The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-10-08
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
THURSDAY Y. OCTOBER s.
\ Theological Discussion.

ed deep into Greek and Hebrew theological dis
cussions, we were hardly 50 much surprised as
was the editor Of the San Diego Herald, when
during his temporary absence, the celebrated
"John Phoenix whom he had left in charge,
changed the politics Of the paper, and illus
trated it with hieroglyphics that gave it a name
and u fame IL never before had.
We have generally acted upon the principle
stated in the last Poiyaesiqn. that theological
discussions seldom change opinions, and when
prolonged they become tedious. But we do not
admit that proper criticisms Of a published DIS
course are out Of place in either Of the secular
papers Of Honolulu, since there is no other
medium through which they can So well reach
the public.
An old Scotch professor was once asked the
meaning Of metaphysics, a term generally ap-
piled 10 theological discussions. The cannv
Scotchman shrugged his shoulders and replied
Z" dInna ken-but take it to be what you nor
l can understand. If any of our readers have
been unable to follow our criticisms, they should
remember that they are not the first who have
been SO situated. and that theologians themselves
sometimes get SO deep in literary mire and mud
that they hardly know where they stand OF what
creed they utter.
Sufficient has already been written on this
subject and were it not that we are willing to
give Mr.. Mason a fair show to escape, if possi-
BILE, from the effect of the criticisms under which
he seems to be smarting, we should not think
of yielding 50 much space 10 his acrimonious,
IN par; irrelevant, and in part evasive reply
given below As we do not wish TO devote
another paper to a rejOinder to what he saws is
his : final answer, " and desire to drop a subject.
of which the public must be weary, we will sim
ply add a few notes to his reply, and there leave
Communication from Rev. George Mason.
q" sempr ego auditor tanfum, nunquamne repounm, &c.
JUvESAL. Sat. l.
HONOLULU, Oct. 5, 1859.
SIR Now that the news from tire Yankee has
appeared in your paper. and various unknown
guam titles. such as *" d. Plain Christian md
Catechumen,' - besides yourself. have enlivcned its
columns by " shooting out their arrows, even bitter
WORDS you will agree with me, 1 may fairly de-
nand space in your next edition TO defend myself
these criticisms. which l will no longer call
- harmless as that word does not appear to please
ro-. "-., -IoeO UIu,un rIInru Iaus Innocu-
ously on the object it is aimed at.
The case between us stands thus you have made
three fold attack. critical, philosophical, and theo-
Dgical. on a published sermon of mine. which you
not called upOn TO read, and still less to criti-
Use in your weekly commercill newspaper. de-
ended myself from that attack. Abandoning the
barge Of " Marerialism," you renew the attack
Under the other two heads in n second article,
wherein, presuming upon what you think q victory,
ou call me "a lamer linguist, if possible, than
efore" and = more maniiestly erroneous in my
tH:emen:S;' you also accuse me OF making a "a some
that pe1aDric display o Hebrew learnins - () Now I
ir. had you proved your case, which you have not; ]
r we're your classical education vastly superior TO -
~ own, az it may be;-yet you could add nothing 1
your reputatiun either aS a scholar Or a CpuflamaD z
y attempting to depreciate the learning of an oppo- q
OF by atrrihut'ng 10 him unworthy motives () a
= II IL. your impairment remarks Ito speak phiIo- u
-gically) are unpardonabie. (c) For, the grounds for c
remarks are. LIST. that " the whole force Of nv &
depends upon a grammatical blunder." u
refers TO the Hebrew word in Question. Let ia g
e. The original Hebrew for our English transIa- c
On 9 in our image" is "bisoLneHu." The Com a
entary on the book of Genesis, which | have on nv u
brary table. tells me the root means "tO be al
or " shade" | look out in a Hebrew Lex u
On, belonging TO my Bishop, the root, and | 6nd AZ
IL In" from "tZ - to ovCrshadow.'' Nv I
xicon has not the Rahbinical vowel pointiugs The su
gi en- 10 /" IL l-m." is an &" adutn6ra- cca
a Likeness This lexicon. though I grant not c.
ual to Gesenius. is by the Cambridge Hebraist .
But after your attack [ borrow Gesen- 9.
$ Lexicon. belonging TO my reverend brother y,
and what do l ind ?-The vowel pointings are Of
ed by Gesenius Nd he has the full root - ~tzalam," Of
'aninG. - |. shade, shadow. 2, image. likeness" .I''
stadOWingt forth anything. Compare CIR. - ska" ch
wide Geseuius) Surprising then. that | had bid
ide a grammatical blunder, which I deny, how no
uId your correction OF it lessen the force of nv tn:y
yuluent even in the slightest degree But | also Ph
i In Gesenius "t=al," meaning shade. - sha- ca
y and tzalal - 10 be oUershddored" Obviously "a,
these words have a common origin. ID acc
Secoad. Because I gave the original meaning of this Ch
r 1 you accuse ne Of making a - somewh hat pedan- no.
show Of Hebrew scholarship" II | had ob1 ected an,
the word image and substituted the word sfadoc, pre-
j might have had some little more ground for CHI
ling me PefqHtic. But you know, sir. | do not g.,
ect TO the word image or the Sevtuagint version vii
on. l merely wished TO show how the term con
WIS arrived At from the original derivation of res
word. Ii you know anything OF ancient philoso- 81
cal discussion you will recognize in this first part bod
ny sermon the subject Of controversy between the II
lists and NOminalists. C) Agreeing myself with tbe ST"
tOnists. | wished TO show that our text was a con- Won
ration OF their idea that man was created after wou
pattern of come prototype. Now eikoH is Plato's self
word 70 express this creation. Perhaps how 60
| had better quote the words of an eminent T
ng philoiOgist on this matter, viz, Dean Trench. sst'
says " EtFoR Gmage) always supposes q proto. tIhHSH
D, that which 1t not only resembles, bat from which AM,
drawn Il is the German Abbild, which inva- Art.
iy presumes a Vorhild-" (Script. SyuOn. . ST. or p
the force therefore | wanted from giving the orig Eo,rt
meaning OF the word, translated {" image or Of I
So7' was simply this. that man in his fret crea- truil
was an image Of God, as the ShaioC il the image re-
he object, and hence | said that '. the truth of the me-
rnatiOn reflected back upon mans first creation, the
proved the possibility of man being in his ma 30 N
u substance the perfect image Of GOd,'' seeing tn
Jesus Is declared TO be the express image az Tn
- And He ia equally declared by inference 10 The
the Cd material substance of man. - tor He was Mar
hesh;' was - born Of a woman; - "a partaker Serip
ISL and blOOd;' and His genealogy il traced by ever
Evangelist up TO the fret Adam. In connection ness
thi subject, l would remind you of these won ?hen
Il words TO Mary The power Of the Highest feet.