AR

ADDITIONAL NOTE,

OR

APPENDIX,

ΤΟ

THE REMARKS ON 1 TIM. iv. 1—3.

RESPECTING

THE PERIOD, OR POINT,

ERRONEOUSLY INSERTED AFTER THE WORD

THE

Ovior, at the end of the first verse, is inconsistent with the necessary grammatical construction of the context; because the three following Participles, Ψευδολόγων, κεκαυτηριασμένων, and Hoλvovlov, are all expressed, likewise, in the Genitive case plural, so as manifestly to be governed by the preceding

Sub

Substantive in the Genitive case plural, Sxivorior.

There are no other Agents mentioned in the context, except those that are included in the preceding description οἱ τινες της πίςεως, the " some persons

66

σε

of the Faith," whose future Apostacy from it was foreseen, and the manner of it, that it would be occasioned by their “giving heed" (лootεxovlec) “ Lo

66

66

seducing Spirits, and to doctrines OF

DEMONS," (4αovio, in the Genitive case plural); so that the grammatical form of the words which immediately follow. (viz. εν υποκρίσει Ψευδολογών,) would be absurd if a farther description of the delusive agency of Demons, and of their hardened and reprobate state of mind, (κεκαυτηριασμένων την ιδιαν συνειδησιν) and of their peculiar unnatural Doctrines (κωλυοντων γαμειν, &c.) "forbidding to Marry," &c., bad not been intended to be expressed by the three following Participles in the Genitive

case

cusé plural, but only the Agency and dark mental state of the first-mentioned τινες της πίςεως, whose apostacy from the faith was predicted, and the manner of it, “giving heed to seducing Spi"rils, &c. viz. AgosyoTec in the nominative case plural; whereby the other three Participles, now in the Genitive case plural, must, otherwise, have been necessarily expressed also in the Nominative case, so as to agree with Twas, the preceding pronoun; and not (as at present) in the genitive plural; which cannot refer to any other Agents mentioned in the context except to the Demons, i. e. to the Substantive plural Δαιμονίων, the only preceding word of that sentence in the Genitive case plural.

This will be more clearly illustrated by reviewing the commentary of the learned Jesuit, Cornelius a Lapide, upon this Text. He wished, indeed, to

inculcate

inculcate the opposite doctrine, that these plural Genitives had best be referred, not to the Demons, but to the word "quidam" (in Greek Twes,) though he is obliged to apologize for such a palpable error in grammatical construction by supposing a Hebraism in the Apostle's mode of expression, as not agreeing with the propriety of either the Latin or Greek Syntax.

For even he himself allows that it might,' more commodiously' (i. e. for the Popish Faith) and clearly, have been expressed in the Nominative case,→ "QUIDAM LOQUENTES mendacium, et "cauteriatam HABENTES conscientiam," rather than Quidam LOQUENTIUM mendacium, et cauteriatam HABENTIUM • conscientiam;'- "sed PER HEBRAIS"MUM" (says he) "maluit dicere in "GENITIVO, quia precessit GENITIVUS, “DÆMONIORUM, etiamsi ad eum propriè non pertineat: sic enim HEBRÆI

66

66 con

"concordant nomen vel verbum subindè

66

66

cum propinquiore nomine, non autem

cum eo quod propriè respicit, et cum

quo in LATINA et GRECA SYNTAXI "CONCORDARE DEBET."

But the examples of Hebraisms, which he has cited to justify this perversion of the Text, are not at all suitable, or similar, to the construction of this particular Text; so that the supposition of a Hebraism is a mere excuse without any foundation at all, and even in direct opposition to the necessary construction of the Greek Text, as well as of the Latin Vulgate.

66

The learned Jesuit, nevertheless, has produced ample evidence that the doctrines of "forbidding to Marry," and commanding to abstain from meats," &c. were really Doctrines of the "Simonians" (from Simon Magos, who communicated with Devils), "Gnos

"tics,