Page images


6 thet MIGHTY, upon which the argument depends, is applied “ in more than a hundred passages of the Old Testament to “ mere human beings. (See Taylor's Concord.. V. GEBER.)"

To these two remarks, one remark shall suffice in reply; and it is one in which, as in some others, I have been anticipated by Mr. Brown:-“ We have only to say, in reply, that “ the force of the argument' does not lie in the word GEBER 66 simply, but in the compound epithet GEBER AL, “the mighty “ God. Even Mr. Yates would be ashamed to say he had “ proved that the latter of these words is not in the text. If he 6 could have brought forward a passage of Scripture, in which “ the compound appellation was given to a mere human being, 6 it would indeed have answered his purpose.” Strictures, p 59.-To this it may be added, that, in certain connexions and associations, the inferior word may have all the force of the superior. Thus, Jehovah is, on different occasions, called by Isaiah, the MIGHTY ONE of Israel. The word generally used on these occasions, is one, which, like GEBER, is frequently applied to creatures. Yet, in such connexions, it has all the force of the higher word Al-mighty. Although, however, Jesus Christ were denominated the mighty One of Israel," as, in the text under discussion, he is called “s the mighty God," we might, upon the same principle on which Mr. Yates's remarks on this text proceed, be met with a reference to 6 Taylor's “ Concordance, v. ABER," and a statement of the number of times in which the word is applied to “ mere human beings,” or to brute animals. · 3. It is worse than trifling to conjure up all the difficulties and conjectures that have ever been started about a text, unless these are such as really to affect our own convictions relative to its correctness or to its meaning. Mr. Yates represents this text as produced by the ignorant with the most trium

“phant and unreflecting confidence;" and then he brings forward, without being so “ presumptuousas to attempt to settle any of them, his list of difficulties and conjectures:- Whe66 ther Al be a genuine part of the Hebrew text;"-does Mr. Yates himself doubt this?" Whether, supposing it genuine, “ it should not be translated a “ RULER,' since this is a very “ common acceptation of the term;"_but where are the instances of al signifying a ruler? and especially, where is the instance of the phrase AL GEBER for 6 a mighty Ruler?”-does Mr. Yates himself doubt, after comparing it with Isa. X. 21. whether “ mighty God be the correct and legitimate translation? -" Whether the titles contained in the verse were not intend« ed to describe, at least according to their primary significa • tion, the character of Hezekiah, or some other distinguish“ed person, born at the time when the prophecy was ut“ tered;"—does Mr. Yates himself think this possible--after comparing, as he surely must have done, Isa. vii. 14. with Matth. i. 23. Isa. ix. 1, 2. with Matth. iv. 1416. and Isa. ix. 7. with Luke i. 32, 33?-Will he indeed adopt this Jewish way of solving difficulties respecting the prophetic descriptions of the Christ?--It is not at all wonderful, that every method should have been taken to bring doubt and uncertainty on such a passage; a passage which contains, in the minds not merely of “ the ignorant and unreflecting," so clear and decisive a proof of the Saviour's supreme Godhead;—which “ as66 serts, in the clearest and strongest manner of which lan"guage is capable, his real incarnation, his essential divinity,

and his mediatorial kingdom and glory.” Ewing's Essays, &c. Vol. II. p. 16.

JOHN i. 1. “ THE WORD WAS God."-On this passage I might simply request the reader to re-peruse my former observations upon it, and to ask himself, in candour, how many of them Mr. Yates hås fairly met. I cannot afford to be repeating the same things: it would both swell my reply beyond all proper bounds, and be an imposition besides on the possessors of my former volume. Let it therefore be remembered, that what is now said must be taken in connexion with what has been said; my present object being only to notice Mr. Yates's own criticisms, and his objections to mine. . 3. Mr. Yates introduces Origen and Eusebius, “ most * illustrious and learned men, who used the Greek lan“guage as their vernacular tongue,” as giving their judgment in favour of the inferior sense of 80s, on account of the absence of the definite article. He produces the following quotation in a note: * {dows de ragion ojos Tis m (scilicet ó Aoyos) ETIQUVOTTWV « εξης και λεγων “Και Θεος ην ο Λόγος'' δυναμενος γαρ ειπειν, “Και Ο Θεος ην ο « Λογος, μετα της του αρθρου προσθηκης, ει γε εν και ταυτον ήγειτο, τον πα« τερα ειναι και τον υιον, αυτον τε ειναι τον Λογον τον επι παντων Θεον.” &c. that is, “The Evangelist has clearly shown what is the nature “of the Word, by subjoining. And the Word was a God;' al6 though he might have said, “ And the Word was God,' with “ the addition of the article, if he had thought that the Father % and the Son were one and the same, and that the Word is " GOD OVER ALL.” Euseb. de Eccles. Theol. L. II. c. 17. & From the argument of the yenerable Father in this passage, 6 it is plain that he perceived no violation of the rules of syn" tax in the addition of the article; and upon a matter of this 6 kind it is impossible that he could be mistaken. The ob

1. Mr. Yates admits, that “ the rules of criticismlead to the translation of the last clause of the verse— the Word was a God.”—This is an admission of some consequence, because it confines the field of argument, fixing us down to one point, namely, whether the word God be here used in its proper or in its inferior sense.

2. Mr. Yates remarks— We are assured by abundant " and irrefragable proofs, both that the term God is used in 66 Scripture to signify - any person that is authorised, commis« sioned, and inspired to declare the will of Jehovah to man6 kind,' and also that our Lord Jesus Christ was such a per“ son. This explanation of the passage, therefore, is free from 66 every objection. On the contrary, we do not know that “ Jesus Christ was Jehovah, and consequently we are not jus“ tified in understanding the phrase as implying such a doc “ trine.” P. 175.—These “ abundant and irrefragable proofs? have before been considered; and we have seen the use made by our Lord of the appellation “godsbeing given to those 6 unto whom the word of God came,” in repelling from himself the charge of blasphemy.—To the last sentence of the preceding extract, I think it quite enough to reply, that we do know that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, from proofs certainly not less numerous and irrefragable” than those produced for the inferior sense of God; of which the chief, John X. 37. we. have seen to be a convincing evidence of the very doctrine which it is brought to refute.

[ocr errors]

servations of Origen, in his commentary on John, are preas cisely to the same purpose. They are too long to quote; but may be seen in De la Rue's edition, Vol. IV. pp. 50, 51.",

Taking for granted the correctness both of the quotation and the commentary, and without consulting the originals of Origen and Eusebius at all, I find enough in Mr. Yates' to confute his own reference.-One should have expected, that, having brought forward these “ most illustrious and learned

men” with all the pomp of courtly ceremony, pronouncing not: Imerely my opinion, but even Dr. Middleton's, and, by consequence, that of all the scholars who agree with him, to " be in opposition to them, not worth a rush;"-he would hardly have felt quite' at liberty to dissent from these high au

thorities himself, and to relinquish their decision for his own. Yet this, strange as it may seem, he has certainly done. In the quotation from Eusebius, as above transcribed from Mr. Yates's note, that writer says, that if the Evangelist had wished to express the sentiment which we allege he has expressed, he would have said “'O EOS 'HN 'O aorog." This, is the phrase, which, according to Eusebius, would have expressed our sentiment without ambiguity. Well: and does Mr. Yates acquiesce in his decision ? Quite the contrary. The sentiment the Word was a god,'” says he, “ could 66. not be expressed in any other way than that employed by the • Evangelist (Deos nu o Aoyos); whereas the sentiment the Word 56 was God,' might have been expressed without ambiguity by 6 the introduction of the article, (thus, ó noyos mó deos); and 5. this arrangement would have been indisputably correct and “ grammatical.” P. 177.--Eusebius's unambiguous expression, then, for the Word was God,” is “'O GEOX HN'O AOroz;" but Mr. Yates's is precisely the reverse, “'o noroz HN 'O OEO2." Now both of these cannot be right. Yet, in quoting the authority of Eusebius, Mr. Yates affirms it was “ impossible he could So be mistaken;" and when he gives his own way of it, he is equally confident, that it is 5 indisputably correct and grammatical." -In the cause “ Origen and Eusebius, versus Middleton and • Wardlaw," Judge Yates pronounces the following verdict: “ Mr. Wardlaw's assertions, and even Dr. Middleton's, are not 6 worth a rush:--the mere names of ORIGEN and EUSEBIUS 66 will be sufficient, in the ears of all who have the slightest tinc“ ture of theological learning, to drown at once the feeble dimi66 nutive accents of our worthy author.” P. 176. What, then, are we to say, when the cause comes to be “ Origen and Euse6 bius, versus Mr. Yates himself?” Must we pronounce the same verdict?- The truth is, if any further evidence were wanting to

« PreviousContinue »