The British Critic: A New Review

ration; when the tone of his arguments upon this particular question is calculated to foster a spirit of scepticism in matters of higher importance. In this, and in many similar cases, where the prevailing opinion, even if it be erroneous, does no harm; a controversy, tending to establish another hypothesis, and possibly the true one, if it be conducted as we have described, may evidently be injurious to the cause of religion. We do not mean to tax our present author with any disingenuousness, or want of serious intention. But we certainly have to complain of the flippancy with which he occasionally discusses very serious questions, and of the contemptuous tone in which he speaks, if not of persons, yet of opinions, which we are accustomed to regard with approbation and respect. The labours of biblical critics surely merit a better name than "the trash composed on dots, articles, and particles;" P. 480. And we are wholly at a loss to perceive that the establishing of our author's hypothesis will have any tendency to diminish the quantity of such "trash;" for as long as the Greek Testament is allowed to be an authentic translation, the original of which is lost, the importance of articles and particles must remain just where it is. And with regard to various readings, it will still be of the same consequence to ascertain, whether, in the instance alluded to by Wetstein in the note, the true reading be OC or KC, since it would be in fact ascertaining whether in the original, the reading was DS or DNS, i. e. Deus or Dominus.

In many parts of his book, the author ridicules the stress which has been laid upon the use of the article in the New Testament; and because the old Socinians drew some arguments against the doctrine of our Saviour's divinity, from the insertion or omission of the article in certain texts; whereas the later Socinians have been combated by orthodox divines upon the same ground, our author maintains that therefore the whole doctrine of the Greek article is nugatory and contemptible; and says that it is " ludicrous, or perhaps melancholy, that Bishop Pearson, conscious as he was of its weakness, should employ the article to prop up the argument that Almighty God is the Father of Jesus in a different manner from that in which he is our Father." This is miserable sophistry. Divines have believed that most, if not all of the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek. Now that the article has some meaning in Greek no one pretends to deny. If so it must have some effect upon the sense, where it is inserted or omitted; whether

that effect be important or not, depends upon the nature of the passages themselves. It is certain that zoλλoi äveρwzos. means many men," but oi noλλoi äveρwo" most men:" the former would be rendered in Latin "multi homines," the latter" plerique." Consequently the article cannot be of no importance in Scripture criticism, whether the books of the New Testament be in the original tongue, or translations from it. It savours of ignorance as well as petulance, to ridicule indiscriminately arguments drawn from the peculiar idioms of a language. Our author remarks in a note Nay, the question of our Lord's divinity has sometimes. been supposed almost to depend upon a dot." P. 420. Thus, because one particular text may or may not bear upon the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, according to the different modes of reading it; the doctrine itself is said "to have been supposed almost to depend upon a dot." Is this a candid insinuation? is this the language of a sincere and modest inquirer after truth? is it the language of one, who thought no more of the distinctions of Arian, Socinian, or Arminian, during the composition of the present work, than of those of Aristotélian, Stoic, and Academic; nor has it been in the slightest degree, his object either to confute or to confirm what are deemed the orthodox opinions?" Pref. p. xi. He must then be either very ignorant of his own intentions, or of the tendency of his own arguments. He says, it is true, p. 464. "Let the designs of the writer be as good or as bad as possible, or the imaginary consequences be what they may, the question is not whether the author be designing, but whether his book is uncritical."

This we deny. In the first place, it is a gratuitous assumption, to say that the consequences are imaginary; and, if the consequences be bad, and might have been expected to be bad, the author cannot be justified. A book concerning religion may be very critical, and yet very mischievous. Would any thinking person commend the diligence of him, who should collect into one view all the harsh and forced expressions, the abrupt transitions, and inelegant sentences of St. Paul, by way of exciting disgust in the mind of the theological student? The mischief which has been done by such a disingenuous mode of proceeding, with regard to certain parts of the Old Testament, is perfectly well known to our author. Truth, we repeat it, may be pursued by one who scatters firebrands in the way. An author

*Why the poor Arminian is drawn in to complete this trio, rather than the Calvinist, or any other Trinitarian, we do not understand.

may delineate the astronomical phenomena of a given year with perfect accuracy; and yet, in the course of his descriptions he may throw out insinuations against the existence of a Supreme Creator. In short, it depends upon the manner in which truth is investigated, whether the investigation shall do more good or harm. Upon the whole we are not disposed to find much fault with the present work in this respect. We think it not difficult to discover the leaning of the author's mind upon some important points of doctrine; but in general he has kept it in the back ground. We shall now proceed to state our reasons for dissenting from most of his opinions upon the points which he has discussed.

His first attempt is to prove, that a knowledge of the Greek language was not so prevalent in the age of the Apostles as is usually supposed. The vernacular tongue of our Lord and his disciples, it is pretty generally agreed, was Aramæan, a Syriac, or more properly, a Syrochaldaic dialect. The primitive church consisted wholly of Jews, and some time elapsed, before the Gentiles were received into its communion; yet, all the records of Christianity which we consider to be authentic, are written in the Greek tongue. This is, undoubtedly, a striking phenomenon. A very obvious reason suggests itself, why those writings, which were intended for the use of the Gentile churches, should not have been written in the language of Palestine, which is, that the language of Palestine was confined to a single nation; and, that although many Jews understood Greek, few, if any Gentiles understood either the Hebrew or Aramæan. One would naturally expect, that if a religion was about to be established at that era of the world, which was to be communicated first to the Jews, and afterwards to the Gentiles; certain documents, intended for the instruction of the Jews, would be written in the mother tongue of that people, and that others, designed for the Christian world at large, would be indited in the language used by that people to whose keeping they were to be in the first instance committed. Whether this language should be Greek or Latin, would depend upon the actual circumstances, both of the writer, and of the persons to and for whom he wrote. When the new religion should be once firmly estab. lished, and authentic memorials in the possession of one or more communities, copies of these would be multiplied, and translations made into other languages, as the necessities of the Christian world should demand. Now, according to the received notions on this subject, we have a state of facts, agreeing very well with this supposition: first, there was a

that effect be important or not, depends upon the nature of the passages themselves. It is certain that πολλοὶ ἄνθρωποι means many men," but oi пoλλoi äveρwo" most men:" the former would be rendered in Latin" multi homines," the

latter " plerique." Consequently the article cannot be of no importance in Scripture criticism, whether the books of the New Testament be in the original tongue, or translations from it. It savours of ignorance as well as petulance, to ridicule indiscriminately arguments drawn from the peculiar idioms of a language. Our author remarks in a note "Nay, the question of our Lord's divinity has sometimes been supposed almost to depend upon a dot." P. 420. Thus, because one particular text may or may not bear upon the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, according to the different modes of reading it; the doctrine itself is said "to have been supposed almost to depend upon a dot." Is this a candid insinuation? is this the language of a sincere and modest inquirer after truth? is it the language of one, who "thought no more of the distinctions of Arian, Socinian, or Arminian*, during the composition of the present work, than of those of Aristotélian, Stoic, and Academic; nor has it been in the slightest degree, his object either to confute or to confirm what are deemed the orthodox opinions?" Pref. p. xi. He must then be either very ignorant of his own intentions, or of the tendency of his own arguments. He says, it is true, p. 464. "Let the designs of the writer be. as good or as bad as possible, or the imaginary consequences be what they may, the question is not whether the author be designing, but whether his book is uncritical."

This we deny. In the first place, it is a gratuitous assumption, to say that the consequences are imaginary; and, if the consequences be bad, and might have been expected to be bad, the author cannot be justified. A book concerning religion may be very critical, and yet very mischievous. Would any thinking person commend the diligence of him, who should collect into one view all the harsh and forced expressions, the abrupt transitions, and inelegant sentences of St. Paul, by way of exciting disgust in the mind of the theological student? The mischief which has. been done by such a disingenuous mode of proceeding, with regard to certain parts of the Old Testament, is perfectly well known to our author. Truth, we repeat it, may be pursued by one who scatters firebrands in the way. An author

Why the poor Arminian is drawn in to complete this trio, rather than the Calvinist, or any other Trinitarian, we do not understand.

His first attempt is to prove, that a knowledge of the Greek language was not so prevalent in the age of the Apostles as is usually supposed. The vernacular tongue of our Lord and his disciples, it is pretty generally agreed, was Aramæan, a Syriac, or more properly, a Syrochaldaic dialect. The primitive church consisted wholly of Jews, and some time elapsed, before the Gentiles were received into its communion; yet, all the records of Christianity which we consider to be authentic, are written in the Greek tongue. This is, undoubtedly, a striking phenomenon. A very obvious reason suggests itself, why those writings, which were intended for the use of the Gentile churches, should not have been written in the language of Palestine, which is, that the language of Palestine was confined to a single nation; and, that although many Jews understood Greek, few, if any Gentiles understood either the Hebrew or Aramaan. One would naturally expect, that if a religion was about to be established at that era of the world, which was to be communicated first to the Jews, and afterwards to the Gentiles; certain documents, intended for the instruction of the Jews, would be written in the mother tongue of that people, and that others, designed for the Christian world at large, would be indited in the language used by that people to whose keeping they were to be in the first instance committed. Whether this language should be Greek or Latin, would depend upon the actual circumstances, both of the writer, and of the persons to and for whom he wrote. When the new religion should be once firmly estab. lished, and authentic memorials in the possession of one or more communities, copies of these would be multiplied, and translations made into other languages, as the necessities of the Christian world should demand. Now, according to the received notions on this subject, we have a state of facts, agreeing very well with this supposition: first, there was a

« Previous Continue »

Books

The British Critic: A New Review, Volume 20