kai hgemwn, he would have conveyed a very different idea to that which was intended. The reader would have supposed that Agrippa united in his own person the offices of king and governor; that he and Bernice rose up, and that Festus was left by himself, unless indeed he was included among those, oi sugkaqhmenoi autoiv, who sat together with them. But St. Luke knew, and felt the force, the influence, and the universality, of the rule which I contend for, and wrote accordingly.
In the course of my essay, I quoted those passages of Chrysostom wherein he proves the godhead of Christ from Titus 2:13. I then brought forward the testimony of Basil, and appealed to his fourth book against Eunomius. It may, however, be objected that some critics have doubted whether that book was genuine. If we even allow that it is spurious, and admit as a fact what is merely a matter of opinion, we shall not be thereby deprived of the testimony of St. Basil. His Homilies on the Psalms are unquestionably genuine; and in the very first of these he quotes Titus 2:13, and applies the whole of it to Christ. The homily is in the first volume both of the Benedictine edition, and the Paris edition of 1618. This important verse is cited by Athanasius, by Gregory of Nyssa, and by Cyril of Alexandria.
When I look attentively at the two passages of Holy Writ, which have been the especial objects of this discussion, I think that, leaving the doctrine of the Greek article out of the question, I perceive sufficient evidence to warrant our belief that one person only is intended. In the passage from Ephesians, two circumstances claim our notice: qeou is placed last in the sentence, and the article is not prefixed to it, although it had been prefixed to cristou: - but this is abhorrent from the phraseology of St. Paul. When he speaks of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, and connects them by the conjunction, it is his custom to mention the Father first, and to omit the article altogether. In the following texts the reader may see a few examples: Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2. The article, however, is sometimes prefixed to both; see, for instance, Colossians 2:2. This passage, by the way, is a most powerful confirmation of Mr. Sharp’s rule; but with that rule we have nothing to do at present. St. John expresses himself in the same manner in the Apocalypse, Revelation 11:15. We see then what is the prevailing diction of St. Paul; and we may defy any man to produce a single passage, either from him or from any other inspired writer, where God the Father and Christ are manifestly spoken of, the Father placed last in the sentence, and yet unhonoured by the article, while on Christ that distinction is conferred. We may conclude, that if, in Ephesians 5:5, St. Paul had spoken both of the Father and of the Son, he would have said tou qeou kai tou cristou, or at least tou cristou kai tou qeou.
On Titus 2:13, I have an observation to offer, which also is unconnected with Mr Sharp’s rule. If God the Father be meant in the first clause, then the Son is simply called swthrov hmwn. But this expression, as applied to Christ, hath no parallel in the whole book of God. I wish the intelligent reader to mark this distinctly. The following are, I believe, all the passages of the New Testament where Christ is styled our Saviour, without any conjoined appellation; and in every one of these the article is affixed. 2 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4; 3:6. We have reason then to believe that, if St. Paul had here meant the glorious appearance of God the Father, he would have added, kai tou swthrov. I may add, that, as the three passages where Christ is styled our Saviour, all occur in the writings of this apostle, the reason of our belief is greatly strengthened. I have reasoned boldly and confidently on the doctrine of the prepositive article, because I am persuaded that my reasoning can never be overturned. If, however, an example in the singular number, such as o basileuv kai hgemwn, should be brought against me; if the two nouns be perfectly compatible; and if, notwithstanding this, it be manifest that two different persons are intended; I must acknowledge that my labours have ended in uncertainty.*
It is my unalterable opinion that, at all times and on all occasions, truth should be explored; and, when discovered, exhibited to views whatever be the consequences. I think it will be impossible for the opposers of this doctrine to produce such an example as I have been supposing; but should any be indeed to look for such an example, I think it necessary to mention, that two things are indispensable. In the first place, the citation must be made from an unexceptionable Greek writer; in the second place, there must be no various reading to the passage in any extant manuscript. First, it must be from an unexceptionable Greek writer; it must be from an author whose native language was Greek, and who flourished not later than the first century after Christ. When I have established a fact, by instances taken from the best and purest of the Greek authors, I may then call to my assistance whatever writers I please, for the purpose of farther corroboration; but the opponent who comes forward to dispute and to destroy, must deduce the streams of his criticisms from the fountain head. His weapons must be taken from the armoury of Homer or Plato, of Sophocles or Pindar, of Xenophon or Demosthenes. Secondly, there must be no various reading in any MS. which is extant. If there be but one various reading, the passage will be inadmissible; in rejecting it, I shall be acting with impartial justice; for I have passed over a very important passage in my favour, because there is a various reading. By the application of Mr. Sharp’s rule to 2 Peter 1:1, it might have been shown that Jesus is there styled our God. There is no doubt that tou qeou hmwn kai swthrov is the genuine reading. If not quite as precious as the instance in Titus 2:13, it is more valuable than that in Ephesians 5:5, and yet I passed it over, being determined to make use of nothing to which the slightest objection might be made.
If, at some future period, an exception, in itself unexceptionable, shall be brought against the rule, I will acknowledge, though painful the confession, that my sweetest, because my best directed, labours have been unavailing. I shall retire from the field discomfited, but not disheartened, disappointed, but not dispirited; sorrowful, and yet rejoicing. Yea, I shall still rejoice; because I am assured there are other proofs of the Divinity of Jesus; proofs, which neither the subtlety of philologists, nor the sophistry of Unitarians, nor the rage of demons can overthrow.
—————————————————————————————
* Although I have made numerous corrections, both in my essay and postscript, I have republished this part of the postscript as it stood in the first edition. The intelligent reader, however, will perceive that I have made too large and liberal a concession; and he will see that I must consider my cause indeed a strong one, when I am not afraid of granting so much to my opponent. The concession is too liberal, for this reason: When a rule of grammar is established by the concurrent practice of all writers, the discovery of an exception cannot be considered as invalidating it. For instance: it is an invariable rule that the article must agree with the substantive to which it is prefixed, in gender, number, and case. If a student were to meet with a passage in some Greek author, wherein an article masculine was affixed to a noun feminine, an article plural to a noun singular, or an article in the genitive to a noun in the accusative; what in such a case, would be his conclusion? Not that the laws of grammar were dubious, but that the passage in question was most unquestionably corrupted. Surely the same inference should be drawn in the case before us. He who labours to overthrow our doctrine, should come armed with at least five or six legitimate exceptions. Let not any one imagine that I have any fear or doubt on this subject. I repeat my conviction, that not one genuine exception could be produced, even if I were to extend the prescribed period to the termination of the fourth century. If however such an exception should be found, but found in a writer of whose works all the extant manuscripts are notoriously corrupt, it would be uncandid in the discoverer to bring it forward. Supplement to the Postscript.
In the conclusion of the postscript to my essay, I observed that there were other proofs of the Divinity of Jesus, besides that which I had laboured to establish. One of these I brought forward in the commencement of the postscript; and I now desire, through the blessing of God, to set forth and elucidate another. It occurs in Romans 9:5. I select this, because the Godhead of Christ is here established on the soundest principles of criticism; and because we see to what a desperate state the Unitarians must be reduced, when, in order to evade it, they fly in the very face of philology, and set at defiance her decisions. I choose it for this reason also: that as far as my knowledge extends, it has not been sufficiently investigated by previous writers. kai ex wn o cristov, to kata sarka, o wn epi pantwn qeov euloghtov eiv touv aiwnav. “And from whom sprang the Christ, the part according to the flesh, (or, the human nature,) who is over all, God blessed for ever.” It is known to all persons acquainted with the subject, that in the oldest Greek manuscripts every letter is a capital, that there is no division of words, and that there are no stops. We must therefore divide the words, and arrange the stops, according to our own judgment. The enemies of our Lord’s Divinity of course oppose every thing that supports it. At one time some of them admitted a conjectural emendation into the text; but the most judicious among them have rejected an expedient so desperate, and so unjustifiable. At present they would evade the force of this passage, by introducing a different mode of punctuation; some of them placing a full stop after pantwn, and some placing it after sarka. They thus form a new sentence, which they consider as exclamatory. When the stop is placed after pavtwn, they construe the remainder thus: “God be blessed for ever.” Now, any man who is a sound scholar and critic, will immediately propose the following question: Does St. Paul ever make such exclamations? And if he make them, does he express them in this strange manner? The fact is, that he twice utters this ejaculation; but his phraseology is different from what we find above. The exclamation, “Blessed be God,” occurs twice in his epistles; but in both places he writes thus: euloghtov o qeov. It occurs in 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3. St. Peter makes use of the same ejaculation; and his phraseology is precisely the same. See 1 Peter 1:3. In St. Luke, Luke 1:68, we find the following exclamation: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel.” The phrase is exactly the same, excepting the introduction of kuriov after euloghtov. In the Septuagint, euloghtov o qeov occurs twice; euloghtov kuriov, ten times; and euloghtov kuriov o qeov, twelve times. Thus, in twenty - eight cases there is not a single one wherein euloghtov is placed last; and in eighteen cases there is not one wherein the article is wanting before qeov. A sentence occurs in Psalm 68:19, wherein the exclamation occurs twice, without any intervening words: kuriov o qeov euloghtov\ euloghtov kuriov. The reader will observe that in one of the clauses, euloghtov is placed last; but as this is evidently done to vary the expression, and as the article is affixed to qeov, it cannot be brought forward as an exception. We see, then, that throughout the Old and New Testament, one mode of speech prevails. The truth is,* that any Greek writer would have so expressed himself. Of this the eloquent Chrysostom is an example. Among his works there are twenty - one orations to the people of Antioch; in the course of these he uses the exclamation, “Blessed be God,” no less than seven times, and in every case we find euloghtov o qeov. Surely every intelligent reader must be now convinced that, if St. Paul had here meant to exclaim, “Blessed be God,” he would have written euloghtov o qeov. —————————————————————————————
* The fact is certain; the reason may perhaps be found in the following canon, which prevails generally in the Greek language. If a person be spoken of, and something be predicated of him, the predicate is put first, and the article precedes the subject. The reader will find several examples in a paper of mine published by Dr. A. Clarke, in his Commentary on the first chapter of Hebrews. Now, when a Greek writer exclaims, “Blessed be God” the phraseology seems to be determined by the rule.
—————————————————————————————
Let us now examine the other method of construing the passage. If the full stop be placed after sarka, the following sentence will be formed: Jo wn epi pantwn qeov euloghtov eiv touv aiwnav. The Unitarians understand it thus: “May God, who is over all, be blessed for ever.” Now, we may feel assured that neither St. Paul, nor any other Greek author; would have thus expressed himself, for the collocation of the words is still more opposed to the genius and idiom of the Greek language, as well as to the established usage, both of St. Paul, and of the other sacred writers; and the article is wanting before qeov, though yet more needed. If he had meant this sentence to be an exclamation, he would undoubtedly have written either euloghtov o qeov o wn epi pantwn, or eih o qeov o wn epi pantwn euloghtov, (or, huloghmenov) eiv k. t. l. This method of punctuation therefore is untenable.
As I have shown that our opponents cannot justify by any parallel expressions the perversion of Romans 9:5, I may perhaps be asked whether the orthodox mode of punctuation, and of construction, can be supported by any parallel passages. I shall feel happy in replying that it can. In Romans 1:25, we find kai elatreusan th ktisei para ton ktisanta, ov estin eulonhtov eiv touv aiwnav. Every person at all acquainted with Greek, knows that the phrase o wn is equivalent to ov esti, and every one will agree as to the mode of construing the above words. But I can adduce a passage, wherein the phraseology is not equivalent, but exactly the same. It is in 2 Corinthians 11:31: Jo qeov kai pathr tou kuriou hmwn ihsou cristou oiden, o wn euloghtov eiv touv aiwnav. This is an invaluable example, for it most powerfully confirms the sense in which we understand the passage in Romans. I might offer some remarks on the clause qo kata sarka, for this is of great importance; but I fear there would not be room for their insertion.* I have surely said enough to convince any competent judge that the Unitarian devices are directly opposed to sound criticism; and that, leaving religion out of the question, no man can lay claim to the character of a scholar and a critic, who rejects the orthodox interpretation. From the decisions of stern Philology there is no appeal. She is the mighty arbitress of truth. As soon as she ascends her august tribunal, error begins to tremble. When she raises her imperious voice, and pronounces the irrevocable judgment, Popery is annihilated, Unitarianism is extirpated, Arianism is effaced, and nothing remains but the unadulterated gold, the unpolluted gem, the cloudless sunshine, of the Gospel.
—————————————————————————————
* It has been asserted by a Unitarian writer, that the latter clause of Romans 9:5, was never applied to Christ by the early Christian writers! In every instance wherein they quote it, it is applied to Christ. All the passages are given by the learned Burton in his invaluable work on the Ante - Nicene fathers. It has been said that the word qeov appears to have been wanting in Chrysostom’s copy of the New Testament! Chrysostom has the word qeov in his Commentary on Romans, and he has it when he quotes the verse in another place. See my Select Passages of St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Basil, p. 283, 3d edition. See also the foregoing Essay. The Unitarians still maintain that the Ante - Nicene fathers were all of their creed! The supreme Divinity of Christ was held by all the fathers, from the very apostolic age. It has been stated that qeov did not appear in 1 Timothy 3:16, until the sixth century. Chrysostom has qeov in 1 Timothy 3:16, and he wrote at the end of the fourth.
—————————————————————————————
As the hallowed doctrine of the atonement is so closely connected with the Divinity of Christ, I cannot refrain from observing that it is remarkably confirmed by philological investigation. Though various opinions be entertained respecting the nature of Christ and the object of his sufferings, every scholar in every country will concur as to the meaning of the Alcestis of Euripides. It will be allowed at once that the following is the subject of this pathetic tragedy. Admetus is about to die. Apollo intercedes with the Fates, and they consent to spare him on condition of one of his friends devoting himself and dying in his stead. Alcestis offers herself as a substitute, and dies in the place of her husband. Let us examine the principal passages which relate to the event.
———pwv dJ an mallon endeixaito tiv posin protimwsJ, h qelousJ uperqanein.
Alcestis, 5:155, edit. Monk.
“How could any one more clearly demonstrate how much she preferred her husband than by being willing to die for him?” egw se presbeuousa, kanti thv emhv yuchv katasthsasa fwv todJ eisoran, qnhskw, paron moi mh qanein, uper seqen.
Ib. 5:293.
“Honouring thee, and resolving that in exchange for my life thou shouldst behold this light; when it is at my option not to die, I die for thee.”
su dJ, antidousa thv emhv ta filtata yuchv, eswsav.
Ib. 5:350.
“But thou, giving what was most dear to thee in exchange for my life, hast saved me.”
su ton autav etlav posin anti sav ameiyai yucav ex aida.
Ib. 5:473.
“Thou at least hast dared to rescue thy husband from the grave, given in exchange for thine own life.”
———anti sou ge katqanein.
Ib. 5:590.
“To die instead of thee.”
kaqreyJ, ofeilwn oucJ uperqnhskein seqen.
Ib. 5:698.
“And I reared thee up, owing thee thus much, but not to die for thee.” mh qnhscJ uper toudJ androv, oudJ egw pro sou.
Ib. 5:706.
“Die not thou for this man, (meaning himself,) nor I for thee.” ei thn parousan katqanein peiseiav an gunaicJ uper sou.
Alcestis, 5:716.
“If thou couldst persuade thy present wife to die for thee.” allJ ou nekron anti, sou tondJ ekfereiv.
Ib. 5:732.
“But thou shalt not bear out this person (meaning himself) dead in the place of thee.”
The English reader will be enabled, by the translations which I have subjoined, to appreciate the force of the argument. The learned will observe, that anti and uper are promiscuously employed; but uper in these passages unquestionably signifies in the place of and not for the sake of. Some other passages occur which bear upon the subject; but, as pro is used instead of anti and uper, I have not cited them. In one instance we find dia.
As I am afraid of extending my remarks to too great a length, I shall content myself with referring the reader to the following, among many other passages of the New Testament. I particularly request that he will compare the first extract which I have given from the heathen poet, with the first of the texts to which I shall refer him. John 15:13; 1 Peter 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:6; Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; Romans 5:6 - 8; 2 Corinthians 5:15 - 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Corinthians 8:11; 2 Corinthians 5:20. In this text uper occurs twice; and St. Chrysostom in his Commentary on this verse, thus writes: toutestin, anti cristou, “That is, in the place of Christ.”
If we attentively compare the texts just referred to, with the passages which have been given from Euripides, we shall especially observe two things: 1st. The phraseology in both cases is the same; uper and anti being promiscuously used. 2d. Some strong and remarkable expressions are applied to Christ which are not applied to Alcestis. He is declared to be the oblation; (prosfora;) the sacrifice; (qusia;) the redemption; (apolutrwsiv;) the propitiation; (ilasmov;) the propitiatory; (ilasthriov;) the redemption price, or ransom; (lutron;) the redemption price paid for the life of a captive (antilutron.) Now it is at once admitted by all that Alcestis offered up herself as a vicarious sacrifice for her husband, that she redeemed his life with her own; yet this admission is made on evidence less strong and less decisive than the evidence for the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. It is surely unnecessary to point out the obvious deduction. Can any man be so blind as not to perceive it, or so uncandid as not to acknowledge it?*
—————————————————————————————
* At the end of my “Brief Refutation of Popery, from the Writings of the Fathers,” I stated my ideas of the argument which I have pursued above; but being weary of writing, at the time of my publishing that work, I expressed a wish that some Christian scholar would pursue the inquiry. I have not however heard that any person has taken up the subject.
—————————————————————————————
After this supplement had been sent to press, I met with a translation of Romans 9:5, given by Mr. Jones in his futile work on the Greek Article. It is inadmissible for several philological reasons; and it is so very forced and unnatural that I should think no sensible man would defend it for an instant. Some persons have acknowledged that Christ is here called God, but have thought that he is called so in an inferior sense, because the article is omitted before qeov. A little more knowledge of Greek would have shown them the reason of this omission. It is wanting because qeov in this place is a predicate. For the same reason it is omitted before qeov in John 1:1.
Let me, in conclusion, address a few words to the Unitarian, respecting the passage on which I have so largely dwelt. I have shown that both your attempts to evade its force are ineffectual; that the words cannot have the meaning you still attach to them, because they would not be good Greek, and because they would be at variance with the established diction, both of the Greek Testament, and of the Septuagint. In the present state of critical learning, is it not degrading to uphold and to perpetuate a mode of translation which is subversive of all sound criticism? Were you influenced by no higher motive, I should have thought you should have had more decent pride, than to pursue a system which must sink you so low, so very low, in the estimation of the learned. But I would that you were actuated by better motives. I exhort, I conjure you, to bend before that cross which you have so long despised; to read the Scripture with humility; to seek the grace of repentance; to implore the gift of faith, and to pray for the illumination of the Spirit.
Sidmouth, July 30th, 1833.
—————————————————————————————
EIS TON EMON LOGON TON PERI TOU ARQROU.
Cqizov emoisi trufwn leimwsi nehqaleessin,
Hrema surizwn, kai poimnia leuka nomeuwn\
Ommata dJ ar lampra, pterugessi te porfurehsi
Kallimov, h Kleiw kradihn pallousan ikane,
Caire dJ efh, mega caire\ se Titurov autov epainei\
Anqema soi qallein nun Titurov autov edwken\
Ernea nun keinou soiv anqesin estefanwtai.
JWv efaqJ\ h sofih dJ ierh yiqurizen anwqen,
Mh timaiv cqonihsin uperfronei, alla tapeinou\
Pneuma kaqaire teon, saiv dJ elpisin ouranon ike.
U. S. B.