who employed it; in other words, it must be Arbitrarily Selected, whether in the passage in which the Article occurs, the Article is employed as a Definite or an Indefinite Article.

Thus, Arbitrary Selection is to presume to determine in Luke xi. 13, that the wishes of Almighty God in relation to the Article were or were not in accordance with these words, If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give a holy spirit, that is, a spirit freed from guilt to them that ask him." And thus, Arbitrary Selection is to presume to determine in John vii. 39, that the wishes of Almighty God in relation to the Article were or were not in accordance with these words, "But this spake he of the spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for a holy spirit, that is, a spirit freed from guilt having been given was not yet existing; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." In like manner Rom. i. 7, "Grace to you and peace from God our father and Jesus Christ's Lord." In like manner Rom. x. 13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved.".

My brother, do not condemn such Arbitrary Selection as presumption, unless you acknowlege the Greek Article to be the Definite Article, as otherwise you yourself fully presume to make the Arbitrary Selection which you condemn.

Observe, in every case it is, Baptized with a spirit holy, that is, with a spirit freed from guilt; and yet Acts xiii. 2 it unquestionably is, "And the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." And Acts vii. 51, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

When marks to indicate the wishes of an Author are clearly set forth, it may be possible to determine, other than by Arbitrary Selection, the cases in which the Article is employed as an Indefinite Article; but until such marks are set forth, it can in no case be determined, other than by Arbitrary Selection, that the Article is employed as an Indefinite Article; and hence it follows, that in all places in which the Article is treated as an Indefinite Article, and these places are most numerous, and most important, that which is set forth is Absolute error.

Greek Substantive Verbs.

The Existing doctrine of Greek Substantive Verbs is a most wonderful display "of much ado about nothing;" seeing that an Author is under no necessity to observe it, as is evident from Matt. xxviii. 20, "And, lo, I as well as you exist all the days," and Heb. viii. 10, “And I will exist to them as a God, and they shall exist to me as a people;" also in innumerable other places; and seeing, that the observance or non-observance of it is not considered to have any particular effect upon the Sense.

Let him who demurs to this statement, obtain for himself, for his own conviction, an example of an acknowledged effect upon the Sense obtained by an observance of the doctrine of Substantive Verbs, which could not be obtained had there been no Substantive Verbs, or let him assent to the proposition, That here is a Rule of Grammar, that is to be observed or neglected at the Arbitrary Selection of every Author, because whichever course he pursues, the Sense is not known to be effected thereby.

I am far from contending, that an observance of the doctrine of Substantive Verbs should have no effect upon the Sense; but I do contend, that the doctrine as set forth and employed by Modern Theologians, is an extensive Cause that is unproductive of the smallest Effect. Is it probable that there can be such a Rule of Grammar?

Who that reads with due attention to the Sense, Matt. xi. 29, "I am meek," and

John x. 7, "I am the door," does not feel, that the Verb in each of these cases conveys a different Sense, corresponding to, I exist meek, I represent the door; and that the Sense conveyed by the first is the Literal Sense of the words employed, and that by the second is other than their Literal Sense; and that the first is not subject to the doctrine of Substantive Verbs, but that the second is subject to that doctrine.

The words of the inscription on the cross of our Blessed Lord recorded Matt. xxvii. 37, are well suited to exhibit the various senses conveyed in passages connected with the Auxiliary Verb. Had the words, "The king of the Jews," been governed by the Verb, the Sense conveyed would have been to this effect, This Jesus exists, that is, upholds, him that is the king of the Jews. Had the words, "The king of the Jews," been Nominatives arranged immediately before the Verb, the Sense conveyed would have been to this effect, This Jesus who is the king of the Jews exists, that is, has life or being, corresponding in Sense to Acts xxvii. 28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being." Had the words, "The king of the Jews," been Nominatives arranged before the Pronoun This, the Sense conveyed would have been to this effect, Jesus the king of the Jews this man exists; corresponding in Sense to John xix. 21, "A king of the Jews I exist."

These Three Classes of Sense embrace every description of Sense that is conveyed by Passages connected with the Auxiliary Verb; but in place of each of the Forms prescribed for their conveyance, there is a new and uniform Form substituted, wherever the Sense expressed is to be understood Metaphorically, or in any other than a Strictly Literal Sense. Thus we read for the first Form, Mark xii. 42, "Which make a farthing," Literally, Which a farthing is, that is, which is equivalent to a farthing. For the second Form, Luke xxiv. 39, "That I myself I am," the Strict Literal Sense is, That I myself I exist, that is, have life. And for the third Form, John x. 7, "The door I am," that is, I represent.

It

will be observed, that this New Form is that which accords with the doctrine of Substantive Verbs.

It therefore follows, that an observance of the doctrine of Substantive Verbs is designed to point out that the Sense intended to be conveyed is not Literally True; and hence we are able to perceive a reason, why what are called Substantive Verbs, sometimes are, and sometimes are not, subject to the requirements that that doctrine prescribes; inasmuch as the observance and non-observance of such requirements, is, in every case, dependent on an Invariable and Undeviating character of Sense; so that by the Form and Arrangement of the words used, it may be determined with unerring certainty, in every case, the especial Sense that the user of the words purposed to convey.

If Definite Rules are to be regarded, Matt. xxvi. 26 must be translated to this effect, "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and having blessed, he brake it, and having given to the disciples, he said, take this bread, eat this bread, this thing (viz., this taking and eating) exists to man my body, that is, my human existence;" in exact accordance with Matt. xxviii. 20, "I exist all the days." The words, My body, cannot be regarded as Nominatives, as the pronoun This being Neuter, cannot refer to the bread after consecration, as we learn by 1 Cor. xi. 26, that the change effected by consecration has no effect upon the Gender, the pronoun This is there Masculine; and if the pronoun This in Matt. xxvi. 26 must have reference to, the taking and eating, its antecedent cannot be, the body of Jesus, "this is my body;" it can only exist, that is, demonstrate to man his having had a body. If Definite Rules are to be regarded, John x. 30 must be translated to this effect, "I and the Father one (that is, the same) thing we exist." In like manner, John iv. 22," For the salvation of the Jews exists."

These, and innumerable other similar passages may now be otherwise translated, as now, each man selects for himself the Rendering that he will advocate; Definite Rules for regulating each case may be pointed out, but each man alone must choose for himself, what, in this world, he will set forth as the appropriate Rendering; yet let each man Note, that his choice is restricted to this world; in the world to come, Definite Rules and not Individual Choice, will be the only permitted defence of Truth.

'Inσov.

Few realize the fact, that in assenting to the Greek Genitive Form of the Appellation Jesus being regarded as an expression of its Dative and Vocative Forms, there are these objections.

1st, That there is no Greek Noun that has a particular Form for any Case, that ever

employs any other Form for the expression of that Case; and yet in Josh. i. 1, "And the Lord spake unto Jesus, that is, unto Joshua the son of Nun," a Dative Form of the Appellation Jesus is employed, viz. 'Iŋσo.

2nd, That there is no passage in Holy Scripture, in which the Greek Genitive Form of the Appellation Jesus is required to be translated as a Dative, or Vocative, or other than a Genitive.

3rd, That there is no passage in Holy Scripture, in which by the requirements of the Sense, it is requisite for the Dative, or the Vocative Case of the Appellation Jesus to have been expressed in the Greek Original; every passage in which the Genitive Form of that Appellation is employed, admitting of its being Translated as a Genitive.

If these things be so, there is no Rule, unless Arbitrary Selection be designated such, to authorize the Greek Genitive Form of the Appellation Jesus being translated otherwise than as a Genitive; if Definite Rules are to be observed, numerous passages in Holy Scripture must be translated as treating of the Dispensation of Jesus, and not as they are now Rendered, of Jesus in person; and the dying exclamation of St. Stephen can only be, Acts vii. 59, "O Lord of Jesus receive my spirit."

Conclusion.

Here I will finish. Not that I forget the fallacy of the doctrine, Of Genitives, Datives, and Accusatives Absolute Of the disregard of the Position of Nominatives in the Arrangement of the words of a Sentence-In like manner, of Negatives-And in like manner, of the position of every word,—Or the fallacy of the doctrine, Of the absence of Punctuation in Ancient Greek.-Or the Errors in the Doctrine, Of Neuter Plurals being joined to Verbs Singular. I verily do not forget these errors, but I fear that by extending my List, I may so weary the reader as to impair by minutia the effect I desire to produce upon him. My design is to demonstrate, not the Quantity, but the Indubitable Existence of Intentionally committed Error, in every existing Version of Holy Scripture; -not to particularize the instances of occurrence, but to Awaken conviction, that Erroneous Practices are in every one of them not only persued, but are contended to be courses that are just.

My Brother, calmly reflect, that if you accept the Authorized English Version of Holy Scripture as the representative of the Text of Divine Revelation, you accept that, which in Thousands of places does not claim to represent that which is expressly stated in the Original Record of it, but only that which Man considers ought to have been stated there; and that, by accepting of which you admit, that you yourself cannot claim to possess,

A

even in the Original from which it is taken, distinctive Divine utterances, but only utterances which are dependent for Sense on that which each human estimate attaches to them.

What can be urged to shew ?

1st Why any Testimony of the First in Antiquity of the MSS. of Holy Scripture,

viz., The Vatican MS., is rejected as unworthy of credence?

2nd. Why a Translator is to consider himself better qualified than an Historian to determine, what Voice, Mood, Tense, Number, or Person of a Verb ought to have been expressed?

3rd. Why Definition is to be regarded as employed, only, when the User of it wishes to employ it?

4th. What is effected by an observance of the doctrine of Greek Substantive Verbs? and if nothing; then, why the observance of the doctrine is of incessant occurrence in Holy Scripture?

5th. Why, without any requirement of the Sense, the Greek Genitive Form of the Appellation Jesus, is, by Arbitrary Selection alone translated as a Dative or a Vocative?

Ponder well the answers to be given to these inquiries; for although their number is but Five, Five Thousand will not number the results of passages of Holy Scripture, the Sense of which is dependent on the character of the Answers that are returned to them; passages too (I wish it thoroughly to be understood) not of immaterial importance; but passages on which most of the vital doctrines of Christianity are dependent, and by which, all the doctrines of Christianity are materially affected.

We may with Bp. Pearson seek to avoid the difficulty which candid answers to the foregoing inquiries may entail, by contemptuous remarks, such as, that now a religious statement "must be tried by a kind of school divinity, and the most fundamental doctrine, maintained as such ever since the Apostles' times by the whole Catholic Church, must be examined, censured, and condemned by (the Article) ó, ǹ, rò.” (See Bp. Pearson's exposition of the Creed, Page 214, Edition 21). But contemptuous remarks are but poor exponents of Theological difficulties. The effect of the Article ỏ,, Tò may be treated with contempt without due reflection, but I do not hesitate to assert, that no one with due reflection can deny, that our knowledge of all the great doctrines of the Revealed will of God is dependent on our estimate of the Greek Article.

Surely it is far easier to determine a single position such as the character of the Article, than the Thousands of difficulties which must without such determination arise, and which are to each man wholly dependent on his own particular estimate of the Greek Article.