Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

opinion 1 quoted Bishop Middleton's doctrine of the Greek article Part 1 Page 42 Note. - We are to refer the time of the participle to the time of the act &c. implied in the verb; for, past present and future cannot be meant otherwise than in respect of that act *" and I also cited John I. 48 OUTUL Eidov O I saw thee when thou wast,” literally " I saw thee being,” in which the present participle implies the past in correspondence with the verb Erdoy, or " I saw,” found in the same verse. I now also beg the attention of the Editor to the common usage of almost all the languages that have the use of a present participle, in which he will find the participles generally referring to the time of the verb related to it. In English, for example, in the following phrase (““ being ill, I could not call upon you”) the time of the present participle “ being" refers, I presume, to the verb “could not call” implying the past tense.

In the second place I quoted Leviticus Ch. VII. 23; XIV. 47, in which the present participle is accompanied with the definite article, oba

* The Editor has given in p. 607 a quotation from Bishop Middleton, with some remarks of his own, but I am pera fectly willing to leave it to the discerning reader to judge whether it corroborates my opinion or makes agaiust it.

serving that “ these present participles are referred to a time present with respect to the act of the verbs connected with them, but future with respect to the command of God;" that is, when the definite article is prefixed in Greek to a present participle, it has reference to the verb connected with it in an indefinite manner. So we find many instances in the New Testament similar to those quoted from Leviticus. In the third place I said : “ Moreover, we frequently find the present participle used in a past tense even without reference to the time of the verb: John XI. 25 Tupos wv apti Bacau being blind, now I see ; ” that is “ Having been blind, now I see.”

[ocr errors]

The Editor omitting to notice the second and third arguments adduced by me, makes remarks only on the first, saying, that “ were this criticism (“ being in heaven" instead of " is in heaven”) perfectly correct, it would not be of the least service to our author, as he being in heaven, is precisely the same as he who is in heaven." I positively object to the accuracy of this assertion of the Editor, for the verb " is,” generally affirms an act or a state at the time present when spoken; but the present participle wy, or “ being" even when preceded by the defi. nite article ó or“ the,” implies tirne indefinitely, though the article 8 is often rendered by a rela

tive pronoun "who" or " which” and the parti. ciple by a verb, for the sake of elegance in English composition. I beg to refer the Editor first to those texts quoted in my Second Appeal, Leviticus VII. 23 ó aporqapwvQUTW EOTH Ó Bpaxion DEELD " The offering (person,) for him shall be the right shoulder.". Although the participle “offering.” is found here in the present tense, yet it indisputably implies, that at any time in future in which the offering may be made, " the offerer shall be entitled to the right shoulder” Lev. XIV. 47 ó estwyth UVELTA ILUTIH AUTOVA • The eating (person) shall waslı his clothes.” The word “ eating" though found here in the present participle, preceded by the definite Greek article o signifies any part of the future in which the act of eating shall take place. The phrase " the eating (person”) is rendered in the English version, “ he that eateth,” con forinably to the idiom of the English language; but this change of construction does not produce any change in the real meaning conveyed by the original Greek. As this phrase "he that eats," bears no allusion to the support of the doctrine of the Trinity, no one will, I presume, scruple to interpret it in its original sense; that is, he who cats at any time fulure with respect to the commandment of God, shall wash his clothes,


. Secondly, I refer the Editor to the passages he quoted in p. 608 to save me the trouble of selecting them: John III. 4. “. How can a man be born when he is old,” literally “being old;" that is, at any point of time, no man being old can be born: v. 15 “ that no man believing on him should perish” that is, no one who may be induced to believe Jesus at any time even up to the last day should perish 18. « He not believing is condemned already;" that is, he who rejects me at any time is condemned already in the divine decree 20 “Every one doing evil hateth light” at any time whatsoever. 29 “ He having the bride is the bridegroom” at any period of time. 31-" He being of the earth is earthly” at any period of time : 'Again Ch. V. 3 « In these lay a great multitude of folk impotent” &c. In the original Greek the verb “to lie” is in the imperfect tense and consequently the participle may be thus rendered “ who were impotent up to that time.” 5.--" And a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty and eight years." In this verse the participle is not preceded by the article: This however sig. nifies that a certain man had an infirmity when he was present at the pool-not at the time when St. John narrated this circumstance. But with a view to expose my argument to ridicule, the Edi, tor puts his own words into my mouth, saying

(P. 608) “ In this Chapter v. 4 we have “how can a man be born when he is old' literally being old' on our author's plan having been old and now not being so;" and so on in all the above stated verses. But I wonder how he could mistake what I have advanced in my Second Appeal in explanation of a present participle preceded by the article o in the following words: “ The offering (person) for him shall be the right shoulder: -the eating (person): shall wash his clothes. These present participles are referred to a time present with respect to the act of the verbs connected with them, but future with respect to the command of God.” Now, my reader may judge whether I confined the meaning of a present participle to the past tense as the Editor, no doubt inadvertently, misrepresents my arguments.

Thirdly. I beg to refer the Editor to the translation of that verse by the celebrated Dr. Campbell. « For none ascendeth into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the son of man whose abode is heaven” in which the sense of the participle is referred to an indefinite time ; for, a person whose abode is in London, may have his temporary residence in Paris.

Fourthly. I beg also to refer to the explanation of the articles before a participle, given by Park

« AnteriorContinuar »