the second meaning of this particle-" 2, with, to, towards, Exod. i. 1, Deut. vii. 8," which the Editor also partially admits.

The fact is, this particle denotes an accusative case as well as other cases, and also stands for the English prepositions, " with," "for," " towards," &c., and, therefore, the verse in question, as it is found in our Hebrew copies of the Old Testament, should indisputably be thus read, in consistence with its con-. text, 31: "And they shall look towards me for (or on account of) him whom they have pierced," or "They shall look upon me with him whom they have pierced."*

The Editor quotes, to my great surprise, (in p. 546,) some verses in which the particle ns requires an accusative case, and, consequently, no preposition " for," 66 to," or with," can be properly placed. But I beg to ask the Editor, how he can turn the following verses to his purpose, wherein no accusa

66

on me, was also

* Newcome reads, " And they shall look on him whom they pierced." His note on this translation is as follows: "On him.] Thirty-six MSS. and two ed. read : three other MSS. read so originally; six perhaps read so; six read so now; and eleven have " in the margin, as Keri. And yet may be traced in the ancient versions and Chald. noted as a various lection by R. Saadias, who lived year 900. See Kenn. diss. gen. § 43. Citant R. Saadias Haggaion. Poc. Append. in Mal.' Secker. Dr. Owen shews that Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Barnabas, favour the reading of 1

Sect. iv."

about the

Talmud et

Inquiry-Sept. Version,

tive case after the particle ns can be at all admitted? Exod. i. 1: "Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob." Would the

Editor thus render the particle here requiring an accusative case," every man and his household came Jacob"? Would the verse in this case bear any sense? Gen. xliv. 4: "They were vy n ' DA gone out of the city." There the particle stands for "out of," or "from." iv. 1: "I have gotten a man from the Lord." Here the preposition "from" is substituted for this very Hebrew particle. In Deut. vii. 8, we have on nan literally, on account of the love of God for you," though thus rendered in the English version, "Because the Lord loved you."*

66

In the course of examining this subject, the Editor quotes, "Thy throne, O Jehovah, is for ever and ever." I shall feel obliged, if he will kindly let me know from what book of the Old or New Testament he has selected this verse, containing the term "Jehovah," in the first part of the text.

As to my remarks on Zech. xiii. 7, “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of hosts; smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered," the Editor agrees partly with me; saying, "No one

* Archbishop Secker, in Newcome, has the following remark : "Potest w n notare eo quod, ut vertunt 6. ch. vel quem. Vide Nold. Et sic post Dativum adhibetur, Jer. xxxviii. 9.”

doubts that the Saviour placed himself in subjection to the Father, when he condescended to become subject to death." He, however, wishes to prove the deity of Jesus Christ by the application of the word fellow (nor) to him. He here quotes Micah [v. 2], "Whose goings forth were from everlasting;" and John [i. 1], “And the word was with God," which have no relation to the term 'n or fellow, found in the verse in question; and as these quotations of the Editor have been examined in pp. 573, 595, I shall not recur to them in this place. He lastly quotes Parkhurst, to shew that "implies

a neighbour, a member of the same society." Is not this quotation, defining the Hebrew word n'ar as "a neighbour," directly against the object of the Editor? If Christ is represented, either in a real or figurative sense, as standing on the right hand of the Deity, taking precedence of all those that believe in him as the promised Messiah sent from God, would it be inconsistent in itself, or an acknowledgment of his deity, to use the word nr or neighbour, for Christ? My readers will observe, from the following quotations, that this very term n' which is rendered fellow in the verse in question, is translated "neighbour" by the very authors of the English version, in many other instances. Levit. vi. 2, "or hath deceived his neighbour." The last word is a translation of the term n': xix. 17, "Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour,'" or immeeth : ch. xxv. 14, 15.

The Editor, in speaking of Christ, repeats, now and then, the phrase, "God blessed for ever," perhaps alluding to Romans ix. 5.-Among all the interpretations given to this text, for or against the Trinity, there is the Paraphrase of Locke, of whose name the literary world is so justly proud, which I here first quote:-" Had the patriarchs, to whom the promises were made, for their (the Israelites) forefathers; and of them, as to his fleshly* extraction, Christ is come, he who is over all, God be blessed. Amen." Secondly, I shall cite here some scriptural passages to shew that it was customary with Jewish writers to address abrupt exclamations to God while treating of some other subjects, that my readers may be convinced that the sudden introduction of the phrase, "God be blessed for ever," in ver. 5, by St. Paul, was perfectly consistent with the style of the sacred writings. Psalm lxxxix. 51, 52: "Wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O Lord; wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine anointed. Blessed be the Lord for evermore. Amen and amen." Psalm civ. 35: "Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord.”

If St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, and in that to the Ephesians, declares positively that

* Vide ver. the 3rd of the same chapter, in which Paul speaks of his "kinsmen according to the flesh."

the Father is the only being who has the right to the epithet "God," under the Christian dispensation, he could not, as an inspired writer, be guilty of so palpable a contradiction, as to apply this very epithet to the Christ of God, on another occasion. 1 Cor. viii. 6: “But to us (Christians) there is but one God the Father." Eph. i. 17: "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory," &c. iv. 5, 6: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism: One God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in us all."

Respecting 1 John v. 20, I beg to refer to the rule laid down by Bishop Middleton, (of whom the Editor speaks highly and justly, in p. 535,) in his work on the Greek Article, p. 79: "When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted; before the remaining ones it is omitted." In the passage under consideration there are two attributives joined by a copulative, and in order to ascertain whether they are assumed of the same person, or of different persons, it is only necessary to observe, that the article is inserted not only before the first attributive, but also before the second, and that, consequently, "the true God" is one person, and "the eternal life" is another. This perfectly corresponds with the preceding part of the verse, in which " he that is true," and " his son Jesus Christ," are separately mentioned."