But Stuart justly objects to the translation of ávaσravpów by crucify afresh, that it is not conformable to common Greek usage. "There are verbs," to quote the language of Tittmann, "in which the preposition is to be referred to the very idea or thing expressed by the verb itself; more especially in verbs formed from a substantive or adjective; and in these, too, it would be a great mistake to say, that the preposition had no force at all. The verb avaσravpovv is an example, which some interpreters have absurdly rendered, to fix again to the cross; while others, with equal incorrectness, have affirmed that the preposition ȧvà is without any force. There is, indeed, no emphasis attached to the preposition; but yet it does, as it were, point to the thing or object contained in the verb itself, and thus cause it to be more vividly expressed; it points out to the σravpós, and indicates the very act by which any one is affixed to the cross; just as also avaσкoλomíčew, to impale, is employed. Although, therefore, it may be conceded, that the same general idea might be expressed by the simple verb oravpour, yet it would be less definite and lively; and the preposition is therefore not redundant, but indicates the relation between the action and the object of the action. In compound verbs of this sort, therefore, the preposition may be said to render the signification of the simple verbs more simple and definite, and vivid."* I prefer, therefore, to render dvaσravpovvras, since they crucify, in conformity with common Greek usage, and the view of Schleusner, Rosenmüller, Tittmann, Stuart, Robinson, and others. The pronoun éavroîs has been taken in various ways. Some regard it as pleonastic, which cannot be admitted. Others says, it is a dativus incommodi; they crucify to their own hurt. So Matthew xxiii. 31, paprupeîte éavroîs, ye bear witness against yourselves. Macknight thinks that it signifies in their own mind. This is the apud se of Rosenmüller and others. But in this sense, it would have been probably preceded by the proposition ; as it is in James ii. 4. Some, again, take it in the sense of quantum in se est, or, as far as they are concerned. So Junius, Capellus, and others, with whom Mr. Stuart seems to agree. But it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find a similar use of the dative, either in the Jewish-Greek of the New Testament, or in pure classical Greek. We find karà or is πpòs followed by an accusative, sometimes employed by Greek writers in this sense, but never, I believe, the simple dative. On the whole, I am disposed to regard it as a dativus incommodi; they crucify to their own injury or shame. Kai napadecypariÇovras. This requires little explanation. They expose him to public infamy, when, in associating with his enemies, the Jews, they consider him to have met with the treatment he deserved. * See Tittmann on the force of the Greek prepositions in compound verbs, as employed in the New Testament, translated from the Latin by Dr. Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for 1833. pp. 62, 63. By their return to Judaism, they approve of the punishment he suffered. They declare their belief that he was an impostor; and that he was justly condemned to death for the false declaration of his Messiahship. Had they lived at the time in which he was slain, or witnessed the closing scene of his life, they would have joined in the cry raised by an infatuated people, "Crucify him, crucify him." Thus, by joining themselves to the inveterate enemies of Christianity, they incurred the guilt of those concerned in his actual crucifixion. By their approval of the conduct of the Jews towards him they show, that they themselves would have joined with his persecutors in putting him to death. They are said to do, what they approve; as Grotius well remarks. By endeavouring to heap disgrace on his name and cause, they consent to all the contumely which the Lord of life and glory endured. They sympathise with the murderous deed of his actual executioners. The last two participles, ἀνασταυροῦντας and παραδειγματίζοντας, express a casual relation rather than one of time. This is well remarked by Paræus, on ἀνασταυροῦντας ; "accusativus hic, sicut et sequens, causaliter resolvi debet." Hence the kaì is omitted before the former. A PRESBYTER'S SECOND LETTER ON THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE. SIR,-As the correctness of the practice of addressing the Lord Jesus in prayer is conceded by your correspondent, "Another Presbyter," I am relieved from the necessity of approving my view by citation and authority. I, therefore, send you only an observation or two upon what I cannot but conceive some misconceptions in his communication. And to reverse his order 1. I will not presume with him that "few" of the readers of the Congregational Magazine will admire certain portions of the Litany of the Church of England, quoted in my paper. An interesting article in your March number on Hymnology forbids the belief. If the style of address there adopted be Scriptural, that is enough—and if it have the effect of kindling devotion, the design of prayer is gained. Your readers, however, will not fail to observe, that what I have quoted was an illustration of a single point, and did by no means pledge me to an approval of every several phrase. But the liking or disliking what your correspondent has reflected upon is so much matter of taste, idiosyncrasy, and it may be education, that I shall not dwell upon it longer. 2. If I deserve to be called an inconsistent Nonconformist for what I have written about the pastorate, I must take up my cross in this matter until my views are enlightened. You will readily believe me when I add I should like a kind and patient teacher. I cannot shield myself from your friend's rebuke under the charitable supposition that what I wrote was a lapsus either of pen or judgment. Be it right or wrong, it was, and is my deliberate opinion. How loosely soever the sentence may have been framed, the meaning, I conceive, was obvious, namely, that a deviation from the usual practice (supposing Christ to be frequently invoked in prayer by orthodox ministers) would be justly followed in any specified person by a scrutiny into his sentimentsand if those were ascertained to be inimical to the Deity of Christ, that deposition should ensue. In this, I do not seek to abridge the liberty of Christian ministers, or to unsettle their tenure of office. I simply considered the language of the lip an index to the sentiment of the heart, and that if the shrinking of the pastor from appealing to Christ as God, really sprang from doubts about his proper divinity, it would be for the advantage of the flock and himself that their connexion should be dissolved. 3. By conceding that the Lord Jesus ought to be worshipped frequently as the more sober and rational interpretation of my word “habitually”—your correspondent comes nearly up to my view. By habitually, I could not and did not mean perpetually and exclusively. To establish this fact, I have but to refer to the quotation, John iii. 16, and the words with which I introduce it. By habitually, I mean that we should make a habit or practice of calling upon Christ in prayer, instead of the prevailing habit or practice of not doing so. ble that the experience of most of your readers will correspond with that of A. E. P., Mr. Williams, of Kidderminster, and myself, namely, that the direct worship of Christ is extremely rare indeed in our public devotions. Is this right? If not, is the only alternative, "this is wrong?" It is possi Are there positive precepts and frequent examples of the immediate worship of the Lord Christ in Scripture? Does it rank in this respect above the authority for the observance of the Lord's day? Is the very partial observance of the one and the very general observance of the other consistent? Pardon me, Sir, if I say this is a grave question, which should invite the attention of the masters in our Israel. 4. I adopt fully the quotation from the Rev. Dr. J. P. Smith's invaluable volumes, the Scripture Testimony to the Messiah; but while I do so, and will not contend with your correspondent about words upon a subject which no human vocables can define—a subject on which words only "darken counsel"-a subject on which, like the olden philosopher, the longer I dwell the more I am perplexed to form distinct conceptions-I will affirm that my phrase, however much exception may be taken against it, is susceptible of grave defence. It is but in other words, "THE DIVINE BEING, under the most absolute and generic mode of consideration." It is in fact but the converse of "THAT which is the CONCRETE of all Divine attributives." I have not my own paper by me at this moment, and, therefore, cannot say positively; but I will say, subject to correction, that your correspondent has misapprehended me, when he has asserted me to have applied this term to the Father. If I can trust my recollection, I applied it to the Divine nature in its most abstract and essential existence. 5. May I ask through you, with reference to the expression on page 252, "though we must not worship the humanity of our Lord, we may adore him as divine, for the sufferings which he endured as man," whether we worship the Mediator or the Son of God when we call upon the Lord Jesus in prayer? whether we worship the whole Christ, or are bound to distinguish Christ the God from Christ the man in our homage? and again those passages in Holy Writ which prescribe the observance of this distinction. 6. And, lastly, let me observe, that the skill requisite for duly apportioning to God the Father and God the Son, respectively, the petitions we may desire to present would soon be acquired by practice. In fact, your correspondent has himself obviated the objection he has raised upon this point and the difficulty of transition from object to object throughout a public prayer. The "seeming difficulty" "will vanish in Christian practice." It will be understood, Sir, throughout, that this is not a question of quantities more or less, nor of times or seasons more or less prescribed, but simply to ascertain is it right to address direct prayer to Christ— that the point, being fairly discussed and clearly ascertained, there may be no hesitation on the part of a good man in giving way to his feelings when they tend in that direction—and that he may not feel mortified and pained by the reflection, should he have been carried away into the indulgence, that he has done what is barely permitted in Scripture-while it is rarely sanctioned by the observance of his brethren in the ministry. Forgive me, dear Sir, the length of this letter-I only intended to write a few lines when I began-but the importance of the subject might well excuse even a longer communication. As the subject is now fairly opened, I may retire from the scene, and give place to the abler hands to whom I commit it. "Another Presbyter," I am persuaded, does me only justice when he expresses himself as not quite sure that there is "any material difference" between my sentiments and those of Christians generally. I am satisfied that there is not-but at the same time I must say that there is a striking difference in the point animadverted on between the worship of the Congregational and some other bodies of Christians. If we think alike, how is it so? I beg to thank A. E. P. for his interesting paper, although I am not prepared to adopt without reserve his closing paragragh. I am, dear Sir, with cordial respect and esteem, yours, THE VISION OF THE DISCIPLES. III.* "Behold there talked with him two men, which spoke of his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." WHAT heard they in the shadowy night, Peter, and James, and John? Where, throned in state at God's right hand, they of his bliss partake; Fit themes were these for communing, but one all themes transcend, For then was nigh the soldier's spear, the traitor's heartless kiss, A bloody cross on Calvary, the tomb for his relief: Christ's passion-scene his saints rehearse, they seek to learn of him, And well might perfect spirits burn, that mystery to read, And for a chosen seed prepare, a promised wealthy place. He died! an offered sacrifice, the altar was his cross, Himself the Priest, his blood the price, our gain bought by his loss! He died! to man's dull grovelling sense, ignobly and forlorn, As though his meet inheritance were suffering and scorn! 'Twas but a vulgar tragedy, the Roman came to see, A Jew-the Cæsar's enemy, expire upon the tree. And taunting gifts to him were brought, the wormwood and the gall, Now show thou hast in heaven a friend, now prove thy boasted power!" * Parts I. and II. are inserted at pages 254-256 of the present volume. |
