« PreviousContinue »
prove the words used indiscriminately in the New Testament, are full enough to persuade the Reader that they are not so used. His first instance is, 1 Pet. iv. 13. Rejoice [xxiple] inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that when his glory shall be re"vealed [xαpñte dɣarrowμevos] ye may be glad with exceeding joy. See you not here (says he) the direct reverse of what you say; that xalçw signifies the joy "which arises upon prospect, and dyandoua that which
arises from possession?" [Consid. p. 143.] No indeed; I see nothing like it. The followers of Christ are bid to rejoice, xxígele. For what? For being partakers of Christ's sufferings. And was not this a blessing in possession? But it seems our Doctor has but small conception how suffering for a good conscience can be a blessing. Yet at other times he must have thought highly of it, when, in excess of charity, he bespoke the Magistrate's application of it on his Neighbours, under the name of WHOLESOME SEVERITIES. He is just as wide of truth when he tells us, that ayanλidoμas signifies the joy which arises on possession. They are bid to rejoice now in sufferings, that they might be glad with exceeding joy at Christ's second coming. And is this the being glad for a good in possession? Is it not for a good in prospect ? The reward they were then going to receive. For I suppose the appearance of Christ's glory will precede the reward of his followers. So that the Reader now secs, he has himself fairly proved for me, the truth of my observation, That in the exact use of the words, dyandoua signifies that tumultuous pleasure which the certain expectation of an approaching blessing occasions; and xalpw that calm and settled Joy that arises from our knowledge, in the possession of it.
He goes on. "Rev. xix: 7. Let us be glad and rejoice [χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιώμεθα] for the marriage of the "Lamb is come. Where both words (says he) refer to blessings in possession. Again, Matt. v. 12. Rejoice
"and be exceeding glad [xaípels n ayanniãode] for great is
great is your reward in heaven; as if it had been,Rejoice for your great reward in heaven."
But now let us consider these texts in another view, in order to do justice to his delicacy of judgment. I had said that, in the exact use of the two Greek words, they signify so and so; and applied that observation to a FACT; where a person was said to have rejoiced, &c. In order to disprove this criticism, he brings three passages, in which those Greek words are used, where NO FACT is related; but where men are, in a rhetorical manner, called upon, and bid to rejoice, &c. In which latter case, the use of one word for another, is an elegant conversion. Those, in possession of a blessing, are bid to rejoice with that exceeding joy, which men generally have in the certain expectation of one approaching; and those in expectation, with that calm and settled joy, which attends full possession. And who but our Examiner could not see, that the use of words is one thing, in an historical assertion; and quite another, in a rhetorical invocation?
Having thus ably acquitted himself in one criticism, he falls upon another. "What shall we do with "?"— What indeed! But no sooner said than done. • "Iy∞ "(says he) is often put for re or r, positive as you are, "that it always refers to a future time." [Consid. p. 144.] Now, so far from being positive of this, I am positive of the contrary, that there is not one word of truth in all he says. I observed indeed, that a dn, in the text, refers only to a future time, And this I say still, though our Translators have rendered it, equivocally, to see. Yet he affirms, that I say, "[standing alone] always refers to a future time." That I am positive of it, nay very positive, "positive as you are," says he. And to shame. me of this evil habit, he proceeds to shew,
texts, that va is often put for TE or T. "Thus John
judged of you. And nearer to the point yet, 3 John 4. "I have no greater joy [va dxw] than THAT I hear, or, "than To hear that my children walk in the truth. "And why not here, Sir; Abraham rejoiced [va idn] "WHEN he saw, or THAT he saw, or (which is equiva"lent) TO SEE my Day." [Consid. p. 144.] For all this kindness, the best acknowledgement I can make, is to return him back his own criticism; only the Greek words put into Latin. The Vulgate has rendered vaid by ut videret, which words I will suppose the Translator to say (as without doubt he would) refer only to a future time. On which, I will be very learned and critical:-" Positive as you are, Sir, that ut always refers "to a future time, I will shew you that it is sometimes put for postquam, the past.
"Ut vidi, ut perii, ut me malus abstulit Error! "and sometimes (which is yet nearer to the point) for quanto-Ut quisque optimè Græcè sciret, ita esse nequissimum. And why not here, Sir, Abraham rejoiced [ut videret] WHEN HE saw, or THAT he saw, or which " is equivalent, TO SEE my day?"--And now he says, there is but one difficulty that stands in his way. And what is this, I pray you? Why, that according to his (Dr. Stebbing's) interpretation, "the latter part of the sen
tence is a repetition of the former. Abraham rejoiced "to see my day, and he saw it and was glad; i. e. "Abraham rejoiced to see, and then saw and rejoiced.
But such kind of repetitions are frequent in the sacred, "Dialect; and, in my humble opinion, it has an ele-, gance here. Abraham rejoiced to see, nai, de, nai EICE, καὶ xap. HE BOTH SAW AND WAS GLAD." [Consid: pp. 144, 145.] Before he talked of repetitions in the sacred Dialect, and pronounced upon their qualities, he should have known how to distinguish between a pleonasm and a tautology; the first of which, indeed, is often an elegance; the latter, always a blemish in expression: and in the number of the latter, is this elegant repetition of
the Doctor's own making. Where a repetition of the same thing is given in different words, it is called a pleonasm; when in the same words (as in the Doctor's translation of the text in question) it is a tautology, which, being without reason, has neither grace nor elegance. Nay the very pretence it has to common sense arises from our being able to understand the equivocal phrase, to see, in my meaning, of, that he might see. Confine it to the Doctor's, of—Abraham rejoiced when he had seen my day; and he saw it and was glad, and the absurdity becomes apparent. For the latter part of the sentence beginning with the conjunction completive xal, it implies a further predication. Yet in his translation there is none; though he makes an effort towards it, in dropping the sense of xal in the sound of BOTH.
P: 32. [P]. Dr. Stebbing tells me, "there is not one "word, in the history of the Old Testament, to justify "this threefold distinction:" and that I myself CONFESS as much. It is true, I confess that what is not in the Old Testament is not to be found there. And had he been as modest, he would have been content to find a future state in the New Testament only. But where is it, I would ask, that "I confess there is not one word, "in the history of the Old Testament, to justify this "three-fold distinction?" I was so far from any such thought, that I gave a large epitome * of Abraham's whole history, to shew that it justified this three-fold distinction, in every part of it. His manner of proving my confession will clearly detect the fraud and falsehood of his charge. For, instead of doing it from my own words, he would argue me into it, from his own inferences. "You confess it (says he); FOR you say, that "Moses's history begins with the second period, and "that the first was wisely omitted by the historian." Let us apply this reasoning to a parallel case. I will supFrom pp. 10 to 14, of this volume.