« AnteriorContinuar »
In Mr. Sharp's table of contents, this rule
(and indeed all the others, except the fourth) is restricted to personal nouns. But in the examples by which he confirms this rule, in pages 13 and 14, a great ma
jority of his nouns consists of impersonals. From his fifth and sixth rules he excepts all those expressions in which the context plainly points out that different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person, such as, i Thess. iii. 6. John xx. 28. 1 Cor. i. 24. Acts ii. 36. Rev. i. 17, 18. xx. 2. Thus the reader is left to the context alone to ascertain whether the nouns relate to the same, or to a different person: that is, the fifth and sixth rules are no rules at all. This is frankly acknowledged to be the case by the ‘honest • compiler of the first Six Letters to Mr. Sharp (see p. 115 of those letters, or p. 35 of the following Six More Letters), who says, that the forms of expression in these two rules may be used indifferently of one or two persons.'
The nouns must be ist, personal nouns, i. e. descriptive of some office, dignity, affinity, connection, attributes, properties, or qualities good or ill: 2dly, not plural: [Query, whether Mr. Sharp means by
this description to exclude nouns of the dual number?]: 3dly, not proper names.
These rules and limitations are delivered and supported by the original inventor with a haziness which few foggy, shuffling trinitarians have exceeded, and transgressed with a bold freedom which few impious, or apostate, socinian sadducees,' have equalled: as must be tolerably apparent from the foregoing enumeration of them, and also from pages 6--8, 43, 44, of the following letters; and may be more fully manifested by a diligent comparison of Mr. Sharp's table of contents with the body of his Remarks, and with the examples contained in them,
TEXTS, OR SAMPLES, Of Mr. Sharp's new' mode of correcting, or corrupt
ing, the common english version of the New Testa
“ In the kingdom of Christ, and of God.” Ephes. v. 5.
Unaccommodated. “ In the kingdom of Christ, even of God.” (Contents & Rem.
The same, translated by hook, and accommodated with italics and an interpolation.
“ In the kingdom of Jesus! the Christ and God.”
(Remarks, p. 31.) The meaning of this text is probably; “ In the kingdom of Christ, which is that of God.” See
the sense of the passage fully investigated, and Mr. Sharp's, and Mr. Wordsworth's, explanations confuted, in p. 73—84 of the following letters.
CORRUPTED VERSION. Translated by crook, or "little transposition.' (Rem. p. 21.) and accommodated with a new theory of punctuation. (ibid.
“ According to the grace of “ According to the grace of our God, and the lord Jesus Jesus Christ, our God & Lord." Christ.” 2 Thess. i. 12. (Contents and Rem. p. 37.)
In the original the apostle Paul here declares the God of us to be Lord of Jesus Christ. See p. 84, 85, of the following letters.
Translated by crook, and accommodated with the new theory
of punctuation. 6 Before God and the Lord “ Before Jesus Christ the God Jesus Christ.” 1 Tim. v. 21. and Lord.” (Rem. p. 39, 40, 2 Tim. iv. 1.
The same, by crook, and accommodated with a pronoun.
6. Before Jesus Christ, our
God and Lord.” (Contents.). In the original the same apostle here again declares the God of us to be God and Lord of Jesus Christ. See p. 85, 86, of the following letters.
Translated by crook, and accommodated with the new theory
of punctuation. “ Of the great God, and our “ Of our great God and SaSaviour Jesus Christ.”
viour Jesus Christ." (Contents, Tit. ii. 13. and Rem. p. 22, 43, 44.)
See the erroneous exposition of this text, given by Messrs. Sharp, Wordsworth, and Burgess, amply detected, and the common version of that part of the verse which is here quoted, established, in
page 86–97 of the following letters. In the former part of the verse, the words the glorious appearing, seem to stand in need of a little correction; and Mr. Sharp, in one of his renderings, has silently changed them into appearance of the glory (Rem. p. 44). This, tho' not quite the thing, is the best of all his attempts at correcting the common english version of the New Testament. COMMON VERSION.
By crook. “ Through the righteousness “ Through the righteousness of God, and our saviour Jesus of Jesus Christ, our God and Christ.” 2 Pet: i. l.
Saviour." (Contents, and Rem.
p. 46.) : In the original it is here declared by another apostle, that the God of us is the SAVIOUR of Jesus Christ. See p. 98-100 of the following letters.
Accommodated with a magnifying glass which turns points into lines, and separation into
connection. (Rem. p. 43, 48.) “Denying the only lord God, "Denying our only Master, and our lord Jesus Christ.” God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Jude 4. (Contents, and Rem. p. 50.) See the common version yindicated in p. 100105 of the following letters.
Mr. Wordsworth's corruption. « James a servant of God, ~ James a servant of Jesus and of the lord Jesus Christ.” Christ, God and Lord.” James i. 1. (Words. Six Letters, p. 114.)
In the original it is here declared by a third apostle, that God is LORD of Jesus Christ. See the text explained in p. 106-109 of the following letters.
That God is Lord of Jesus as much as of any other mere man, is also declared in many other places of the original, where it does not appear
in “the common english version, and more particularly in the apostolical salutations. See several such passages enumerated in the note, p. 158 of the following letters. And compare these passages with Matt. xxvii. 46. John xx. 17. Ephes. i. 17. and with i Tim. v. 21. 2 Tim. iv. l. as translated in page 86 of the following letters.
Mr. Sharp has somehow contrived, it is not clear, (few things in his pamphlet are clear) whether by hook, or by crook, to make examples of two other passages of scripture, which the reader would not expect to find so conspicuously pilloried in his Remarks. No one, certainly, could expect from his title-page, in which he does not profess to travel beyond the received greek text,' to correct any thing more than “ the common english version' of it, or to give
new proofs' of the divinity of any other person of his trinity than the second, to see Acts xx. 28, and Philip. iii. 3. ticketed, and stationed in the front rank, as examples of his theory of the article, and of passages wrongly translated in the common english ! version,' from the ignorance or neglect of it. In the standard text, as it is called, of the New