Abbildungen der Seite



as, in the course of it, to fall into at least one important mistranslation, which makes absolute nonsense of a sentence !

But we must proceed to our specifications. In page 142 of Mr. Masson's translation occurs the following paragraph : “In regard to Titus ii. 13, επιφάνειαν της δόξης του μεγάλου θεού και σωτήρος ημών Ιησού Χριστού, the word σωτήρος does not appear to me a second predicate of θεού, as if Christ were first styled μέγας θεός, and then σώτηρ. My reasons for taking this view of the passage are grounded on Paul's teaching. The article is omitted before owtñpos, as the apposition precedes the proper name: of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.Now what Winer actually says (p. 118) is this: “I hold, on grounds which lie in the doctrinal teaching of Paul, that owtñpos is not a second predicate together with oeou, as if Christ were first called é péyas deos and then owtñp. The article is omitted before owtñpos, because this word is made definite by the genitive nuwv, and because the apposition comes before the proper name, &c.” Now by translating the German preposition neben of” instead of " together with," thus making Winer speak of a second predicate of deoû, Mr. Masson has, in the connection, made simple nonsense of the sentence. For the only ques-tion in the case is that which relates to the predicate or predicates of 'Ingoû Xplotoù; in other words, the only question in the case is, whether beow is, or is not, a predicate of 'inoon Xplotoû. Again, Mr. Masson, by expunging - whether by design or accident — the clause, “ because this word [owtñpos] is made definite by the genitive quôv," has taken away by far the most essential part of the sentence ; that is, by far the most important reason for the omission of the article before owtñpos. If this expurgation stood alone on this page, we should certainly attribute it to accident. But only a few lines below occurs in the German original this sentence: “So in Jude, verse fourth, two different subjects (namely, deonórnv and kúpov] may be referred to, since kúpios, being made definite by nuôv, does not need the article to express the meaning, “Jesus Christ, who is our Lord.'” This whole paragraph relating to the verse in Jude is omitted by Winer's translator, if we may not rather say expurgator.

Again, on the same page, Mr. Masson has omitted a note of Winer, nineteen lines in length. It relates to Titus ii. 13, and states in substance that, though owrñpos ñuñv might be considered a second predicate with Deoû in relation to Jesus Christ, if the sense demanded it, yet no grammatical principle requires it to be so regarded. On the contrary, he maintains in this note, that no usage of the Greek article lies in the way of our understanding our Lord Jesus Christ” as another subject or person, distinct from “the great God.” In this note he also expresses his conviction that the Apostle Paul could not, in consistency with his teaching in all his epistles, have called our Saviour Jesus Christ the great God. This whole note Mr. Masson has expunged, no notice being given of it.

Again, in page 142 of the original German occurs a passage which should be in page 170 of the translation. It relates to 1 John v. 20, and is as follows: “In 1 John v. 20, oŮtós éotiv å noivos Deós, [This VOL. LXVII. 5TH S. VOL. V. NO. III.




is the true God,] oŮtos [this] refers not to the immediate antecedent, Xplotós, as the older theologians, under the influence of dogmatic considerations, supposed, but to é Deós. For, in the first place, à nouvos deos

ånOıvòs [the true God) is the constant and exclusive epithet of the Father. in the second place, it is followed by a warning against idolatry; and ånOuvòs Deós is ever used in contradistinction from idols.” This whole passage relating to 1 John v. 20 is expunged from the translation by Mr. Masson, and that without notice. Here, too, the presumption and recklessness of the translator appear the greater, when we consider that Dr. Winer's view of this passage has been maintained by many eminent expositors, Trinitarian as well as Unitarian, among whom are Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Morus, Archbishop Newcome, Macknight, Davidson, Lücke, De Wette, Meyer, Neander, Düsterdieck, and Hofmann. If Mr. Masson had merely chosen to express in a note his dissent from the view of Dr. Winer, no one would have found fault. But the suppression of the passage, and that, too, without notice to the reader, merits the severest condemnation.

A Grammar of the diction of the New Testament, the production of a scholar who was regarded by Professor Stuart as “at the head of the severe and critical school of sacred philologists,” pronounced by Dr. Hodge of Princeton as a work of the highest authority," receiving similar praise from the most distinguished professors, clergymen, and reviews of all theological opinions, such as Stuart, Hodge, Turner, Gibbs, Ripley, Schmucker, the English Eclectic, the Biblical Repertory, the Methodist Quarterly, the Southern Presbyterian, and many others, — must be mutilated and expurgated, because the author, though no sectarian, living in a country where Trinitarians and Unitarians are not known as constituting distinct sects, has expressed his unbiassed conviction, founded solely on philological principles, first, that the Apostle Paul did not regard Jesus Christ as “the great God," and never called him so, and, secondly, that no usage of the Greek article, whether in the New Testament or classical literature, favors such a doctrine. This is a specimen of the obstacles with which Unitarians have constantly to contend in the propagation of their faith. The very grammars of the Greek language must be expurgated when they seem to favor the doctrinal views of Unitarians.

The facts we have brought to light are very significant. Unitarians have sometimes been accused of relying on abstract reason in their theological investigations, rather than on philology and grammar. But here the very prince of grammarians and sacred philologists has pronounced the doctrine of the Apostle Paul to be that of Unitarians, so far as to forbid us to regard or call Jesus Christ “the great God.” Here, too, the same distinguished grammarian and critic has unanswerably exposed the weakness of an argument for the Trinity which has been much relied on both in England and this country. May we not hope that it will soon be acknowledged that Unitarians have grammar and philology on their side, as well as reason and common sense?

One remark more. We hope the numerous orthodox divines who, in the publishers' advertisement, have bestowed such unbounded praise on Winer's Grammar, will use their influence to remove the stain which the work has received from the translator. Let the pages whose adulteration we have exposed be given in a future edition as they were written by the unrivalled New Testament grammarian and critic. Surely the cause of truth, which is the cause of the Almighty, cannot in the end be promoted by such practices 'as that which we have brought to light. It is proper to add, that only the first volume of the work has reached this country. If, in the preface to the second volume, the translator should give some notice of the expurgations which he has made, his own character would appear in a better light, though the thing itself would be equally censurable.

Since writing the preceding notice, two new Grammars of the New Testament idiom have come into our possession ; one by Professor Alexander Buttmann,* which is designed to be a supplement to the celebrated Greek Grammar of his father, Philip Buttmann, which has gone through more than twenty Germany and several in this country. So far as we can judge by a very cursory examination, the work is well executed, and a worthy appendix to the Classical Greek Grammar of the author's father. He does not expect that it will supersede the Grammar of Winer, on which he bestows the highest praise. It is about half the size of Winer's, and, so far as we are able to judge, illustrates and confirms the results arrived at by that distinguished New Testament critic. As to every principle and every passage of Scripture on which we have commented in the preceding notice, Buttmann fully supports the conclusions of Winer, as an excellent index has enabled us to ascertain at once.

The other New Testament Grammar † was published some years ago by a member of the Church of England, the author of a valuable work noticed in our number for November, 1858. This Grammar affords new evidence of the interest in Biblical learning which has been awakened in that Church within a few years. Works such as those of Jowett, Stanley, Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Ellicott, and Green confer honor and influence on any church from which they proceed. Mr. Green has, we think, made a valuable contribution to our means of studying the language of the New Testament, though for fulness and completeness it will not bear a comparison with that of Winer or Buttmann. In repudiating Middleton's doctrine of the Greek article, Mr. Green entirely agrees with Winer and Buttmann.


We had supposed that Rev. Henry Christmas had made the poorest book about “ Preachers and Preaching” that could be made, but the Rev. William Wilson, M. A., fairly surpasses him in this kind. His treatise on “ The Popular Preachers of the Ancient Church

* Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs. In Anschlusse an Ph. BUTTMANN's Griechische Grammatik. Von Alex. BUTTMANN, Professor. Berlin. 1859.

† A Grammar of the New Testament Dialect. By the Rev. THOMAS SHELDON GREEN, A.M., late Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. London. 1842.

"* is indorsed as a proper book for “Sunday reading.” It will certainly meet one Sabbath idea, and be an aid to sleep on the day of rest. The Fathers of the Church are sometimes heavy reading, as we have had occasion to know ; but their narcotic quality is tenfold more potent in Mr. Wilson's preparations. He has the faculty of selecting the weakest passages, and his biographical preface is thinner still, — water very slightly dashed with milk. The epithets of the title-page were discouraging. It was something new to hear the florid Gregory Nazianzen styled “the Genial Theologian," and the acute Augustine styled " the Homely Preacher;” but we read on, hoping to find some new views where the titles were so original. All in vain. Flat, unprofitable, and vulgar were the lucubrations of this Master of Arts. He does not understand one of the six Fathers whom he treats, is always weak, and frequently wrong, and the excuse for his errors, while it is the condemnation of the book, is that he has probably never read a page in the original Greek and Latin of the writers he describes. He only dilutes a few of the most accessible extracts.

We give a few specimens in justification of this harsh judgment. Of Cyprian's treatise on the “ Grace of God,” Mr. Wilson says that “ it smacks more of the class-room of belles-lettres than of the pulpit.” In another place he says, “ Deacons kicked against the authority of presbyters.” On p. 24 he calls the bishops who ordained Fortunatus “ ragamuffin bishops.” On p. 29 we are informed that, though Cyprian's intellectual and theological culture was somewhat scanty, his oratory must have been pleasing and powerful !” Full-blown" is the epithet used to describe Cyprian's views on the Church and the Roman bishop; who was moreover (p. 38) “ equipped with slender intellectual furniture.” Theodore Parker and others are said (p. 106) to hold that

your scoundrel and your saint are alike divine." We are accustomed,” it seems (p. 126), “ at this day to pooh-pooh the strifes of ecclesiastical councils in the past.” When Gregory Nazianzen came to Athens he was “pounced upon by the students,” who, “to try his mettle,” attempted " to bamboozle and browbeat him in argument." Gregory's works, we learn (p. 233), would have had incalculably more value for posterity if they had “smelt less of the oil and of the schools of human learning ;” and “ in laying the foundations,” it seems," he did a fair stroke of work." What he says of Gregory on p. 216 exactly describes his own work, 6 to draw from the treasures of ancient lore gaudy plumes with which to deck out bare and borrowed platitudes, were the great ends aimed at.”

These bricks are a specimen of the structure.

We should be glad, out of respect to the memory of one so recently called away, to speak well of Dr. Belcher's History of Hymns.* But it is impossible to praise a book so superficial, feeble, inadequate, incorrect, and bigoted. The only really good thing in it is the first extract of the Introduction, which gives Henry Ward Beecher's thought on the influence of sacred poetry. All the rest is best described as fragmentary platitude and blunder. The omissions are as extraordinary as the admissions, and the critical judgments are equally false and ludicrous. What are we to think of a writer, who, inserting among hymnists Mrs. Anderson, Dr. Baldwin, William Budden, Ingram Cobbin, Richard Furman, Eliel Davis, and some score of others of whom no one ever heard, omits all mention of such writers as Bulfinch, Frothingham, Mrs. Hemans, Henry Moore, Pierpont, Roscoe, Thomas and Walter Scott, E. H. Sears, Sprague, John and Emily Taylor, Sir Henry Wotton, and others of equal note? What shall be said of a scholar, who gravely informs us that Charlemagne is a lyric poet, and the author of the “ Veni Creator” of the Catholic Church, though some pages farther on, and borrowing from another authority, he makes Ambrose the author of that hymn ? Dr. Peabody of Portsmouth will be surprised to learn from this volume, not only that he is “ Professor in the Cambridge University," but that he is the author of the funeral hymn heretofore credited to the late Dr. Peabody of Springfield, and that he is also the author of other hymns. Mr. Longfellow will be edified to know, that, “like the rest of his Unitarian brethren, he is sadly lacking in the noble, generous, high spirit of evangelical truth.” Of Whittier we are told by Dr. Belcher, that “we have no expectation that any of the hymns he has written will be sung in the worshipping assemblies of coming generations. They want the glowing ardor and the evangelical unction which only can make hymns popular with the Christian masses. We should delight to see the honest Quaker possessing the piety of our old Friend, Joseph John Gurney; for then he might write hymns on Christ and his Cross, which might live till the death of time.” Henry Ware's hymns are “ lovely in their spirit, but seem to us defective as to the great doctrines of evangelical religion.” It was precisely the hymns of Henry Ware, on the contrary, that led many to claim him as orthodox. They did not believe that these could come from a cold Unitarian. On the other hand, Dr. Belcher is pleased to remark of Dr. Bowring, to whom he devotes just eight lines, that it would not be inferred from his hymn, “ In the Cross of Christ I glory," that he is a Unitarian. He patronizes and apostrophizes Francis Xavier, quoting John Angell James as saying that it would be “the dregs of bigotry not to admire his martyr zeal.” Mr. James has here furnished a phrase which describes very exactly the temper of Dr. Belcher's book. It is “the dregs of bigotry.” Even a good extract is made absurd when Dr. Belcher handles it.

* The Popular Preachers of the Ancient Church. Their Lives, their Manner, and their work. By the Rev. WILLIAM Wilson, M. A. London: James Hogg and Sons. 16mo. pp. 308.

Dr. Belcher divides his volume into three parts. First we have forty pages of “ Historical Sketches,” which tell us scarcely anything


* Historical Sketches of Hymns, their Writers and their Influence. By Joseph BELCHER, D. D. Philadelphia : Lindsay and Blakiston. 1859. 12mo.

pp. 415.

« ZurückWeiter »