On this page
- Text (2)
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
than those of the world : the ashes of the departed good plead with resistless eloquence in the cause of virtue : a beam bursts forth even from the tomb , and points to the path of duty as the path of glory . O may the sacred spirit spread around ! May so bright an example be ever before her young
survivors to animate them to an imitation of her usefulness ! May her tender offspring , through the pious care of an afflicted father , penetrated with a sense of the worth he once possessed , and the memory of which he must ever cherish , fan the glorious flame till it burst forth in their lives , with equal
force , and may it throw an equal lustre over their characters when all earthly ties for them shall be dissolved , and when all the agitations of the human breast will have been of no avail ; unless they have left behind , like hers , traces of duties discharged , and of days spent in piety and goodness .
even allowing that it means , " this bread / ' stiU it would be used emphatically , this bread , in distinction from other bread . And as there is no such emphasis in the passage under consideration , the quotation is hereby rendered unsatisfactory . But in the following instances no such room for exception will be found .
1 Kings xxi . 2 : Ka * cXafojcrc y Aypux . * irpoq NafesSra * , \ syW Ao $ jjloi tov o , \ mzs ~ Xocva ar&j—&Ti ef yitytv oiyoq ttf ouccp fj . ov . Aristophanes , Ns < £ * Xa * , 95 r EvravSr * oiKOVcriy a . yb p ^ ai tov epavoi-A&yovraq ccvcnrEi&tiaiY ccq eg-iv itviytvq ,. Katrtv irtpi % (*> & <; ovto $ , yftuf 8 ' av-^ IpUKS $ .
Xenophon , Cyrop&dia , i . 4 : Eir £ cr 0 < x * $£ § OK £ i fAccKupa , ty oc % ocpig- ^ * q < xva , icrypvTux . * kcci yap civtv ) ( aeggapi $ - * £ & ) fjuyig-iq § 0 / C £ ( SWOll VKl TtOLYTOL Tflt CLKJ-^ pOL r ^ yt ^ tiOV . A similar usage appears to prevail with £ K £ tw £ , a word completely analogous to cvroq . Thus ,
John xii . 48 : O \ oyo $ cr sKaXiqara , sksivos xpwti ocvrov sv Ty a < r % ct , Tr ^ * i [*> £ pq > . In Luciari's Dialogues , speaking of young Mercury , Apollo says to Vulcan , e Pa £$ o * Tiva , irETroiyToti ^ olv ^ clkt ^ olv tiqv Zvvocfjuv , $ xJArfixyasyai ra ^ vacpe ^ . Vulcan answers : Eryea ' bkbivqv t&anta . axrr < p tccuyviov swat . It would be easy to multiply such quotations to any extent ; but these , I think , will be sufficient to shew that Dr . Horsley was in this instance , at least , a hypercritic . I have been induced to offer these remarks , from my estimation of the value of that interpretation of this
remarkable passage which they go to support . Not that they are absolutely necessary to it ; because were it conceded that Qvroq , standing alone , must be personal , still there would be no
serious objection to joining to it the words , o Xoyo <; , which immediately precede , as it would be merely a change of punctuation . But I have shewn that there is no need even of this
change . There is nothing , as far as I eai \ see , \ n this passage which seriously implies Q . ny distinct personality in the fFord , although there may be a slight figurative personification ii *
the mode &i expres »* op . The apcientj interpretation appears to me al § o the bast- It is tfrflt which supposes the word spoken of in thisr passage , not tq be a name of any person whatever , t > ui
On the sense ofOira ^ John i . 2 * 651
Sir , Torquay . YOU may remember that in Horsley ' s controversy with Priestley , a question arose about the usage of the Greek pronoun ovrog , which occurs in the opening passage of John ' s Gospel . Ovroq ( o \ oyoq ) yv tv ^ PXO ^ p 0 ^ roy 0 foj / . As Priestley contended that we ought not in this passage to understand the word ' as the name of a
person , but only as a divine power or principle , the Bishop met him with an objection to this effect : that the pronoun ovroq is not used , standing alone , as it does here , . unless it refers to a person . Now , in this point of
criticism , I believe Horsley was mistaken ; and Priestley maintained as much in his reply : but as it is a matter of consequence in the interpretation of this notable passage , and as Dr . Priestiev did not . as far as I I know . Dr . Priestley did notas far as know
, , l > y sufficient quotations , completely take off his opponent ' s critical objection , I have put down a few passages which I think very conclusively decide the question . In order to shew where
the question hinges , I will observe , that Priestley defended himself by quoting from John , oiroq e iv o ^ to $ a KacTcttaq £ k T « 8 pa , VQV , &C . Now this was certainly not an appropriate instance , not only because it is not clear that by ovto ^ in this place , a person ls not really intended , but because
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1821, page 651, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2506/page/19/