1787,

d. George Wiche, m.

d. Thomas Patterson, m. d. Daniel Wright, Esq.

John Kettle, Esq.
Thomas Keay, Esq.
Israel Worsley, m.

Samuel Palmer, m.

John Williams, m.

Jonathan Eade, Esq.

John Willett, m.

John Norris, m.

d. George Moore,

William Morgan, m.

left the Academy before he had finished his studies.

Year of Admission.

Names.

1787, John Tingcomb, m.

d. David Jardine, m.

d. T. Porter, m.

Remarks.

287

SIR,

As

April 7, 1822. S your learned correspondent, Mr. Cogan, has been kind enough to notice (p. 210) the inquiries which I lately made, through the medium of the Monthly Repository, (p. 76,) respecting the construction and interpretation of John xxi. 15, I beg leave, through the same medium, to state how far bis observations appear to me to affect the interpretation in favour of which I have decided. 'If," says he, "the sense were, 'Lovest thou me more than these?' the Greek ought to have been, αγαπᾷς εμε πλείον τετων.” This remark, it will be observed, applies to two out of the three interpretations which have been given of this passage: "Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these things?" viz., the instruments employed in thy trade as a fisherman; and, "Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these

T. B.

Of course, thy fellow-disciples ?" therefore, it reflects upon the accuracy of Whitby, Pearce, Campbell, and all commentators who have adopted or admitted the possibility of either of these interpretations. But I am far from being convinced that μe is never used in cases of opposition by the writers of the New Testament. That a comparison or a contrast is more strongly marked by εμου, εμπί and εμε, than by μov, poi and μɛ, I am well aware; but that the authors of the New Testament have uniformly attended to this distinction is by no means evident. Take the following passages as examples: "He that cometh after me is mightier than I:" oxupoтEpos Mov. Matt. iii. 11; see also Mark i. 7. My Father is greater than "swv μov. John xiv. 28.

66

'Why callest thou me (e) good? None is good but one, that is God." Matt. xix. 17; see also Mark x. 18,

and Luke xviii. 19. "If ye had known me, (ue,) ye should have known my Father." John xiv. 7. "He that loveth me, (,) shall be loved of my Father." Ver. 21. "As the Father

will be kind enough to offer some further remarks upon the subject.

SIR,

O. P. Q.

you." John xv. 9. "Ye have not chosen me, (us,) but I have chosen you." Ver. 16.

"But," says your correspondent, "suppose the sense to be, Lovest thou me more than these love me?' the Greek is correct." Whatever the drift of our Lord's question may have been, it was far from my intention to deny the correctness of the Greek; for though the passage is now wrapt up in obscurity and ambiguity, owing to the imperfection of written language, it was no doubt painfully intelligible to the apostle when first uttered, and accompanied with a tone and gesture calculated to give it the intended effect. I merely observed that it was usual, when there was a strong opposition, to mark that opposition by inserting the pronoun; and gave this as a reason, not for denying the possibility, but for questioning the probability of the correctness of Doddridge's interpretation. I will now venture to add, that, if this had been the sense intended, the other apostles who were present, justly anxious to remove the imputation of being less zealous and sincere than Peter in their attachment to Jesus, would have been unanimous in endeavouring to free themselves from the consequences involved in such a comparison. When Christ said, during the last Supper, in the presence of the twelve," Verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me," they "began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?" evidently with a view of eliciting some remark which would lead to their exculpation: and it appears to me highly reasonable to conclude, that a similar effort would have been made in the case supposed, to place their attachment to Jesus above the possibility of suspicion. But, as it is possible that I may still labour under some misconception respecting the passage which it has been the object of this and my former communication to illustrate, I shall still feel obliged to Mr. Cogan or any other reader of the Mon. Repos., who

last Number, (p. 211,) brought forcibly to my mind an observation which I had made to a friend not a week ago, which was, that the Unitarians, while they have endeavoured to shew the absurdity of the popular doctrine of the atonement, have not sufficiently urged upon the public the true interpretation of the phraseology on which it is founded. This interpretation will, I conceive, be found in the Sermons of the late Mr. Kenrick. This able and excellent man has satisfactorily shewn, "that the death or blood of Christ has no efficacy in removing moral guilt, but that, whenever it is spoken of as procuring the forgiveness of sin, it relates entirely to restoration to a sanctified or privileged state, which in the language of both the Old and New Testament on many occasions is expressed by the forgiveness of sins." Sermon XIV. Vol. I.

Thirty years ago I was led to doubt whether the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sin (in the usual sense of this expression) were ever associated in the minds of the apostles, and Mr. K.'s Sermons have convinced me that my doubts were not groundless. To many, I am aware this declaration will appear strange, and will seem to indicate a wish to dispose of a plain Scripture doctrine by any expedient. Against strong prejudices it is not easy to reason with effect; I would, however, just suggest to such persons the advantages which attend the above-stated hypothesis. In the first place, it is founded upon a truly scriptural interpretation of Scripture phraseology. In the second place, it gives a view of the consequences of the death of Christ which is conforma ble to fact. In the third place, it is free from the difficulties which encumber every scheme of the atonement which the advocates of this doctrine have hitherto been able to devise.

While I have my pen in my hand, I will make a remark or two upon an observation which I met with the other day in the Quarterly Review, and which

the Reviewer considers as very admirable and important; namely, that God is revealed to us not as he is absolutely and in himself, but as he is relatively to us who are his creatures. I am not deep in these mysteries; but I presume that the observation is intended to intimate, that we must not reason from the Divine attributes as made known to us in Scripture, to the measures of the Divine administration. If such be its object, it might as well have been spared. For, in the first place, it is altogether gratuitous. In the next place, God cannot be imagined to possess absolutely any attributes which stand opposed to those which he possesses in relation to his creatures. And, consequently, if we know what God is in relation to mankind, we can reason with the same certainty and confidence respecting the measures of his government, as if we thoroughly understood what he is absolutely and in himself. If, for instance, we are assured that God is infinitely or (as the Reviewer would say) perfectly good in relation to man, we know just as well what to expect at his hands, as if goodness were proved to constitute his moral nature and essence. In a word, unless revelation be intended to mislead and deceive, God can be nothing absolutely which will not allow him to be, in his dealings towards his creatures, what he has declared himself to be.

E. COGAN.

May 1, 1822. Contributions to Scriptural Criticism· quodcunque potest.

EV. xxvi. 34, 43. [2 Chron.

L xxxvi. 21.] "Then shall the

land enjoy her sabbaths." This language is sometimes interwoven with modern thanksgivings for days of sacred rest. In such an adaptation of it, however, there can be no propriety. The phrase expresses a curse, and not a blessing it signifies, that the ground was to lie fallow through long years of captivity and desolation; and in these circumstances the ordinances of religion, the weekly sabbaths, could scarcely, if at all, be celebrated.

:

Psalm i. 3.*" whatsoever he

289

doeth shall prosper." I adopt the rendering proposed, in MS., by a scholar of considerable taste and learn"it shall bring to ing, and read, maturity whatsoever it beareth." Merrick, in his Notes on the Psalms, endeavours to justify the received translation of this clause, and to shew, by means of quotations from Greek and Roman authors, that there is nothing unusual in appropriating to the subject of a comparison expressions which had been employed just before in the comparison itself. The fact, which he takes so much pains to establish, is readily admitted. Yet from this admission it does not, of necessity, follow either that the words before us contain an example of the practice, or that all his citations are pertinent. In the fourth and fifth verses the respective situations of the righteous man and of the ungodly, are placed in contrast with each other, under similitudes, borrowed from natural objects: nor does it appear reasonable to believe, that within so short a compass a transition would suddenly be made to a different figure of poetry. The annotator is not happy in his reference to Virgil, Æn. IV. 300, &c. : "Sævit inops animi, totamque incensa per urbem

Bacchatur; qualis commotis excita
sacris

Thyas, ubi audito stimulant trieterica
Bacchio

Orgia, nocturnusque vocat clamore
Citharon."

The late Rev. Henry Moore.

+ I am aware that Merrick's view of the lines is countenanced by Servius: but I prefer the comment of Heyne, "Bacchatur, summa cum vi dictum pro discursitat." See, too, En. VI. 78.

Gnomon, &c., in Acts xiii. 33.