Зображення сторінки

Divinity of Christ, which are the subject of the rule, were constantly used by Greek writers, from the first century to the latest period of the Greek language, in the sense required by the rule; and that that was the uniform doctrine of all the ancient churches.'(P. 500, 501.)

The learned prelate proceeds to vindicate Mr. Sharp's rule against some minor objections which have been made to it. The chief objections, our readers are aware,

were long ago answered in a variety of quarters; particularly by Dr. Wordsworth, Dr. Middleton (now Bishop of Calcutta), and by the Bishop of St. David's, in his “ Evidence of the Divinity of Christ, from the literal Interpretation of Scripture.” His Lordship, in the chapter before us, has given an elegant summary of Mr. Sharp's rule, divested of that awkward, and sometimes almost unintelligible diction, in which the author was accustomed to convey his ideas. Mr. Sharp's rule ought, however, to have been given by Mr. Hoare, at length, in his own words, in the course of the volume; indeed, it ought almost to have been engraven on his tomb, as a memorial of the aid rendered by him to the cause of sacred literature. The Bishop of St. David's gives it in substance, as follows: “ When two personal nouns, of the same case, are connected by the copulative xai, if the former has the definitive article, and the latter has not, they both belong to the same person.” By the phrase, “personal nouns,” his Lordship intends to convey what Mr. Sharp explains, in a circumlocutory parenthesis, in the original rule, as follows : “ Nouns, either substantive or adjective, or participles, of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill.” Mr. Sharp adds, in the original two subordinate specifications, not noticed in his Lordship’s abridgment: this is, “ Except the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number, in which cases there are many excepțions." We merely mention this in passing, lest any reader, who happens to meet with the work before us, and is unacquainted with Mr. Sharp's original rule, should be led into an error, or fancy he has discovered an exception not provided for. The learned prelate merely intended to remind the reader of Mr. Sharp's rule, the subsiance of which he has neatly condensed.

This rule our readers are aware was important, not merely m a philological point of view, but as applying to a variety of passages in the New Testament, which speak of the Divine nature of our Saviour. The Bishop of St. David's, in the chapter before

us, gives the five following passages as examples: 2 Pet. i. 11, 2 Thess. i. 12, 2 Pet. i. 1, Tit. ii. 13, Jude iv.; in all which the application of the rule proves that the Kupies and the Θεος spoken of, is the same person as the Σωτηρος, the Xρσιτος, &c. The passages referre, to by his Lordship, are among the prin



cipal texts of importance; but if the reader wish to refer to a few other examples, which show positively or negatively the force of the rule, we could recommend him to consult 2 Cor. xi. 31, 2 Pet. ii. 20, Eph. v. 5, 1 Tim. v. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 1, John xiii. 13, Matt. xviii. 17, Eph. v. 20.; from among many which might easily be collected." For the sake of the English reader, we subjoin a passage or two translated according to Mr. Sharp's rule. Î'hus, 2 Thess. i. 12, would be rendered “ according to the grace of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord,” instead of the current version, our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, 1 Tim. v. 21: “I charge thee before Jesus Christ, the God and Lord;" instead of “before God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” So also Titus ii. 13: “ Jesus Christ, the great God and our Saviour ;” 2 Pet. i. 1 : “ Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour;" Jude iv.: “ Our only master, God and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Mr. Sharp's rule, as remarked in the above extract from the Bishop of St. David's, was abundantly confirmed by Dr. Wordsworth. It was certainly a just and reasonable supposition, that if Mr. Sharp's rule was correct, the ancient inter- . pretations of any particular passage coming under it by the Greek fathers, would tend to confirm it. Dr. Wordsworth, therefore, undertook to ascertain in what sense the Greek fathers understood the principal texts in dispute. The success of the experiment was even greater than could have been expected ; and what added no trifling confirmation to Mr. Sharp's hypothesis, was, that Dr. Wordsworth discovered at what time, and among what writers, the interpretation of these passages began first to be ambiguous. Every scholar has felt, in translating from Greek into Latin, the frequent uncertainty of the latter, for want of a definite article corresponding to that in the former; and this often where there is no ambiguity whatever in the original. Now few of the Latin fathers were versed in the minute peculiarities of the Greek language; they quoted habitually from their own Latin translations, and gave the sense which appeared most natural to the Latin reader. The translation might not be incorrect; but for want of the article it would often admit of a meaning, either definite, or indefinite; and this ambiguity has been retained in some measure in modern versions. Dr. Wordsworth's quotations were numerous, and highly satisfactory. He showed that from the time of the Apostles, till Greek ceased to be a living language, words arranged according to Mr. Sharp's rule never bore any other meaning than that

which that rule goes to assign to them. By the establishment of this rule, Socinianism and its cognate heresies have lost one of their principal refuges ; and several convincing passages have been justly

[ocr errors]

ranged on the side of the Trinitarian faith, which had been often before considered as too equivocal in their grammatical structure to allow of their being adduced as decisive arguments.

The Bishop of St. David's remarks, in the passage already quoted, that Mr. Sharp's rule was “rot unknown to scholars before his time.” The earliest trace of it which we remember to have read of, or met with, is in Beza's commentary on one of the passages above referred to: Titus ii. 13. “ Quod autem ad alterum attinet, quum scriptum sit, επιφανειαν του μεγαλου Θεα και Σωτηρος ημών Ιησε Χρισε, non autem, τα μεγαλου Θεου και TOY Σωmpos, &c. dico non magis probabiliter ista posse ad duas distinctas personas referri, quam illam locutionem, O EOS xa. Ilatne Inoou Χριστου. . Nam id certe postulat Græci sermonis usus, cum unus tantum sit articulus, duobus istis nempe, Θεου και Σωτηρος, et Θεος xos llatne communis.” See Beza's Commentary in loco. This rule was not perfectly accurate, and it does not embrace the necessary exceptions. It was therefore little attended to till Mr. Sharp published his canon, and proved not only that the construction for which he contended might be correct, but also that it must be so, and could not be otherwise. The world is also greatly indebted to the Bishop of St. David's, for having originally advocated this theory, and introduced it to the notice of biblical critics.

We thought it advisable to make these few cursory remarks for the sake of those readers who might stand in need of them in order to connect the narrative, or to estimate more fully the utility of Mr. Sharp's biblical labours. We could wish in a second edition of the memoir before us, to see a summary account of the whole controversy, which is referred to as a thing well known in the chapter by the Bishop of St. David's, who kindly undertook to assist Mr. Hoare in this part of his task; but ought to have been related more at length by the biographer, as an important feature of Mr. Sharp's life. It is remarkable that, neither in the lengthened inscription on Mr. Sharp's monument in Westminster Abbey, nor on his tomb at Fulham, is any mention made of him as a scholar, an author, or a biblical critic.

The space which we have imperceptibly covered with this topic precludes inore than a passing reference to the second point, namely, Mr. Sharp's rules and discoveries in Hebrew literature, and particularly his ingenious solution of that philological phenomenon, the vau conversive. Bishop Horsley thought so highly of the rules laid down by Mr. Sharp on this subject, that he was desirous of translating them into Latin, for the use of the public schouls; and had nearly finished his version, when death put an end to his labours. He, however, did what the

present Bishop of St. David's justly pronounces still more valuable; he suggested a rule in place of one of Mr. Sharp's, which Mr. Sharp adopted with a trifling variation, and ordered, in case of his death, to be inserted in any future edition of his work. The Bishop's rule was, that “ Perfect tenses with the prefixed vau are always converted to future ones, except at the beginning of a sentence.” The exception appeared to Mr. Sharp to be so well established by numerous examples, that he laid it down as proved that “ Perfect tenses with prefixed vaus are not converted at the beginning of a sentence."

Mr. Sharp possibly embraced this rule with the more eagerness, because, to use his own words, it "enfranchises the students of Hebrew in future from the arbitrary shackles of that most perplexing and unreasonable system of vowel points, by which our Hebrew Bibles are most shamefully dotted, as if they were blurred and defiled by flies!Mr. Sharp, it seems, was a friend to liberty even in literature; and was scarcely less zealous for mankind to be “ enfranchised” from Masoretic “ shackles," than from heavier bondage. Many eminent biblical scholars have, however, borne them, and probably will continue to do so, with a very good grace. In another edition, Mr. Hoare will, perhaps, find room to transcribe Mr. Sharp's rules, which occupy only a few lines, and ought to be engrafted into his Memoir. The Hebrew reader is aware of their substance, namely, that , prefixed to future tenses, converts them into perfect; and prefixed to perfect, converts them into future, except in four specified cases.

We have only to say further, with reference to the authorship of the Memoir before us, that Mr. Hoare has collected a vast body of facts and documents, which cannot fail of proving interesting and valuable to the public. The profits of the work, and we trust they may be large, are to be devoted to the funds of the African Institution. In another edition, Mr. Hoare may arrange his matter, in many places, with more perspicuity, and shorten occasionally the reflexions upon the events which he records. Most people, we fear, pass over what they are apt to call the prosing part of a large work of interesting narrative. Men like to sermonize for themselves; and the chief art of an author should be to lay his trap unseen for this purpose. We trust the work may meet with as many purchasers as the value of its matter justly deserves, and that the numerous excellencies of Mr. Sharp's character may induce them to “go and do likewise."



The River Duddon, a Series of Sonnets: Vaudracour and Julia, and other Poems: to which is annexed a topographical De scription of the Country of the Lakes in the North of England. By William Wordsworth. 8vo. pp. 321. Longman and Co.

London, 1820. OF Sir John Denham, Johnson says, in commenting on his Cooper's Hill, “ he seems to have been, at least among us, the author of a species of composition that may be denominated local poetry, of which the fundamental subject is some particular landscape, to be poetically described, with the addition of such embellishments as may be supplied by historical retrospection or incidental meditation." By author, we presume Dr. Johnson to have intended the introducer or inventor, and in this character we cannot but consider the mind of his country as under great obligations to his genius. The mere natural imagery of landscape, the display of colour and magnificence, "the pomp of groves and garniture of fields," have been consecrated in poetry from its earliest essays, and its earliest essays are almost coeval with nature itself; but those local interests and affections by which history, or memory, or moral similitudes, endear and animate particular scenes, imparting to them a sort of mute intelligence and tacit discourse, have given a decided superiority to the descriptive poetry of very recent days. Many unnoticed, many accidental, and many untraceable circumstances, have concurred to generate this intermixture of living pathos with the description of inanimate existences; but it seems obvious to ascribe it in part to the multiplied associations, attenuated feelings, and cherished illusions, into which life has spread itself with a sort of luxuriance in the progress of refinement, and partly to the higher principles and more mental enjoyment with which of late years the theory of landscape and ornamental scenery has been cultivated and ennobled. In the place of the fairies and divinities, and the cold mythology of the Naiads and the Dryads, our fountains and our groves are rendered interesting or sacred by affinities, recollections, and resemblances, which make them a part of the moral of life, and connect them with the finest properties and feelings of the mind.

If we are to date the introduction of what Dr. Johnson has called local poetry' from the time of Sir John Denham, we can consent to allow little more to that poet, and his age, than

« НазадПродовжити »