« PredošláPokračovať »
the root. This view of the subject is defended by the author not only as most natural and rational in itself, but as affording the most satisfactory explanation of unusual forms and etymological anomalies. In order to establish and explain this theory, it was necessary to exhibit the actual correspondence between the various forms of nouns and verbs, which the author has done at great length and with great minuteness of detail. To this elaborate exposition of his views, which occupies a very large proportion of his work, and gives it, in fact, its distinctive character, we can do no more than refer the reader. The same may be said of the syntax, which is copiously treated, and enriched from the author's stores of oriental learning, but admits neither of extracts nor analysis. The subject of the accents has less prominence in this than in most modern grammars. Their value and importance to a certain extent is acknowledged, and the essential rules respecting them laid down, but the author expresses his belief, that any great attention to the subject is unnecessary. With respect to the study of the Arabic and cognate dialects, the opinion of so eminent an orientalist as Lee deserves attention" That he who is best acquainted with these dialects is by far the most likely person to be a successful commentator on the Hebrew scriptures.”
A grammar of the Hebrew language, by Moses Stuart, Associate Professor of sacred literature in the theological Institution at Andover. Third edition. Andover, Flagg and Gould. Codman Press, 1828. pp. viii. and 240, 8vo.
Andreae Theophili Hoffmanni, Philos et Theol. D. in Jenensi Litterarum Universitate Theol. Prof. P. O. Grammaticae Syriacae Libri III. pp. 418. 4to. Halle, 1827.
This work, as we are informed in the preface, was undertaken at the instance of Gesenius, some years since, by one
of his pupils, now a Professor in the University of Jena. Its completion has been delayed by want of health, change of situation, and official duties. During the whole period, however, which has elapsed since he first conceived the design, the author has been diligently employed in collecting materials and extending his acquaintance with the language.
He professes to have adopted and pursued the plan of Gesenius in his Hebrew grammar, and proceeds upon the principle of Michaelis and others, that compendious grammary retard, instead of facilitating, the progress of the student. He has accordingly made his work a very copious one, not only giving the rules in minute detail, but illustrating the whole by quotations and examples. The alterations and improvements in his mode of treating the subject, to which the author calls the attention of the reader, though numerous, are too minute to admit of specification here. Prefixed to the Grammar are above seventy pages of Prolegomena, divided into six sections. 1, On the Aramean language. 2, On the Syriac language. 3, On the history of Syria. 4, On the history of the Syriac language. 5, On the cultivation of the language in modern times, including a review of grammars and lexicons. 6, On the Syriac character and writing, illastrated by three tables. Each section is accompanied with copious notes of reference and illustration, indicating extensive and diligent research.
A manual Hebrew and English Lexicon including the Biblical Chaldee. Designed particularly for beginners. By Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M. Prof. of Sacred Lit. in the theological school in Yale College. pp. 210. 8vo. Andover, 1828.
BEFORE I proceed to examine in detail the particular tenets of conflicting sects, it may be well to take a preliminary view of some general arguments, which have been urged in opposition to the Deity of Christ, though not in support of any definite hypothesis. These are of two sorts, philosophical and scriptural—both of which have been the means of misleading many candid, acute, and so far as we can judge, sincere inquirers after truth, in relation to this subject.
1. Those of the first class may, for the most part, be reduced to this one objection, that the doctrine of the Deity of Christ involves an evident contradiction, or, to say the least, is utterly incomprehensible. And it must be confessed, that some ground has been given for this cavil by the manner in which personality and consubstantiality have been defined by, many orthodox divines. But surely, it is most unfair to charge upon a church the imperfections or absurdities of individual theologians. That the doctrine of our church upon this subject, as set forth in her
confessions, involves no such contradiction, has been shown already. Indeed, the whole doctrine may be reduced to an abstract proposition in this form. The relation existing between A and B is such, that with respect to C, they are identical ; but, with respect to X, distinct. Now, that this proposition, considered in the abstract, is in perfect harmony with the principle of identity, on which the objectors found their argument, and may be applied to the Divine nature without doing violence to the principle,* that there exists in God something not comprehended in the number of his attributes revealed to us, (i. e. in his ousia, properly so called)—appears to me so plain, that I would venture, a priori, to affirm the impossibility of pointing out the slightest inconsistency in the assertion.
It may be said, that we proceed upon the supposition of an inconceivable relation, which supposition is absurd, as it must be either a mere quibble or an unintelligible fiction: And we freely admit, that neither the connexion, nor the difference, between the persons in the Godhead can be conceived of, positively ; in other words, they can be known, neither by intuition nor analogy. But we deny, that it fol. lows from these premises, that our doctrine of the relation between Father and Son, resting, as it does, upon such high authority, is irrational and absurd. To set down as false or impossible whatever we can form no definite conception of,t is as if a man born blind should denounce, as impossible or false, the description of a painting, merely because he could
* No one can suppose, that our reasoning is at variance with the principle Quae sunt eadem uni tertio eadem inter se sunt, who understands the meaning of this axiom ; unless, indeed, he has wholly misconceived the doctrine wbich we advocate, and confounded things esseptially distinct. It bas never been pretended, that the Father and the Son are identical in all points, or in precisely the same sense in which they are said to differ. See Remarques sur le livre d'un Antitrinitaire Anglois—Works of Leibnitz, Vol. I.
† See Ulrich's Instilut. Log. el Metaphys. p. 302, &c.
form no image in his own mind of the object. To deny the possibility of any relations except those which exist among external objects, or such as may be inferred from them, evinces but a slight acquaintance with philosophy, and a lamentable ignorance or want of recollection, with respect to the limits of the human understanding. The truth is, that from the partial knowledge which we have, even of things subject to the cognizance of our internal and external senses, we have no right to conclude that the only relations of which they are susceptible are such as exist between external objects.* How then can it be thought surprizing that there should be some relations beyond our comprehension, in the nature of the Deity; a nature so immeasurably far removed from all created things, that even of those attributes
* For example, who can demonstrate the propriety of that division, by which all things (as well phenomena as things ovows OUTC) are classed either as substances or accidents? See Ulrich's Instit. p. 341, and Heilmann's Comp. Theol. Dog mat. 2nd ed. p. 98.
Those who adopt Kant's doctrine in relation to the categories, are of all others, the last who should take offence at our position, that the relation between the Father and the Anyos is one wbich does not exist in the exterior world. Nor indeed, can those who maintain the empirical origio of the categories, or at least believe that they are to be classed among the ONTWS OVTA, in any way demonstrate, that there is not some species of relation within the comprehension of superior in telligences, of which, in our present state, we can form no definite conception.
« Il faut avouer," says Leibnitz, “qu'il n'y a aucun exemple dans la bature, qui réponde asgez à cette notion des personnes divines. Mais il n'est point nécessaire qu'on en puisse trouver et il suffit, que ce qu'on en vient de dire, n'implique aucune contradiction ni absurdité. La substance divine a sans doute, des privileges, qui passent toutes les aútres substances. Cependant, comme nous ne connoissons pas assez toute la nature, nous ne pouvons pas assurer non plus, qu'il n'y a, et qu'il n'y peut avoir aucune substance absolue qui en contienne plusieurs respectives." (Remarques sur le livre d'un Antitrinilaire Anglois, Leibnitz' works, Dutens ed. Vol. I. p. 26.)