read lately, are to stand him instead of a general knowledge of the subject. God bless his dear absurd head!"-1. 121-123.

The two following passages, which are all we have left ourselves room for, will also be interesting to the readers of this Magazine :

“ Coleridge! in reading your Religious Musings,' I felt a transient superiority over you. I have seen Priestley. I love to see his name repeated in your writings. I love and honour him almost profanely. You would be charmed with his Sermons, if you never read them. You have doubtless read his books illustrative of the doctrine

of Necessity. Prefixed to a late work of his in answer to Paine, there is a Preface giving an account of the man, of his services to men, written by Lindsey, his dearest friend, well worth your reading." (1796.)-1. 18.

“ The Rev. Mr. -, whose name you have left illegible (is it Seagull ?), never sent me any book on Christ's Hospital, by which I could dream that I was indebted to him for a dedication. Did G. D. send his penny tract to me to convert me to Unitarianism? Dear, blundering soul! why, I am as old a Unitarian himself. Or did he think his cheap publication would bring over the Methodists over the way here? However, I'll give it to the pewopener, in whom I have a little interest, to hand over to the clerk, whose wife she sometimes drinks tea with, for him to lay before the deacon, who exchanges the civility of the hat with him, to transmit to the minister, who shakes hands with him out of chapel, and he, in all odds, will light his pipe with it.” (To Mr. Moxon, 1832).-II. 85.


SECTARIES AND SCHISMATICS IN 1646-7. UNIFORMITY of free-growing, healthy forest trees is good; uniformity of clipt Dutch-dragons is not so good! The question, Which of the two ? is by no means settled—though the Assembly of Divines and majorities of both Houses would fain think it so. The general English mind, which, loving good order in all things, loves regularity even at a high price, could not be content with this Presbyterian scheme which we call the Dutch-dragon one; but a deeper portion of the English mind inclines decisively to growing in the foresttree way, and indeed will shoot out into very singular excrescences, Quakerisms and what not, in the coming years. Nay, already we have Anabaptists, Brownists, Sectaries and Schismatics springing up very rife: already there is a Paul Best, brought before the House of Commons for Socinianism; nay, we hear of another distracted individual, who seemed to maintain in confidential argument, that God was mere Reason.—Carlyle's Cromwell, I. 282.

A HINT TO FAULT-FINDERS. If you would be loved as a companion, avoid unnecessary criticism upon those with whom you live. The number of people who have taken out judges' patents for themselves, is very large in any society. Now it would be hard for a man to live with another who was always criticising his actions, even if it were kindly and just criticism. It would be like living between the glasses of a microscope. But these self-elected judges, like their prototypes, are very apt to have the persons they judge brought before them in the guise of culprits.-Friends in Council, p. 105.


1H2OTE, KTPIOE, their Usage and Sense in Holy Scripture. By Herman

Heinfetter, Author of "Rules for ascertaining the Sense conveyed in Ancient Greek Manuscripts," &c., &c. 12mo. Pp. 60. Cradock & Co. London, August, 1847.

The object of this tract is sufficiently explained in the title-page. It is simply to discover the usage and sense of the words Jesus and Lord in Scripture. The writer says, in his Introduction,

"The subject of the following pages relates to the connection of the Greek Article with Proper Names, a subject that has presented the greatest difficulty in prescribing the Sense conveyed by it, and the Rules that regulate its Expression and Omission; and the Names selected, in my opinion, present the greatest difficulty to whatever can be advanced relative to either of them.”—P. ii.

We have neither the time nor the inclination to enter into a minute discussion of the questions which this subject involves; and on the cursory perusal which we have been able to give to the little piece before us, we are not prepared to estimate the exact amount of new light which the author has been able to throw upon his subject. He says, towards the close of his Introduction (p. iv.),

“I thank God, I have no Party to fear or to support; my labor is for Truth, in the pursuit of which, in every Party, the fragrance of some of her flowers may refresh and delight.”

And in taking leave of his readers, he says

“That these inquiries may minister to the Glory of Almighty God, and the eternal advantage of all who read, as well as of him who writes, is the hearty, sincere, and earnest Prayer of a poor servant of a great Master, Jesus Christ." --P. 58.

We give our author credit for sincerity in making these declarations, and hail with pleasure every attempt, however humble, to throw light upon the language and idioms of Scripture. But our own remarks on the present occasion will be brief, and we shall confine them to that part of the subject which relates to the usage and sense of the word Kúpos in the New Testament.

It must have occurred to every attentive reader of the Scriptures, that there are passages in which we meet with the term “Lord,” without having any clue, except the context, by which to determine whether the subject is God or Jesus Christ. The author of the tract before us imagines that he has found such a clue. He says,

“ The form in the New Testament in which the word Lord is employed as a Distinctive Personal Appellation of the Almighty, is the same that is employed in the Old Testament; the Article is never expressed before the word; when the Appellation is not governed by a Verb, it is always Lord, or Lord the God; but when Lord is used in the New Testament as a Distinctive Personal Appellation of our Saviour, the article always precedes it; in every case it is the Lord.— P. 31.

Now, let us apply this canon to 1 Thess. iv., in which the word Lord occurs three times with and five times without the article, as follows:

1. Ver. 1:“We exhort you by [the] Lord Jesus.” 2. 2:"Ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus." 3 6: “ The Lord is the avenger of all such.” 4 - 15: “ This we say unto you by the word of [the] Lord.” 5.

We, which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord.” 6. 16: “ The Lord himself shall descend from heaven." 7. 17: “To meet the Lord in the air." 8. “And so shall we ever be with [the] Lord.”

It will be seen that in the first, fourth and eighth of the above examples, the article is placed between brackets, to indicate that it is not found in the original. Why it is omitted in these three instances, and inserted in the remaining five, critics and commentators have hitherto given themselves little trouble to inquire. But this is precisely the point which the author of the tract now under review endeavours to ascertain ; and the conclusion at which he arrives, as regards this and all similar passages in the New Testament, is, that the appellation Lord, without the article prefixed, is used as the distinctive personal appellation of Almighty God.

“For such as are not disposed to examine all the passages produced,” says Mr. Heinfetter (p. 32), “I have selected the following for their consideration, which are not singular instances, but common forms of expression, and request them to explain satisfactorily the occasion of the Omission of the Article in the passages that refer to Almighty God, and of its Expression in those that refer to Jesus Christ. " Passages referring to Almighty God. " Passages referring to Jesus Christ. Mark xxii. 37, Lord the God. Luke xxiv. 3, The Lord Jesus. 1 Thess. iv. 15, Word of Lord. Acts viii. 25, Word of the Lord. Luke xiii. 35, In name of Lord.

x. 48, In the name of the Lord. Acts ii. 20, Day of Lord.

1 Cor. v. 5, Day of the Lord Jesus. 2 Cor, iii. 16, Turn to Lord.

Acts xi. 21, Turn to the Lord. Mark xxvii. 10, Lord appointed. Luke x. 1, The Lord appointed. 2 Cor. viii. 21, Before Lord.

2 Tim. ii. 14, Before the Lord. Joshua iii, 7, Lord said.

Acts ix. 45, The Lord said. Exod. iv. 10, Said to Lord.

Luke xix. 8, Said to the Lord. 1 Thess iv. 17, With Lord.

2 Cor. v. 8, With the Lord. Lev. i. 11, Angel of Lord.

2 Thess. i. 8, The Gospel of the Lord." Whether these passages are rightly classed under their respective heads or not, it will be conceded, we presume, by all, that the general usage of the writers of the New Testament is to omit the article before Kúpos, when that word is employed to denote Almighty God; and to prefix it to the same word when it is employed to designate Jesus Christ. But that such is not the invariable usage, is manifest, as we contend, from a comparison of the first with the second verse of 1 Thess. iv.; in the former of which the article is omitted, while in the latter it is inserted, before the word Lord. This difficulty, indeed, Mr. Heinfetter proposes to remove by translating the former, “We exhort you by the Lord of Jesus.” But of the propriety of this rendering let the critical reader judge. It would enable us, it is true, to set aside the argument deduced by Trinitarians from Acts vii. 59, in favour of prayer to Christ, by rendering the first part of the invocation, “Lord of Jesus," instead of "Lord Jesus,” as was proposed, if we recollect rightly, by one of the continental Unitarians of the seventeenth century; but whether any thing would be gained by the attempt to subvert the orthodox interpretation, on this new principle, is a matter of some doubt. We, at least, must see some better authority than that adduced by our author, before we can admit the validity of his canon.

According to Mr. Heinfetter, " the expression of the article before Kúpsos, when regarded in connection with the sense of the context, determines the appellation to have reference to Jesus Christ,” in the clause, “the Lord is the avenger of all such” (1 Thess. iv. 6, p. 38, col. i.); but if the reader will cast his eye upon verses 7 and 8, which are connected with ver. 6 by the particle ráp, we think he will hesitate before he gives his assent to the proposed interpretation, and will regard Almighty God, and not Jesus Christ, as the subject of the above clause.

In the fourth of the above examples (1 Thess iv. 15), “This we say unto you by the word of [the] Lord,” the article is not expressed before Kuplov, as the brackets indicate; and this circumstance, according to Mr. Heinfetter (p. 35, cf. p. 39, col. ii.), ranks it with those "passages in which the government

connected with, and the omission of the article before Kupios, determines the application to have a reference to Almighty God.” But what is there in the government which determines the application, in the present case, to be such as Mr. H. supposes ? Some weight, indeed, may be thought to attach to the omission of the article, which, as was remarked above, is common when the reference is to Almighty God. Yet it will admit of doubt whether Paul does not here intend to base what he says upon the authority of some well-known declaration of Jesus, transmitted to him through an oral or written channel, which justified him, as he conceived, in putting forth the statement that follows, and the reason assigned for it in the 16th verse: “ For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” The germ of the apostle's idea may be seen in Matt. xxiv. 30, 31: " And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” But as regards the words εν λόγω Κυρίου, the simple fact is, that when adyos governs Kupíou, if the former has the article, the latter generally takes it too, whether the reference is to Almighty God or to Jesus Christ. Now, here there is no article before abyą, and consequently none before Kupiov. A similar construction of abyos, or psue, with Ecū, occurs in 1 Thess. ii. 13; Luke iii. 2; Rom. x. 17; Eph. vi. 17; Heb. vi. 5, xi. 3. But where the article precedes a dyos, or pñuce, it commonly precedes Kupiou, or €0, as Acts viii, 25, xii. 48, 49, xv. 35, 36, xix. 10, 20; 1 Thess. i. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 1. The rule holds good generally, not only in the New Testament, but in classical Greek, that where the principal noun has the article, the subordinate one must have it also ; and where the principal noun has it not, the subordinate one does not require it. Exceptions are rare, but they do occur. See Acts xi. 16; 1 Pet. i. 25, where, in the received text, the article precedes põua, but not Kupiou. In the former passage, Jesus Christ is undoubtedly meant, and Griesbach has inserted the article toữ; but in the latter, Almighty God is meant, and the article has not yet been found in any Greek manuscript. Moses Stuart appositely observes, in some remarks on this very rule of Greek construction, "there is scarcely a single rule in regard to the use of the article that does not admit of exceptions, many or most of which seem to depend more on the design of the writer than on the absolute nature of the things concerned."*

In the fifth, sixth and seventh of the above passages (occurring in 1 Thess. iv. 15, 16 and 17, respectively), it is admitted that the reference is to Jesus Christ. This is evident, indeed, from the connection, as well as the use of the article. But, according to Mr. Heinfetter, the word “ 1," governed by the preposition "with," at the end of verse 17, refers to Almighty God (p. 32, col. i.), because it is without the article. This is certainly in conformity with the general usage of the New-Testament writers. But every rule, it is said, has its exception; and the remark, as we have just seen, applies with peculiar force to the use of the Greek article. The present we cannot help regarding as a case in point: for it would indeed be something extraordinary if the apostle, after saying, “ The Lord HIMSELF shall descend from heaven with a shout," and, "we which are alive shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air,” should immediately add, without the slightest intimation of a change of subject," and so shall we ever be with the Lord,and yet not mean the same, but some other Lord.

We have thus tested the treatise under consideration by a single chapter in the writings of the apostle Paul; and without adding another word, we leave

* Hints respecting the Greek Article. Edinb. Bibl. Cabinet, Vol. X., Appendix, p. 61.

the candid reader to judge how far Mr. Heinfetter has contributed or failed to elucidate the apostle's meaning by his well-intended and truly praiseworthy labours.

Pause and Retrospect ; or, a Minister's Aims reviewed ; being the last Dis

course preached in Paradise-Street Chapel, Liverpool. By James Martineau. With an Address on the occasion of laying the Foundation-stone of the New Church in Hope Street. 8vo. Pp. 24. London—Chapman.

This very striking sermon was preached by Mr. Martineau on Sunday morning, July 16th, on taking leave of his congregation, previously to a year's absence, for the purposes of needful rest and foreign travel. During his absence the new chapel now erecting in Hope Street will be completed, and it is expected will be ready to be opened on his return. To a mind richly gifted and rapidly progressive like Mr. Martineau's, the retrospect of sixteen years of laborious and brilliant ministerial duty necessarily presents many deeply interesting and some painful reflections. In this discourse he gives utterance to some of them, which he rightly believed would be gratifying or instructive to his hearers. After a singularly impressive exordium, he proceeds to describe “the characteristic aims and spirit” of his ministry under four beads. 1. It has been his aim to substitute the Religion of Consciousness for the Religion of Custom; 2. to elicit the moral beauty, the inherent sublimity and the natural authority of Christianity; 3. to find some soul of goodness in things evil; 4. to teach the infinite nature of Duty. Mr. Martineau has through the press familiarized many besides those who are his accustomed hearers with the characteristics of his preaching, and all will probably admit that the above is a correct summary of the doctrines contained in his best discourses. That in this review of his aims he dwells chiefly on the positive, and only incidentally and by implication introduces the negative portion of his pulpit instruction, we would fain regard as an indication that he chiefly values in it that in which he agrees heartily and unreservedly with the great mass of Christian men.

We find ourselves in agreement with very much that this discourse expresses—with nearly all that is expressed with that lucid clearness which is Mr. Martineau's occasional and best style_his natural style, we should say, when expressing that which he has patiently worked out and disencumbered from the crowd of images with which it would seem his busy Fancy in the mental process surrounds every object of thought. Most singular is the contrast which we occasionally find in the same page--nay, in the very same paragraph in this sermon, between the realized and the imperfect thought. The one is bright as meridian sunshine; the other hazy and indistinct as the morning vapour. The one stands out to the eye as clear and expressive as a piece of statuary; the other resembles one of Turner's later and wildest landscapes, in which lake and earth and air are mingled in indescribable yet beautiful confusion. We admit there is beauty in the least perfect of Mr. Martineau's passages, but it is a beauty that charms the senses rather than speaks to the intellect. As an illustration of what we mean, we will quote a passage taken from the third head of the sermon, putting the less perfectly developed thoughts into italics.

“ Another favourite task with me has been to find some soul of goodness in things eril,' not indeed in things morally evil, which it is quite beyond our province to palliate and indulge, but in things intellectually wrong,-in those forms of opinion and worship which shock and repel us, and constitute in our view the errors and superstitions of Christendom. There are times, indeed, when it becomes a plain duty of sincerity, a simple expression of manly confidence in truth, to say why these doctrines offend us, and why we cannot listen to the invitation to exchange the simplicity of our living faith for the perplexities of Greek, or African, or Mediæval creeds. Nor have we been unmindful of this obligation, when imposed upon us by the aggression of Proselytism. But, I think, we draw from

« VorigeDoorgaan »