Page images
PDF
EPUB

editions of the Septuagint; and that the passage on which he has blundered is nothing more than an extract from the printed Septuagint of Sixtus V.

Though the pure text of that primitive version, is conceived to exist in no manuscript which is now extant; the reading of the disputed passage is preserved by Eusebius and Procopius. As ill fortune would have it, they, however, agree in representing the reading, which our " ardent and patient enquirer" has, with equal learning and modesty, rejected as absurd, false, and an egregious misrepresentation," the identical reading of the version to which he appeals *. True it is, that Eusebius states that a variation existed in the text of the Septuagint; and one of the readings which he mentions is accordingly found in the Vatican MS., the other in the Complutensian Codex. But when we refer these texts to their proper authors, this difficulty directly disappears.

Of the different texts which existed in Eusebius's age, the principal were the Byzantine and Palestine editions; but it is easy to prove that the reading of the Complutensian Codex belongs to the former, and that of the Roman edition to the latter. For (1.) The reading of the Roman edition occurs in the Codex Marchalianus, which certainly retains the Palestine text, (2.) It is adopted, not only by Eusebius in his Commentary on Isaiah, but by S. Basil, and S. Cyril, who certainly followed the Palestine edition §. On the other hand, (1.) the reading of the Complutensian Codex occurs in the greater number of MSS. and is loose and paraphrastic, which are sure indications of the vulgar or Byzantine text ||. (2.) It occurs in the Apostolical

είναι

* Euseb. Dem. Evang. Lib. VII. cap. i. p. 336. ovoμa eivai λé. γεται, κατὰ μὲν τὰς Εβδομήκοντα, • Μεγάλης βολής "Αγγελος καὶ ὡς τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἔχει· ο θαυματὸς Σύμβολος, Θεὸς ἰσχυρός. Procop. in Is. p. 149. d. ed. Curter. Par. 1580, συμφωνως γὰς πάνες, τὸ παρὰ τοῖς ἐβδομήκοντα • Θεός, ἔδωκαν ἰσχυρὸς οἱ δὲ ἑβδομήκοντα τοῖς θεοπρεπῶς περὶ αὐτῇ λεγομένοις ἐνατενίσαντες, τὸ παρὰ τοῖς Εβραιοις ΗΛ,ΘΕΟΝ ἑρμηνευσαν.

+ Vid. Supr. n. *.

[ocr errors]

Vid. Procop. ubi supr. p. 148. conf. Præf. p.

xix. sqq.

Vid. Euseb. in Is. ap. Montfauc. Nov. Collect. Patr. Tom. II, p. 390. e. S. Basil. adv. Eun. Lib. I. Tom. II. p. 56. d. ed. Par. 1518. Cyr. Alex. Com. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 964, ed. Par. 1638. Conf. Griesb. Proleg. in Nov. Test. p. lxxiv.

Schol. in Septuag. Sixt. V. p. 600. ed. Rom. "In plerisque vero libris post Μεγάλης βολής "Αγγελος, hæc sequuntur θαυματὸς Σύμ Runes Deès ioxugós. Conf. Griesb. Præf. in Nov. Test, p. lxxv.

constitutions,

Constitutions, and interpolated epistles of St. Ignatius*, which were sophisticated, when the Byzantine text was in use. Now, when it is remembered, that the Palestine text was revised by Eusebius, and that the disputed passage, as applying the term Father to the Son, afforded some countenance to the Sabellians who confounded the Persons; it may be possibly suspected that the immediate author of this variation in that edition was the Palestine reviser, who was the avowed adversary of the Sabellians + Thus also we directly account for the peculiar readings' of the Philoxenian Syriac, of the Roman Arabic, and of one of St. Jerome's Latin versions, which differ from our authorised text; for these versions were not only made from the Greek, but from that edition, which was revised by Eusebius; and are thus not entitled to the smallest attention.

mony

These considerations will, we trust, leave our author very little reason to triumph in the result of his appeal to the testiof the antient versions; as leaving us in full possession of the vulgar edition of the Septuagint. With respect to his fortunate guess that the received interpretation was unknown to the Primitive Fathers; it evinces his very accurate acquaintance with their writings. It not only occurs in St. Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and revised Epistles of St. Ignatius; but is expressly appealed to by Eusebius, and Jerome, by Theodorit and Procopius Gazæus. These, it must be confessed, are exquisite specimens of that accuracy of research, by which our author has undertaken to overturn the common testimony of the early ecclesiastical writers.

. Let us even admit that the reading which he gratuitously bestows on the Septuagint ¶, exclusively belonged to that text; we might even thence derive an indirect yet decisive argument in favour of the authorised version. It must be obvious to any

* Constit. Apost. Lib. V. cap. xvi. Ignat. Epist. interp. ap. Patr. Apost. Tom. II. pp. 105. 134. 151. 324.

+ Vid. Brit. Crit. Vol. I. p. 191. sqq. New Series.

Vid. Septuag. Sixt. V. ubi. supr. conf. S. Hier. in Is, Tom. IV. p. 34. ed. Vict.

§ Vid. supr. n. *. conf. S. Iren, adv. Hær. Lib. IV. cap. xxxiii. 11. p. 273. Clem. Alex. Pæd. Lib. I. cap. v. p. 112. I. 14.

Vid. Euseb. et Procop. ub. supr. p. 341. n. *. Conf. Theod. in Is. Tom. II. p. 44. a. b. ed. Par. 1642, S. Hier. in Is. Tom. IV. p. 34. g.

૧૪;

1

« Καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῇ μεγάλης βυλῆς ἄγγελος, ἄξω γὰρ εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὰς ἄρχοντας καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ. e. Cod. Vat. The latter part of this version is obviously not adopted from the Hebrew - Prin

שלמא יסגי עלנא ceps pacis ; but from the Targum of Jonathan

Mora cujus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus.

obegerver

[ocr errors]

observer, that the former translation deviates considerably from the Hebrew original; the authors of the paraphrase, as St. Jerome has justly observed, having a specific object in concealing the true signification. Now there is no conceivable sense which can be forced upon the disputed passage, which can at all justify the suppression of the true meaning, but that of the authorised version. And of all the significations which can be annexed to the text, that of our author is the most difficult to reconcile with such a supposition. Had the translators understood the passage as meaning, "the counsellor of the mighty God, the Father of the future age," there could be no possible objection to setting it literally down. And admitting them to have understood it in the sense of, "Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, and everlasting Father," there are no terms in which they could have so properly paraphrased it, as "the Angel or Messenger of the great Design.' It was well known to both Jews and Christians *, that "the Angel of the Covenant" was the Mighty God;" and we accordingly find, that some of the fathers, who certainly knew nothing of the Hebrew, and probably very little of the Greek, have absolutely deduced the true meaning of the original from the latter paraphrastic translation +.

[ocr errors]

66

We have dwelt thus particularly on this text, not so much with a view to remove any objection to which it may be exposed from our author's remarks, as to counteract the tendency of that mistaken liberality, which has induced some good na tured divines to give up certain texts to their adversaries, because they do not deem them apposite, or find them necessary to the support of the orthodox cause. Our author has favoured us with no other direct observation on the prophetical writings which merits remark. A side wind is indeed directed to blast the credit of the celebrated text which asserts the Incarnation; Is. vii. 14. "Behold a virgin shall conceive," &c. but we are sadly deceived, if it porteud any good to himself.

"Of the primary application of these words, to Hezekiah," says our author, no doubt can be entertained." P. 132.

[ocr errors]

Little consequence as our "ardent and patient enquirer" annexes to "the authority of the learned," he would have but

* Philo. Jud. Tom. I. p. 463. 640. ed. Mang. Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 356. b.

+ S. Hilar. de Trin. Lib. IV. cap. xxiii. col. 841. c. ed. Bened, Conf. S. Basil. ub. supr. D. Bull. Apost. Trad. de Jes. Christ. Div. cap. vi. § 8. p. 339. Nares on Unit. Vers. p. 222. ed, 1810.

manifested

manifested some tenderness for his own reputation, had he consulted some comment, before he meddled with this dangerous text. He would have been thus warned of a chronological blunder, which it is his good fortune never to miss, when it. lies in his way. For this prophecy which predicts the birth of Hezekiah, was unhappily uttered some years after he was born*. It is true, from the specimens which our critic has given us of accuracy in the case of Epaphroditus, his chronology may be right in the main; for by thus taking from one man's life what is added to the life of another, we will not dis pute, that the gross amount of his calculations may finally square with the truth.

Having thus sapped the foundation of the orthodox faith, by depriving it of the support of the Law and the Prophets, our author now concentrates his force, and directs the main attack against the Evangelists. But as we are now menaced with the brunt of the action, we must entreat a few moment's parley to enable us to sustain the fury of the assault.

It seems not easy to mistake the views and purposes of the evangelical writers, in opening their respective narratives of the advent and life of our Lord. The immediate object of St. Matthew, who particularly wrote for his compatriots †, was to demonstrate the coming of the Messiah by arguments calculated to operate on their prejudices as Jews. In attaining this object he was obviously confined to a particular course. From the accounts of the Prophets, the Jews derived their entire knowledge and expectation of a Redeemer. Their predictions had pointed him out as a King of the seed of David; as the offspring of a Virgin, and born in Bethlehem; as announced and preceded by Elias; and as following Moses, in the delivery of a new and spiritual law. These circumstances, with the events in which they were accomplished, seem indispensably necessary to the design of the Evangelist, in writing a Gospel ; and they constitute the whole of the incidents of which his introductory chapters are composed. Having deduced his genealogy directly from David +, he states the principal prophecies relative to his person and office, and thence specifying the events in which they were accomplished, he incidentally inculcates the péculiar doctrines which distinguished the religion which he pro mulged. Having thus asserted the doctrine of the Incarnation

Comp. 2 King. xvi. 1. 2. xviii. 1. 2. Euseb. Dem. Evang. p. 317. d. S. Hier. Com. in Es. Tom. IV, p. 28. d. Pears. on Creed. Vol. I. p. 270. Basn. Hist. des Juif. Tom. VIII. P. 198, + Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxiii. p. 116. 1. 29.

from

from Isaiah, and insinuate that of the eternal generation from Micah, he sets forth that of the Trinity, as exhibited at the baptism of our Lord. Thence proceeding to run the parallel be tween him and Moses, as the prophet, whom the Jewish legisla tor had foretold should resemble himself, in promulgating a new law in order to point the resemblance more strongly, he particularly insists on the fast of forty days, and the delivery of the sacred code on the Mount.

The object of St. Luke, who was the Evangelist of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, is more comprehensive than that of St. Matthew, who wrote for the immediate use of the Jews. As his Gospel was intended for the mixed concourse of pagans and proselytes*, who entered the church under the ministry of St. Paul, he carries his narrative higher up than the Evangelist of the Hebrews. He consequently deduces the genealogy of our Lord in the line of David; but follows up the succession, not merely to Abraham, who was the great progenitor of the Hebrews, but to Adam who was the common parent of all mankind. He insists less particularly on the prophecies as little known to his Gentile readers; but dwells more circumstantially on the preternatural events which attended his first appearance in the flesh eventually reconciling the high character with which he was invested with the humble state in which he appeared. And as many of the Heathens had formed erroneous notions of his origin, conceiving him a being merely of a celestial order, who had descended from heaven in a human form, he states most minutely the circumstances of his conception, birth, and pubescence, marking with great precision the period in which he appeared.

This statement of the views and object of the different Evangelists which is confirmed by the internal evidence of their respective narratives, seems to leave very little room in which the most versatile fancy can exercise itself in tracing the incidents of their introductory chapters to an extraneous source. And admit. ting that it was deemed necessary to proscribe the whole account as surreptitious; they might be easily traced to their origin, without investigating any causes which were latent or remote. The pious fraud would admit of one simple and adequate solution; that the author had unwisely and reprehensibly endeavoured to elevate the character of Christ, by representing his birth as ordained by prophetical foresight, and accomplished by miraculous power,

* S. Iren. Fragment. p. 347. e Possin, Caten. Patr. p. 3.

But

« PreviousContinue »